Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK 392 - ANNEXATION & ZONING - FIRST READING - 32-09 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTPlanning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 6 Chair Schmidt asked how the scenario plays out if 2-3 weeks is not enough time for a study that is very detailed. Leavitt said he'd continue with his comments. Director Dush said for the normal process, if they submitted an ECS without sufficient information; Leavitt would make a comment that he needs "x, y and z.° The applicant would then provide the information to update the ECS. Dush said the purpose of the recommended condition was to identify the constraints early on in the development design process. Member Rollins said doesn't every discipline have to submit a report to the City, e.g., traffic impact study. You'd be under the same constraints to look at that study and evaluate it within the time period that's set forth. She asked do you not scope out what you need to see in an ECS priori to them beginning work on it. Leavitt said yes if they come in. Rollins said that would be the reason why she couldn't support the condition but she could support the annexation. She said that used to be an issue with traffic impact studies but now before you do anything you have to have a form that's com — leted.and signed by the City Traffic Engineer that says he's scoped out the study. They use to get studies that were just guesses of what somebody wanted. She said perhaps a tool like that would bedbeneficial. That should be worked out in a process change and not this one project. Member Campana said yes, it's just like performing a survey of the site (elevation6.s or geographic conditions) prior to doing your design. In the past, <perhaps people have come forth with the ECS and PDP putting pressure on staff due to the money they had already spent What Rollins fis talking about makes more sense. Chair Schmidt said what she is hearing is that there is an issue to be resolved but she doesn't know if this condition works the best for the developer and the City in this case. The Board will review a policy change in work session. It could result in a Land Use Code change that would apply to everyone. Member Smith made a motion to recommend the City Council approval of the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning, # 32-09 and in support of his motionthe. adopts the findings of fact and conclusion on page 4 of the Staff Report: 1. The annexationXj; this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer Countyd the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive" Plan, the City�gf Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. 2. T.he area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort'Cb s. 3. On November 3, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petitkofi and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also mrtiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing anted-zoning4the area. 4. The requested C - Commercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was passed 7:0. Chair Schmidt noted the project was approved without the condition so hopefully we'll be seeing changes to the Land Use Code related to ECS submittal requirements. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 5 and reward for the developer. As staff said, the City's stance at conceptual review is these are the things you should do. Stockover said we need to stick to the plan. as it exists today. We're trying to change the plan for one piece of property and we're doing that in haste. As he thinks through what's proposed, even with a 30 day ECS pre -submittal; he just doesn't see how it helps the developer. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that's a point well taken. He said for the case being considered tonight, the condition should be revised to read, A Comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City at least 30 days for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plan." You could submit it prior to that, e.g. 60 days before. He said in consultation with Director Dush, there should also be an "outside" IAW period. We wouldn't want one submitted 10 years before because as was mentioned conditions could change. He said we need to have an actual window such as not more than one year but at least 30 days. Member Stockover said it's his feeling that this applicant already knows the wetlands are an issue so he thinks, in his opinion, we should just drop it. He thinks wereview the policy change in work session. He doesn't think we need to act in haste tonight. Member Carpenter asked if there was something nd'w`Tthat prevents the developer from bringing in an ECS prior to his PDP review. Director Dush said no. There have been eases that we'd done reviews on an informal basis. By staff suggesting this condition now it just provides that level of certainty for any individual that comes in. Should the property be sold, it puts them on notice that an ECS is required at least 30 days prior to the PDP submittal. Carpenter said she's feeling pretty much the way Stockover is. She does think it's something we need to discuss but we need to discuss it in a work session to figure out how we're going to go forward on a policy and4let these people do what we've laid out for them as our current policy. Member Rollins said she also agrees with Stockover" She's concluded from work session discussion that the current policy may not be working so we need to work •on that. The current property owner is aware of the situation. She thinks we should not require it for this one project. It should be changed at a policy level and not forithistone project. Member Lingle said he'd disagree. tie said wekchanging it on this one project with the recommended condition. Current policy is they can submit anytime. He thinks in fairness it should not be an open ended requirement. Nedoesn't believe the City will do this but if not outlined clearly the developcould be waiting 6 monte thinks the 30 day requirement gives everyone a little protection including the developer who will geassurance that it would not be unnecessarily delayed. Chair Schmidt asked if currently ere is no prescribed timeline in which ECSs are reviewed. If there are a large number of projects, could it take 6 months to complete a review? Leavitt said right now the limiting factor is when a PDP is submitted and review comments are due (2-3 weeks.) Most of the times he's aware when there are issues with a site. However, there is time that's its not submitted until the PDP. Member Campana said%fh'ere's a time limit right now. If you submit your ECS with your PDP you have 2- 3 weeks to get comments back to the applicant. Olt said correct; if there are environmental issues related to the proposed development that needs to be stated with the first round of comments 3 weeks after submittal. Campana asked Lingle if that satisfies his concerns —we've put an end bracket on the time frame. Lingle said the condition is that it'd have to be submitted prior to the PDP. Carpenter said we don't have to agree to the condition. Campana said what some members are suggesting is that we remove the condition and deal with that policy issue in a work session setting. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 4 He said the Board's raised a good point —when do you bring it in. Is the onus on the City once we bring it in to get it approved within a certain period of time? That should all be a part of the policy that needs to be addressed. Gilleland recognizes that normally a flag gets waved when you see a visual of a potential environmental concern. He'd like to caution is environmental impact is not just visual. He used an example of a development he was working with in Scottsbluff, NE in which a farmer had dumped diesel oil into the ground over many years. It was not visible but there was enough intuitive experience of the environmental team to determine a problem. His recommendation is the City considers a policy that puts everyone on an even keel. He said they are an environmentally conscious group and want to preserve the natural wetlands area and debate through the ECS what is not natural wetlands. Public Input: David Feuer is a property owner adjacent to the land in question. HeAsaid he had a couple of questions. If this annexation occurs, what studies will be done to determinhe impact on the neighboring community? He also wanted to know about the wetlands. He understands that it's similar to a flood plain and there's a geographic area that's going to have a certain amount of water content that will vary by season and that'd most likely assess it at the highspoint. Chair Schmidt said once the annexation and zoning is establishedithe developer can bring in a plan that meets zoning requirements. At that point, there a number of standards considered when evaluating a. development proposal. Additionally, the neighbors would have a chance to participate/comment at a neighborhood meeting level on the proposed development. Olt offered information on the development review process. He said at this point, we are simply looking at the annexation and zoning (phase 1.) He said we do not have any information to evaluate on his property i this juncture; that will occur with the Project Development Plan (PDP) is submitted. . Feuer said he's in favor of ise development of the land and he looks forward to well -planned growth. He just wants to make sure what's done is done in away that is environmentally and socially friendly. Chair Schmidt suggeste%h' Feuer sees a development proposal sign, he does not hesitate to call to make sure his name o get updates/notice of hearings. She said we notice property owners within�atcertain,if you are outside that area you will not receive notice. Public Inruut Closed Response & Chair Schmidt asked what plans are being made to establish a policy relative to ECS submittals. She'd also like toRk ow when an ECS is triggered. Olt read Section 3.4.1(D)(1) stating an ECS must be a part of any future'P~DP if the development site contains or is within 500 feet of a natural habitat or AV .feature, or if it is determinedsthat the site likely include areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need 0rotection. Schmidt asked if we'll be changing the Code language to require submittal 30 days prior to a PDP submittal.. Director Dush said that's exactly what they've been talking about in the recent past —including a meeting today related to the Riverwalk project. Dush said he thinks we need to take a look at a policy change, how it's implemented, and timing of ECS submittals in relation to PDP submittals. Member Stockover said if the ECS is submitted 30 days in advance and it takes 30 days to review that doesn't give the developer much time to put together a development plan. He thinks this all goes to risk Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 3 Director Dush said the intent• is rather than wait until the applicant submit a formal preliminary development plan, it's good planning to identify the constraints up front so that we can incorporate those considerations into the design/development of the project. Staff spoke with the applicant at length on November 18. The applicant did mention some of the same concerns and asked if other applications be subject to the same requirement. Dush said his response was that if we had similarly situated development applications, he can't imagine they wouldn't suggest the same condition. Dush said as a matter of fact, the Board will be having a work session in March to talk about the timing of ECSs. Because of the wetlands on the property, staff believes it would be prudent to have the ECS prior to the PDP submittal —not unlike an easement or any other issue. Olt said a conceptual review for property just across Carpenter Road to the north (along the east side of the reservoir) has been set for Monday, November 23. He said theywill also be requesting the applicant complete an ECS prior to submittal of their PDP—they'd like to hold them to the same standard as this project. Olt said relative to the timing of the review of the ECS, hull ask Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt to speak to that. Member Smith, said because he's not familiar with the ECS proce s an EC one day prior to his PDP. Leavitt said the LUC requireS to has to be submitted. Historically, they've been submitted when tl tenure, they've also come in ahead of time on an informal'bas require and to establish a schedule of the submittal and revie, impacts of development are a part of the study. If you put I mitigation measures you're getting a plan that most likely is not g the natural resources —in this case the wetlands. could the applicant submit his ECS completed, it does no state when it pplioation comes i�nHe said in his define what the ECS is going to Proposed mitigation measures for development before the proposed to address any potential impact to Member Smith asked if the mitigation methodTeefforts differ based o i what the PDP would be —the Is'intensity/type of development. His sense is they need to come simultaneously. Leavitt said you do have an idea of what the development would be like but you don't have is a plan that shows, in this case, development into the wetlands or within the buffer unless there's an agreement that's what's going to happen. Member Campana saiNthat essense to have the ECS prior to the PDP being developed but is there a time period that +tie can add to the condition: Leavitt said he would feel comfortable with 30 days based on scheduling of projects. Fie would allow him time to inspect the site and work with the consultant9and all them time to develop the site. Campana said he'd like to hear the applicant's NOW response to that. Chair Schmidt said she had onequestion prior to going to the applicant. She's presuming the study gets done, the PDPes through `and then the PDP expires. Would the study stand? Leavitt said it'd AQW,depend upon environmental conditions —what changes on the site. It's based on a case -by -case basis and would require goosing ouzo revisit the site. Campana said part of the confusion is the ECS is independent of the PDP'—`what the conditions of the wetlands are, what needs to be mitigated, and then what you design your PDP around. Campana said if your PDP changes, it shouldn't change your ECS. Applicant's Presentation Larry Gilleland, one of the owners of the property, said he had nothing to add other than their needs to be a policy and that we shouldn't come up with new rules each time. He's not opposed to anything that he's heard as far as the ECS delineating what would be a preserved area —not impacted by development. They are aware there are some wetlands. They are not necessarily in agreement as to the amount of naturally reoccurring wetlands. Hopefully the ECS will delineate what exists by "God's hand" and what exists by "man's hand" and they can agree to mitigate to the degree that is acceptable. Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2009 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the C - Commercial Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District". Staff is recommending a condition of approva Ar-Cornprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review prior to the submittal of any application for approval of a Project Development Plan." Planner Steve Olt reported this is a voluntary request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest cornerrtof Interstate 25 & Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport Distri n L imer,,County. The req ested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C — Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west ands bift and C - Commercial@h the Town of Windsor to the east. The property is located within the Fort Collii agreements between the City of Fort Collins in the UGA when the 1 the Corridor Activity C required 1/6 contiguity Open Space Annexatic Staff is recommending Neig with and approval in the 1-25/SOH° 392 limits from a Comm i the north. agementVArea According to policies and ounty contained in the Intergovernmental II agree to consider annexation of property ding to State law. The property lies within erchange Improvement Plan. It gains the boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir th rope be placedvin the C — Commercial District, which is in Structure Plan, that this property not be included in the Residential A Iap h amendment will be necessary to place this property on the 4 DistrictMap as an "Area Not in the Sign District", and that it is approved iComprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a fitted to Re City for review prior to the submittal of any application for Hunt Plan` Board Questions: aske Igo Member Lingle d since weire striking "acceptance" to the original recommended condition, he's not sure what the intent is forhav ng it submitted ahead of the Project Development Plan (POP) as opposed to just being a part of theWDP. Olt said an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required per LUG Section 3.4.1(D) (1). Staff has determined it would be prudent to receive and review an ECS for the subject property prior to an applicant/developer investing the time and expense of preparing a complete POP that may be subject to changes after review of the ECS. It could result in significant rounds of review and would result in additional time and expense. They believe it would be beneficial to both the applicant/developer and the City to delineate the wetlands and the impact as they move -into their design/development. Lingle said he'd just be concerned "as the applicant" to have it so open ended —he said you could submit for a review and it could be under review for up to a year with no resolution. ATTACHMENT Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Staff Liaison: Steve Dush Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (H) 224-9418 Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Staff Present: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Roll Dush, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Mal Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the agenda and requested the pulled for consideration: 1. Minutes from the October 15, 2009 Planning &Zoning Hearing 2. Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-09 AL Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: None and Stockover items be Discussion Agenda: 1. Minutes from the Octdber 1'5, 2009 Planning,& Zoning Hearing 2. Fossil Creek 392 A� nexation & Zoning, # 32=09 3. 1124 W. Mulberry�Street — Addition of Permitted Use, # 34-09 4. North College Pub%Infrastrudture Funding Plan Member Lingle requested a change to page 4 of the minutes from the October 15`� Hearing. The condition included in the motion near` the bottom of page 4 should be changed to read: A 4.5' sidewalk shall be included in Phase 1 running the length of East Lake Street along the north property line of the site. Member Lingle moved to approve items`# 1 October 15, 2009 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing as amended. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. % Project: I Fossil Creek 392 Annexation & Zoning, # 32-00 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 & Carpenter Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C — Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. The requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial. December 15, 2009 -4- ITEM 20 3. City Structure Plan (partial) 4. City Zoning Map (partial) 5. Powerpoint Presentation. December 15, 2009 -3- ITEM 20 Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading. Staff recommends thatthis property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District". ' BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - \_0- • t*rhe Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 - 0 to recommend approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the C - Commercial Zoning District )rPThe Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 - 0 to recommend that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District". ' At the November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, staff forwarded a recommendation for a condition of approval on the zoning of the property. The need for an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for the subject property is a certainty because of known wetlands on the property. Based on requirements set forth in the Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code, an ECS must be part of any future Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal to the City if the development site contains, or is within 500 feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural'characteristics in need of protection. Staff determined that it would be prudent to receive and review an ECS for the subject property prior to an applicant/developer investing the time and expense of preparing a complete PDP submittal that may be subject to changes after review of an ECS. The recommended condition stated: *"A comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review and acceptance prior to the submittal of any application for approval ��((�� of a Project Development Plan." *,After lengthy discussion and deliberation .the Planning and Zoning Board decided not to support the recommended condition of approval on the zoning and did not include the condition in its recommendation to City Council. The Board's position is that requiring an ECS to be submitted prior to PDP submittal should be more of a broad, citywide policy issue and t'h1at making it a condition of approval on annexation of a specific property is inappropriate. PUBLIC OUTREACH The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred prior to the item going before the Planning and Zoning Board at its regularly scheduled public hearing on November 19, 2009. A letter of notification of the public hearing (containing date, time, and place for the hearing and a description of the request) was mailed to all affected property owners within 1,000 feet of the property 14 days prior to the hearing. A neighborhood meeting is not required for annexation of property and no meeting was held for this annexation and zoning request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. 2. Vicinity Map December 15, 2009 -2- ITEM 20 Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property lies within the Corridor Activity Center boundary in the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. It gains the required 1 /6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation (June, 2008) to the north. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: POL in the City of Fort Collins, C and T in Larimer County; undeveloped E: C in the Town of Windsor; existing commercial development S: AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial W: AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial The requested zoning for this annexation is the C - Commercial Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted Sthis District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City tructure Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), identifies that Commercial is appropriate in this location. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins I ntergovem mental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. A fev�issues to be addressed as part of a future site specific development plan relate to: coordination of the SH 392 and s iuthwest frontage road alignments and right-of-way delineations; and, potential impacts on the existing wetlands on the middle portion of the property. The development review process has protection measures within Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code to ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and buffered. Within this section is the requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization study, which is the foundation for establishing buffer zones to protect the wetlands. Findings: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-099 which accepted the annexation petition and determined thatthe petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested C—Commercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City s Comprehensive Plan. SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning, as the property is undeveloped at the present time. With new commercial development, the City may participate in infrastructure financing along with private development. Future commercial development will also generate sales and use tax revenues for the City. The physical environment will not be directly impacted by the proposed annexation and zoning of the property. The zoning standards described in the Land Use Code establish regulations to determine the appropriate land uses and design and development standards required for new development. New development is required to comply with the City's Land Use Code Natural Area Standards to assess and address any potential environmental impacts. The health, safety and well-being of the community and its citizens will not be adversely impacted by the proposed annexation and zoning of the property. The annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code, the Fossil J DATE: December 15, 2009 STAFF: Steve Olt M Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2009-113 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2009, Annexing Property Known as the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2009, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classi iin�g forZoningPurposes the Property Included in the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City. EXECUTIVE iUMMARY *This is a request to annex and zone 28 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (SH 392), at the southwest comer of Interstate 25 & Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial. Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District°. The "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an identified commercial corridor along 1-25, with the closest predominantly residential uses approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins I ntergovem mental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. Thereare no known controversies associated with this annexation. A few issues to be addressed as part of a future site specific development plan relate to: coordination of the SH 392 and southwest frontage road alignments and right-of-way delineations; and, potential impacts on the existing wetlands on the middle portion of the property. The development review process has protection measures within Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code to ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and buffered. Within this section is the requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization study, which is the foundation for establishing buffer zones to protect the wetlands. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The applicant, Larry Gilleland, for the property owners, VPD 392 LLC and Peter Prato, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (SH 392), at the,southwest corner of Interstate 25 and Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C — Commercial and T— Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies, and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins