Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION - 34-88 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAh 4 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 37 a-b DATE: March 21, 1989 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Albertson -Clark SUBJECT: Items Relating to Interstate Lands First Annexation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1 , D A. Resolution 89-70 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding Interstate Lands First Annexation. /J/0B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 50 1989, Annexing 11 Approximately 20.5 Acres Known as Interstate Lands First Annexation. This is a request to annex approximately 20.5 acres located west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road. The property is presently undeveloped. This is a voluntary annexation. There is an annexation agreement which defines the developer's and the City's responsibilities regarding storm drainage improvements, street improvements, access and utility services affecting the future development of this property. The proposed agreement is attached. APPLICANT: G.T. Land Colorado, Inc. OWNER: Overlook Farm, Inc. c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road 3030 South College, Suite 200 Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 BACKGROUND: The owner, Overlook Farm Inc., has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 192.4 acres located west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road. In order to establish contiguity, the area to be annexed has been divided into two separate annexations, Interstate Lands First Annexation, consisting of 20.5 acres, and Interstate Lands Second Annexation, consisting of 171.9 acres. This is a voluntary annexation. The property is presently undeveloped. There is an annexation agreement which defines the developer's and the City's responsibilities regarding storm drainage improvements, street improvements, access and utility services affecting the future development of this property. The proposed agreement is attached. DATE: March 21, 1 -2- j ITEM NUMBER: 37 a-b The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, the City will annex property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Sludge Farm Annexation to the south. FINDINGS: I. 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 all criteria included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION• The Planning and Zoning Board heard the request at its regular monthly meeting on January 30, 1989, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. 0 . • RESOLUTION 89- 70 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated for property to be known as the Interstate Lands First Annexation; and WHEREAS, following Notice given as required by law, the City Council has held a hearing on said Annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least one -sixth (1/6) contiguity between the City and the property seeking annexation; that a community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act, and that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act. Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the Interstate Lands First Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City of Fort Collins and should be so annexed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 21st day of March, A.D. 1989. ATTEST: City Cler • Mayor C C� ORDINANCE NO. 50 , 1989 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 89-21, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has found and determined and does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the following described property, to wit: A tract of land situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing N 88°20'30" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the South quarter corner of the said Section 16 and run thence S 88°20'30" E 925.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N 18°02'24" E 1650.00 feet; thence S 26°00'51" E 1650.00 feet; thence S 58°16'00" W 105.60 feet; thence N 88°20'30" W 200.19 feet; thence N 00°13'00" E 166.35 feet; thence N 88°20'30" W 410.00 feet; thence S 00°13'00" W 200.00 feet; thence N 88°20'30" W 494.03 feet; thence S 32°17'08" E 72.33 feet; thence N 88°20'30" W 80.49 feet; thence N 01°39'30" E 30.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 20.5234 acres. be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Interstate Lands First Annexation. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City of Fort Collins, the City of Fort Collins does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3. That the City of Fort Collins hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. • 0 • Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of March, A.D. 1989, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of April, A.D. 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Cle Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of April, A.D. 1989. ATTEST: City Cler • • Mayor CCLCRADO STATE AT14 I EAST MULBERRY STREET ITEM INTERSTATE LANDS ANNEXATION &ZONING u �! Ruth Clear stated that those lanes should be 10'-12' wide, which will get the l right turning vehicles out of the thru-flow of traffic and away from the bic`.'.1e traffic. Member Groznik moped to approve CSU Bull Farm Parcel D Preliminary mvith the four conditions recommended by staff. Member Shepard seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION - Case #34-88 INTERSTATE LANDS SECOND ANNEXATION - Case #35-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT A ZONING - Case #38-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT B ZONING - Case #39-88 Linda Ripley gave descriptions of the Interstate Lands annexations and zonings. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, briefly discussed the background of the site. He stated that the State Department of Highways was in the process of designing the interchange and frontage road improvements to this location. City staff also had expressed an interest in annexing the property The importance of this interchange has been identified in the Downtown, Eastside Neighbor- hood, Poudre River Trust as well as other planning efforts that have been going on for the past five years. This was a very important entrance to Fort Collins. This annexation process was started in late March of 1988. It has taken this long to come before the Board because they wanted to do some pre- planning at a conceptual level. Some right-of-way was deeded to the Highway Department which needed to be signed by the department. He added that they requested the annexation of 192 acres but because of Boxelder Creek and the other waterways that run through the site, there would only be approximately 120 acres that would be developable. They proposed substantial landscaping along Prospect Road and the interstate. Because of the design of the frontage road, they have ended up with a 30 acre parcel between the frontage road and the interchange. They were also attempting to preserve an approximate 80 acre H-B parcel in the center of the site for a future regional shopping mall. Mr. Ward discussed the master plan which was in progress but not presented to the Board. Traffic could be successfully directed away from local streets. The streets in Boxelder Estates sent traffic to Summitview and north to Mulberry. They would orient their traffic to the frontage road and Prospect Road. He stated that the width of the requested R-P zone was about 560 feet. It would give them adequate space for a residential area. Member Edwards asked if the preliminary plan would accompany the Master Plan for this site. Mr. Ward replied that there has been preliminary interest but there was nothing definite planned for submittal. Member Shepard asked if these two annexations created two enclaves on the north side of Prospect Road. Mr. Ward stated that neither of the two parcels to the south of this area would become enclaves as a result of these annexations. -5- Member Shepard asked what the current land use was for the area to the southwest corner of the requested annexation. 0 N1r. Ward stated that there were a series of large 3-5 acre parcels that have individual homes on them. .%L'rnber Shepard asked if Phase H of the Master Plan could be multi -family. N1r. Ward stated that this is what was envisioned. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that the Board needed to keep their questions and comments regarding the Master Plan more general rather than specific. Linda Ripley gave the staff report which recommended approval of both annexation and zoning requests with PUD conditions placed on both the R-P and H-B zoning designations. Development then would be evaluated under the Land Development Guidance System. Gerritt Newton, 3418 Boxelder, President of Boxelder Homeowners' Association, stated the association had concerns about the water table, the access into the area, and the transition between the existing Boxelder Estates and what will be planned for this area. In order to provide a proper transition from Boxelder Estates acreage lots to whatever is planned, the R-P area needed to be increased to double its size. He added that there was a lawsuit pending against G. T. Land which concerned an area of about 125 feet in width along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary. This lawsuit was in regards to the use of the land. Because of this lawsuit, the association requested that the first 125 foot strip running north and south along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary be designated T-Transitional until the legal issues were resolved. Linda Ripley responded to Mr. Newton's concerns and stated that developments are required to do 3 dwelling units per acre or more under the LDGS. Paul Eckman stated that the city had petitions certified by an attorney as to the ownership of the property and if that should turn out to be incorrect, and if the court should determine that someone else had some right -of -use, the right decreed by the court would be binding, notwithstanding whatever zoning the Planning and Zoning, Board might recommend to City Council or what Council might end up placing on the property. Transition zoning can be recommended if the Board wished although recommendation of the zoning requested would not detrimentally impact the outcome of that lawsuit. Chairwoman O'Dell asked, if the outcome of the lawsuit would find in favor of someone other than the property owner, how would that affect the zoning that the Planning and Zoning Board is recommending. Paul Eckman stated that it would not affect the zoning but it might affect who has the right to use and occupy the property. Frederick Smith, 1047 Greenfield Court, stated that he concurred with Mr. Newton and would like to see the area expanded that was designated R-P. He suggested that they move the high density business further east. He also requested assurances that the traffic would be directed away from their neighborhood. 0 -6- • Jay Kammerzel, 3418 Surrey Lane, stated that as a county resident, he has had r no say in the selection of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that this l neighborhood was a quiet community and felt that this environment should not be changed by the proposed development. fie added that another concern was that G. T. Land would not be the people who would develop the property. He stated that he would like to see this area zoned T-Transition. Member Groznik asked Mr. Ward to address the streets going through Boxelder Estates. OL Mr. Ward stated that the site was designed so that those street connections were not necessary. However, sometimes police and fire state that their response time could be cut clown if they could go through a neighborhood. This has been debated in a number of neighborhoods around town over the last few years. fie stated that if there would be a need for emergency access, there were design solutions that can allow emergency vehicles through and not everyday traffic. Member Edwards asked what the difference was between city planning pro- cesses and county planning processes and which is more restrictive. Mr. Ward stated that the city, in general, was more rigorous and tended to have a tighter set of detailed guidelines and controls. The city dealt with urban intensities of development where impacts tend to be greater which created a greater level of scrutiny although it was not as wide of a gap as it was ten years ago. Member Edwards moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands First Annexation. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Member Shepard moved to Lands Second Annexation. ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to Lands Tract A Zoning with Planned Unit Development. ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to Lands Tract B Zoning with Planned Unit Development. recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car - recommend to City Council approval of Interstate the condition that it comes before the Board as a Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car - recommend to City Council approval of Interstate the condition that it comes before the Board as a Member Shepard commented that she would support the motion but would have felt more comfortable if there had been additional R-P area designated in the northern corner. She added that given the fact that there was a PUD condition and that this was undevelopable land, perhaps those single family residences would not be adversely impacted. Member Edwards commented that he felt tha regardless of what jurisdiction they live in, this particular parcel go through the city county planning process. t the citizens that live in the area, will be better served by having planning process rather than the -7- Chairwoman O'Dell commented to the neighboring property owners of this pro- • posal that this will go to City Council. At that time, the adjacent neighborhood will have the opportunity for input on these annexations and zonings. She added that at the time a specific development is proposed, it will come back before the Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision, not a recommend- ation item to City Council. The Board will review what is proposed as a outier or transition area oetween their area and what could potentially become a regional mall: At that time the Board could discuss if there would need to be additional greenbelt setbacks or if more single family would be appropriate. She stated that because it was zoned H-B, it did not necessarily mean that the Highway Business would take up the entire space. Member Edwards commented that by the Board zoning this anything, the Board was not necessarily superceeding any private suits or the outcome of any private suits. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNS Case so8-89 Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, gave a description of the proposed zoning code amendment. He stated that there were two changes to the proposed ordinance submitted to the Board for review: 1) Section 2 - with respect to the definition of ideological sign - the phrase "ideological shall mean a sign other than an election sign" should be deleted; and 2) Section 8. He proposed adding a subparagraph 2, (Section 29-599 (2)) to clarify that an election message can • be included as an ideological sign and, by meeting the requirements of ideolog- ical sign, it is not subject to the time and size limitations pertaining to an election sign. Mr. Barnes continued by stating that the purpose of the sign code was three- fold: 1) to protect the aesthetic qualities of the city; 2) to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and 3) to recognize the first amendment rights of persons posting signs. He summarized the proposed changes by stating that the most significant effects would be to: 1) permit an unlimited number of election signs for a specified period of time while still regulating the size of the sign; and 2) to specifically permit the expression of non-commercial ideological messages on the same basis, or less restrictive basis, than commercial signs in all districts. Mr. Barnes stated that election signs could be erected without a permit and there could be any number of these signs. However, since they are of a tempo- rary nature and there are no limitations as to the number of how many can be erected, it would still be important to have some control over them for safety purposes, therefore, size criteria has been established. He briefly reviewed sections of the code as follows: Section I - deletes fraternal, religious and civic organizations and educational institutions from the list of entities whose flags, pennants or insignias are exempt from the sign code; 2) Section 2 - established clear definitions for elections signs and ideological signs; 3) Section 3 -clarifies the current section of the code which exempts certain types of signs from needing permits; 4) Section 4 - amends the regulation pertaining to the number of political signs which are allowed in residential zones; 5) Section 5 -adds • ideological signs to the list of permitted signs in residential zones and -8- Exhibit B • ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (First Annexation) THIS AGREEMENT is dated this 4 day of 1989, by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a'munic- ipal corporation ("the City"), and OVERLOOK FARM, INC., ("Over- look Farm"), a Delaware Corporation. W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Overlook Farm owns approximately eighteen (18) acres of land north of Prospect Road and west of Interstate High- way 25, more particularly described on Exhibit X attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually desire that the Prop- erty be annexed into the City; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to set forth certain of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to subsequent development of the Property following annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Annexation. Overlook Farm has petitioned the City for annexation of the Property. The annexation will become effective upon final approval by the City Council, recording of the annexa- tion plat and annexation ordinance with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and the execution and recording of this Agreement. 2. Applicability of Agreement. If the City approves the annexation of the Property, such annexation shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Compliance with Ordinances. Overlook Farm will comply with all ordinances, criteria, resolutions and policies of the City as now exist or are amended or adopted in the future, including those related to the development and zoning of the Property, except as expressly modified by this Agreement. 4. Storm Drainage. a. It is anticipated that a number of struc- tures and other improvements related to the manage- ment of storm drainage will be required to be located upon or adjacent to the Property. Such 11 • • i • improvements benefiting the basin as a whole will be paid through storm drainage basin fees collected in _the affected basin or through other mechanism, including, without limitation, special improvement districts. Storm drainage basin fees are generally based upon runoff contribution to the basin. Gen- eral factors considered in the computation of such fees include land use, land area, basin fee base rate and detention storage. Detention storage requirements will be determined at the time of site development and will be based upon special site development drainage conditions and special basin conditions. The Property is situate in the Cooper Slough and Box Elder Creek drainage basins and shall be subject to all storm drainage fees appli- cable thereto. b. Construction of improvements benefiting the Cooper Slough storm drainage basin as a whole shall be funded through storm drainage fees col- lected for the Cooper Slough basin. If develop- ment on the Property should require the construc- tion of these improvements before the City has so constructed the same, it shall be the responsibility . of Overlook Farm to construct and pay for such improvements. If such improvements are constructed by Overlook Farm, the City will make reimbursement to Overlook Farm for the cost of such improvements in accordance with Section 26-545 of the Code of the City. C. Repair or replacement of structures, if any, at the crossing of Box Elder Creek and the Lake Canal, will be funded utilizing such Cooper Slough basin fees as are available. If development on the Property requires such repair or replacement before the City has constructed the same, it shall be the responsibility of Overlook Farm to construct and pay for such improvements. If such improve- ments are constructed by Overlook Farm, the City will make reimbursement to Overlook Farm for the cost of such improvements in accordance with Sec- tion 26-545 of the Code of the City. d. The construction of a new bridge or box culvert at the intersection of Prospect Road and Box Elder Creek will be funded by adjacent property owners and the City. It is customary that each property owner with street frontage on each corner of the bridge or box culvert is responsible for 0 2 • twenty-five percent (25%) of the local street stan- dard portion of the cost of the new bridge or box culvert. It is the responsibility of the property owner, whose development requires the improvement first, to construct and pay for the full improve- ment with possible reimbursement as follows: A request for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the bridge or box culvert may be submitted to the City as provided in the City Code. Further, the City will, if authorized by the City Code then in effect, assist Overlook Farm in obtaining reimbursements from nonparticipating property owners abutting the improvement when those properties develop. The City's assistance in this connection will be -deemed as an accommodation, and the City shall not be liable to Overlook Farm in the event that it should fail, for any reason what- soever, to accomplish such reimbursement. The City's obligations in regard to obtaining such reimbursements shall be governed in accordance with the terms of the reimbursement agreement(s), if any, subsequently executed between Overlook Farm and the City.- e. Channel improvements along Box Elder Creek will be funded by adjacent property owners and the City. The adjacent property owners will be respon- sible for their proportionate share of costs based upon each property owner's proportionate contribu- tion to the historic flow. For purposes of this paragraph, historic flow shall be defined as the flows in Box Elder Creek in a one hundred (100) year storm based upon the existing conditions as of the date of this Agreement. The City will be responsible for those costs associated with flows in excess of said historic flow, which costs shall be paid from available storm drainage basin fees collected by the City. For the purpose of deter- mining the apportionment of costs among the various adjacent property owners, it shall be the responsi- bility of the City to conduct such engineering studies as are necessary to make such determina- tion. Such studies shall be conclusive as to the proper apportionment of costs among said property owners. 5. Street Improvements. a. A frontage road has been constructed through the Property. If the cost to Overlook Farm associated with the construction of said frontage 3 • road to collector standards is greater than the cost of construction of a standard local street, then Overlook Farm may request street oversizing reim- bursement in connection therewith. b. The adjacent property owners shall be responsible for improvements to Prospect Road,_ including, without limitation, arterial standard curb and gutter and arterial standard sidewalk or other sidewalk design approved by the City, along their frontage to a width adequate to facilitate the anticipated traffic volumes and ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians anticipated with each phase of development. C. The Code of the City requires developers to construct, at their sole expense, all off -site street improvements when they develop property that does not have direct access to an improved arterial street. Such off -site street improvements must be constructed and paved to a width of at least thirty-six (36) feet and in accordance with the City's Code and standards for the construction of arterial streets. The Director of Engineering shall determine the type and extent of off -site street improvements required to be constructed based upon a mutually acceptable and agreed upon traffic analysis and upon an assessment of the pavement condition. With respect to the Property which is the subject of this Agreement, if it is determined by the Director of Engineering that less than one-half (1/2) of the traffic generated by the proposed development utilizes Prospect Road to the west of the Property, then Interstate Highway 25 will be considered the appropriate "street" to which off -site street improvements must be con- structed. Strictly as an accommodation, and without creating any duty or liability on the part of the City, the City will, if authorized by the City Code then in effect, assist the developer in obtaining reimbursements for appropriate off -site street improvements constructed by the developer from other property owners as subsequent development occurs. The City's obligations with regard to obtaining such reimbursements shall be governed in accordance with the terms of the reimbursement agreement(s), if any, subsequently executed between the developer and the City. 6. Access. The major points of access for the Property, as reflected on the proposed Master Plan dated April 5, 19881 are 4 4� l • acceptable to the City subject to a City -conducted traffic analysis confirming that said access points are appropriately located for traffic safety and efficiency. 7. Utility Services. a. Electric service for the Property will be provided by the City. b. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City or by the Box Elder Sanitation District. C. Water service shall be provided initially by the East Larimer County Water District. When the City is able to provide adequate water service to the Property, water service shall be provided by the City. The City and the East Larimer County Water District will agree on the method of trans- fer of service to any affected users. If such transfers are necessary, they will be accomplished at no additional cost to the user. d. Without assuming any obligation to do so, it is the City's present intention to extend a six- teen (16) inch water main along Prospect Road to Summit View Drive within approximately five (5) years from the date hereof. If development of the Property requires said line to be extended prior to its construction by the City, Overlook Farm will be responsible for constructing such extension. Overlook Farm's share of the cost of such extension shall be the normal cost of con- struction of a twelve (12) inch water line, as such cost is determined by the Director of Utility Ser- vices. The determination by the Director of Util- ity Services shall be conclusive as the normal cost of such construction. The City will pay for over - sizing said line in excess of a twelve (12) inch line and, without creating a duty but strictly as an accommodation to Overlook Farm, will assist in the obtaining of reimbursements from other non- participating property owners who subsequently tap directly onto such line. The City's obligations with regard to obtaining such reimbursements shall be governed in accordance with the terms of the reimbursement agreement(s), if any, subsequently executed between the developer and City. 8. APPROPRIATION CONTINGENCY. ALL PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS OF . THE CITY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT ARE EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY HAVING FIRST BUDGETED AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS THEREFOR. 5 t 9. Assigns. As used herein, the term "Overlook Farm" shall also mean any of the transferees, successors or assigns of Over- look Farm, and all such parties shall have the right to enforce this Agreement and shall be subject to the terms of this Agree- ment as if they were original parties hereto. RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC REIMBURSEMENTS OR OTHER PAYMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN OR ARISING HEREFROM SHALL ALWAYS BE TO OVERLOOK FARM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue shall be in the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado. 11. Recording. This' Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property. 12. Headings. The headings set forth in this Agreement for the different sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be construed as an enlargement or an abridgement of the language of the Agreement. 13. Code Changes. References in this Agreement to any provisions of the City Code are intended to refer to any subsequent amendments and/or revisions to the City Code that replace the revisions referred to herein. Such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Overlook Farm. 14. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by subsequent writing of the parties or their successors, transfer- ees or assigns, provided that no such amendment shall be valid until all persons or entities having an interest in the Property subject to the amendment have duly executed such amendment agree- ment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. VTTEST Wanda Krajice City Clerk THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation A��By: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager • r