Property owners shun city as unwanted suitor

By Dan MacArthur
Fossil Creek Current

A war of words and wills is raging between Fort Collins officials and owners fighting the city's planned annexation of their potentially valuable properties at the Interstate 25 and Colorado Highway 392 interchange.

Wary that the city would impose restrictive environmental and zoning standards --effectively preventing them from developing the high-profile properties on the west side of the interchange--the owners are pulling out all the stops to fend off Fort Collins' advances.

They are attempting to persuade the Larimer County Commissioners to rescind their support for adding the 1,500-acre Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area to Fort Collins' Growth Management Area. Inclusion of the area into Fort Collins' GMA boundary sets the stage for its eventual annexation into the city.

"What we're asking is leave us alone," said Mary Van Cleave, who along with her husband, Terry, owns 40 acres on the south side bordering the I-25 frontage road midway between the interchange and the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision.

By keeping Fort Collins at bay, the property owners hope to instead annex to either Windsor or Loveland. Based on discussions with officials in those communities, they are convinced that either one would be more receptive to ambitious development plans for the high-traffic gateway to all three cities

Engineer Jeff Couch characterizes the potential development as a "mini-McWhinneyville," referring to the massive Centerra project at I-25 and U.S. 34 in Loveland. Couch represents the Van Cleaves in their efforts to develop their property.

He said the Van Cleaves and fellow property owners on both the north and south sides of the interchange want to collaboratively develop a mixed-use development. It could include so-called "big box" stores in addition to a number of other retailers, according to Couch.

But instead of supporting such a lucrative project that he estimated could generate $10 million in sales tax revenues annually, Couch maintained, Fort Collins has consciously obstructed such efforts in order to ensure the land remains open space.

"This is an absolute conspiracy to shut down growth," said Couch, contending that the city is thoroughly permeated with a "no-growth, tree-hugger and open-space philosophy."

"The evil empire is what we call the city of Fort Collins," he said.

"The property owners down there hate us, they absolutely hate us," acknowledged Ken Waido. "They want to build their property and they see Fort Collins as the least desirable government to be involved with."

Fort Collins certainly recognizes the importance of that gateway interchange, said Waido, the city's chief planner, who is charged with completing the southeast annexation by year's end. While clearly frustrated by the opponents' fierce and often personal attacks, he insisted their efforts will fail.

"They seem to think that they can run to momma and poppa county," said Waido.

But he noted that a 1999 intergovernmental agreement among Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor and Larimer County recognized that the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area would eventually become part of Fort Collins' GMA.

"Basically," according to Waido, "it said Fort Collins, it's your area when you want it." He noted that both the county commissioners and city council have since supported in concept the addition to the city's growth management area.

Waido also dismissed the possibility that either Windsor or Loveland would make an effort to annex the properties. Both, he said, have formally agreed not to do so. Without breaking that compact, the earliest such an action could occur would be 2009 when Windsor can opt out of its agreement not to annex west of I-25.

"As far as I'm concerned, we're the only option," said Waido. "They have to work with us."

The property owners beg to differ. They insist that the transfer of the territory to Fort Collins' area of influence should be voided because the city has not met two of the county's critical requirements.

Couch in an Aug. 1 letter to the commissioners contended that Fort Collins has failed to work directly with the property owners to assure that the city's proposed zoning for the property corresponds to the property owners' requests. Instead, according to Couch, Fort Collins solicited surrounding property owners outside the GMA in an Aug. 31 open house to review five plans developed by the city.

While more diplomatic in his criticism, planning consultant John Barnett said that unwillingness to assure predictable and appropriate zoning has only further aroused the property owners' mistrust of Fort Collins.

"The difficulty is how much do you believe them," said the former county planning director. He represents Steve Prato, an investor who owns 30 acres directly adjoining the southwest corner of the interchange.

"Landowners want to be assured if they allow this area to be in the GMA, they will be allowed to develop," said Barnett. Without such assurances that they won't be restricted by unreasonable requirements, he said, property owners probably would put plans on hold for four years until Windsor could annex the property.

Waido dismissed those complaints, insisting that he is compelled to take into account the desires of all nearby neighbors - and not only the property owners - in developing a land-use plan.

And Waido said he cannot provide the ironclad guarantees the property owners want because he cannot make commitments on behalf of legislative bodies such as the city council, which is scheduled to adopt the revised city structure plan map in November. Couch scoffs at such a contention, insisting that such guarantees are commonly included in annexation agreements.

But most critically, Couch said, the city has failed to live up to the county commissioners' insistence that Fort Collins takes an active role in providing "adequate public facilities" - principally in reconstruction of the dysfunctional bridge and ramps at the interchange.

Couch said Fort Collins has taken no real action toward establishing the public-private partnership necessary to accomplish the estimated $20 million bridge replacement within the foreseeable future. "As property owners, we feel that Fort Collins doesn't want to see anything out there," he said. "They don't want to see that interchange improved."

"We already know it sucks," retorted Waido. But first, he insisted, it's important to assess the best way to improve the interchange. "We need to have a fairly solid plan in place for how all this comes together," Waido said.

Van Cleave said the property owners will continue to press their appeal to the county. "We just have to keep fighting the fight," she said.

Despite the property owners' disdain for Fort Collins, Waido said, the city has done everything it was required to do. "That's the bottom line," he said.