HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 February 17, 2022
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities.
Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma
inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios,
programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado).
Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Regular Hearing
February 17, 2022
6:00 PM
Michelle Haefele, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado
David Katz
Adam Sass Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
Planning and Zoning Commission
Hearing Agenda
Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in
person.
Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may
attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95695544771. Individuals participating
in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on February 17, 2022. Participants should try to sign in
prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button
to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants
have an opportunity to address the Commission.
In order to participate:
Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly
improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status.
If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com.
Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone.
Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 956 9554 4771.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 February 17, 2022
• ROLL CALL
• ELECTION OF OFFICERS
• AGENDA REVIEW
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person or use the raise hand
function if they are on Zoom or on the phone.
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that
30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak
has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended.
• CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that
are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an
item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full
presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote.
The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived
controversy, and routine administrative actions.
The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like
to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting:
keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email
smanno@fcgov.com.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those
materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are
encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will
ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items
scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting.
As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after
consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be
prudent.
Packet pg. 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 February 17, 2022
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z December Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the December 16, 2021, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a mixed-use development
on approximately 31.3 acres in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. The
ODP proposes modifications of standards to Section 4.26(D)(2) concerning the
proportion of primary and secondary uses and Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) concerning
residential building heights, as well as a request for Alternative Compliance to
Section 3.6.3 regarding street pattern and connectivity standards.
APPLICANT: Chris Beabout
Landmark Homes
6341 Fairgrounds Ave, Suite 100
Windsor, CO 80550
STAFF ASSIGNED: Ryan Mounce, City Planner
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 17, 2022
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2021 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the December 16, 2021
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft December 16, 2021 P&Z Minutes
Packet pg. 4
Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue
Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado
David Katz
Adam Sass Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion &
Jeff Schneider Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
December 16, 2021
Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Shepard
Absent: Schneider
Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Claypool, Mapes, Yatabe, Stephens, Schmidt, Axmacher, Virata, Hahn,
Schumann, Wray, Smith, Buckingham, Lambrecht, Wagner, Holtz, Benton, Betley and Manno
Chair Haefele provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order
of business. She described the role of the commission, noted that members are volunteers appointed by city
council. The commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the
public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the land use code. She noted that this is
a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be
heard as originally advertised.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None noted
Consent Agenda:
1.Draft Minutes from October 21, 2021, P&Z Hearing
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 2 of 12
2. Timber Lark Annexation and Zoning
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted
Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that were on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a
separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Katz recused himself from agenda item #2.
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion to approve the Draft Minutes from the October hearing. Member Katz
seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
Member Hansen made a motion to approve Item #2, Timber Lark Annexation and Zoning. Member Sass
seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0
Discussion Agenda:
3. Landmark Apartments Additional Bedroom Minor Amendment
Project Description: This is a Minor Amendment request to convert 72 existing 2-bedroom units into 72 3-
bedroom units, and associated site improvements including reconfiguring/restriping the existing parking areas, the
addition of 2 new parking areas resulting in 10 new parking spaces, additional bicycle parking, and new
trash/recycling enclosures.
A modification of standards is proposed in relation to the new parking areas.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that no additional comments or documents were received after the hearing packet was
published.
City Attorney Yatabe stepped down from this item and was replaced by City Attorney Schmidt.
Member Hogestad recused himself from this item, stating a conflict of interest, but will be observing from the
audience.
Member Katz disclosed that he and the applicant has a mutual client, and he believes that this will not affect his
judgment.
Member Hansen disclosed that his son is a tenant at the Landmark Apartments. He feels there is no reason to
recuse himself.
Chair Haefele disclosed that 30 years ago she was a tenant at the apartments.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Senior Zoning Inspector Schumann gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Carolynne White, Russel Lee, Jeff Dawson and Kate Maden – applicant representation, also provided a brief
verbal/visual presentation.
Public Input (3 minutes per person) DRAFTPacket pg. 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 3 of 12
Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Dr. – Attended neighborhood meeting in July and then met with a planner as to
why it changed to a minor amendment. She feels there was a lack of transparency. The issue is these units are
proposed to be offered at market rate and then turns to by the bedroom, and this causes parking issues. There will
be trash issues. Are there enough handicap spaces?
Ann Hunt, 1800 Wallenberg Dr. – She has concerns with parking based on the number of people being added to
units. She does not want people parking in the neighborhoods.
Robert Slate, 726 Sherry Dr. – He spoke to the long-term parking and not being used every day.
Staff Response
Inspector Schumann responded that the application does meet requirements regarding parking space. The trash
enclosures as proposed do meet trash and recycling standards.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Questions
Member Katz asked Mr. Lee if he could expand on what the plants and trees are, are the trees existing, what is the
screening going to look like in the winter? Mr. Lee responded that they are replacing two ash trees and that there is
a mixture of shrubs. There will be a retaining wall on the north, on the south side there will be a 3’ high fence.
Parking will be set low.
Vice Chair Shepard asked Mr. Lee why they were replacing the ash trees and if they had thought about shadow
planting. Mr. Lee responded that with the ash trees they are afraid that they will be getting too close to the critical
root zone with the parking lot. The new owner is interested in shadow planting.
Chair Haefele asked what are long term parking stalls and are they defined in the land use code? Mr. Lee
responded that they are utilized in residential developments where the cars park and stay overnight. They are 8 ½’
wide vs. 9’ side in this scenario.
Chair Haefele asked if the fence proposed will be vinyl? Mr. Lee responded yes.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if there were any site distance problems for the safety of vehicles from traffic circulation
with the proposed fencing? Mr. Lee responded the ingress and egress is off Hobbit and set in past the first building
adjacent to Hobbit. There are no site-triangle issues.
Member Sass asked about the bike racks installed in the breezeway, are they ADA? Mr. Dawson responded that
the challenge is that all of the buildings have garden level units, there are only two ADA accessible units and will
remain ADA. This is not applicable in the case.
Chair Haefele asked to have more information on the enhanced recycling and how it will address blowing trash.
Carolynne White responded that the trash enclosures proposed are in approximately the same location, except that
it is her understanding that they have been made better and will be put further away from Spring Creek and add the
option of recycling. Mr. Dawson responded that the new enclosures will be built out of CMU and will not be open at
the bottom. The locations are further away from the creek.
Chair Haefele asked Senior Zoning Inspector Schumann if he could clarify if this meets the current land use code in
terms of number of spaces and address whether or not the parking spaces being added are long term or not and
how does this meet the land use code? Mr. Schumann responded with the new number; they will meet the
requirement in the land use code.
Chair Haefele asked if there were any land use codes that address the need for additional parking if the lease
changes to rent by the bedroom? Inspector Schumann responded that it is based on how many bedrooms per unit, DRAFTPacket pg. 7
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 4 of 12
this would not change. Planning Manager Everette added that there are different parking spaces depending on
what zone it is located in.
Member Hansen asked if there was a parking analysis completed? How many spaces are being used? Is there
any signage that parking is for tenants only? Mr. Dawson responded that there is no specific plan in place for
parking, there are 21 spaces being added, not just 10 due to restriping, and that there has not been a parking study
completed.
Vice Chair Shepard asked for a reiteration of why a major amendment, but rather a minor amendment. Planning
Manager Everette responded in regard to the criteria and how this project did not apply. This project does meet the
defined term with character, and not the function. The plan was revised to avoid becoming a major amendment.
Attorney Schmidt reminded the Commission that the applicant and staff need an opportunity to respond to public
comment.
Mrs. White responded that the number of parking spaces is 21, not 10 and requirement is for 228 and they are
adding 229. There has been in the variance requested, it meets the code. She spoke to the process and shows the
process working as it is supposed to. It also provides extra time for public input.
Deliberation
Modification
Member Katz commented that the one concern he had was the screening and the applicant did satisfy his concern
and he will be supporting the modification.
Member Hansen had the same concern, the reduced setback, more parking vs less turf. He feels it is an
improvement. He appreciates the efforts the applicant put into the screening.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the performance zoning standard that was in place in the 1980’s. This site was
improved as a package and impact mitigation. Vice Chair Shepard feels we are slicing/diminishing and is worried
about other PUD’s that have been approved over time. Landscaping and buffering are important. He also pointed
out 2.2.10 and 3.2.2 and 3.5.1(J)(2). He also commented on the West Central Area Plan.
Chair Haefele feels that the 30% increase in rooms is a change. Vice Chair Shepard commented that if the
modification is denied, they can still add rooms. The modification only speaks to the setback.
Vice Chair Haefele is concerned with the loss of landscape.
Member Sass asked if the landscape dives down and is curious about what the impact to the landscaping would
be? Vice Chair Shepard commented that the drop down and grading varies. Member Katz commented that overall,
with the improvements, that this is the argument.
Member Hansen commented that he did not want everyone to get confused with the different scenarios. Are they
ok with reducing the setback from 5’ to 2.6’?
Chair Haefele commented on the trees that will be going based on what the rendering shows, there will be
substantial impacts and feels this speaks to the character of the area.
Vice Chair Shepard walked through his thoughts on the overall project. He feels the expectation is that what is
there, should be preserved. This is not the HMN. The status quo is what the approval was based on and the slicing
off of the quality is an issue. His final thought is that this is not in an HMN, and he feels there should be a more
generous setback.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if there should be a condition added that the vinyl fence be replaced with masonry, rock,
wood or masonry wood combination. The Commission members would support this. Chair Haefele asked for
clarification that this would be a condition to the minor amendment. The response was, yes. DRAFTPacket pg. 8
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 5 of 12
Vice Chair Shepard spoke through an analysis he had regarding the trees and their condition. He hopes the new
owner will be more cognizant and work with a firm or an arborist.
Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
modification of standard to 3.2.2(J) Parking Setbacks. This decision is based upon the agenda materials,
information and materials presented at the work session, and the Commission discussion at this hearing.
Member Hansen seconded. Vice Chair Shepard will be opposing the motion due to it not being equal to or better
than. Member Katz spoke to the process within the code, he will be supporting the motion. Member Hansen will be
supporting the motion as he feels this is not detracting from Shields St. Chair Haefele feels a setback is a detriment
to the public good, she will reluctantly be supporting the modification. She would like to see a different material be
used for the fence. Vote: 4:1.
Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve Minor
Amendment 210075 with the condition of approval that the proposed vinyl fence along Shields be
constructed out of wood or a masonry material instead. This decision is based upon the agenda materials,
information and materials presented at the work session, and the Commission discussion at this hearing.
Member Sass fully supports the modification. Member Hansen commented on the fencing and building character.
Vice Chair Shepard will be reluctantly supporting the project. Member Hansen seconded. Vote 4:1
4. Mulberry and Greenfields PUD Master Plan
Project Description: This is a request to approve a Planned Unit Development Master Plan (PUD) to develop
226-acres generally bounded by East Mulberry Street on the south, Cooper Slough on the east, East Vine Drive on
the north, and Delozier Street on the west. The land is currently undeveloped and in agricultural use. The PUD
Master Plan represents a mixed-use community comprised of 5 districts that will offer a multitude of commercial,
retail, and employment opportunities as well as a diverse selection of housing opportunities. The PUD includes
portions of the following zone districts: Low-Density Mixed-Use (LMN), Medium Density Mixed Use (MMN),
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), General Commercial (CG), and Employment (E). The PUD is less than 640 acres
will require Planning and Zoning Commission (Type 2) Review and decision. A specific project development plan
proposal is not included with the PUD application.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that no additional comments or documents were received after the hearing packet was
published.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planning Manager Everette and Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Landon Hoover, Owner, Hartford Homes and Ryan McBreen, Norris Design, also provided a brief verbal/visual
presentation.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Kimberly Weisser, 709 Elgin Ct. – She is concerned with the loss of open space, the height of the structures, the
traffic and density. She is opposed to the project. She asked if anyone has looked at the crime rates.
Robert Slate – He is concerned with Cooper Slew and flooding. Where is the water going to go? He supports the
project.
Mrs. Kelly – She is concerned with traffic. What are the improvements that will be happing at Timberline and Vine to
offset the traffic? What is going to happen with the views with 3 to 5-sotry building heights? She does not want to
be impacted. She is also concerned with crime and controlling the growth.
DRAFTPacket pg. 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 6 of 12
Rosemary Beauvais – She is concerned with the potential traffic. Is Greenfields considered a minor or major arterial
drive? She did not understand the comments regarding to the grade level at Vine. Vine cannot handle the traffic.
Staff Response
Mr. Hoover responded to the flood comment. They are doing a floodplain mapping exercise to remove District 3
from the floodplain. From a detention perspective, Natural Areas is involved to bring the detention much higher.
There is a 300’ buffer to the slew.
Mr. Hoover responded that they did perform a tree and traffic study. They are following all the standards. They are
making a $250k contribution toward lighting the intersection. With traffic, the site is seen as taking traffic demands
off Timberline and Vine.
Mr. Hoover responded that Greenfields is classified as an arterial. Two connections to the North are lining up with
existing streets.
Mr. Thorpe responded that the code requires a grading exercise to get it to grade. There may be the potential to get
another point of access by the Cooper slough.
Planner Wray clarified the increase in crime rate. Fort Collins Police Services has been coordinating with the
Sheriff’s Department with a transition plan. Regarding building heights and looking at the current zoning, the higher
buildings will be more toward Mulberry where it is more commercial. The 3-story housing types will be mixed in and
most will be in the upper half.
Traffic Engineer Hahn responded to the arterial classification. This project will provide the arterial grid connection.
The benefit is that the center left turn lane through there will help access and operations. Vine and Timberline will
be signalized.
Member Hansen asked if the intersection on Greenfield and Vine was a two-way or four-way stop now and in the
future? Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that the classification of Vine will likely change. It has not been
determined what the intersection will be.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Questions
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the roundabout and asked if there was going to be two round abouts and their
proximity to one another? Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that there is not a roundabout proposed for Mulberry
and Greenfields, this first one is the roundabout at the frontage road. The other one proposed is at Greenfields and
International. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the roundabout is existing at the frontage road and Greenfields? Traffic
Engineer Hahn responded, yes. Mr. Hoover clarified that the roundabout does not currently exist. These are the jug
handles where the road realigns.
Vice Chair Shepard asked Traffic Engineer Hahn to speak to Donella. Donella is a collector, is this a minor collector
or a major collector and could it be a commercial local? Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that at this phase we do
not know what it will be. Vice Chair Shepard asked if there was an excessive number of collectors for this square
mile. Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that she believes that we are establishing the connectivity through the site
for future connections. It probably is over “collectored” for this development, but this will be providing future
connectivity should other properties around this one ever develop.
Vice Chair Shepard asked Mr. Hoover to speak to the amount of “missing middle” housing? How often would this
occur? Mr. Hoover responded that they intend that the missing middle or attainable housing not be constrained to
the 5 or 8-plex. There will be 178 units (cottage homes) and 98 traditional single-family. They do anticipate doing
condos. This allows greater density and attainable mortgages. Filing 3 will have 8-plexes and condos.
Chair Haefele asked about the train quiet zone not a quiet sign, where the horn blowing is not necessary if a gated
intersection. Vice Chair Shepard commented that that at Bucking Horse on SharePoint Drive and the Nancy Gray DRAFTPacket pg. 10
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 7 of 12
crossing the same rail line, this is a quiet zone. Mr. Hoover responded that this will be determined through the PUC
application process. Quiet zone would be preferred for the entire development.
Member Katz asked if the cottage product will only be in District 1 or will it be disbursed. Mr. Hoover responded
that it will be primarily District 1 where the density is higher.
Chair Haefele asked how the heating costs were going to be addressed. Mr. Hoover responded that they have not
committed to all houses having rooftop solar panels, but they have committed to 800kw. It will be an option for the
homeowner. Chair Haefele asked if someone purchasing an affordable unit could not afford the solar option, they
are going to be faced with higher heating bills, how will this be addressed? Mr. Hoover responded that they are
following the lead of the city. From an affordable housing perspective, how payment is determined, is based on
income, not on cost. This is Habitat’s challenge, to fill this gap. Vice Chair Shepard asked what they anticipated the
lag time between bringing on the 800 kw’s and the development phasing of the project? Mr. Hoover responded that
he could not definitively answer this at this moment as this is a very high-level plan to start. Because of affordable
housing there is a timeline that must be followed. It will be early, throughout, and consistent.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if they anticipated District 5 to do an entry ID sign? Mr. Hoover responded that there will
be an artistic ID sign. Planner Wray added that there is a place holder currently at the corner, they just do not know
what this will look like yet.
Chair Haefele asked what the requirement is for affordable housing for a metro district? Planning Manager Everette
responded that is not a defined number and amount, it is a point system that an applicant must achieve in several
different categories and affordable housing is one of those categories. In this case the metro district was approved
under the previous metro district policy. Mr. Hoover knows that they are the only metro district approved that has
committed to more than 10%. Chair Haefele asked for clarity from staff on how the public benefits agreement with
respect to the metro district approved in 2019, that ball of benefits is now being used to justify the PUD. Planner
Wray responded to requirements of the metro district; the PUD provides the mechanism to achieve the benefits that
have been identified as part of the metro district. Staff looked at this in the review, many of the benefits overlap with
the requirements of the PUD. Section 4.2.9 mention the requirement for providing public benefits as part of
additional flexibility. The focus was on what the PUD requires. Planning Manager Everette elaborated on the term
“public benefits”. It is used to mean two different things. There are public benefits that are required under the metro
district, there are specific requirements that are a City Council process and what can satisfy that public benefit
requirement. Then there are public benefits that are required through a PUD process, these are different from the
public benefits in the metro district process. The Commission is reviewing the PUD requirements. Chair Haefele is
confused on the process and what the different steps are.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if there will be a trail crossing at the lake canal? Mr. Hoover responded not at the lake
canal. This section goes off the property, nothing here has been proposed. Vice Chair Shepard was not aware that
the lake canal was offsite. He is worried about connectivity. Mr. Hoover responded that the crossing is not on their
property the adjacent connection jogs further west. In other parts, there is a stretch where they have both sides of
the canal and there is no plan in place at the moment.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if there was a street system on the southwest commercial area. Mr. Hoover responded
that it would have a turn direct access onto the frontage road on Mulberry.
Member Hogestad asked about design and design innovation and enhanced design. Mr. Hoover responded that
they are speaking today at a land use and zoning level. He pointed out that master planning has a benefit for the
city. There is continuity of design and a unifying way when you master plan that enhances design. There is also
increased connectivity, enhanced pedestrian crossings, paths, and mixed-use nature. Member Hogestad wonders
about some sort of assurance that the aesthetics of the project will be something better than piece mill.
Member Hansen commented that in the current land use code, in order to promote, a higher quality of design there
are some specific standards. The applicant has asked for this to be removed, Member Hansen is willing to do this
in the sense of the PUD if they have other ideas to create a high level of design. They have also asked for the
review process to be modified. How does the expedited review process help ensure a high-quality design? Mr.
Hoover responded that they still have the public input process. It is trusting the vision and the staff at some point.
They are looking at doing articulation in a vertical perspective. DRAFTPacket pg. 11
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 8 of 12
Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the 5-story height in the LMN and the MMN. They are going from three-
stories to 5. How concerned was staff with this? Please describe your thinking. Planner Wray responded that the
LMN change is in District 2. Vice Chair Shepard asked if it was allowed in District 1. Planner Wray responded, no.
In District 2 there is a crossover of zone districts.
Member Sass asked how tall a story could be in a residential house. Vice Chair Shepard responded between12
and 13’. 12.5” is what the code states. Member Sass asked what the impact was going from a 3-story to a 2.5-
story. Vice Chair Shepard responded that he had no issues going to 3-stores in the LMN.
Vice Chair Shepard commented that he likes what is happening in District 1 with LMN.
Vice Chair Shepard is concerned that with taller buildings, the step backs, pedestrian scale, and presence on the
street. He is hesitant to support a 5-story building in District 2 unless there are standards or assurances or design
guidelines or design standards that talk about pedestrian scale, street facing, and 5-story step back.
Member Katz commented that the modifications in the LMN, MMN, employment, and general commercial say that
the accessory units have to be at least 15% smaller than the principal living unit. Is this ratio addressed anywhere
else? Planner Wray responded that there are not accessory dwelling unit standards. There are current standards
like for carriage houses. There is a specific floor area and size for those additional single-family dwellings. The ratio
ranges from 1,000 sf of floor area and 600 sf footprint. Member Katz asked what the ratio was to the principal
dwelling unit. Member Hansen responded that it is not defined as a ratio. It is square footage based only.
Vice Chair Shepard is concerned by the request to delete the 20,000-sf maximum size of a commercial building in
the LMN. Member Hansen asked what commercial buildings were allowed in the LMN. He does not think they
modified what buildings would be allowed. Chair Haefele responded that it is non-residential and mixed-use
buildings. Member Hansen asked what could those conceivably be in an LMN and does it apply to all within the
LMN? Vice Chair Shepard responded any permitted use in a neighborhood center. Type 1 and Type 2, there is a
specific list. Planner Wray responded that the PUD states that the requirements will be met by the neighborhood
center. Vice Chair Shepard asked what the tradeoff was going to be. Mr. McBreen clarified that they have changed
the format for this presentation to include the layout, they have no intention of building a building over 20,000 sf.
Member Sass asked if there were any other code modifications to be aware of? Planner Wray stated in the LMN
area there are changes included for the density increase from nine grows to 12, the building height from 2.5 to 3
stories, the step back requirements, the addition of housing types and the level of review process change.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the Type 1 LMN center. There are two kinds of neighborhood centers, Type 1
and Type 2. Only the Type 1 is listed, he feels that Type 2 should be listed. What is the process? He is comfortable
with the Type 1 for what is listed and Type 2 for what is not listed.
Deliberation
Vice Chair Shepard questioned the LMN standard for multi-family buildings under 3.8.30(F) and the variation. Can
we add the word “significantly” to this section? Member Katz commented that there is concern with this.
Member Katz is concerned with the “only 15% smaller” on the accessory units. He would like to see them smaller
relative to the main building. Chair Haefele agrees. Member Hansen wondered if it might be an “or”, 15% smaller or
a maximum of (?). Chair Haefele suggested it be smaller, like 600 sf Member Katz asked what the intent of these
structures was. Member Hansen commented for a mother in-law or a rental unit. Mr. Hoover responded they are all
for a cap. The Commission agreed that the cap should be 1,000 sf.
The Commission feels that this should remain a Type I for smaller buildings and Type 2 for larger.
Member Hansen spoke his thoughts to not restricting too much to this PUD and allowing more flexibility. Vice Chair
Shepard commented that the problem is when applicants present to the Commission, it may become a battle. We
need to tell them upfront what we are looking for.
Vice Chair Shepard asked what the thinking was about revising 3.5.4 big box standards and guidelines with regard
to small retail store, roofs, materials, and colors, facades and colors? In the CG zone district, the large retail DRAFTPacket pg. 12
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 9 of 12
establishment is not listed. Mr. McBreen explained that what they have going on in District 3 is three underlying
zone districts: commercial general, neighborhood commercial and employment. Potentially the large retail
establishment got lost in the mix. They want to allow large retail. Mr. Hoover explained the intent on materials were
to look at additional materials. They have no desire to diminish the aesthetic of big box retail. Vice Chair Shepard
asked why they changed big box standards and guidelines for a PUD. Mr. Fleischer explained their intent. Looking
at existing codes and PUD sections, was to layer onto the existing code to provide increased flexibility and diversity
in the project. They are trying to future proof the project as a whole. Vice Chair Shepard asked for an explanation
on the phraseology that was added to two of the sections; to a height that relates to compatibility of the design
aesthetic or roofs as it relates to the compatibility of the design aesthetic. Mr. Fleischer explained that they were
trying to increase the visibility so that we look at the transparency idea, it is not just 3’ above the ground, it is 5th
floor. They are trying to enhance the code. Vice Chair Shepard cautioned, in regard to, prefinished metal panel,
that the standard begins with the word “predominate”. This is not where the code is looking for metal panels. He
does not believe that they want a 25,000-sf building to be predominately metal. Mr. Fleischer responded that metal
panels have been greatly advanced in quality, color, and profiles. There is a great opportunity to provide excellent
architecture. Chair Haefele asked what wooding was. Mr. McBreen responded, wood siding. He commented that
they would be ok with removing metal. Vice Chair Shepard added that if they added at the end of the standard that
a subordinate material may be a prefinished metal panel, for clarity, he would be ok, but not after the word
“predominate”. Member Hansen commented that he would be comfortable with allowing a good 75% of them on a
project. Member Sass asked what type of review this was going to go through. If it is going through a Type 2, then
leave it. If it is BDR, maybe continue the conversation. Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is always the
modification procedure. Member Hogestad agrees with Vice Chair Shepard on the metal panel and it being
subordinate. Member Katz is comfortable striking it and Mr. McBreen commented they are good with that.
Vice Chair Shepard, pg. 344, CG Permitted Use List, asked what the thinking was with listing the unlimited indoor
rec., and entertainment facilities and theaters as Type I, he believes they should be Type 2. How does this benefit
correlate? Mr. McBreen responded that they are ok with changing it to Type 2. He added that some of the
situations, when combining employment and neighborhood commercial or commercial general, they had different
reviews on each one. Which everyone had the lowest review, that is the one they put in.
Vice Chair Shepard, pg. 344, drive through restaurant, convenience store with fuel, convivence retail with no fuel
and gasoline sales, drive in restaurants and enclosed mini storage. Since these are auto related, might be Type 2.
Chair Haefele asked if they were considered Type 1 under the land use code. Vice Chair Shepard would like to be
convinced that they stay Type 1. Grocery stores and supermarkets go from 2 to 1, private restaurants are going
from 2 to 1, enclosed mini storage is going from 2 to 1, and maybe they should stay as 2’s. The little southwest
parcel is not going to be part of the cohesive center and appear stand alone. How are the PUD objectives
advanced by these process venue changes? Mr. Hoover, Type 1 remains on grocers and drive throughs, the only
reason they are asking for this is not a PUD benefit, as much as it is to try to land a grocer and some of the retail
amenities. Chair Haefele asked if there was overlap between a grocery store and big box. Vice chair Shepard
responded he would have to check article 5. Planning Manager Everett asked for clarification as to what the
question was. Vice Chair Shepard asked what the definition of large retail establishments was, and does it include
grocery stores and supermarkets that are over 25,000 sf or are they exempt? Planning Manager Everette
responded that the definition of large retail establishment does not specifically exclude any uses. Vice Chair
Shepard commented that it has to be Type 2. Chair Haefele commented that there is no grocery out there currently,
but if it is going to be a massive, large retail, it should go through more review. Vice Chair Shepard commented that
the review process for the north King Soopers was complex. With the old K Mart, the Commission recognized the
complexity. He is leaning toward Type 2 and hopes this does not disincentivize. Member Katz asked if it had been
distinguished that the grocery was separated in the land use code from the retail or not. Chair Haefele respond that
large retail dose not distinguish the uses and a grocery store could fall into that definition. Member Katz commented
that it is also called out separately. Planning Manager Everette responded that grocery store is a defined use.
Member Sass asked if the big King Soopers on north College count as a grocery store. Vice Chair Shepard
responded that it is a supermarket. There is a difference in the land use code between a grocery store and a
supermarket. This is why it is listed twice. Member Sass commented that the point is probably mute as a grocery
store needs to be less than 25,000 sf and the Type 2 review will happen on anything over 25,000 sf. Planning
Manager Everette clarified that a grocery store can go up to 45,000 sf and supermarket is 45,001 sf or larger. There
is overlap in the sizes. Member Katz would be ok with Type 1. Member Sass commented that there is still design
review because there is the land use code. Vice Chair Shepard as a preference would be for the Commission to
consider the drive through and drive in restaurant staying as a Type 2. Mr. Hoover commented that they are ok with DRAFTPacket pg. 13
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 10 of 12
drive in and drive throughs being Type 2. Vice Chair Shepard commented that grocery stores and supermarkets
should be retained as a Type 2.
Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the auto related uses being Type 1 in the last zone District. Mr. Hoover
responded that they are trying to be consistent between the three zone districts. If they change the auto uses in
one, then it will go to the others. Vice Chair Shepard commented that as long as retail supply, retail vehicle
servicing or parking garages as principle use or medical centers, lodging, hospitals get the appropriate review
process. Chair Haefele would like the applicant’s spreadsheet to be updated; per PUD, per land use code and a
column for each of the three zone districts.
Vice Chair Shepard commented that from an urban design perspective the PUD is giving a lot of flexibility and
removing the underlying districts in 3 and 4. He likes the flexibility. He would like to have the urban design element
upfront for the PUD. Mr. Hoover responded that they are supportive of this.
Member Sass asked if convention and conference center have a size minimum. Having a conference center as a
Type 1 seems little, is this a hotel and conference center? Vice Chair Shepard asked if the applicant team would be
willing to remove from the PUD. Planning Manager Everette responded that convention and conference center is a
type of use that is being discussed in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. There is strong desire from Visit Fort Collins
and others for that type of amenity to be located somewhere within the East Mulberry corridor. Nothing specific has
been determined at this time but might be worth considering when thinking of how to handle this use in the PUD.
Mr. Hoover responded that Type 2 is ok with them.
Vice Chair Shepard requested that the PUD document and statements and design parameters reference City Plan
policies LIV 3.5 and LIC 3.6.
Member Sass asked where wireless equipment falls under. Planning Manager Everette responded that wireless
telecommunication facilities that are rooftop mounted are a land use that has a specified review process. Typically,
in the zone districts here, the roof top mounted equipment goes through a BDR process, they would be Type 1 or
Type 2 depending on the zone district. Yes, where it is a Type 2 use, the Commission would have purview. Mr.
Hoover responded that they are not looking to change anything, the process will be followed.
Member Katz wanted to know if an agreement had been made about buildings over 20,000 sf in the LMN. Member
Hansen respond that there is nothing to do in District 1.
Member Katz asked if everyone was comfortable with Type 1 for a grocer. There was agreement.
Member Katz asked Attorney Yatabe if the 13 bullet points needed to be different conditions. Attorney Yatabe
responded that they do need to be conditions placed within the motion. They will need to be listed or articulated
what they are. If you are denying any of the requests and those denials are based on that particular request, not
meeting the land use code standard for the PUD, that you need to articulate why you are denying it. Member Katz
commented that they are more like amending the review levels and not conditions.
Member Katz addressed the applicant:
These are the proposed amendments to the PUD ODP21002 addressed to the applicant:
Do you agree that the accessory dwelling units must be 50% less than the primary but not to exceed 1,000
sf? Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
Do you agree that in zone Districts 2, multi-family units, 12 units or larger will be a Type 2 review? Mr.
Hoover responded that this is not how he understood it. His understanding was that if it was above 5-
stories it would go to Type 2. Member Katz explained that it was because of the variation in the architecture
design. Mr. Hoover responded that he would love for the affordable unit not to be included in this. He
responded, yes, they agree to this.
Adding a Type 2 neighborhood center to the metric in District 2 would also be a Type 2 review. Mr. Hoover
responded, yes. DRAFTPacket pg. 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 11 of 12
Do you agree that any 5-story multi-family buildings will have 5th story step back, not north of International
and active ground floor street facing entries? Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
Do you agree that all 5-story buildings shall remain south of International? Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
If you are going to add large retail establishments to the table for District 3 and review Type 2. Mr. Hoover
responded, yes.
For large retail establishments D1C you strike prefinished metal panel for primary material? Mr. Hover
responded, yes.
In the commercial districts 4 and 5, do you agree that the following are all Type 2 review: entertainment
facilities and theaters, unlimited indoor and outdoor recreation, grocer, enclosed mini storage, drive in fast
food, vehicle minor repair service and maintenance with no outdoor storage, supermarket, and conference
center? Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
Do you agree that when there is variation among repeated buildings which occurs twice, LMN zone district
under 4.5 E(4)(C) and in general standard 3.8.30F(2) that the word “significantly” will be added in front of
the word modify? Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
Member Sass brought up a point on places of worship “all” being a Type 1, is this ok? Mr. Hoover
responded that they are ok reverting to land use code on this. Less than 20, 000 sf is Type 1, over 25,000 sf
is type 2.
Documentation should include references to City Plan Policy LIV3.5 Distinctive Community and LIV3.6
Contact Sensitive Design. Mr. Hoover responded, yes.
Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Mulberry
and Greenfield Planned Unit Development, PUD Mater Plan ODP210002 with the following conditions: That
prior to the recording of the PUD Master Plan that applicable uses, densities, and development standards
be formatted and organized by districts. All amendments that were previously stated to and agreed upon
by the applicant on record, regarding the PUD overlay use, densities, and developments standards to
finalize the formatting and organizations of these standards by district as part of the recorded documents.
The Commission finds in consideration, the conditions of the PUD Master Plan, requested additional uses,
and levels of review and modifications of densities, uses, developments standards, and underlying zone
districts complies with all applicable land use code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda
materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the
Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis,
findings of facts and conclusions regarding the Planned Unit Development contained in the staff report
including the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Vice Chair Shepard commented that
this is a significant project for east Fort Collins, thank you. Member Katz thanked the applicant team for the
consideration in the housing plan and the comprehensive plan. Member Sass thanked the applicant team for their
flexibility. Member Hansen appreciates the work put into this plan, the work with Habitat for Humanity. Member
Hogestad is confident with the outcome of the design and is looking forward to seeing what this project does for the
Mulberry corridor. Chair Haefele likes the smaller house. This was worth taking the time to do it right. Vote: 5:0.
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Other Business
Vice Chair Shepard honored Member Hansen for his 8 years of service. Member Katz thanked Member Hansen for
being a mentor. Member Hansen thanked everyone.
Adjournment DRAFTPacket pg. 15
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 16, 2021
Page 12 of 12
Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 12:53 am.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: ____________.
Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair
DRAFTPacket pg. 16
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: February 17, 2022
ODP210004, Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan
Summary of Request
This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a mixed-use
development on approximately 31.3 acres in the Harmony Corridor
(H-C) zone district. The ODP proposes modifications of standards to
Section 4.26(D)(2) concerning the proportion of primary and
secondary uses and Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) concerning residential
building heights, as well as a request for Alternative Compliance to
Section 3.6.3 regarding street pattern and connectivity standards.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
If approved by the decision maker, future Project Development Plans
(PDPs) can be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the
Overall Development Plan for this property.
Site Location
The Ziegler – Corbett ODP is located between
Ziegler Road and Corbett Drive, north of Front
Range Village, or approximately 1,800 feet
northwest of the Harmony Road and Ziegler
Road intersection (parcels 8732000002 &
8732000009).
Zoning
Harmony Corridor (H-C)
Property Owner
Fort Collins Land I and II LLC
PO Box 272699
Fort Collins, CO 80527
Applicant/Representative
Chris Beabout
Landmark Homes
6341 Fairgrounds Ave, Suite 100
Windsor, CO 80550
Staff
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction…………………………..2
2. Public Outreach………………………………4
3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards……………5
4. Article 2 – Applicable ODP Standards……13
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion……………….16
6. Recommendation…………………………...17
7. Attachments…………………………………17
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Modification of Standards to
Section 4.26(D)(2) and Section 4.26(D)(3)(a),
approval of the Alternative Compliance request
to Section 3.6.3 and approval of the Overall
Development Plan.
Packet pg. 17
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 2 of 17
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Overall Development Plan (ODP) proposes a 31-acre, mixed-use development located in the Harmony
Corridor (HC) zone district. Land-uses include a combination of 400 – 700 single family attached, multifamily,
and mixed-use dwelling units, a childcare center, and 50,000 square feet of office or community facility space.
The ODP prioritizes higher residential and mixed-use intensity along the Ziegler Road frontage and southern
property boundary and single-family attached and drainage/buffer areas along the north and northwestern
edges of the site, adjacent to existing single family detached units.
The ODP access and transportation network envisions two primary corridors for movement; one corridor
oriented east-west connecting the primary site access from Zeigler Road on the east and Corbett Drive on the
west. A second north-south corridor would serve the site internally as well as provide opportunities for
connections to both the north and south of the site pending future development or redevelopment of adjacent
properties. An alternative compliance request proposing a bike/pedestrian-only connection to the north has
been submitted as part of this ODP.
While all of the land uses proposed within the ODP are permitted in the HC zone district, a modification of
standard to Section 4.26(D)(2) regarding the proportion of primary and secondary uses has been submitted,
requesting a reduction in the amount of primary uses (e.g. office or light industrial space) that would be
provided in relation to the amount of secondary uses (residential dwellings). Separately, a modification of
standard related to the maximum height for residential buildings is proposed, requesting up to 4-stories for
portions of the ODP site.
B. DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
The 31-acre ODP site is currently undeveloped and was annexed into the City as part of the Spring Creek
Farms 4th Annexation in 1994. Adjacent development includes the Front Range Village shopping center to the
south, The English Ranch residential subdivision to the north, Affinity Fort Collins, a senior apartment
building, to the west, and the Broadcom/HP Campus to the east across Ziegler Road.
The ODP property is located within the HC zone district, designed to implement the policies and goals of the
Harmony Corridor Plan. Since adoption of the Harmony Corridor Plan, the site has been included under the
‘Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center’ designation, requiring a ratio of at least 75%
primary and up to 25% secondary uses for the site.
In 1996, a previous ODP (Symbios Logic ODP) was approved for large portions of the site and areas further
south. This original ODP indicated secondary uses such as hotels, retail, and residential land uses for the
property, while areas further south would be reserved for primary uses such as office, light industrial or
research uses. In the early 2000s, City Council amended the Harmony Corridor Plan and updated the
designation for the property to the south to allow for a regional shopping center (Front Range Village).
Portions of the Ziegler-Corbett ODP site are impacted by or relate to the development of Front Range Village,
including a berm easement along the southern property boundary of the ODP, as well as incorporating
drainage and stormwater improvements along the Ziegler Road frontage that will serve the ODP site, Front
Range Village and properties to the west within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin.
Packet pg. 18
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 3 of 17
Back to Top
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North South East West
Zoning The English Ranch
Neighborhood (LMN)
Front Range Village
Regional Shopping
Center (HC)
Woodland Park Estates
(RL) and Broadcom/HP
Campus (HC)
Front Range Village
Regional Shopping
Center (HC) and Affinity
Fort Collins Apartments
(HC)
Land Use Single family
detached units
Retail Single family attached
& detached units; office
campus
Retail; multifamily
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
The ODP property represents one of the few remaining large parcels for Harmony Corridor development. The
Harmony Corridor Plan envisions a mixed-use, employment-focused corridor that generally supports more
intensive development while compatibly transitioning to adjacent residential zoning. The land use and
transportation connectivity for surrounding properties have changed dramatically from what was outlined
originally in the Harmony Corridor Plan and Master Street Plan for this area. These changes play a significant
role in several requested modifications of standards for the project.
Surrounding the site are a number of amenities. Within the nearby Harmony Corridor are many jobs and
employers, and Front Range Village immediately south provides a mix of neighborhood and regional
shopping destinations. Both Ziegler and Harmony Roads are envisioned for additional transit enhancements
in the future. Given these opportunities, many City policies and goals align with the Harmony Corridor Plan’s
characterization that the zone district is suitable for more intensive development. At the same time, the ODP
property abuts existing single-family residential development to the north. A significant portion of this project
review has revolved around balancing the efficient use of the property for intensive development and creating
a framework to compatibly transition to existing nearby residential zoning.
Based on community and neighborhood input, the primary consideration for the project has been the possible
vehicular connection between the ODP site and The English Ranch neighborhood to the north, which would
have the effect of connecting the neighborhood to the Front Range Village shopping center. When Front
Range Village was originally developed, concerns over a vehicle connection with the neighborhood eventually
led City Council to remove a collector-street connection from the Master Street Plan between the
neighborhood and the shopping center. Requirements for a local street connection that mimics the previous
collector street alignment have been questioned by many neighbors who believe the issue was resolved in
2010 when Council amended the Master Street Plan.
D. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES:
The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was developed with the participation of thousands of
community members and embodies the vision and values of the community for the future. A basic aspect of
the vision pertinent to the proposal is the unique character and sense of place in Fort Collins.
The City Plan’s Structure Plan Map includes place types—or land use categories—which provide a framework
for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. These place types provide a policy structure that can apply to several
specific zone districts within each place type by outlining a range of desired characteristics.
The subject property is consistent with the “Mixed-Employment District” place type, which applies to this
property and is typically the overlying land use designation for the Harmony Corridor and Employment zone
districts, and those areas with existing or potential for more intensive development with an employment focus.
Packet pg. 19
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 4 of 17
Back to Top
City Plan states that the Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool; rather, it should be
considered in conjunction with the accompanying principles, goals and policies contained in City Plan as a
tool to guide future growth and development. Key principles and policies relevant to the project include the
following:
OUTCOME AREA “LIV” -- NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH – Managing Growth:
These principles help the City to manage growth by encouraging infill and redevelopment, ensuring this
development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area.
PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment:
POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES. Support the use of creative
strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings, including, but
not limited to: Infill of existing surface parking lots—particularly in areas that are currently, or will be,
served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future.
PRINCIPLE LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community
grows:
POLICY LIV 3.1 - PUBLIC AMENITIES. Design streets and other public spaces with the comfort and
enjoyment of pedestrians in mind …such as plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas,
sidewalks, pathways…
POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that all development contributes to
the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range,
building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area.
PRINCIPLE LIV 4 – Enhance neighborhood livability:
POLICY LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that development that
occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods.
Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should
promote compatibility by: Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services
and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features
(e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing
neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized.
Principle LIV 5 – Create more opportunities for housing choices.
POLICY LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Use density requirements to maximize
the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing
choice.
2. Public Outreach
Two virtual neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the project on September 9, 2021 and February 2, 2022.
A video of the September 8, 2021 meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRu3oU_Ba5M,
and a video of the February 2nd, 2022 meeting can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/a3N3ZpMljJIv.
Summaries of both neighborhood meetings are attached to this report.
Main Topics discussed at the meetings included:
1. Concerns about a vehicular connection north to Paddington Road and additional neighborhood traffic
from vehicles accessing Front Range Village;
Packet pg. 20
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 5 of 17
Back to Top
2. Concerns about existing and increased congestion as a result of the project and nearby proposals at
Horsetooth and Ziegler roads; increased traffic would exacerbate issues making left hand turns on to
Ziegler Road;
3. Concerns about density, compatibility, and height of the proposal.
3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards
A. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review – CDR210051
A conceptual review meeting was held on July 8, 2021.
2. First Submittal – ODP210004
The Overall Development Plan was submitted on October 8, 2021.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
Pursuant to LUC Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for
ODP projects. Two virtual neighborhood meetings were held on September 8, 2021 and February 2,
2022.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice: August 25, 2021, Sign #703.
Written Hearing Notice: February 3, 2022, 845 addresses mailed.
Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Scheduled for February 6, 2022
B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
The applicant requests two modifications of standards. These modifications address:
o 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses
o 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards (Residential Building Height)
The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support
the implementation of City Plan, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances would not meet a specific
standard of the Land Use Code as stated. Accordingly, code standards include provisions for modifications.
The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of these
instances on a case-by-case basis, as follows:
Packet pg. 21
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 6 of 17
Back to Top
Land Use Code Modification Criteria:
“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the
modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a
modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the
intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described
problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the
proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly
defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of
the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible;
or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to
such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy
system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by
this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings
showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3)
or (4).
1. Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses.
The standard:
“Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger
employment-based development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to
administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in subsection 4.26(B).
The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall
occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.”
(a) Community facilities.
(b) Public facilities.
(c) Child care centers.
(d) Print shops.
(e) Food catering.
(f) Workshops and custom small industry uses.
(g) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are stacked
above a primary use which occupies the ground floor).
(h) Lodging establishments.
(i) Convenience shopping centers.
(j) Standard restaurants.
(k) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(l) Clubs and lodges.
Packet pg. 22
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 7 of 17
Back to Top
(m) Health and membership clubs.
(n) Convention and conference centers.
(o) Places of worship or assembly.
(p) Limited indoor recreation establishments.
(q) Unlimited indoor recreation use and facility.
(r) Food truck rally.
(s) Microbrewery/distillery/winery.
(t) Seasonal overflow shelters.
Overview
This modification is being requested because the ODP proposes a mix of secondary land uses (residential
dwellings, childcare center and community facilities) in excess of 25% of the total gross area of the ODP site.
The Harmony Corridor Plan and HC zone district envision an employment-focused corridor and seek to
maximize employment-generating land uses, such as office or light industrial, in areas of the corridor
designated as ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Activity Centers.’ The ODP site is located within such an area in
the Harmony Corridor Plan.
The applicant is requesting 100% secondary uses for the site, although 50,000 square feet of primary use is
proposed on Parcels D & E. Primary uses in the Harmony Corridor can be measured by gross area of the
development site or on a square footage basis. By gross area, Parcels D and E represent 17% of the ODP
land area.
When compared with other lower-intensity primary uses in the Harmony Corridor by square footage, such as
non-campus professional and medical office, many of these developments range in intensity between 2,500 –
7,500 square feet of primary use per gross acre. Using the midpoint of this range, the proposed 50,000
square feet represents approximately a 10-acre equivalent of primary uses, or 33% of the ODP land uses.
Primary Use Evaluation Summary
LUC Requirement Modification Request Proposed
(Gross Land Area)
Proposed
(Square Footage)
75% primary uses 0% primary uses 17%
(5.3 acres of 31.3 acre
ODP site)
50,000 square feet
(Equivalent office
intensity to 10 acres of
primary employment land,
or approximately 33% of
ODP land area)
Ultimately, staff is evaluating the applicant’s proposal for 100% secondary uses even though primary uses are
being offered, as the applicants are seeking flexibility within the ODP approval process to allow other public-
benefit oriented land uses on Parcels D and E: either a childcare center or community facility. If a community
facility is proposed in a subsequent Project Development Plan, this would likely result in a reduction in the
amount of primary office uses being provided.
Summary of Applicant Justification
The applicant’s modification request is attached. It provides a summary of unique site characteristics, which
impact the ability of the site to host large-scale employment land uses as envisioned in the Harmony Corridor
Plan. The ODP is requesting no limit on the amount of secondary uses provided but is proposing to include
50,000 square feet of office, a primary use, which the applicants contend is more proportionate to the unique
challenges and opportunities for primary uses at this location.
In addition, the applicants propose a series of improvements and amenities that would address important
community needs and provide community benefits related to sustainability and energy use, access to
Packet pg. 23
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 8 of 17
Back to Top
childcare, and on site park/gathering space. Specifically, the ODP proposes rooftop solar for residential units
and buildings, designing and certifying townhome and condominiums buildings to LEED gold criteria, and
providing enhanced park and gathering space exceeding HC zone district standards.
For the above reasons, the applicant contends that without impairing the intent of the Land Use Code, site
conditions result in unusual practical difficulties and hardship in meeting the 75% primary use ratio for the site
and that the additional amenities proposed would result in a substantial benefit to the city by substantially
addressing an important community need described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy.
Staff Findings
Staff finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the
request satisfies criteria (2), and (3) in subsection 2.8.2(H):
A. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(2), because the project commits to substantially address several
important community priorities and provide community benefits that exceed development and
building/energy code standards.
• The ODP commits to providing a childcare center as one of the project’s land-uses. In both
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan, access to childcare is prioritized as an
equity measure, for early childhood learning, and as an economic tool for workforce and
business retention. “Affordable, Quality and Accessible Childcare Infrastructure” was also
adopted as a 2021-2023 City Council priority. Note 12 on the ODP map references the
commitment to provide a childcare as part of the ODP development.
Relevant policies/goals from City Plan:
Policy EH 3.1 – Business Programs
Work with the local business community to ensure that economic health strategies and plans
are identified to improve the local economy. Collectively identify programs and support efforts
that will help existing businesses and new-business creation. Analyze barriers to the retention
of businesses and employees, including access to affordable childcare and attainable
housing.
Policy HI 2.4 – Early Learning
Encourage equitable access to childcare, early learning opportunities and other programs
that help families prepare their children for school.
Relevant strategies from the 2020 Strategic Plan:
Economic Health Strategy 3.2
Understand trends in the local labor market and work with key partners to grow diverse
employment opportunities.
• Reduce identified barriers of workforce attraction and retention, including access and
affordability of quality housing and childcare.
• The ODP also commits to providing on-site solar energy generation and greater sustainability
through LEED gold certification for townhome and condominium units. City Plan and Our
Climate Future include adopted goals for the community to become carbon neutral by 2050,
in part through developing new distributed, renewable energy generation, improving energy
codes, and designing more efficient and sustainability buildings.
The ODP addresses these goals by providing on-site solar generation for residential units
and certifying townhome and condominium units to LEED gold standards, which requires
minimum energy performance for buildings that exceed the community’s building/energy
Packet pg. 24
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 9 of 17
Back to Top
code standards. Notes 16 and 17 on the ODP map detail requirements for solar generation
and LEED gold certification.
Relevant policies/goals from City Plan:
Policy ENV 3.1 – Renewable Electricity Supply and Integration
Encourage the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) to provide 100% renewable electricity
supply by 2030 and continue to integrate distributed energy resources while maintaining
affordability and reliability.
Policy ENV 3.2 – Efficient Buildings
Support continuous improvement in efficiency for existing and new buildings through
incentives, reporting requirements and energy codes.
Relevant policies/goals from Our Climate Future:
Big Move 12 - 100% Renewable Energy
Everyone in the community receives affordable and reliable 100% renewable electricity,
including from local sources.
The 100% renewable electricity big move means:
• Working with Platte River to increase utility scale renewable electricity sources;
• Continuing to expand the capacity of local solar and battery storage, and
• Deploying new capabilities and strategies to support variable renewable energy
resources with responsive homes, businesses, and electric vehicles.
B. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(3), because of the unique site location attributes related to visibility,
commercial accessibility, and proximity to the Harmony Road frontage. These location characteristics
present practical difficulties in fully achieving a 75% primary use mix for the entire ODP site as
prescribed by the Harmony Corridor Plan and HC district standards.
• The Harmony Corridor Plan, “establishes the corridor as a preferred location for intense
urban activity including a mix of residential, industrial, commercial and recreational uses.”
While encouraging a broad mix of uses, primary employment for offices, research labs, and
light industrial is emphasized through requirements for 75% primary uses in the ‘Basic
Industrial Non-Retail Activity Centers,’ which compromise a large plurality of land in the
corridor.
Separately, the Plan states “the focus of most development activity, especially commercial,
should be at the major street intersections. The intensity of land use should decease as
distance from Harmony Road increases and as the distance from the major intersections
increases.” This pattern of development is frequently observed throughout the corridor, where
the majority of primary uses front Harmony Road and secondary uses, especially residential,
are located furthest from the highway corridor. This was also the original land vision for the
larger vicinity as originally approved in the Symbios Logic ODP from the mid-1990s which
included primary uses along the Harmony Road frontage and secondary uses further to the
north on what is now the proposed ODP site.
The land south of the ODP site hosts Front Range Village, a large shopping center consisting
predominantly of secondary uses. The Front Range Village property was originally
designated as a ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Activity Center’ in the Harmony Corridor Plan;
however, its designation was changed by City Council in the early 2000s to permit
construction of a regional shopping center.
Packet pg. 25
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 10 of 17
Back to Top
While the original Harmony Corridor Plan envisioned a large, contiguous area of primarily
employment land northeast of Harmony and Ziegler Roads, through subsequent policy
changes, the area has developed predominantly as secondary uses. The only remaining land
for primary uses is within the ODP property. Primary employment uses on this site would
represent a departure from the traditional pattern of development and would instead see
commercial/industrial primary uses abutting adjacent residential zoning, rather than fronting
on Harmony Road.
• The location of the ODP property further from Harmony Road frontage also impacts the
viability of the site for primary uses due to limited visibility and commercial accessibility. The
ODP site features HC-zoned land that is located furthest from Harmony Road than all other
HC zoned lane in the corridor.
With the exception of an assisted living facility (a primary use) and an industrial-flex
development in the Harmony Technology Park, all other HC and non-HC zoned land at
similar distances from the Harmony Corridor frontage are secondary uses.
As the last remaining vacant land in the vicinity, the site’s access is largely dictated by the
existing transportation network and pattern of development. A fully signalized intersection to
the site that could offer large commercial vehicles protected movements is not planned, given
the site’s proximity to an existing signal to the south at Council Tree Avenue and a potential
future signal at Paddington Road, a collector street to the north.
Secondary access is proposed off Corbett Drive to the west; however, the route is less direct
for commercial vehicles as it travels through the Front Range Village’s roundabout and a
narrower ‘main street’ cross section when accessing Ziegler Road.
Packet pg. 26
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 11 of 17
Back to Top
During the 2019 update to City Plan, a study was commissioned to review the remaining
inventory of employment and industrial lands in the community and important factors to the
success of employment and industrial development (Attachment 10). Visibility and
highway/major arterial access was identified as one of the most important site attributes for
these types of land uses These characteristics are marginal for the ODP property in
comparison to other HC-zoned sites featuring primary uses.
• The same employment and industrial land study also determined the community likely has an
excess of employment lands and, “the buildable employment lands the City greatly exceeds
the demand for new employment lands by 2040…. The excess capacity would suggest that
the City could be more flexible with use of employment lands in some areas.” (City Plan
Employment Land Demand Analysis, Attachment 8, Page 37).
One area identified for potential flexibility by the study were portions of the Harmony Corridor.
“Certain remaining parcels along Harmony Road that are further from Harmony Road and
behind larger commercial and employment uses could be considered for designation as
residential uses. Specifically, the City should strive for higher density residential uses in these
areas given their proximity to employment and potential enhanced transit routes” (City Plan
Employment Land Demand Analysis, Attachment 8, Page 48).
Given the site’s relative lack of visibility and commercial vehicle accessibility, as well as the
community excess inventory of employment land, a reduction in the amount of primary space
within the ODP site does not represent a detriment to the public good nor compromise the
community’s or Harmony Corridor Plan’s overall employment goals.
2. Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards.
The standard:
“Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including those containing mixed-use dwelling units, shall be
six (6) stories. Maximum height for residential buildings shall be three (3) stories.”
Overview
This modification is being requested because the ODP includes proposed building heights and indicates a full
fourth floor for residential-only buildings on Parcel ‘C’ of the ODP map and partial fourth story for residential-
only buildings on Parcel ‘B’ of the ODP map.
Summary of Applicant Justification
The applicant’s modification request is attached. It provides a summary of policies and additional
amenities/benefits addressed by the overall project in support of the modification, including providing a
childcare center as part of the development and exceeding the park/gathering space requirements of the HC
zone district by providing a 1.5-acre park. The justification request also contends unique physical constraints
of the site as the ODP property must contain oversized drainage and stormwater facilities to handle drainage
from portions of Front Range Village and underdeveloped infrastructure from properties further to the west.
This results in less land available to host a similar number of residential units that could be accommodated
while meeting the residential building height standards.
Staff Findings
Staff finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the
request satisfies criteria (1) in subsection 2.8.2(H):
A. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(1), because the project promotes the purpose of the standard in an
equal or better way. Across the entire ODP site, building heights average three stories, and building
Packet pg. 27
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 12 of 17
Back to Top
heights are minimized closest to existing single-family development while taller structures are
proposed near commercial or buffer areas where compatibility, intensity, and privacy impacts can be
minimized. This intensity framework helps achieve land use and policy guidance for the corridor to
maximize intensity given nearby amenities while compatibly transitioning to adjacent development
and residential zoning.
• Both the Harmony Corridor Plan and the site’s ‘Mixed Employment District’ designation on
the Structure Plan encourage a more intensive development pattern. The ODP site is well
positioned to advance many community goals for access to jobs and transportation, and
future users are well-served by the regional and neighborhood amenities at Front Range
Village. The HC district is one of the few zones that discourages single-family only residential
development, requires a minimum residential density, and supports one of tallest building
heights in the community for primary uses.
While more intensive development is generally encouraged, the Harmony Corridor Plan also
calls for intensities to decrease as the distance from Harmony Road and major intersections
increase, and the HC district includes standards to minimize abrupt scale/height changes
adjacent to existing residential development. Since most commercial development is
encouraged along the Harmony Road frontage and residential uses are more likely along
district edges, the three-story building height promotes a general tapering of intensity and
height to enhance compatibility with development in adjacent zone districts.
The ODP continues to meet the purpose of the HC zone district by minimizing height and
scale impacts adjacent to the nearest existing residential development and focuses fourth-
floor buildings towards the portions of the site where large buffer/detention areas and
adjacent commercial development minimizes the impacts of additional height and intensity.
Specifically:
Parcel ‘C,’ located on the southern portion of the ODP proposes a full fourth floor for
residential buildings. Height and compatibility concerns are minimized as adjacent
development includes a berm easement, stormwater drainage, and retail loading
docks to the south, retail parking and loading docks to the west, and internal ODP
phases to the north and east. Note 16 on the ODP map drawing further specifies a
10-ft step back requirement for at least two sides of the fourth floor.
Parcel ‘B,’ located along the northern edge of the ODP proposes a recessed fourth
floor for ‘loft’ units and rooftop amenity/patio space. Note 15 on the ODP map
drawing requires fourth floor living spaces to be step backed from the floor below a
minimum of 10-ft on all sides of the building and the floor area of the fourth floor shall
be limited to two-thirds the floor area of the floor below.
Adjacency of existing development to the north of Parcel B consists of undeveloped
land that is identified for future multifamily on the English Ranch ODP or existing
stormwater and drainage areas. The drainage area buffer ranges in size from
approximately 170 to 260 feet between Parcel ‘B’ and the nearest single-family
residential property. Alongside the proposed design parameters, this larger buffer
helps further mitigate potential impacts of a fourth-story in comparison to other three-
story multifamily buildings found in the Harmony Corridor in closer proximity to single-
family detached development.
Parcel ‘A,’ represents the area of the ODP that is closest to existing residential
development. While other portions of the ODP seek a modification to allow a fourth
floor, this portion of the development specifies 2-3 story building heights and lower
intensity townhome/condominium development. In addition to the lower building
heights, a large drainage and buffer area is proposed between the existing single-
Packet pg. 28
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 13 of 17
Back to Top
family detached homes located to the north and the senior apartments located to the
west.
4. Land Use Code Article 2 – ODP Standards
Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies seven criteria for reviewing the ODP, which are summarized as
follows:
1) Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards
This standard requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards
and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an ODP
submittal.
The ODP proposes a phased, mixed-use development consisting of multiple residential land uses (single-family
attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings) as well as a childcare center, community facility, and office uses.
All proposed land-uses are permitted within the HC zone district.
Additionally, the HC zone district prescribes a minimum of 75% primary employment uses and a maximum of 25%
secondary uses. The ODP is proposing a ratio of secondary uses exceeding the 25% secondary use maximum. A
modification of standard has been requested and is reviewed in the modifications section of this report.
2) Section 2.3.2(H)(2) – Density
This standard requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of
residential land uses.
For residential developments, the HC district requires an overall minimum average density of seven dwelling units
per net acre. The ODP proposes between 400 – 700 residential units, complying with the standard and
representing an average gross density of approximately 12.7 – 22.4 units per acre.
3) Section 2.3.2(H)(3) and 2.3.2(H)(4) – Master Street Plan, Street Pattern, Connectivity, Transportation
Connections to Adjoining Properties
These standards require the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan, Street Pattern and Connectivity
standards, and also to conform with Transportation Level of Service requirements. There are no issues with ODP
compliance related to these standards with the exception of 3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple
Arterial Streets and 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels. An alternative compliance request has been submitted for the project
and is discussed below.
The ODP takes access from a collector and arterial streets and is being developed within an existing
transportation network, meeting spacing requirements for full access local and collector street intersections. The
City’s Engineering and Traffic Operations staff have also reviewed the projects Traffic Impact Study for
compliance with Level of Service requirements
Street Connectivity Standards 3.6.3(E),(F):
The ODP is required to provide for street connectivity within the same section mile, achieving access to a
minimum of three arterial streets as well as continuing or creating sub-arterial connections to adjacent
development, spaced at intervals not to exceed 660-feet.
Packet pg. 29
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 14 of 17
Back to Top
3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets.
“All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the
proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as
the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within
the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural
area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each
development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial
streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or
feature.”
3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments
and Developable Parcels.
“All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the
development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans
shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street
connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary
that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.”
From a transportation perspective, the site represents an infill condition, as all surrounding properties have
already been developed and a system of local and collector streets are already in place. The ODP proposes a
new east-west local street bisecting the property, intersecting with Ziegler Road on the east and Corbett Drive on
the west. Both connections will be full movement intersections.
The length of the southern and northern boundaries of the ODP trigger requirements for additional sub-arterial
connections to adjacent properties. The ODP identifies a primary north-south street through the middle of the
property for internal circulation and a potential future connection to the south. A sub-arterial stub is planned along
the southern boundary that could connect further south if future redevelopment occurs at Front Range Village. A
large drainage area on the Front Range Village property currently prevents an immediate connection. Access to
the north and The English Ranch neighborhood is proposed for bike and pedestrian access only, and the lack of a
vehicular connection is the principal factor for the proposed alternative compliance request.
In the early 1990s, two ODPs were approved for the land located north and east of Harmony Road and Ziegler
Road (Symbios Logic ODP and The English Ranch ODP). Pursuant to the Master Street Plan at the time, Corbett
Drive was proposed to connect from Harmony Road on the south, travel north and with two 90-degree turns, and
connect to Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood. Both ODPs anticipated and planned for this
future collector street connection.
In the early 2000s, City Council approved an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow for the
construction of a new regional shopping center (Front Range Village). This Harmony Corridor policy change
represented a large shift in the anticipated land uses in the vicinity, and during the project review for Front Range
Village, neighbors within The English Ranch expressed concerns about a future street connection that would
generate excess cut-through traffic through the neighborhood above and beyond what would have been
anticipated had the Front Range Village property remained as a business or light industrial area.
In 2011 during updates to City Plan and the Master Street Plan, neighbors in English Ranch successfully
petitioned staff and City Council to amend the Master Street Plan to remove the Corbett Drive connection to
Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood. During a work session review of the proposed change,
staff identified that nearby arterial streets would be able to accommodate any increased traffic due to the loss of
the connection, however, there were tradeoffs for vehicular connectivity between the neighborhood and services
to the south and vice versa to neighborhood amenities to the north (English Ranch Park, Linton Elementary
school).
The Master Street Plan only identifies collector and arterial street connections, and while the Corbett Drive
connection was removed from the map, Land Use Code requirements still require a local street connection to the
Packet pg. 30
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 15 of 17
Back to Top
north. Engineering and Traffic Operations staff have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed ODP,
which analyzed scenarios with and without a vehicular connection to Paddington Road. Similar to the 2011 staff
findings, nearby arterial streets are able to accommodate additional trips that result from the lack of a local street
connection between the ODP property and Paddington Road. Tradeoffs remain that while any detour of vehicular
trips are small in distance, it will require travel onto an arterial street, which many neighbors have expressed can
be difficult when attempting left-turning movements during busy traffic periods.
Alternative Compliance:
Review Criteria for Alternative Compliance: To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that
the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan
and design which complies with the standards of this section, and that any reduction in access and circulation for
vehicles maintains facilities for bicycles, pedestrians and transit, to the maximum extent feasible.
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative
design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters non-vehicular access, provides for
distribution of the development’s traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood
continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood
centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the
development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile.
The applicant’s alternative compliance request is attached. Staff recommends approval of alternative compliance,
which recognizes the unique history and constraints of land use and transportation policy affecting nearby
properties, the enhanced nature of existing and proposed bike/pedestrian connections that can be made, and the
limited impact to nearby arterial streets that would result from the lack of a vehicular connection.
This recommendation is based on the following findings:
1) The lack of a local street connection and vehicular access does not result in any reduction to access or
circulation for bicycles, pedestrians, or transit. The ODP property and adjoining north/south developments
share three existing or proposed bike/ped connections along their shared boundaries.
2) The primary amenities to the north of the ODP property include English Ranch Park and Linton
Elementary School. Both sites are located approximately half a mile (walking distance) from the center of
the ODP property. City policies and goals encourage non-vehicular trips at this distance. Poudre School
District bussing eligibility is typically not available within one-mile of an elementary school and no impact
is anticipated to bus routes.
3) The land-uses and proposed amenities within the ODP partially mitigate the loss of vehicular access to
the nearby park and school. The ODP commits to providing a 1.5-acre park/gathering space for the
development, greatly exceeding HC zone district standards. The residential component of the ODP
features attached and multifamily residential units. According to a 2015 National Association of
Homebuilders study of US Census Data, on average, new multifamily units feature approximately one
third the number of children versus single family detached development (21.9 versus 61.5 per 100 units).
4) A local street connection to Paddington Road would mean vehicles could travel to Corbett Drive through
the ODP street network in nearly an identical alignment to what was previously illustrated on the Master
Street Plan. The removal of a vehicular connection is being requested by many neighbors within English
Ranch to reduce cut-through traffic to Front Range Village and reduce the amount of traffic within the
neighborhood that they feel detracts from bike/pedestrian safety. The lack of a vehicular connection
maintains the intent of the previous policy decision by City Council to remove the Corbett connection from
the Master Street Plan.
5) The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would
a plan and design which complies with the standards of this section because the overall neighborhood
including and surrounding the ODP is well served by a network of local, collector and arterial streets, has
Packet pg. 31
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 16 of 17
Back to Top
multiple bike and pedestrian access points, and the impact to local vehicular travel distances within the
section mile are minimized due to the spacing and intersection of existing local and collector streets, or
mitigated by the demands for local trips by the ODP land uses and its on-site amenities.
4) Section 2.3.2(H)(5) – Natural Features
This standard requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features
within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E)
The ODP does not contain any identified natural areas, habitats of features as identified on the City’s Natural
Habitats and Features inventory map and no natural habitat buffer zones are required within the ODP boundary.
5) Section 2.3.2(H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan
This standard requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan.
The ODP is located within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. A drainage report has been reviewed by stormwater
staff and there are no drainage issues associated with the ODP. The ODP map indicates the approximate location
and sizing of future detention areas. Future project reviews within the ODP boundary will comply with the City’s
stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards.
6) Section 2.3.2(H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses
This section requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire
ODP and not on each individual PDP.
Within the HC zone district, a mix of housing types is required for projects proposing residential dwellings. For
projects greater than 30 acres in size, a minimum of three housing types are required.
The ODP proposes a minimum of three housing types, complying with this standard. Housing types shall include
single-family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings. Additional housing types may be provided when
individual PDPs are reviewed as multifamily buildings with varying unit numbers per building are identified as
different housing types in the HC district, however, this level of detail for future PDP phases is not yet known.
In addition to these recognized housing types in the HC district, 12 live-work units are proposed that will feature
street-oriented commercial storefronts.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the Ziegler - Corbett Overall Development Plan, ODP210004, Staff makes the
following findings of fact:
1. The Overall Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of
Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
2. The Overall Development Plan’s proposed alternative street connectivity accomplishes the purposes of
Section 3.6.3 equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this
section because the overall neighborhood including and surrounding the ODP is well served by a network
of local, collector and arterial streets, the plan continues to enhance the connectivity for bicycle, pedestrian
and transit by providing for connectivity through the site, and the proposed on-site amenities and land uses
minimize and mitigate the generation of vehicular trips to the north.
3. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets
criteria 2.8.2(H)(2) because the ODP plan provides a substantial benefit to the community by addressing
Packet pg. 32
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2
ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP
Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 17 of 17
Back to Top
important community needs including access to childcare and advancing climate action and sustainability
goals by providing on-site solar generation capacity and certifying a portion of residential units to LEED
gold standards;
The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets
criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) because the ODP property has unusual and practical difficulties achieving 75% primary
uses due to its visibility, location, and prior policy changes which have altered the land use vision for
adjacent properties. The ODP property is substantially setback from Harmony Road and major street
intersections, reducing its visibility and accessibility for large-scale primary uses.
4. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards is not detrimental to the public good and
meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well
because the overall ODP site meets the purpose and intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan to compatibly
transition from more intensive development to adjacent residential neighborhoods. This is achieved by an
ODP average residential building height of 3-stories and locating those buildings with taller building heights
and intensity adjacent to commercial land uses or large buffer/detention areas;
5. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards is not detrimental to the public good and
meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(2) because the ODP plan provides a substantial benefit to the community by
addressing important community needs including access to childcare and advancing climate action and
sustainability goals by providing on-site solar generation capacity and certifying a portion of residential
units to LEED gold standards;
6. The ODP complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7).
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the two Modifications of
Standard to Land Use Code sections 4.26(D)(2) and 4.26(D)(3)(a); and approve the Ziegler – Corbett Overall
Development Plan, ODP210004 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff
report and hearing materials.
7. Attachments
1. Location & Zoning Map
2. Planning Objectives Narrative
3. Overall Development Plan
4. Overall Drainage Plan
5. Alternative Compliance Request Section 3.6.3
6. Modification Request Section 4.26(D)(2)
7. Modification Request Section 4.26(D)(3)(a)
8. City Plan Employment Land Demand Analysis
9. September 2021 Neighborhood Meeting Summary
10. February 2022 Neighborhood Meeting Summary
11. Public Comments
12. Staff presentation
13. Applicant Presentation
8. Links
The documents available at the following links provide additional information regarding the development proposal
under review and are incorporated by reference into the hearing record for this item:
Overall Drainage Report
Overall Traffic Study
Packet pg. 33
Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
Planning & Development Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 16, 2022
To: Chair Haefele and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Re: Read Before Memo: Item #2, Ziegler – Corbett Overall Development Plan
__________________________________________________________________
During the Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session on Friday, February 11th additional information,
and resources were requested by members of the Commission. The staff presentation has been updated
for the hearing to include these additional resources:
Clarification on the role and hierarchy of policy and guidance documents including City Plan,
Harmony Corridor Plan, and the Master Street Plan.
A large aerial of the street network along Ziegler between Harmony and Horsetooth Roads.
Criteria and indicators for signalization of intersections.
Traffic Operations staff will also be available to discuss and expand upon the modeled traffic scenarios
evaluating either a mid-point vehicular connection or bike/ped only connection to Paddington Road, as
well as the associated implications of each scenario concerning the potential signalization of the
Paddington and Ziegler intersection.
Revised ODP Notes for Residential Building Height
The project applicant has also revised notes 15 and 16 on the ODP map regarding design parameters for
the proposed 4th floor residential building heights. The revised notes now read:
Note #15: Parcel B – 4th stories shall be set back a minimum of 10-ft on all sides and the 4th story
floor area shall not exceed two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area of the floor below, not including open
balconies or rooftop patios.
Note #16: Parcel C – 4th stories of residential buildings shall be set back an average of 10-ft on
at least two sides from the floor below.
The staff presentation and Page 12 of the staff report has also been updated to reflect these changes.
notes.
Packet pg. 34
SITE
HC
HC
MH
RL UE
RL LMN
Harmony Rd Ziegler RdCorbett DrPaddington Rd
Front Range
Village Broadcom / HP
Harmony Village
MHP
The English
Ranch
1 inch = 500 feet ¯
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 35
Page 1
October 5, 2021
Ziegler – Corbett ODP
Statement of Planning Objectives
This proposal is for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal for the Ziegler-Corbett
property located west of Ziegler Road and South of Paddington Rd. The properties are
owned by FORT COLLINS LAND I LLC, FORT COLLINS LAND II LLC and PITCHFORK
HOLDINGS LTD and contains approximately 29 acres total. The property is located in the
Harmony-Corridor (HC) Zone District and will be subject to a Type 2 review with required
neighborhood meeting.
The property currently is undeveloped and will include primary and/or secondary uses as
allowed by the proposed Modifications and the Ft Collins Land Use Codes.
Property Owners within the ODP area:
Parcel Number: 8732000002
FORT COLLINS LAND I LLC
FORT COLLINS LAND II LLC
Parcel Number: 8732000009
FORT COLLINS LAND I LLC
PITCHFORK HOLDINGS LTD
Uses surrounding the property consist of the following:
South: Front Range Village – Commercial / Retail / Office
West: Affinity – Multi-Family
North: English Ranch Subdivision – Single Family
East: Avago Technologies – Corporate Campus
Vehicular access for the project will be from Ziegler Road via a new full movement
intersection that provides access into the neighborhood from the east and acess from
Corbett Dr. on the west. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity
utilizing sidewalks and open space.
The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as
required by the City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating
design elements from the surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal
lap siding, shingle siding and board and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition,
there will be brick and stone veneer accents. The roofs will consist of asphalt shingles and /
or standing seam metal.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 36
Page 2
(i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by
the proposed plan:
The Ziegler-Corbett ODP meets the following applicable City Plan Principles
and Policies:
Livability and Social Health
Principle LIV 2: Promote infill and Redevelopment
Policy LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or
otherwise underutilized structures and buildings.
Policy LIV 2.2 - PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR
INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT Ensure appropriate use of the City’s
public investments in infrastructure/improvements in the following
areas to achieve the City’s strategic goals:
Being underutilized, this project is an ideal infill project, and is within walking
distance to many destinations including other targeted ‘areas of activity’ as
described throughout the City Plan.
Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing
choices.
Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS
To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of
housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that
are well served by public transportation and close to employment
centers, shopping, services and amenities.
Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential
development to positively influence housing supply and expand
housing choice.
The project provides an opportunity for development of an existing vacant site
and the design of the buildings will be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and setting.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 37
Page 3
Policy LIV 5.6 - EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS
Expand housing options in existing neighborhoods
(Where permitted by underlying zoning) by
encouraging:
• Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots;
• Internal ADUs such as basement or upstairs apartments;
• Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and
• Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single-
family homes that are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent
properties.
This development has the opportunity and ability to incorporate different
housing types to provide variety along the streetscape. This can be
accomplished with the use of different facades and/or materials even if similar
models are adjacent to each other.
Principle LIV 6: Improve access to housing that meets
the needs of residents regardless of their race,
ethnicity, income, age, ability or background.
Policy LIV 6.1 - BASIC ACCESS
Support construction of housing units with practical features that
provide access and functionality for people of all ages and widely
varying mobilities.
Policy LIV 6.8 - MONITOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Collect, maintain and disseminate information on housing affordability
such as cost, demand and supply of affordable housing stock.
The development will provide housing targeted towards all age groups and
demographics.
Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities
for all income levels shall be available throughout the
Growth Management Area.
Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations
Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development
This development has the opportunity and ability to incorporate different
housing types to provide variety along the streetscape. This can be
accomplished with the use of different facades and/or materials even if similar
models are adjacent to each other.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 38
Page 4
Principle LIV 9: Encourage development that reduces
impacts on natural ecosystems and promotes
sustainability and resilience.
Policy LIV 9.1 - EFFICIENCY AND RESOURCE
CONSERVATION Reduce net energy and water use of new and existing
buildings through energy-efficiency programs, incentives, building and
energy code regulations, and electrification and integration of
renewable energy technologies.
Policy LIV 9.2 - OUTDOOR WATER USE
Promote reductions in outdoor water use by selecting low-water-use
plant materials, using efficient irrigation, improving the soil before
planting and exploring opportunities to use non-potable water
for irrigation.
The project will provide an attractive streetscape with street trees and
detached sidewalks along the main drive. Water conservation and the use of
low water consuming plants and grasses will be encouraged.
Culture and Recreation
Principle CR 2: Provide a variety of high-quality outdoor
and indoor recreational opportunities that are
accessible to all residents.
Policy CR 2.1 - RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Maintain and facilitate the development of a well-balanced system of
parks, trails, natural areas and recreation facilities that provide
residents and visitors of all races/ethnicities, incomes, ages, abilities
and backgrounds with a variety of recreational opportunities.
Policy CR 2.2 - INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
Support an interconnected regional and local system of parks, trails
and open lands that balances recreation needs with the need to protect
wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas. Where
appropriate, place trails along irrigation ditches and storm
drainageways to connect to destinations such as schools, open lands
and neighborhood centers.
A variety of open spaces and parks are envisioned for this development.
These could include pocket parks, open spaces areas and trails.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 39
Page 5
Principle CR 3: Adapt and expand parks and recreation
facilities and programs to meet the needs of a changing
community.
Policy CPR 3.4 – Adhere to Best Management Practices
Follow Environmental Best Management Practices for the maintenance
of parks and recreation facilities, such as water conservation and the
use of untreated water for irrigation purposes in appropriate areas,
managing turf and adhering to policies for weed and pest control,
utilizing low emission equipment and providing renewal energy
opportunities, reducing solid waste through composting and recycling,
and certifying sanctuary areas through Audubon International.
Water conservation and the use of low water consuming plants and grasses
will be encouraged. This development will utilize quality landscape materials
throughout the site, including enhanced entryway and screening in any
appropriate areas.
Economic Health
Policy EH 4.1: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic
areas within the community as defined in the Community and
Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies.
AND
Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and
Redevelopment
The project, is an ideal infill project and is within walking distance to many
destinations including other targeted ‘areas of activity’ as described
throughout the City Plan. Residential / Mixed use is an ideal transition to the
single-family neighborhood and the commercial district of Front range Village
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 40
Page 6
Environmental Health
Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to
protect and restore the natural function of the
community’s urban watersheds and streams as a key
component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban
runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of
urban streams.
Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development
Low Impact Development (LID) encompasses many aspects of the proposed
design. Permeable pavers will be utilized within private drives and/or parking
lots as required. The site will be planned with the intent to provide green
space buffers and swales to minimize directly connected impervious areas
and promote infiltration. Rain Gardens and/or drywells will be utilized where
applicable to treat stormwater prior to entering detention areas.
Safe Community
Principle SC 1: Create public spaces and rights-of-way
that are safe and welcoming to all users.
Policy SC 1.1 - NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS
Provide and expand opportunities for neighborhood safety and
involvement by fostering good neighborhood relations, building a
sense of community pride and involvement, promoting safe and
attractive neighborhoods, and encouraging compliance with City codes
and regulations.
A mix of land uses and programming will provide multiple efficient options for
movement throughout this development. Bike trails and bike lanes will be
used where appropriate to provide alternative methods of travel throughout
the development. Development streets will be safe for cars, pedestrian and
bicycles as well as attractive. The use of street trees and street lighting will
contribute to the safety and aesthetics.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 41
Page 7
Policy SC 1.2 - PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH DESIGN
Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings, parking areas,
walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces and streets through creative
placemaking and environmental design considerations, such as
appropriate lighting, public art, visibility, maintained landscaping and
location of facilities.
The street system will provide an interconnected network with transportation
options to cars, bicycles and pedestrians while providing direct access to
community amenities, employment areas and commercial development.
Transportation
Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities
for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be
promoted.
Policy T 8.1 – Support Active Transportation
Policy T 8.2 – Design for Active Living
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and
convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities.
Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops
Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service
Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities
The location of this project with quick access to the Harmony Street Corridor
will promote and support the idea of a predominance of the daily trips of the
residents of this project utilizing alternative modes of transportation
(walking/biking) or public transportation which includes a Transfort bus stop
walking distance along Harmony.
High Performing Community
N/A
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 42
Page 8
(ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and
features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated
buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project.
Pedestrian and bicycle trails as well natural buffer areas, parks and/or pocket
parks will be integrated into the development. Various modes of circulation
will be provided between specified uses, parks and natural areas. These
connections will provide access to the harmony Corridor as well as providing
the same connection for the neighborhood to the north.
(iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and
private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future
ownership of all or portions of the project development plan.
Common open space will be owned and maintained by the HOA.
(iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and
industrial uses.
The type and quantity of commercial has not yet been determined therefore
an estimated number of employees cannot be determined. This information
will be provided at PDP.
(v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by
the applicant.
The rationale behind the project is to provide multi-family, single-family
attached housing units and mixed-use in a location that is currently in need
for more of these housing types.
(vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the
applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these
regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require,
or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is
required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be
described.
The submitted documents reflect the applicable criteria for the proposed use.
Included are two modifications requesting the reduction on the limits of
secondary uses and to increase residential buildings to 4 stories.
(vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or
disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife
are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated.
No existing ecological significance or native habitat is known or documented.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 43
Page 9
(viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the
neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held.
(ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have
had during Conceptual Review.
The project is currently named Ziegler-Corbett ODP.
(x) Parking narrative describing the parking demand generated with
consideration of: the number of employees, tenants, and/or patrons; the
amount and location of parking provided; where anticipated spill-over
parking will occur; and, any other considerations regarding vehicle
parking.
Parking will meet or exceed the parking requirements for the uses anticipated
in the ODP.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 44
4062 KINGSLY COURTOWNER: FRANCES M.RODAMMERLOT11, FRONT RANGE VILLAGE REC.#20070016164TRACT H, FRONT RANGE VILLAGEREC. #20070016164OWNER: RPT REALTY LPLOT 10, FRONT RANGE VILLAGE FIRSTREPLAT REC. #20070067890OWNER: RPT REALTY LPLOT 11, FRONT RANGE VILLAGE REC.#20070016164OWNER: TARGETNT RANGE VILLAGEREPLAT REC.070067890NER: RGMZLOT 12, FRONT RANGE VILLAGE FIRSTREPLAT REC. #20070067890OWNER: RPT REALTY LPTRACT B ENGLISH RANCH SOUTHP.U.D.REC. #96089830OWNER: ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH HOAPARCEL #8732100001 OWNER: BARTRAN FAMILY LLC. REC.#20050066116TRACT A ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D.REC. #96089830OWNER: ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH HOA4063 HARRINGTON COURTOWNER: JOSHUA RICEET. AL.4062 NEWBURY COURTOWNER: THOMAS C. BEMENTET. AL.4063 NEWBURY COURTOWNER: KARLA M. SANTICH4063 KINGSLEY COURTOWNER: GREGORY A. ZANDERENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D. THIRDFILING REC. #2000023867LOT 1 AFFINITY SUBDIVISIONOWNER: AFFINITY AT FORT COLLINS, LLC.REC. #20160039545LOT 15, FRONT RANGE VILLAGEREC. #20070016164OWNER: LOWES#96089830PARCEL #8732400008REC. #95028976OWNER: DAVID L. YOUNG TRUSTCORBETT DRIVEDRDRBETT
D
R
I
V
E
RBETT
D
R
I
V
E
ORRCOCORORBETT
D
R
I
V
OOCPADDINGTON ROADCARRICK ROADROADW VARIES)S)S)KINGSLEYCOURTNEWBURYCOURTHARRINGTONCOURTPARCEL 2168,990 sq. ft.3.879 acresPARCEL 11,194,857sq. ft.27.430 acres406OWENGLISH RANCH P.U.D. 2ND FILING REC. #93014254SH RANCH P.U.D. 2ND FILING REC. #9333RIRRIRIVERRRIRIVETTTTTT
D
TTTTTT
D
BBBBBBBEBBEEEEEETTTTTBETRBEBBEEEETTEBETFULL MOVEMENT CHANNELIZED 'T'INTERSECTIONBIKE ANDPEDESTRIANACCESS ONLYS. ZIEGLERZIEGLLLLLLLLLLLGERGGLERRRRRSGGGGZIEGGLLLLLLLLLLERSZZIESSZIEEIEIEEZIEEIEEIEEZIEEGGGGGGGGLELERREEEEEEEGGGROAD (ARTERIAL)RRROORRRRROAD(((DARTEEEEEEETRIAL)))LLLL(AL)RIRRIAATERRRRR(((ARTTAA(((TTTTT(((((((((((((((((((()))))))RRR)ROAD(ROAD(RTTRTTTERIAL)AL))AL))RIAL)RTTRTTRTTTERIAL))AL))AL))RTERIAL)TTERIAL))ROROOAAAAOAAAAAAOAAD(D((RTTTTTRTTTRTTTTRTTTRTTTRTTRRREEEERRRREEEEEERAAIAAIAIAAIAIAAAAAAIAAIAIAAIAIAAIAAAAAAAIAAIAL)L)AAAAAAAAAAARTTRREEEERIAERERA(CORBETT DRIVETTTDRRRRRIVEEEEEEECCCOODCCRRVVVTTTTTTTTTTTOOCOCOCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDADW VARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)WVARIES)LER ROWVARWVAWVAWVARAAWVARIES)ARARWVARAAWVARAAWVARIES)ROW VARIES)ROW VW WWWWWW ROROWWVARIES)W S)WWZIEG
O((RO(((ROOO(((
G
OWWWOWOWOWOW
G
OOOOOWWWWWWWG
OOOOO
OROROROCCCCCC
AFFINITY OFFORT COLLINSZONEDHCFRONT RANGE VILLAGEZONED HCFRONT RANGE VILLAGEOCZONEDHCFRONT RANGEVILLAGEOCZONEDHCFRONT RANGEVILLAGEOCZONED HCENGLISH RANCHSOUTHOOZONED LMNENGLISH RANCHSOUTHOZONED LMNPROPERTY BOUNDARY / ROWPEDESTRIAN / BIKE ROUTE ANDASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTSPOTENTIAL VEHICULAR& BIKE / PED ACCESS POINTDEVELOPMENT PARCEL BUBBLES(FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSESONLY)4105 ZIEGLER RDFORT COLLINS, CO 80525PROJECT TITLEROJECT TITLEREVISIONSEVISIONSSHEET TITLESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONSHEET INFORMATIONDATEDATESEALALFebruary 16, 2022E DATEISSUE DATEE DATEE DATEATEUEUEDATEISSUEISSUEATEUEUEATEUEUEPREPARED FORREPARED FORZiegler-CorbettOverall DevelopmentPlanNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR REVIEW ONLYCALL 3 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOUDIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OFCOLORADOKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRRODP Submittal-01 09-10-21LANDMARK REALESTATE HOLDINGSLLC6341 Fairgrounds Ave,Suite 100Windsor, Colorado 80550(970) 460-0567CONTACT: Jason SherrillODP Submittal-02 11-30-21ODP For P&Z 02-16-22Overall DevelopmentPlan1 of 1Owner's Certification of Approval:THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REALPROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THISSITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THECONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONSSET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _________ DAY OF____________________________________, 20_____LANDMARK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY_____________________________________________________________JASON SHERRILL, MANAGERNOTARIAL CERTIFICATESTATE OF COLORADO)COUNTY OF LARIMER)THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY___________________________________THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 2017.MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________NOTARY PUBLIC(SEAL)ppppppPlanning Approval:BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OFFORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______._____________________________________________________________________________________DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESVicinity Map :General Notes:1.ZIEGLER - CORBETT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE A RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THEHARMONY CORRIDOR (H-C) ZONE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES ASREQUIRED/ALLOWED PER THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT AND ANY APPROVED MODIFICATIONS.2. THE PROPOSED LAND USES AND DENSITIES SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. ANY ADDITIONAL LAND USES NOT ALLOWED INTHE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICTS MUST BE APPROVED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS3.MASTER UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THIS ODP.4.TWO POINTS OF FIRE ACCESS HAVE BEEN PLANNED TO SERVE ALL AREAS OF THE PROJECT. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED ASREQUIRED BY POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY.5.ALL PUBLIC STREETS WILL BE DESIGNED TO THE FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY URBAN STREET STANDARDS'. THE INTERNALACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. PRECISE LOCATIONS OF ACCESS POINTS WILL BEIDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP).6. THE NETWORK OF PUBLIC STREETS OR PRIVATE DRIVES AND ASSOCIATED PEDESTRIAN WALKS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THEPDP PROCESS.7. ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE PDP PROCESS.8.THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM CORBETT DR. TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OFPROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP).9.THE SITE IS GREATER THAN 30 ACRES IN SIZE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF THREE HOUSING TYPES. A MIXTURE OF SINGLEFAMILY ATTACHED, MULTI-FAMILY, WORK/LIVE AND MIXED USE UNITS WILL BE APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE ODP, AND FINALIZED ATTHE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE.10.A +/- 1.5 ACRE PRIVATE PARK (NOT TO BE OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS) WILL BE PROVIDED ANDDESIGNED AS PART OF A FUTURE PDP PROCESS11.EXISTING TREES IF PRESENT ON THE SITE WILL BE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL.12.A CHILD CARE CENTER WILL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN EITHER OF THE PARCELS INDICATED.13.COMMUNITY FACILITY WILL BE ALLOWED IN PARCELS 'D' AND 'E' AND WILL TAKE PRIORITY OVER OTHER USES IF OFFERED.14.PARCEL B WILL BE ALLOWED A 4TH FLOOR FOR ROOF TOP DECK AND AMENITIES AND RESIDENTIAL LOFT UNITS. PARCEL C WILL BEALLOWED A 4TH FLOOR FOR FULL RESIDENTIAL UNITS.15.PARCEL B - 4TH STORIES SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10-FT ON ALL SIDES AND THE 4TH STORY FLOOR AREA SHALL NOTEXCEED TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE FLOOR BELOW, BUT NOT INCLUDING OPEN BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP PATIOS.16.PARCEL C - 4TH STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AN AVERAGE OF 10-FT ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES FROMTHE FLOOR BELOW.17. ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE ENHANCED WITH SOLAR PANELS.18.TOWNHOME AND CONDOMINIUM UNITS WILL BE GOLD LEED CERTIFIED19.4 - 12 LIVE / WORK UNITS WILL BE PROPOSED AS A PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THESE UNITS WILL INCLUDE STREETFACING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT ACCESS.Land-Use StatisticsZONE DISTRICT TYPE GROSS ACREAGERESIDENTIAL DENSITYESTIMATED UNITSMAX. BLDG HTHOUSING TYPECOMMERCIAL / RETAIL / OFFICEPARCEL A+/- 7.6 AC12 - 20 DU / AC84 - 140 2-3 STORIES SFA / MF-----------------------PARCEL B+/- 7.7 AC15 - 25 DU / AC 105 - 175 2-4 STORIES SFA / MF / MIXED-USE+/- 2,500 SF LIVE / WORKPARCEL C+/- 10.7 AC20 - 40 DU / AC 200 - 400 3-4 STORIES SFA / MF / MIXED-USE+/- 2,500 SF LIVE / WORKPARCEL D+/- 1.6 AC 0 - 32 DU/AC 50 MAX3 STORIES MAX MIXED - USE +/- 15,000 SFPARCEL E+/- 3.7 AC 0 - 27 DU/AC 100 MAX 3 STORIES MAX MIXED - USE +/- 35,000 SFTOTAL+/- 31.3 AC. 12.7 D/U - 22.4 D/U 400 MIN - 700 MAX +/- 50,000 SF(Avg for Entire Site)(OVERALL)Legal Description:Parcel IndexPARCELZONING ACREAGEANTICIPATED USES PARCEL AHC+/- 7.6 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USESPARCEL BHC+/- 7.7 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USES / MIXED USE OR CHILD CARE CENTERPARCEL CHC+/- 10.7 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USES / MIXED USE OR CHILD CARE CENTERPARCEL DHC+/- 1.6 ACPRIMARY / COMMUNITY FACILITY / CHILD CARE CENTERPARCEL EHC+/- 3.7 ACPRIMARY / COMMUNITY FACILITY / CHILD CARE CENTERLegendSCALE 1" = 100'-0"100'0200'150'NORTHODP MapBuffer / Det. PondA+/- 7.6 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL2-3 Story12-20 units per acreB+/- 7.7 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL, MIXEDUSE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES2-4 Story15-25 units per acreC+/- 10.7 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL, MIXEDUSE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES3-4 Story20-40 units per acreD+/- 1.6 ACRESZONED H-CMixed-Use, CommunityyFacility, or Child CareyCenter3 Stories Max. 0 - 50 Residential Unitsand 15,000 SF PrimaryUsesE+/- 3.7 ACRESZONED H-CMixed-Use, CommunityyFacility, or Child Care Centery3 Stories Max. 0 - 100 Res. unitsand 35,000 SF Primary Uses1.PARCEL 1: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE OF COLORADO, WHICH CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAIDSOUTHEAST ¼ AS BEARING S 89°22’30” E AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINEDHEREIN RELATIVE THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICHBEGIN AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST ¼ WHICH BEARS N00°15’10” E 1255.75 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32 ANDRUN THENCE N 00°15’10” E 1043.87 FEET ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, THENCE N89°17’18” W 395.00 FEET, THENCE N 00°15’10” E 175.00 FEET, THENCE N 89°17’18” W600.69 FEET, THENCE N 00°15’10” E 175.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OFSAID NORTHEAST 1/4 , THENCE N 89°17’18” W 797.34 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHLINE, THENCE S 00°37’30” W 1408.26 FEET, THENCE S 89°44’50” E 1802.12 FEET TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED IN SPECIALWARRANTY DEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 20070016162.2.PARCEL 2: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLYDESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OFSECTION 32 AS BEARING N 89°21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 2647.24 FEET, AS SHOWNMONUMENTED HEREON AND WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO.COMMENCING AT THE E 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE ALONG THENORTH LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OF SECTION 32, N 89° 21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR ZIEGLER ROAD (AKACOUNTY ROAD 9) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONGSAID NORTH LINE OF THE SE 1/4, ALSO BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF ENGLISH RANCHSOUTH P.U.D. AT RECEPTION NO. 19960089830, OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERSOFFICE OF LARIMER COUNTY, N 89° 21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 965.69 FEET TO APOINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO.95009649 OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OF LARIMER COUNTY; THENCEALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL S 00° 11' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 175.00FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL AT RECEPTION NO.95009649, AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL AT RECEPTION NO.95028976 OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OF LARIMER COUNTY, S 89° 21'46" E, A DISTANCE OF 965.69 FEET (SIC 995.69 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE WESTRIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ZIEGLER ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAYLINE, N 00° 11' 07" E, A DISTANCE OF 175.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.Det.PondDet.PondPondAFFINITY OFFORT COLLINSZONED HCFRONTRANGEVILLAGEOCZONED HCENGLISH RANCH SOUTHZONED RL / LMNHCNORTHNOT TO SCALEPRESTONKELLEY 2NDZONED HCWOODLANDPARK ESTATESPUDZONED RLWOODLANDPARK ESTATESPUDOZONED RLPRESTONKELLEY 2NDZONED HCTypical Diagram of Channelized 'T' Intersection Along Ziegler Rd.yp gggFULLMOVEMENT3/4MOVEMENTFULLMOVEMENTService DriveZIEGLER ROADNOT A PART OF THISODPTHE PURPOSE OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS TO ESTABLISH GENERALPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PARAMETERS, FOR PROJECTS THAT WILL BEDEVELOPED IN PHASES WITH MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS, WHILE ALLOWING SUFFICIENTFLEXIBILITY TO PERMIT DETAILED PLANNING IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS. APPROVALOF AN OVER-ALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY VESTED RIGHT TODEVELOP PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN.ODP NoteITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 45
TRACT HFRONT RANGE VILLAGELOT 11FRONT RANGE VILLAGELOT 16FRONT RANGE VILLAGELOT 12FRONT RANGE VILLAGETRACT B ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D.ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH HOAPARCEL #8732100001BARTRAN FAMILY LLC.TRACT AENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D.ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH HOAENGLISH RANCHSOUTH P.U.D. THIRD FILINGLOT 1AFFINITY SUBDIVISIONLOT 15FRONT RANGE VILLAGEENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D.PARCEL #8732400008DAVID L. YOUNG TRUSTCORBETT DRIVEPADDINGTON ROADCARRICK ROADEDMONDSROADZIEGLER ROAD(ROW VARIES)KINGSLEY COURTNEWBURY COURTHARRINGTON COURTPARCEL 2168,990 sq. ft.3.879 acresPARCEL 11,194,857 sq. ft.27.430 acresPROPOSED DETENTION POND 1VOLUME PROVIDED=10.7± ACRE-FT2.3± SURFACE ACRESPROPOSED DETENTION PONDS 2A-BVOLUME PROVIDED=5.3± ACRE-FT1.5 ± SURFACE ACRESAVAILABLE WATERCONNECTIONAVAILABLE WATERCONNECTIONAVAILABLE WATERCONNECTIONAVAILABLE SANITARYOUTFALLAVAILABLE SANITARYOUTFALL24" STORM DRAIN OUTFALL(CONNECT TO EX)AREA OF INADVERTENT DETENTION7.5± ACRE-FTLOT 10FRONT RANGE VILLAGEINADVERTENT DETENTION SPILL LOCATIONOFFSITE AFFINITYSPILL LOCATIONFULL MOVEMENT ACCESS(SEE CHANNELIZED T CONCEPT)BIKE & PEDESTRIANACCESS ONLYREVISIONNO. BY DATEPHONE: 970.674.7550 | EMAIL: Info@Highland-DS.com | www.Highland-DS.comPREPARED BY OR UNDER THEDIRECT SUPERVISION OF:FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HIGHLANDDEVELOPMENT SERVICESOFSHEETDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATESCALE (H)HDS PROJECTSCALE (V)ZIEGLER-CORBETTOVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLANMASTER UTILITY & OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN1/21/221" = 80'N/AACB2JTC21-1044-00ODP11NWES0SCALE: 1" = 80'160804080NOTES1. TOTAL SITE AREA IS 31.31± ACRES.2. BOUNDARY, UTILITY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ALTA LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED BY MAJESTIC SURVEYING, DATED 9-24-21.3. PROJECT VERTICAL DATUM IS ON NAVD88.4. WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILIZING MAIN WITHIN CORBETT DRIVEWITHIN ZIEGLER ROAD.5. SEWER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILIZING 30" MAIN ALONG THE WESTSIDE OF ZIEGLER ROAD AND/OR THE 10" MAIN ALONG EAST SIDE OF CORBETT DRIVE.6. STORMWATER OUTFALL PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING 24" STORM DRAIN STUB, IN COMBINATION WITHADEQUATELY SIZED SPILLWAYS.7. ALL POINTS OF ACCESS, POINTS OF UTILITY CONNECTIONS, AND STORMWATER DETENTION LOCATIONSARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONS.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 46
January 21, 2022
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Ziegler – Corbett ODP
Please accept this request for an Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.3(F) of the Land Use
Code.
Background
This proposal is in conjunction with an Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal for the Ziegler-
Corbett property located west of Ziegler Road and South of Paddington Rd. and contains
approximately 29 acres total. The property is located in the Harmony-Corridor (HC) Zone District
and will be subject to a Type 2 review with required neighborhood meeting.
Vehicular access for the project will be from Ziegler Road via a new full movement intersection
that provides access into the neighborhood from the east and access from Corbett Dr. on the
west. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity utilizing sidewalks and
open space.
This Alternative Compliance request is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in
Section 3.6.3(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.3(F)
Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue
all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved
development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public
street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced
at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that
abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 47
Requested Alternative Compliance: The applicant for the Ziegler – Corbett ODP is requesting that
a vehicular connection and any associated Public Rights-of-Way dedication north into to English
Ranch will not be required as specified in Section 3.6.3(F) of the Land Use Code.
(1) Procedure. Alternative compliance development plans shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section.
The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the alternatives proposed and the
ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan
which complies with the standards of this Section.
The alternative compliance has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the
requirements for the Overall Development plan
(2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find
that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well
or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division,
and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle,
pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed plan will significantly increase the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
through this property. This pedestrian and bicycle connection will be vital in getting the
residence of this development and English Ranch a direct connection the Front Range
Village Commercial Center, other Harmony Corridor commercial developments and
associated public transit stations.
(3) In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into
account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and
features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic
without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and
connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools,
neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood
Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent
development within the same section mile.
The alternative design fosters nonvehicular access and does not exceed the level of
service standards. Bicycle and pedestrian access will be enhanced and maintained via
this development’s internal circulation utilizing the stub on the north as well as the
connection just to the west at Affinity. This development will minimize the impacts on
natural areas and is proposing its own larger than required park/gathering space and
community amenities. The neighborhood continuity and connectivity is still provided
though these improvements, sub-arterial street access to the parks, schools and adjacent
commercial and employment uses.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 48
Justification
Upon this request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative compliance for
overall development plan that may be substituted for a plan meeting the standards of this Section
3.6.3(F) as described above.
The applicant offers the following in support of its request for the Alternative Compliance:
(1) Throughout the history of any development adjacent to the English Ranch
Subdivision the residence has been extremely vocal against any type of vehicular
connectivity to their neighborhood. In fact, the City’s Street Master Plan reflects this
disconnect. City Council took action and approved to remove that connection Street
Master Plan at the behest of the neighborhood concerned about traffic from Front Range
Village being that it is a large regional shopping center versus a neighborhood shopping
center. Any proposed connection to English Ranch would go against the goals set forth by
this prior action and the approved Street Master Plan itself . See image below.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 49
(2) The proposed Overall Development plan provides direct access and full movement
onto Ziegler Road through the proposed construction of a Channelized ‘T’ intersection.
This intersection provides the appropriate vehicular circulation, as described is the
submitted Transportation Impact Study, without having to connect north on to Paddington
St in the English Ranch subdivision. See concept of proposed Channelized T intersect
below as proposed in the ODP
In Summary,
The City needs attainable and vibrant multi-family housing and this site, as described in
City Plan, is an ideal location for it. This alternative compliance will not jeopardize the
City’s goals of connectivity or the goals of the Street Master Plan, therefore, the proposed
alternative is not a detriment to the public good, as it results in the development of a
vacant property within an established area in accordance with the overall City goals as
outlined in the Land Use Codes and City Plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 50
January 21, 2022
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Ziegler – Corbett ODP
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Division 4.26 Harmony Corridor District
(H-C) Section D.2. of the Land Use Code.
Background
This proposal is in conjunction with an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the Ziegler-Corbett
property located west of Ziegler Road and South of Paddington Rd. and contains approximately 29
acres total. The property is located in the Harmony-Corridor (HC) Zone District and will be subject to a
Type 2 review with required neighborhood meeting.
Vehicular access for the project will be from Ziegler Road via a new full movement intersection that
provides access into the neighborhood from the east and access from Corbett Dr. on the west. The site
design will incorporate and enhance pedestrian access and connectivity utilizing sidewalks and open
space.
The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as required by the
City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating design elements from the
surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal lap siding, shingle siding and board
and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition, there will be brick and stone veneer accents. The
roofs will consist of asphalt shingles and / or standing seam metal.
The property currently is undeveloped and will include primary and/or secondary uses as allowed by
this Modification Request and the Ft Collins Land Use Codes.
This modification request is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of
the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Division 4.26 Harmony Corridor District (H-C) Section D.2.
Code Language: Division 4.26 Section D.2. states the following:
All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment-based
development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to Planning and
Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.26(B). The following permitted uses shall be
considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the total gross area of the development plan.
Requested Modification: Ziegler – Corbett ODP is requesting that there are no set limits to secondary
uses.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 51
Justification
The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds
that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the
plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested of a modification from the strict application of any standard would:
1 - without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by
reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need
specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would
render the project practically infeasible;
The applicant offers the following in support of its request for the above justification:
• POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES - This
property has been undeveloped for many decades. Through their own due diligence,
Developers with potential projects have looked and turned away from this property.
From their research it has been determined that the property is not feasible with the strict
HC primary use requirement which in turn has been detrimental to any future
development of this property.
• POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES - Initially the
H-C zone district was intended to be a broad-brush zoning along Harmony Road
Corridor. It did not contemplate infill, redevelopment, or underutilized parcels of land.
Meeting the primary use standards is extremely difficult if not impossible. This property
is considered as an infill project as it one of the last undeveloped properties in this
portion of the HC Zone District and sits between single family housing (English Ranch)
and the backside of a large retail development (Front Range Village). The lack of
development over the decades on this property justifies the difficulty the HC Zone
standards has placed on this property
• POLICY LIV 5.2 - SUPPLY OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING - Attainability as described in
City Plan, this modification would provide the need for units at a price point that the
market desires. The Applicant proposes to develop multi-family and multi-use housing in
order to provide needed attainable dwelling units in Fort Collins at a highly desirable
location for such housing resulting in a substantial benefit to the City. By providing much
needed housing needs, the Applicant will help alleviate the shortage of attainable
housing in the southeast sector of our community. Per the following chart, there is lack of
new attainable residential activity (red line) along the HC Zone District.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 52
• The increase in residential uses will allow the development to obtain densities that further
support the existing Harmony Corridor retail / commercial / office uses.
• This property is secondary to and behind the main commercial developments along
Harmony. Thus a greater ratio of residential uses are a better transition from this
existing retail and commercial development on the south and to the single family
residential development to the north. Throughout City Plan, it describes and depicts how
similar locations like this property, with a location behind commercial and in front of
single family is ideal. This property has the preferred Multi-family use as depicted in the
following image from City plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 53
• The proposed alternative plan continues to improve the design, quality, and character of
new development by exceeding the building standards set forth in section Section 3.5 of
the City’s land use Code. The use of high-quality residential building materials, building
articulation, projections and recesses, along with pitched roof elements ensures
sensitivity to and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Tables will be
provided on future PDP / FP plans that list current architectural requirements and what is
proposed. This will quantify and show how this development has gone above and
beyond current land use and architectural requirements.
• POLICY T 7.4 - PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS and POLICY T 6.1 - CONNECTED
BICYCLE FACILITIES - Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity as described in City Plan. -
The proposed alternative plan ensures this need while still being sensitive to the
surrounding neighborhood by building a walkable, bicycle friendly neighborhood that will
connect the adjacent residential to the truly viable commercial and retail portions of the
HC Zone District
• Per City plan ENV 3.1 - RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND INTEGRATION. - If
this modification is approved all residential units would be enhanced with solar panels
supporting this City Plan Policy.
• Per City plan ENV 3.1 - RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND INTEGRATION. - If
this modification is approved Townhome and Condominium units would be Gold LEED
Certified
• 4 - 12 live / work units will be proposed as a part of the overall development. These units
will include street facing commercial storefront access.
• The 50,000 square feet of proposed primary uses along Ziegler equates to approximately
30%-40% of primary uses for the overall site and 100% where primary uses are viable on
this property
• Ft Collins / Larimer County has been facing a childcare capacity crisis for more than a
decade, and the pandemic has made it worse. Talent 2.0 Regional Workforce Strategy
Report identified the lack of childcare as one of three key barriers to workplace retention
and recruitment. This modification would allow the density needed to be viable while
ensuring the opportunity to provide the highly needed Day-Care resource. The applicant
is willing to obligate a child day care center within this development if approved
• These uses would still have to be processed through a Type 2 review and approval by
Planning and Zoning during the PDP / FP processes.
And
2 - the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of
the applicant.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 54
The applicant offers the following in support of its request for the above justification:
• Offsite drainage must be captured and detained on site. The natural topography of the
site and using best management practices put the detention ponds along Ziegler Dr.
This in turn increases the offset of any proposed buildings along Ziegler, further
enhancing the hardship of reduced visibility along Zeigler that is needed for primary
uses to be viable.
In Summary,
The City needs attainable multi-family housing and this site as described in City Plan is an
ideal location for it and not viable for the primary uses that the HC Zone District Standards
require. The data illustrates that providing the highly needed attainable multi-family units
and the fact the property is currently underutilized. This modification will not jeopardize the
City’s chances of attracting employment-based industry, nor will it use land where much
desired large-base employment uses might locate. In fact, we believe having high quality
residential and mixed-use units available in the Harmony Corridor will enhance the City’s
ability to attract desirable industries to the Corridor, and more importantly the support
existing retail and commercial businesses. Therefore the proposed alternative plan is not a
detriment to the public good, as it results in the development of a vacant property within an
established area in accordance with the overall City goals outlined in City Plan and still
provides viable primary uses.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 55
January 21, 2022
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Ziegler – Corbett ODP
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Division 4.26 Harmony Corridor
District (H-C) Section D.3.a of the Land Use Code.
Background
This proposal is in conjunction with an Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal for the Ziegler-
Corbett property located west of Ziegler Road and South of Paddington Rd. and contains
approximately 29 acres total. The property is located in the Harmony-Corridor (HC) Zone District
and will be subject to a Type 2 review with required neighborhood meeting.
Vehicular access for the project will be from Ziegler Road via a new full movement intersection
that provides access into the neighborhood from the east and access from Corbett Dr. on the
west. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity utilizing sidewalks and
open space.
The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as required by
the City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating design elements from
the surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal lap siding, shingle siding and
board and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition, there will be brick and stone veneer
accents. The roofs will consist of asphalt shingles and / or standing seam metal.
The property currently is undeveloped and will include primary and/or secondary uses as allowed
by this Modification Request and the Ft Collins Land Use Codes.
This modification request is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Division 4.26 Harmony Corridor District (H-C) Section D.3.a
Code Language: Division 4.26 Harmony Corridor District (H-C) Section D.3.a
(3)Dimensional standards.
(a)Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including those containing mixed-
use dwelling units, shall be six (6) stories. Maximum height for residential buildings
shall be three (3) stories.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7
Packet pg. 56
Requested Modification: Ziegler – Corbett ODP is requesting that the maximum height for
residential buildings shall be four (4) stories, with the 4th story to be utilized for rooftop gathering
areas, amenities, and loft style residential units for buildings within Parcel B and full floor
residential units for buildings within Parcel C.
Justification
The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it
finds that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted, will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code. This modification
would:
1 - substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or
would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the
City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically
infeasible;
The decision-maker must agree that the Modification meets the above criteria as described in the
LUC.
The applicant offers the following in support of its request for modification:
• City Plan encourages maximized densities. Four-story Multi-Family residential
buildings will allow the applicant to obtain densities that further support the existing
Harmony Corridor businesses and any retail / commercial / office uses proposed
within this property.
• Ft Collins / Larimer County has been facing a childcare capacity crisis for more
than a decade, and the pandemic has made it worse. Talent 2.0 Regional
Workforce Strategy Report identified the lack of childcare as one of three key
barriers to workplace retention and recruitment. This modification would allow the
density needed to be viable while ensuring the opportunity to provide the highly
needed Day-Care resource. The applicant is willing to obligate a child day care
center within this development if approved
• If approved, four story Multi-Family residential buildings will allow for larger and
more areas of dedicated park space. The applicant is willing to provide more
amenities, open and useable park space than what is required by the City Code.
Tables will be provided on future PDP / FP plans that list current park space
requirements and proposed park space and associated amenities. This will
quantify and show how this development has gone above and beyond current land
use requirements.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7
Packet pg. 57
• Amenity expectations are high for local residences and competition further enhances
these expectations. The 4th story will provide higher densities that allow the applicant to
provide numerous gathering areas and amenities for the residence that otherwise couldn’t
be feasible at the lower densities caused by the reduced number of stories.
• 4th floors in Parcel B will be recessed / stepped back from the main facade of the lower 3
stories. This will be accomplished through rooftop patios, amenities, and lofts.
• The HC Zone District already allows 6-story multi-use buildings with 5 floors of residential.
The increase to the residential buildings to 4 stories is less than what is already allowed
for a Mixed-Use Building.
• The uses, types and heights of residential buildings are described in the proposed ODP
and any site plan proposed would still have to be processed through a Type 2 review and
approval by Planning and Zoning. This ensures compatibility with the adjacent
neighborhoods and developments.
And
2 - the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission
of the applicant.
The applicant offers the following in support of its request for the above justification:
• Offsite drainage is substantial and must be captured and detained on site. Using
best management practices the off-site drainage increases the area needed for water
detention. This in turn further reduces density and available land that can be used for
recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and buffering.
In Summary,
The City needs attainable and vibrant multi-family housing and this site, as described in
City Plan, is an ideal location for it. This modification will not jeopardize the City’s
chances of attracting employment-based industry, nor will it use land where much desired
large-base employment uses might locate. In fact, we believe having high quality
residential and mixed-use units available in the Harmony Corridor will enhance the City’s
ability to attract desirable industries to the Corridor, and more importantly this development
will support existing retail and commercial businesses and will ensure to provide the
needed day care resources that are lacking in Ft Collins and Larimer County. Therefore,
the proposed alternative plan is not a detriment to the public good, as it results in the
development of a vacant property within an established area in accordance with the
overall City goals outlined in City Plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7
Packet pg. 58
Fort Collins City Plan
Employment Land Demand
Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 59
Table of Contents
1.INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................... 1
Project Background ................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................... 1
2.ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ........................................................................... 4
Regional Economic Base and Trends .......................................................................... 4
City Employment Conditions ................................................................................... 11
3.REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS .................................................... 16
National Trends .................................................................................................... 16
Local Real Estate Development Conditions and Trends ................................................ 22
4.LAND DEMAND METHODOLOGY AND INPUTS .................................................................. 28
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 28
Future Land Demand ............................................................................................. 32
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 60
List of Tables
Table 1 Fort Collins-Loveland MSA Current Employment Statistics, 1990 to 2017 ................ 6
Table 2 Larimer County Average Annual Wage by Industry, 2000 to 2016 ......................... 9
Table 3 Fort Collins Employment by Industry, 2016 ...................................................... 13
Table 4 Larimer County Commercial and Industrial Development Inventory ..................... 23
Table 5 Employee per Square Feet and Floor Area Ratio Factors ..................................... 30
Table 6 Larimer County Employment Forecast by Industry, 2016 to 2040 ........................ 31
Table 7 Fort Collins Estimated Employment Building and Land Demand, 2016 to 2040 ....... 32
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 61
List of Figures
Figure 1 Larimer County Distribution of Jobs by Industry, 2016 ......................................... 5
Figure 2 Larimer County Change in Employment by Industry, 2010 to 2016 ........................ 7
Figure 3 Larimer County Largest Industry Average Annual Wage, 2016 ............................ 10
Figure 4 Fort Collins Location Quotient, 2016 ................................................................ 14
Figure 5 Larimer County Office Development, 2000 to 2017 ............................................ 25
Figure 6 Larimer County Retail Development, 2000 to 2017 ............................................ 26
Figure 7 Larimer County Industrial Development, 2000 to 2017 ...................................... 27
Figure 8 Employment Land Demand Methodology .......................................................... 28
Figure 9 Employment Forecast Methodology ................................................................. 29
Figure 10 Future Employees to Future Building Demand Methodology ............................. 30
Figure 11 Estimated Land Demand versus Supply, 2016 to 2040 ................................... 33
Figure 12 Buildable Lands Inventory .......................................................................... 34
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 62
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 163125-Df_EmploymentLandDemand.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Project Background
The City of Fort Collins is updating its comprehensive land use and transportation plan—City Plan.
A major component of the update to City Plan is the development of a revised Structure Plan
map. The City has not done a major update to the Structure Plan map in 20 years. To inform the
updates to the Structure Plan map and accompanying policies, an employment land demand study
was desired. This report provides a summary of the employment land demand study. The report
also contains summaries of regional and local employment conditions and trends; national and
regional commercial and industrial development trends; and employment land demand
estimates.
Summary of Findings
1. The Fort Collins-Loveland MSA has rebounded from the economic recession of 2008
and 2009 and has grown at an accelerated pace since 2010.
The rate of employment growth has increased significantly since 2010 in Larimer County. The
annual rate of growth for employment in the County is less than found in the 1990's but the
county is producing more total new jobs annually than in the 1990's. Employment has grown
at annual rate of 3.2 percent since 2010 and adding 4,700 new jobs annually.
2. The major industries in Fort Collins including health care, education, retail trade
and accommodations and food service continue to grow and produce new
employment.
The economic base of Fort Collins is driven by health care and education. Growth in these
two industries has produced over 6,000 jobs since 2010 in Larimer County. Retail trade and
accommodations and food services are also growing and producing several new jobs as the
county continues to be regional hub for northern Colorado and southern Wyoming.
3. Professional services, manufacturing, clean energy and transportation and
warehousing are emerging industries in Larimer County with significant
employment growth since 2010.
Professional and technical services is growing sector and is becoming one of the larger
sectors in the region. Employment in transportation and warehousing is growing in the
county but these jobs have largely not been locating in Fort Collins. Lastly, manufacturing
has traditionally been a major industry in Fort Collins but the composition of manufacturing
in Fort Collins and the county has shifted. Computer equipment manufacturing was a major
component of the economy in the 1990’s and early 2000’s; however, employment has been
declining in this subindustry. Manufacturing jobs have grown since 2010, driven by food and
beverage manufacturing (e.g. brewing) and the growth of Woodward, Inc. Larimer County
has an estimated 2,600 jobs related to Clean Energy and industry is bolstered in the City by
research and development activities being generated through CSU.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 63
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2
4. Average wages in Larimer County are growing faster than inflation, however the
majority of the wage growth is in industries with higher than average annual
wages
Wages in the county have grown at an annual rate of 5.7 percent since 2010. The City’s and
County’s major industries are a mixture of below and above average wage industries.
Industries with a below average annual wage (more than 20% less than the county average)
accounted for 42 percent of new jobs in the county since 2010, however industries with
above average wages (more than 20% greater than county average) accounted for 54
percent of the wage growth since 2010.
5. Employment in Larimer County and Fort Collins outpaced household growth since
2010 and is forecasted to through 2040.
Employment continues to grow at a faster rate in the City and county than household growth
and is forecast to continue. This miss-match in growth has several impacts on the
community. From a workforce perspective, the miss-match puts greater pressure on an
already tight labor market and has forced employers to aggressively seek ways to attract
new workers to the region to fill jobs. The slower housing growth is increasing demand for
housing, which is increasing housing prices within Fort Collins. The affordability of housing
may impact the economic health of the City.
6. Fort Collins has captured a smaller share of commercial and industrial development
over the past decade as the economic activity within the County has shifted toward
I-25.
The City of Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment oriented
development. Development has been clustering desirable areas and the center of economic
gravity for the county has shift from the US 287 corridor to the I-25 corridor. Much of the
recent commercial and industrial development has gravitated to I-25 or along arterials
connecting to I-25, such as US 34, Harmony Road and Mulberry Street. The shift to the east
has resulted in greater opportunities for neighboring communities. Fort Collins captured less
than half of county wide development for commercial and industrial space over the past 10
years despite account for the majority of total space for all three uses (retail, office, and
industrial).
7. The City has an adequate supply of land for employment uses however the land
may not be development ready or in locations that are competitive for capturing
future employment growth.
Employment forecasts estimate the County will grow in employment by 85,000 jobs by 2040,
with jobs within the City's targeted industries and other primary industries account for 44
percent of job growth. The City has a total supply of buildable employment lands that
exceeds estimated demand. The forecast new jobs are estimated to generate demand for 22
million square feet of new commercial and industrial development, with Fort Collins capturing
7.5 million square feet of new space (33 percent of county demand). This estimated new
development will require an estimated 600 acres of land and the City has approximately
2,900 acres designated for employment uses. The majority of employment land capacity is
on the edge of the City in the northeast portion of the Growth Management Area (GMA) and
is in many cases lacking existing infrastructure. Areas that have been capturing new
development within the City (primarily downtown area and Harmony Road) have limited
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 64
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3
capacity for new development. The excess capacity would suggest that the City could be
more flexible with use of employment lands in some areas. As well, the City should also focus
efforts on a few primary areas to capture employment growth similar to their historic efforts
along Harmony Road. The buildable lands designated for residential may need to be re-
evaluated during the City Plan process as they may be better suited for employment lands
(and vice-versa).
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 65
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 163125-Df_EmploymentLandDemand.docx
2. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
This chapter provides a summary of the economic conditions and trends impacting Fort Collins.
Trends in employment for the Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins are summarized.
Regional Economic Base and Trends
Fort Collins is the largest city (population) and economy (jobs) along the northern Front Range of
Colorado. The largest communities in the northern Front Range are Fort Collins and Loveland,
within Larimer County, and Greeley in Weld County. Combined there is over 250,000 jobs in the
two counties (60 percent in Larimer County and 40 percent in Weld County). Historically, these
cities have functioned more like stand-alone communities with distinct economies, but as the
region grows the communities are becoming more intertwined. As a result, the economic activity
has shifted somewhat away from the traditional downtown/city centers towards Interstate 25.
Northern Colorado communities are becoming more intertwined in terms of employment and
labor force, which has pushed economic leaders to begin discussions on how to work together to
address these collective economic opportunities.
Economic Base
The City of Fort Collins is the county-seat and economic center of Larimer County, also known as
the Fort-Collins metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The largest industries in Larimer County are
Health Care (21,111 jobs), Retail Trade (18,582 jobs), Accommodation and Food Service
(18,175 jobs) and Education (17,295 jobs). Combined these four industries account for half of
the jobs in Larimer County, as shown in Figure 1.
Clean energy is a growing sector in Colorado’s economy. The components of Clean Energy
include renewable energy, energy efficiency, advanced grid technology, advanced transportation,
and clean fuels. Larimer County has an estimated 2,600 jobs related to Clean Energy.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 66
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5
Figure 1
Larimer County Distribution of Jobs by Industry, 2016
Employment Trends
Table 1. The two national economic recessions (01) and (08-09) that
occurred from 2000 to 2010 reduced the rate of employment growth in the County to 0.8
percent annually. Since 2010 however, the County has begun to grow at a faster rate (3.2
percent annually from 2010 to 2016), producing more new jobs annually in this period than in
the 1990’s.
Health Care and Social
Assistance, 14%
Retail Trade, 12%
Accommodation and Food
Services, 12%
Educational Services, 11%
Manufacturing, 9%
Professional and Technical
Services, 7%
Construction, 7%
Administrative and Waste
Services, 6%
Public Administration, 5%
Wholesale Trade, 3%
Other Services, Ex. Public Admin,
3%
Finance and Insurance, 2%
Transportation and
Warehousing, 2%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation, 2%
Information, 2%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing, 2%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises, 1%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting, 1%Utilities, 0%
Mining, 0%
Source: Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 67
Employment Land Demand Analysis Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Table 1 Fort Collins-Loveland MSA Current Employment Statistics, 1990 to 2017 Description1990 2000 2010 2017 Total Ann.# Ann. % Total Ann.# Ann. % Total Ann.# Ann. %Total Nonfarm79,200123,400 133,900 167,100 44,200 4,420 4.5% 10,500 1,050 0.8% 33,200 4,743 3.2%Total Private60,800 98,700 104,400 128,200 37,900 3,790 5.0% 5,700 5700.6% 23,800 3,400 3.0%Goods Producing 18,000 25,200 18,100 25,600 7,200 720 3.4% -7,100 -710 -3.3% 7,500 1,071 5.1%Service-Providing 61,200 98,200 115,800 141,500 37,0003,700 4.8% 17,600 1,760 1.7% 25,700 3,671 2.9%Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics (CES): Economic & Planning SystemsE:\Fort Collins\[163125-Employment Trends-1-8-18.xlsx]Table 1-CESChange 2010-20172000-20101990-2000ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 68
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7
Larimer County had a total wage and salary employment of 153,103 in 2016, which is an
increase of approximately 26,500 jobs since 2010. The traditional major industries in the County
(Health Care, Retail, Food/Accommodations, and Education) continue to experience strong
employment growth. The industries with the largest amount of employment increase since 2010
were Health Care (4,443 new jobs), Accommodation and Food Service (3,952 new jobs),
Construction (3,153 new jobs), and Manufacturing (2,739 jobs), as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Larimer County Change in Employment by Industry, 2010 to 2016
21
185
190
241
327
352
481
493
495
517
735
862
1,469
1,864
1,886
2,054
2,739
3,153
3,952
4,443
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Utilities
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Information
Administrative and Waste Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Public Administration
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Finance and Insurance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Transportation and Warehousing
Other Services, Ex. Public Admin
Wholesale Trade
Professional and Technical Services
Educational Services
Retail Trade
Manufacturing
Construction
Accommodation and Food Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Source: Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 69
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8
Emerging industries in the county that are experiencing stronger growth than traditionally found
in the community include manufacturing, logistics (wholesale trade and transportation and
warehousing), and professional and technical services. Manufacturing has been growing at an
annually rate of 3.9 percent since 2010 after declining in employment during the previous
decade. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s, manufacturing was by computer and electronic product
manufacturing, anchored by Hewitt-Packard. The recent growth has been more diversified within
a variety of manufacturing subindustries, spurred on by growth in food and beverage
manufacturing (e.g. breweries) and the growing presence of Woodward, Inc. The growth of the
region in population and employment has increased demand for logistics related industries.
Lastly, business services (which includes professional and technical services and also
administrative support services) has traditionally been a growing industry in the region, but in
the past six years professional services jobs have grown by over 1,800 jobs while growth in
administrative services has been relatively flat.
Wage Trends
The average annual wage in Larimer County was $56,987 in 2016, as shown Table 2. Wages in
the past six years have grown at a healthy 5.7 percent annual rate compared to 2.3 percent
annually in the 2000’s, indicating that even when accounting for inflation, wages are growing
significantly.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 70
Employment Land Demand Analysis Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Table 2 Larimer County Average Annual Wage by Industry, 2000 to 2016 Description2000 2010 2016 Total Ann.# Ann. % Total Ann.# Ann. %Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting$20,842 $28,302 $33,123 $7,460 $746 3.1% $4,822 $804 2.7%Mining$33,748 $46,061 $60,825 $12,313 $1,231 3.2% $14,764 $2,461 4.7%Utilities$48,315 $68,556 $85,041 $20,241 $2,024 3.6% $16,485 $2,748 3.7%Construction$34,156 $44,940 $53,649 $10,784 $1,078 2.8% $8,710 $1,452 3.0%Manufacturing$60,184 $73,722 $82,669 $13,538 $1,354 2.0% $8,947 $1,491 1.9%Wholesale Trade$37,190 $53,071 $65,326 $15,881 $1,588 3.6% $12,255 $2,043 3.5%Retail Trade$20,333 $23,680 $27,855 $3,347 $335 1.5% $4,175 $696 2.7%Transportation and Warehousing$29,335 $38,963 $43,522 $9,628 $963 2.9% $4,559 $760 1.9%Information$39,041 $48,722 $49,659 $9,680 $968 2.2% $937 $156 0.3%Finance and Insurance$40,277 $50,967 $70,103 $10,690 $1,069 2.4% $19,136 $3,189 5.5%Real Estate and Rental and Leasing$23,373 $31,620 $43,845 $8,247 $825 3.1% $12,225 $2,038 5.6%Professional and Technical Services$41,143 $69,407 $82,796 $28,264 $2,826 5.4% $13,389 $2,232 3.0%Management of Companies and Enterprises $41,269 $84,847 $140,357 $43,578 $4,358 7.5% $55,510 $9,252 8.8%Administrative and Waste Services$21,239 $28,906 $34,798 $7,667 $767 3.1% $5,892 $982 3.1%Educational Services$31,910 $39,091 $44,125 $7,180 $718 2.1% $5,034 $839 2.0%Health Care and Social Assistance$31,010 $42,583 $47,498 $11,572 $1,157 3.2% $4,916 $819 1.8%Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation$14,737 $22,855 $24,678 $8,118 $812 4.5% $1,823 $304 1.3%Accommodation and Food Services$10,923 $14,665 $18,022 $3,742 $374 3.0% $3,357 $560 3.5%Other Services, Ex. Public Admin$20,388 $28,061 $34,048 $7,673 $767 3.2% $5,987 $998 3.3%Public Administration$38,607 $55,219 $60,784 $16,612 $1,661 3.6% $5,565 $928 1.6%Unclassified--- $60,293 $68,445Total$32,394 $40,810 $56,987 $8,417 $842 2.3% $16,176 $2,696 5.7%Source: Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment QCEW; Economic & Planning SystemsChange 2010-20162000-2010ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 71
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10
The City’s six largest industries have a wide variety of average annual wages, with some much
higher than average and some well below the County average. Education and Health Care have
average wages of $44,125 and $47,498, which are slightly below average, as shown in Figure
3. Retail Trade and Accommodations and Food Service have average annual wages that are less
than half of the County average. This reflects both lower hourly wage rates as well as higher
percentage of part time jobs in these industries. Manufacturing and Professional and Technical
Services have higher than average annual wages of $82,669 and $82,796 respectively.
Figure 3
Larimer County Largest Industry Average Annual Wage, 2016
Recent employment growth by industry was split based on average wages for that industry to
understand how even the growth in employment has been between low paying, medium paying
and high paying industries. Industries with an average annual wage greater than 20 percent less
than the county average of $56,987 were considered below average wage industries (less than
$46,000 annually). Industries with an average wage greater than 20 percent more than the
county average were considered above average wage industries (greater than $68,000). Lastly,
industries with an average wage within 20 percent of the average wage for the county were
considered average wage jobs. From 2010 to 2016, below average wage jobs accounted for 42
percent of new jobs in the county, with majority within retail and accommodations and food
service. Thirty eight percent of new jobs since 2010 were in average wage paying industries,
with health care accounting for half of those jobs. Lastly, above average wage paying industries
accounted for 21 percent of employment growth.
$44,125 $47,498
$27,855
$18,022
$82,669 $82,796
$56,987
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Education Health Care Retail Trade Accommodations
and Food Service
Manufacturing Professional and
Technical
Services
Larimer County
AverageSource: Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 72
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11
City Employment Conditions
The City of Fort Collins is the economic center of the northern Colorado region. Fort Collins
accounts for over 55 percent of the employment in the Fort Collins/Loveland Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), with over 85,000 jobs in Fort Collins, with Colorado State University as
the largest employer in the region. The economic strengths of Fort Collins are aligned with the
identity of the City. Fort Collins is a community with quality educational options and natural
assets and amenities that promote and encourage a healthy lifestyle. The two largest industries
in Fort Collins, Education and Health Care, reflect these major assets. These assets that have
produced an educated workforce and a high quality of life have historically attracted large
employers in manufacturing and technology to locate in the city.
Economic Base Organization
The City’s 2015 Economic Health Strategy Plan provides the roadmap for addressing the threats
the city’s economy faces and the opportunities it has for economic growth and diversity. The plan
is organized around five major themes;
x Community prosperity – Enhancing opportunities for all residents to participate in the local
economy.
x Grow our own – Continuing the City’s history of producing new innovations and new
businesses through entrepreneurship and investment in research and development.
x Place matters – A commitment to developing and maintaining the assets and amenities
needed to support economic growth.
x The climate economy – Helping the business community adapt to the challenges presented
by climate change and leveraging opportunities to create new economic activity through
innovation in climate adaptation.
x Think regionally – Shifting and embracing the benefits in addressing economic health issues
and opportunities through regional collaboration and strategies.
The City of Fort Collins has a total employment of approximately 85,000 jobs, as shown in Table
3. Traditionally, the economy has been driven by education and health care. However, the City
has a long history of entrepreneurship and development of new ideas and products that serve
not just residents but the nation and the world. The City’s targeted industries are advanced
manufacturing, health care and bioscience, and computer technology design and development.
These are primary job industries that produce goods and service exported to the nation and the
world. The City’s economic health strategy also targets economic activities that are unique to
Fort Collins, that not only create products and services but creates the quality of life and culture
that fosters innovation. Examples of these industries and activities include breweries, bike
manufacturing, local foods, and arts and culture.
Lastly, the City is committed to identifying ways to leverage the impacts of climate change to
create opportunities to foster innovation in climate adaptation through clean energy and other
industries. Defining clean energy and the climate economy through the traditional NAICS
industries is difficult as many industries are involved in these activities so specific sector is not
isolated, but the clean energy economy is represented in the several of the City’s target
industries and other primary industries, including manufacturing, professional and technical
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 73
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12
services, mining/oil and gas, and others. As well, the City’s utilities and other utility providers
play a major role in the City’s efforts to foster innovation in clean energy and climate adaptation.
The economic base was organized into three categories to help illustrate the composition of the
City’s employment and also the importance of the industries the City has targeted. Industries
identified as target industries and other primary industries account for 48 percent of the City’s
employment base, as shown in Table 3. The other components of the economy are industries
that support the business community (Business Support Services) and industries that support
the residents of the city (Community Support Services). Business support service industries
account for 16 percent of the economic base, and community support services industries account
for 36 percent of employment.
The purpose of this organization is to isolate the industries that drive the economy to analyze
what is needed to support these industries and estimate the demand for new development. The
policies and locations needed to support these target industries are a key focus of City Plan.
Organizing the industries in Fort Collins by business and community support industries also helps
understand the demand related to how and where to support the target and primary businesses
and how to support residents’ quality of life.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 74
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13
Table 3
Fort Collins Employment by Industry, 2016
Sector 2016 Jobs % of Jobs
Target and Other Primary Industries
Hospitals and Health Providers 9,885 12%
Education 14,268 17%
Food and Beverage Production/Agriculture 1,718 2%
Manufacturing 5,733 7%
IT/Technology Development 446 1%
Professional and Technical Services 7,080 8%
Management of Companies 459 1%
Mining/Oil and Gas 51 0%
Arts and Entertainment 1,252 1%
Target/Primary Industries Total 40,891 48%
Business Support Services
Utilities 355 0%
Construction 2,443 3%
Wholesale Trade 1,267 1%
Transportation and Warehousing 645 1%
Information (non-internet)856 1%
Finance and Insurance 2,206 3%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,600 2%
Administrative and Waste Services 4,657 5%
Business Support Services Total 14,029 16%
Community Support Services
Nursing/Social Assistance 3,712 4%
Retail Trade 9,887 12%
Accommodation and Food Service 9,720 11%
Other Services 2,181 3%
Public Administration 4,753 6%
Community Support Services Total 30,252 36%
Total 85,173
Source: Colorado Department of Labor; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Economic & Planning Systems
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 75
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14
Industry Specialization
The largest industries in Fort Collins are also the industries that the City has higher
concentrations of as compared to the State of Colorado. Education and Manufacturing have
location quotients of 2.0 and 1.5 respectively, which means they have higher concentrations of
employment in Fort Collins than in the State of Colorado, as shown in Figure 4. Fort Collins has
much lower concentrations of Wholesale Trade and Transportation and Warehousing, as these
industries have location quotients of 0.4 and 0.2, despite the growing number of jobs in these
industries in Larimer County.
Figure 4
Fort Collins Location Quotient, 2016
Workforce Conditions
The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce in concert with the City of Fort Collins and several other
regional partners active in economic development commissioned studies of the workforce
challenges and opportunities facing Fort Collins and northern Colorado. The most recent study,
Talent 2.0, identified three major challenges related to workforce.
x First, employment growth has been outnumbering the growth in workforce in the recent past,
which is creating a tight labor market and putting more pressures on companies to be
proactive in recruitment.
x Third, an estimated quarter of the labor force in Larimer County is 55 years or older and
many will retire over the next 10 years.
The impact of these challenges on City Plan is the need to have a strategy that plans for a city
that is attractive and accessible to a growing workforce. Housing diversity and affordability are
key elements to the accessibility of the workforce. Another major concern coming out of the
2.0
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Educational Services
Manufacturing
Health Care and Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Accommodation and Food Services
Professional and Technical Services
Public Administration
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Administrative and Waste Services
Other Services, Ex. Public Admin
Utilities
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Finance and Insurance
Information
Construction
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing &…
Management of Companies and…
Wholesale Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Mining
Location Quotient
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs; Economic & Planning Systems
HigherConcentration - Fort Collins
HigherConcentration - State of Colorado
Equal Concentration
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 76
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15
Talent 2.0 study was the rate of underemployment. An estimated 45 percent of labor force has a
bachelor’s degree; however, only 20 percent of jobs require a college degree. The concern is
much of the labor force is stuck in jobs that they are over-skilled or overqualified for.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 77
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 163125-Df_EmploymentLandDemand.docx
3. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
This chapter includes a review of National real estate conditions and trends affecting real estate
demand. It is followed by an analysis of office, retail, and industrial/flex development trend sin
Larimer County.
National Trends
There are a number of trends impacting commercial and industrial development in the United
States. These trends were analyzed and summarized below to understand their potential impact
on commercial and industrial development in Fort Collins.
Office Development Trends
Office Park Development
Nationally, office development is moving away from the single use, suburban office park or
corporate campus to more mixed use, centrally located, and often transit-accessible locations in
major urban areas. Much of this trend has been driven by shifting preferences from the
workforce, especially younger, college educated Millennial-aged workers, who wish to have more
access to amenities near work such as shopping, services, and dining. Their choice of place to
live is being driven by considerations of quality of life and opportunity for employment. As result,
employers are making decisions on locations based centrality of the workforce and locations that
have an attractive quality of life.
The focus on improving suburban business parks dates back at least 15 to 20 years. In 2002, the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) published a study titled Ten Principles for Reinventing America’s
Suburban Business Districts. The report authors state that existing suburban business districts
“encompass a disparate group of isolated uses with little or no integration, a transportation
system that is auto oriented and often hostile to pedestrians, and a near total absence of civic
identity”. They suggest that in response to the social and economic forces identified above, there
is a potential to “transform America’s more than 200 suburban business districts into more
integrated live-work-shop places”. It also suggests that the same forces that led to the
resurgence of central business districts in the 1990s—such as increasing development densities,
improving pedestrian connections between buildings, and improving transit—will be focus of
smart growth and the reinvention of suburban business districts. The report’s principles include:
“Break up the Superblocks and Optimize Connectivity; Embrace Mixed Uses; Honor the Human
Scale by Creating a Pedestrian-friendly Place: and Think Transit - Think Density”.
Notable efforts are underway at some of the most prominent business parks including a new 50-
year master plan for Research Triangle Park that allows for mixed use and higher densities, and
a study to evaluate innovation district potentials for Stanford Research Park. In some of the most
vibrant urban markets (including San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and Denver), the appeal of the
downtown mixed use environment has grown to the point where real estate values are higher
downtown than in the premier suburban business districts, including rents, occupancy rates, and
even absorption. A significant portion of the millennial workforce, particularly those employed in
technology and other knowledge based industries, are showing a preference for living in
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 78
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17
downtowns and other mixed use activity centers where they can live and work in close proximity
with available transit to minimize dependencies on the auto or long commute to work. As a result
there are a greater number of small businesses forming or locating in these urban, mixed use
areas and even some notable examples of larger companies moving from the suburbs back to
the central city.
Office Space Trends
More Efficient Office Space - Businesses are leasing less office space per person than in past
years. Technology has reduced the need for space, and new workplace designs are more
efficient. Open floor plans and shared spaces are becoming more common. In these settings,
workers are freer to move around an office with a laptop and mobile phone. The National
Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) reported in 2015 that the average office lease
size had dropped by approximately 10 percent from 2004 through 2014. Some of the trend in
efficiency (more workers per square foot of building area) is driven by cost. Fast growing
industries like technology are not necessarily cutting space requirements as they desire spacious
and luxurious offices to attract the highest skilled talent. Slower growth industries such as law
and accounting are reducing their space requirements to cut costs.
Co-Working Space - Co-working space is a new type of office space in which tenants rent
desk(s) space in a space shared with other workers and firms. They are popular with small new
firms, which can be in any field including professional services, creative industries, and
technology. Tenants have access to conference rooms and shared office equipment (e.g.
printers). The benefits of co-working space are that they typically have lower tenant finish levels
and lower cost than traditional office space and are flexible in that they give a firm a low-cost
way to grow from one to a few employees. They also offer, and are marketed for, opportunities
for collaboration and knowledge sharing with likeminded people and potential business partners.
Some also offer events including networking, speakers, and skill development workshops. Co-
working space is popular with entrepreneurs and remote workers. It is becoming more common in
major and mid-sized cities but is still a small portion of the total office market. Fort Collins has
captured its share of co-working spaces, primarily located in downtown and has an alliance
(fo(co)works) of independent co-working spaces to jointly promote and market their spaces and
events.
Innovation Districts
The centers of American innovation have evolved since the industrial revolution. The original
locations for innovation were the concentrations of manufacturing jobs and large factories in
cities in the same or similar industries (e.g. car manufacturing and Detroit). In the second half of
the 20th century, innovation shifted to the suburban office/science park with clusters of firms in
isolated campuses and buildings. The latest shift has been to areas with concentrations of assets,
companies and institutions, often in urban areas, that foster innovation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 79
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18
These concentrations have been identified, by Brookings Institute and others, as “Innovation
Districts”. The Brookings Institute defines Innovation Districts as “geographic areas where
leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business
incubators, and accelerators. They are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and
technically-wired and offer mixed-use housing, office and retail.” Their research suggests there
are three general models for innovation districts:
x Anchored Districts – These projects are clustered around major anchor research institutions
and are typically in downtown or mid-town settings. Examples include the Kendall Square/ MID
cluster in Cambridge; the University City/University of Pennsylvania cluster in Philadelphia;
and the Saint Louis/Washington University and Saint Louis University cluster in Saint Louis.
(The most applicable model for Fort Collins)
x Re-imagined Urban Areas – These projects include revitalizing industrial districts and
waterfronts in major urban areas including: San Francisco’s Mission Bay; Boston’s South
Waterfront; and Seattle’s South Lake Union.
x Urbanized Science Park – This model is focused around the urbanization and diversification
of traditional business research parks. Examples include the new master plans for Research
Triangle Park and Stanford Research Park as well as similar efforts at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, University of Virginia-Charlottesville, and University of Arizona-Tucson.
The innovation district concept is a reaction to employment and workforce trends. The concept
tries to leverage these trends. Innovation districts are promoted as being well suited to
accommodate knowledge based economy. The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on
knowledge workers with skills to fill STEM related occupations. Research activities, firms, and
jobs related to STEM fields are increasingly finding benefits to clustering of activities and of
educated workers. The Innovation District concept provides the opportunity for these companies
and activities to cluster in environments that foster interaction.
Another benefit of the district concept is that it provides the connections to jump-start
entrepreneurship. New business creation plays an increasingly important role in economic growth
in communities, but the rate of new business has been declining in the U.S. The rise of
collaborative working spaces has decreased the cost and risk for new businesses, while the
clustering of economic activities allows these new businesses to leverage assets needed to grow
their ideas and businesses.
The districts also support formal and informal interactions. Regular interactions of workers and
residents increase the social networks of workers in the districts and also grow the resources of
the companies they work for. These districts—and entities that help manage them—are designed
to facilitate increased interaction through formal events but also through every-day interactions
and events. Lastly, planners and urban economist are promoting districts as having the ability to
foster more inclusive job growth. Locating employers, research activities, and the spin-off social/
entertainment activities in centralized urban areas increases the diversity of jobs in the district.
The superior connectivity of these areas makes it easier for workers of all backgrounds to work in
the same area and share the same social networks, which is the opposite of the traditional
models where knowledge workers were clustered in suburban office parks with little interaction
with others outside the park.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 80
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19
Medical Districts
A related planning concept is medical districts that are intended to capitalize on the business and
research associated with major medical institutions. These include city-initiated efforts that are
intended to organize the spinoff business development surrounding major hospitals and/or
clusters of hospitals, as well as university-driven projects created to capture commercialization of
basic research taking place within university medical centers.
The recently completed University of Texas at Austin Medical District Master Plan creates a
partnership between UT Austin, Seton Healthcare, and Central Texas Healthcare to create a
compact urban development on the southern edge of the UT campus in downtown Austin. It will
contain the university’s planned new medical school and medical research building, as well as a
new teaching hospital and medical office building. The vision for the district integrates health
care teaching and research within an interdisciplinary setting taking advantage of adjacent
university resources.
A Colorado example is the creation of a
medical district at the Anschutz Medical
Campus in Aurora. The University of
Colorado relocated its medical school,
hospital and research facilities to a 200
acre campus site at the former Fitzsimons
Army Medical Center. Children’s Hospital
of Denver and Veteran’s Hospital are
located on an adjacent 25 acre site. The
public medical facilities are complemented
by a 160-acre bioscience research park
intended to facilitate the commercialization
of university research as well as capture
other private sector medical related
businesses. The Anschutz Medical Campus has been the fastest growing employment center in
the metro area since 2005, having captured nearly 20,000 jobs over the last 10 years.
The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 81
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20
Retail Development Trends
The retail industry has shifted greatly over the last 10 to 15 years, impacted by the growth of
internet sales, declining brick and mortar store sales, retail chain consolidations, and
demographic shifts and preferences. Collectively, these trends are impacting store sizes and
reducing the overall demand for new retail space locally and nationally.
The Rise of E-Commerce
Between 2001 and 2015, total online retail purchases (excluding auto related) grew from
approximately $29 billion to $310 billion, an 18.4 percent annual growth rate. Online sales
accounted for 22 percent of total retail sales growth. During the same period, brick and mortar
stores grew at a 3.7 percent annual growth rate, decreasing their share of the total retail market
from 98 percent to 89 percent. Despite still accounting for only 11 percent of overall spending,
the growth in online shopping is impacting the demand for traditional brick and mortar stores.
This also affects the way retailers are doing business, pushing them to alter store formats and
incorporate online sales and marketing into their business concepts. The list of top online retailers
reinforces this point as many have a significant brick and mortar presence as well. This group
includes such major retailers as Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Bed Bath & Beyond.
Bifurcating of Retail Demand
Changes in spending patterns are also affecting the amount and mix of retail space. Consumer
spending is split between low-cost, high convenience retail options—where the internet is making
significant impacts—and more experience, community, locally oriented retail options. On the low
cost, high convenience end of the spectrum, online retailers like Amazon and warehouse club
retailers such as Costco are preforming the best. On the other end, the shift to more experience
oriented retail is being driven by the millennial generation. A portion of this generation is highly
mobile, are less likely to accumulate furniture and home furnishings and other large, high cost
items. They are also more interested in experiences, emphasizing travel and entertainment.
However, they still like to shop but in more experience-oriented retail areas and/or with retailers
that match with their lifestyle. Their spending patterns are similar to the boomer generation who
has already purchased much of the goods they need and are downsizing their homes and
accumulated items. Boomers are also spending more of their income on travel, leisure,
entertainment, and dining out.
Social Media and “Showrooming”
According to the National Retail Federation, 86 percent of American consumers at least
occasionally research items online before buying in a store; of these, 22 percent conduct this
research primarily on blogs and 32 percent primarily on Facebook. Electronics is most
researched, followed by apparel, appliances, and then shoes. Many consumers will also look at or
try on an item in a store and then price shop and purchase it online.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 82
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21
Changing Retail Mix
These changes in spending patterns are impacting the mix of retail space in aggregate as well as
within individual districts, corridors, and centers. Sales for prepared foods are now outpacing
sales for food for home consumption. The restaurant, bar, and microbrewery segment has grown
rapidly and new food and beverage formats have been introduced (e.g., food halls and market
halls, farm to table restaurants, and food trucks). These market/food hall establishments
(Denver metro area examples include Denver Central Market, The Source, and Avanti in Denver
and Stanley in Aurora) focus on creating a community atmosphere with shared eating and
common spaces and a variety of food options and small format retail options.
Store and Chain Consolidation
Over the past five years, there have been nearly 200 retail chain bankruptcies. In 2017, CNN
Money reported that there were 5,300 store closing announcements through June 20 compared
to 6,200 in 2008 during the Great Recession—the worst year so far for store closings. There are
fewer stores in the market now, making it more difficult to find tenants for new retail
developments, as well as increasing vacancies in existing centers as large blocks of space are
vacated by store brands that no longer exist.
Industrial Development Trends
The industrial development industry is shifting significantly in reaction to increase in technology
and the internet. The shifts are having both positive and negative impacts on the economic
health of communities. Generally, the shifts are pushing towards more industrial oriented
development but at the same time resulting in fewer jobs as automation improves efficiency.
Globalization and Automation Impact on Manufacturing
Industrial employment, particularly manufacturing, has recovered slightly since the economic
recession of 2008 and 2009, but has not returned to pre-recession levels. Sharp declines in
industrial employment often are precipitated by recessions, and employment either continues to
decline or fails to recover to pre-recession levels. As a comparison, at the national level,
manufacturing jobs are down 37 percent from their peak in 1979. Globalization and automation
are the major reasons for these continual declines. The number of robots per capita employee
has increased dramatically in the last 25 years and economists estimate that each additional
robot reduces employment in a commuting area by 3 to 6 workers and wages by 0.25-0.5
percent. The rate of robot substitution varies across industries, but manufacturing tends to have
high factors. Off-shoring of manufacturing has impacted numerous manufacturing subindustries
including computer equipment manufacturing.
Growth of Logistics
As e-commerce has driven down demand for retail space, it has at the same time driven up
demand for industrial development supporting its growth. Logistics and distribution oriented
employment sectors (transportation and warehousing, wholesale trade) and industrial
development are the largest drivers of new industrial development. As e-commerce retailers and
traditional retailers are pushing for more convenience and more online shopping, demands for
local distribution are growing. Industrial buildings and developments related to logistics want to
locate centrally to their service market, and along major transportation routes. Industrial spaces
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 83
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22
for logistics activities look for larger floor plates, with higher ceilings, which make newer
buildings more attractive.
Middle Skill Jobs
Traditionally, jobs within industrial oriented businesses are an important source of “middle skill”
jobs—jobs that don’t require a college degree but rather some form of specialized training.
Manufacturing wages are typically higher than wages in other industries accessible to workers
without a college degree, such as retail and food service. Unlike service industries, manufacturing
wages approach, and/or exceed, a living wage. However, there are trends impacting the
presence of these middle skill jobs. Automation is reducing employment in industrial oriented
employment sectors. As well, industrial areas in urban areas are under threat for redevelopment.
In larger urban areas, including Denver, communities are considering policies related to
industrial preservation as redevelopment pressures are pushing industrial uses to the fringes of
metro areas and either driving middle, lower income residents out or increasing their commutes.
Small Urban Manufacturers (SUMs)
Urban manufacturing today is largely occupied by small, specialized firms in collaborative and
interdependent networks. In Fort Collins, 80 percent of manufacturing firms have fewer than 20
employees. The average size of a manufacturing firm is 28 employees but the median size is six
employees. Manufacturers nationally have also been trending towards smaller footprints and
fewer employees. Research has shown that small urban manufacturers (SUMs) are more
productive when located in denser urban areas. These firms desire the centrality within their
market, which helps with employee attraction and also proximity to goods and services needed
to support their businesses. SUMs also tend to pay higher median wages with higher wage
growth and skill development opportunities. However, these smaller manufacturers are typically
looking for existing, lower cost spaces at least initially. As they grow, finding locations with a
larger building and/or the ability to build to suit their own facility is a need, which is increasingly
harder to find in central locations and at an affordable cost.
Local Real Estate Development Conditions and Trends
Inventory, Rent and Vacancy Rates
Fort Collins has nearly 70 percent of the office space in Larimer County, and 57 and 56 percent
of the retail and industrial space as well. However, over the past 10 years the City has been
capturing a decreased share of new commercial and industrial development. Fort Collins
captured only 45 percent of office development in the past 10 years and 46 percent of retail
development since 2007. The City captured only 34 percent of industrial space, as shown in
Table 4. As neighboring communities have grown, many have been able to attract and develop
their own retail centers, primarily centered along I-25. As the labor force has become more
interconnected within the region, I-25 has grown in importance and the market has responded.
The City of Fort Collins has not made the same proactive efforts to grow along I-25. The
declining capture illustrates this growing competition from neighboring communities for new
development.
The job growth in the past five to seven years has been driving demand for spaces for
businesses to locate. Vacancy rates for office, retail and industrial space in the City and Larimer
County are low and in most cases indicate demand for new development. The office vacancy rate
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 84
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23
at the end of 2017 was 3.7 percent, indicating demand for new inventory. The vacancy rate in
the county for office space is also low at 4.7 percent. The county has a higher average rental
rate of $22.11 per square foot, versus $16.05 in the city—which may be a result of the lack of
newer office space in the city.
Retail space in Fort Collins has grown by an average of 150,000 new retail square feet per year
in the past 10 years, with a total inventory of 11.3 million square feet. Capture of recent
development is down from traditional amounts, as described above, but is outpacing the city’s
capture of population growth. Retail rates in the city are higher than the county’s on average
($19.53 versus $18.51). The vacancy rate within the city is 6 percent, which is near equilibrium,
but the county rate is 3.5 percent, which is low and indicates demand for new space. The city’s
vacancy rate is still relatively low considering the addition of space within the Foothills Mall
redevelopment, which has been slow to absorb.
Strong demand for industrial and flex space in the City Fort Collins is reflected in the 3.1 percent
vacancy rate in fourth quarter 2017. Vacancy in the county is higher at 6.8 percent but still low
for industrial space. Rental rates have been growing in recent years and average rates are
essentially the same in the city and elsewhere in the county.
Table 4
Larimer County Commercial and Industrial Development Inventory
Use Fort Collins
% of
County
Larimer
County
Office
Inventory (sq ft)7,600,180 69% 11,005,512
New Development past 10 years (2007-2017) 839,547 45% 1,884,712
Average Rental Rates $16.05 $22.11
Vacancy Rate 3.7%4.7%
Retail
Inventory (sq ft)11,329,874 57% 19,866,822
New Development past 10 years (2007-2017) 1,506,387 46% 3,271,971
Average Rental Rates $19.53 $18.51
Vacancy Rate 6.0%3.5%
Industrial/Flex
Inventory (sq ft)12,019,153 56% 21,472,142
New Development past 10 years (2007-2017) 620,379 34% 1,837,487
Average Rental Rates $9.44 $9.36
Vacancy Rate 3.1%6.8%
Source: CoStar
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 85
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24
Development Locations
Office development over the past 17 years has been clustered in three major locations. The three
major clusters of new development are the Harmony Corridor, the Centerra development north
of the intersection of I-25 and US-34 highways, and in and around downtown Fort Collins. The
clusters along Harmony Road and in Centerra have been built over the past 15 to 20 years, as
shown in Figure 5. The new development has moved employment away from the central
locations along US 287 to the east towards I-25. The clustering of office development mirrors
national trends of concentrations of office employment especially in central locations with
superior transportation access and within more mixed-use environments, albeit largely
suburban/auto-oriented in local context.
Retail development patterns in the past 15 to 20 years provide the most stark illustration of the
shift of the economic activity in Larimer County away from US 287 to I-25. The majority of retail
development in the county has occurred along US 34 and Harmony Road towards the
intersections with I-25, as shown in Figure 6. The growth of the region has shifted the
orientation of retail away from the individual communities to regional locations. The traditional
location for regional retail was along College Avenue anchored by Foothills Mall. The Shops at
Centerra and other retail components of the Centerra development create a major new node of
regionally oriented retail in northern Colorado. The shift impacted Foothills Mall and led the City
to proactively work to redevelop Foothills Mall. Smaller communities in northern Colorado, such
as Windsor, Johnstown, and Timnath, have been making aggressive efforts to capture retail
development primarily along I-25.
Industrial development has also been clustered in a few primary locations in Larimer County, as
shown in Figure 7. The concentrations include the Mulberry Corridor (both outside and inside
the city boundaries), near the intersection of US 34 and I-25, and smaller concentrations in
Loveland near the intersection of US 34 and US 287 and at the northern edge of Loveland along
US 287. The growth of the region and national retail trends have grown the concentrations of
logistics/distribution related activities, which have gravitated to the US 34 and I-25 area.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 86
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25
Figure 5
Larimer County Office Development, 2000 to 2017
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 87
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26
Figure 6
Larimer County Retail Development, 2000 to 2017
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 88
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27
Figure 7
Larimer County Industrial Development, 2000 to 2017
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 89
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 163125-Df_EmploymentLandDemand.docx
4. LAND DEMAND METHODOLOGY AND INPUTS
This chapter provides an overview of the land demand model and demand forecast developed for
City Plan. The chapter provides an explanation of methodology, summary of employment
forecasts, identifies major model inputs and assumptions, and provides a summary of the
estimated land demand by development type and corresponding land use designations.
Methodology
To estimate land demand for employment uses, EPS utilizes a four step process illustrated in
Figure 8. Employment in the region is forecasted by industry sector and then allocated to
building types based on existing location patterns by industry in the city. Estimated new jobs by
building type are translated to demand for buildings square feet using national averages of
employees per square feet. Lastly, density factors (floor area ratio) per building type are derived
from existing and recent development within the region are used to estimate demand for land.
Figure 8
Employment Land Demand Methodology
Forecast
Scenarios
Industry cluster
specific
employment
forecast
Building
Type
Allocation
Convert
employment
forecast to non-
residential
building
categories
Non-
Residential
Demand
Estimate
Forecast total
non-residential
space demand
Land
Demand
Estimate
Convert non-residential space
to land demand
forecast using
FAR estimates
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 90
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29
To forecast future employment growth by industry, EPS relied on four major sources. First, the
Northern Colorado MPO’s total employment forecast for the county was used as a general guide
towards the overall total employment growth between 2015 and 2040. Historic employment
growth rates and annual new jobs averages, growth estimates from Woods & Poole (a secondary
employment data provider), and growth estimates by industry provided by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment are used to develop estimated growth rates in
employment by sector from 2016 to 2040, as shown in Figure 9. The rates used largely rely on
historic annual job growth averages and the state’s forecast by industry.
Figure 9
Employment Forecast Methodology
Hist.• Historical Employment Trends
W&P • Woods & Poole Growth Rate Forecast
State
• CO. Dept. of Labor and Employment Growth
Rate Forecast by Industry (2016-2026)
ADJ • Growth Rate Adjustments
FINAL •Industry Level Forecasts
Model
Assumption
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 91
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30
Next, the forecast of employment by industry are allocated to building types. Four simple
building types were used; retail, office, industrial/flex and industrial. These building types were
chosen to align with the City’s three major land use designation categories for employment,
which are commercial/mixed use, employment, and industrial. Square foot per employee factor,
which were developed using national/industry averages, were used to estimate demand for
building space in the county. The factors used are shown in Figure 10. The estimated capture of
new building space in Fort Collin’s GMA was estimated using historic capture rates for new
development. The demand for building space was then translated into demand for land using
floor area ratios for each building type, as shown in Table 5.
Figure 10
Future Employees to Future Building Demand Methodology
Employees by Building
Type by Year
(Larimer County)
Square Feet per
Employee by Building
Type
Total Commercial
Space
(Larimer County)
Total Commercial
Space
(City of Fort Collins)
City of Fort Collins
Capture Rate by
Building Type
Total Commercial
Space
(Larimer County)
Model
Assumption
Factors Retail Office Office Industrial/Flex Industrial
Square Feet per Employee 350 225 225 400 700
Floor Area Ratio 0.25 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
E:\[163125-Employment Land Demand.xlsx]Conversion Factors
Commercial/Mixed Use Employment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 92
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31
Employment Forecast
The growth in wage and salary jobs in the county was estimated by industry from 2016 to 2040
to estimate the demand for new commercial and industrial development. Wage and salary
employment is estimated to grow by 85,633 jobs, which is an annual rate of 1.9 percent, as
shown in Table 6. It is important to note job growth is forecast to outpace housing growth in the
county, which unless otherwise addressed will continue the inflow workers from other counties.
Table 6
Larimer County Employment Forecast by Industry, 2016 to 2040
Sector 2016 2026 2040 Total Ann. # Ann. %
Target and Other Primary Industries
Hospitals and Health Providers 15,372 20,659 27,259 11,887 495 2.4%
Education 17,295 20,471 24,869 7,574 316 1.5%
Food and Beverage Production/Agriculture 2,811 4,365 5,604 2,793 116 2.9%
Manufacturing 11,237 13,698 14,688 3,451 144 1.1%
Technology Development 862 1,276 1,803 941 39 3.1%
Professional and Technical Services 10,662 14,329 18,394 7,732 322 2.3%
Management of Companies 860 1,156 1,525 665 28 2.4%
Mining/Oil and Gas 498 702 853 355 15 2.3%
Arts and Entertainment 3,006 3,962 5,228 2,222 93 2.3%
Target/Primary industries Total 62,603 80,618 100,224 37,621 1,568 2.0%
Business Support Services
Utilities 737 775 819 82 3 0.4%
Construction 10,426 14,850 19,594 9,168 382 2.7%
Wholesale Trade 4,359 6,149 7,574 3,215 134 2.3%
Transportation and Warehousing 3,151 4,034 4,833 1,682 70 1.8%
Information (non-internet)2,088 2,109 2,139 51 2 0.1%
Finance and Insurance 3,673 4,566 5,781 2,108 88 1.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2,721 3,449 4,489 1,768 74 2.1%
Administrative and Waste Services 8,518 8,954 9,337 819 34 0.4%
Business Support Services Total 35,673 44,884 54,566 18,893 787 1.8%
Community Support Services
Nursing/Social Assistance 5,740 7,348 9,695 3,955 165 2.2%
Retail Trade 18,582 21,565 25,485 6,903 288 1.3%
Accommodation and Food Service 18,175 24,190 31,918 13,743 573 2.4%
Other Services 4,314 5,742 7,371 3,057 127 2.3%
Public Administration 7,926 8,755 9,388 1,462 61 0.7%
Community Support Services Total 54,737 67,599 83,856 29,119 1,213 1.8%
Total 153,013 193,101 238,646 85,633 3,568 1.9%
Source: Colorado Department of Labor; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Economic & Planning Systems
Change 2016 to 2040
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 93
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32
Future Land Demand
The estimated new 85,633 jobs by 2040 are estimated to generate demand for 22 million square
feet of commercial and industrial development. The City of Fort Collins (including the current
GMA) is estimated to capture a third of new development in the county, with an estimated 2.8
million square feet of retail, 2.4 million square feet of office/general commercial space, and 2.2
million square feet of industrial/flex space, as shown in Table 7. The estimate land demand
(between 2016 and 2040) for Commercial/Mixed Use areas is 11.8 million square feet or 294
acres; the demand for Employment areas is estimated to be 7.7 million square feet or 176 acres;
and the demand for Industrial areas is estimated to be 5.6 million square feet or 128 acres.
Table 7
Fort Collins Estimated Employment Building and Land Demand, 2016 to 2040
Comparison of Demand to Supply
The City of Fort Collins has an estimated 7,556 acres of vacant and potential redevelopment land
capacity for growth, as estimated by the City of Fort Collins. The majority, 90 percent, of the
land in the capacity estimate is “vacant” land. Thirty-eight percent of the land capacity is
estimated to be for employment uses within three categories; commercial/mixed-use,
employment, and industrial. This totals to 2,882 acres or 125 million square feet.
As shown in Table 7, the estimated demand for new employment land is approximately 600
acres. The estimated demand for employment oriented development accounts for 20 percent of
the estimated supply. The estimated demand for commercial/mixed-use development accounts
for 27 percent of capacity, and demand for employment and industrial development account for
19 and 15 percent of estimated supply.
Retail Office Office Indust/Flex Industrial
All Industries
Larimer County Building Demand 7,861,668 1,968,470 3,721,565 2,995,443 5,588,382
% Capture in Fort Collins GMA 35% 45% 45% 35% 20%
Fort Collins Building Demand 2,751,584 885,812 1,674,704 1,048,405 1,117,676
Fort Collins Land Demand (Sq Ft)11,006,335 1,771,623 4,186,760 3,494,684 5,588,382
Fort Collins Land Demand (Acres)253 41 96 80 128
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Commercial/Mixed Use Employment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 94
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33
Figure 11
Estimated Land Demand versus Supply, 2016 to 2040
The locations of buildable land capacity (vacant land), as identified by the City of Fort Collins, are
shown in Figure 12, based on current zoning. The majority of land zoned for new employment
development is located in the northeast portion of the city along Mulberry and along I-25. There
are also a number of larger development sites along the Harmony Corridor, which are zoned for
commercial/mixed-use. Other commercial/mixed-use parcels are located around the I-
25/Highway 392 interchange in the southeast edge of the city, and along College Avenue on the
northern and southern edges of the community. Areas with potential for redevelopment were
also evaluated by the City of Fort Collins. These sites are generally scattered throughout the city
and only account for 10 percent of land capacity.
The buildable employment lands the City has greatly exceeds the demand for new employment
lands by 2040. The majority of employment and industrial capacity within the city is located
north of Mulberry and are in areas with limited infrastructure to support new development. As
well, the majority of the buildable land capacity in the city is outside of the City’s current water
service boundary. The location of areas designated for employment uses needs to be re-
examined through the City Plan process.
As described above, development pressures for office have primarily been in downtown, along
the Harmony Corridor, or at Centerra. As well, industrial development has located primarily near
the Mulberry Corridor and in Loveland. There are also large portions of land designated for
residential to the east of downtown and along Mulberry, which could be re-examined. The excess
capacity would suggest that the City could be more flexible with use of employment lands in
some areas. The City should also focus efforts on a few primary areas to capture employment
growth, similar to its historic efforts along Harmony Road.
12,777,958
7,681,445
5,588,382
47,880,721
40,570,739
37,066,075
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
Commercial/Mixed Use Employment Industrial
Estimated Demand (2016 to 2040)Land Supply/Capacity
Source: Economic & Planning Systems; City of Fort Collins
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 95
Employment Land Demand Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34
Figure 12
Buildable Lands Inventory
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 96
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS April 26, 2018 CCITY PLAN Employment Land Suitability Analysis ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 97
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 1 METHODOLOGY 1.Develop attributes desired by regional/community retail, office/employment, and industrial space users 2.Measure the presence of the attributes in the Growth Management Area for each use utilizing a grid of approximately 40 acre squares. 3.Develop a desirability score for each use for each of the grids and compare them to the Opportunity Areas 4.Assess the desirability of each use type in the Opportunity Areas MAJOR TASKS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 98
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 2 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND Much of capacity is near I-25Large amount of vacant employment in arealacking infrastructure and access to I-25Likely more redevelopment capacity thanestimatedITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 99
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 3 DEMAND VS CAPACITY LAND ACRES OF DEMAND VS CAPACITY 12,777,9587,681,4455,588,38247,880,72140,570,73937,066,07505,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,000Commercial/Mixed Use Employment IndustrialEstimated Demand (2016 to 2040)Land Supply/CapacityExcess capacity of employment landLarge amount of vacantemployment in area lackinginfrastructure and access to I-25Likely more redevelopment capacitythan estimatedExisting employment land often notdesirable to prospective employersITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 100
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 4 REGIONAL/COMMUNITY RETAIL ATTRIBUTES MEASURED Surrounding Housing density–Average housing density in grid of greaterthan 2 households per acreVisibility and Access fromhighways/major arterials–Within ¼ mile of Major Arterial or Highway–Adjacent to ArterialHighway Interchange–Adjacent to interchangePresence of Existing Retailers–Greater than 4 retailers in gridServed by City’s Water and Sewer–Water – Yes/No–Sewer – Yes/NoITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 101
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 5 OFFICE/EMPLOYMENT ATTRIBUTES MEASURED Employment Density–Average employment density of greater than 60jobs per gridHousing Density–Average housing density in grid of greater than 2households per acreProximity to highways/major arterials–Within 1/4 mile of Major Arterial/HighwayHighway Interchange–Adjacent to interchangeAccess to Transit–Adjacent to Max StopPresence of Enterprise Zone–In a enterprise zone Y/NServed by City’s Water and Sewer–Yes/NoAverage parcel size–Average parcel size of greater than 0.5 acresITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 102
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 6 INDUSTRIAL ATTRIBUTES MEASURED Access to highways/major arterials–Within ½ mile of Major Arterial or HighwayHighway Interchange–Adjacent to interchangeAccess to freight transportation–Adjacent to railPresence of Enterprise Zone–In an enterprise zone Y/NServed by City’s Water and Sewer–Water – Yes/No–Sewer – Yes/NoAverage parcel size–Average parcel size of greater than 2 acresITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 103
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 7 COMPARISON TO OPPORTUNITY AREAS QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT BASED ON SCORING Retail Focus Areas–Downtown, College andHarmony Corridors and selectHighway interchangesOffice Focus Areas–Greater downtown area,Midtown and HarmonyCorridors, select opportunitiesnear interchangesIndustrial Focus Areas–Interstate/interchanges,Mulberry Corridor, NorthCollegeRegional/Community RetailOffice/EmploymentIndustrialDowntownMountain Vista Area (north of Vine, excluding interchange areas)North College CorridorEast Mulberry Corridor (except interchange area)Midtown CorridorHarmony CorridorTimberline Corridor (Horsetooth to Harmony)W. Elizabeth CorridorMountain Visa InterchangeVine InterchangeMulberry InterchangeProspect InterchangeHarmony InterchangeHwy 392 Interchange19LEGENDLimited Adequate GoodDesirabilityITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 104
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 8 FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO DIRECTION AREA SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Downtown, I-25 interchanges, and major corridors (College Avenue, Harmony Road, andMulberry Street) should be the focus areas for employment usesAreas near downtown should be designated for employment areas. Specifically, areasbetween Vine and Mulberry from the river to Timberline Road should be prioritized foremployment uses, expect where residential uses are already present. Suggested changes tothe future land use map include changing residential areas to employment and/or industrial.The north side of the Mulberry corridor should be designated for employment and industrialuses (behind commercial frontages) where not already designated. This area is moreattractive for employment areas than other areas currently designated for employment.However, the infrastructure issues in the area may be limiting in terms of developmentpotential.Large portions of the Mountain Vista subarea currently designated for employment uses likelywill not be able to attract the desired employment uses over the plan horizon. Different usesshould be considered for these areas aside from areas near I-25 and with access to I-25.The City should focus regional commercial/retail oriented designations along I-25 aroundkey interchanges including Highway 392, Harmony Road, and Mulberry.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 105
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 9 FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO DIRECTION AREA SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED The demand and attractiveness for industrial development in Fort Collin’s industrial areas islower than the demand and value to the City than uses that could fit in employment areas.The potential for logistics oriented industrial uses exists and is attracted primarily to areasalong I-25. However, the demand likely exceeds what is currently designated along I-25.Portions of industrial and commercial designated lands currently along I-25, specifically nearthe Prospect interchange and north of the Mulberry interchange, could be designated foremployment as a way to replace employment areas re-designated to other uses in lessattractive areas.Certain remaining parcels along Harmony Road that are further from Harmony Road andbehind larger commercial and employment uses could be considered for designation asresidential uses. Specifically the City should strive for higher density residential uses in theseareas given their proximity to employment and potential enhanced transit routes.Lastly, even with changes to the future land use plan map, the city will still have plenty ofland to accommodate employment growth. However, the current and potentially new, largerareas designated for employment uses still may not be attractive to desired employers anddevelopments. The areas designated to for employment need to be support with investmentsto enhance their attractiveness and development readiness.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 106
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 10 12,777,9587,681,4455,588,38237,347,59159,489,52030,804,915010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,00050,000,00060,000,00070,000,00005,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,000Commercial/Mixed Use EmploymentIndustrialEstimated Demand (2016 to 2040)Land Supply/CapacitySource: Economic & Planning Systems; Clarion Associates, City of Fort CollinsIIMPACT OF SCENARIOS ON LAND SUPPLY CHANGES TO SUPPLY VS DEMAND BASED ON POTENTIAL SCENARIOS Baseline Scenario Capacity in the Baseline Scenario is basedon the Baseline growth framework plan.The totals do not match the City’s currentestimates of capacity based on zoning butare approximately the same.Under the Baseline Scenario, the City hasample land to accommodate futureemployment demand in all categories,with a large surplus of employment land.Reductions in employment and industrialdesignated lands likely won’t impact theCity negatively if areas of lower value foremployment uses are re-designated toother uses.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 107
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMSFort Collins Employment Land Suitability Analysis| 11 IMPACT OF SCENARIOS ON LAND SUPPLY CHANGES TO SUPPLY VS DEMAND BASED ON POTENTIAL SCENARIOS 12,777,9587,681,4455,588,38232,367,81037,542,58726,622,06805,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00005,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,000Commercial/Mixed Use Employment IndustrialEstimated Demand (2016 to 2040)Land Supply/CapacitySource: Economic & Planning Systems; Clarion Associates, City of Fort Collins12,777,9587,681,4455,588,38237,461,35241,635,77317,757,45805,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,00005,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,000Commercial/Mixed Use EmploymentIndustrialEstimated Demand (2016 to 2040)Land Supply/CapacitySource: Economic & Planning Systems; Clarion Associates, City of Fort CollinsScenario 2 Scenario 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 108
Corbett & Ziegler Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Meeting Date: September 8th, 2021
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
City Staff Attending:
Alyssa Stephens—Neighborhood Services
Ryan Mounce—Planning
Nicole Hahn—Traffic
Dave Betley—Engineering
Sophie Buckingham—Engineering
Applicant Team:
Jason Sherrill, Landmark homes
Jon Mosier, Landmark Homes
Chris Beabout, Landmark Homes
Mike Walker, TB Group
Jason Claeys, Highland Development Services
Matt Delich, Delich Associates
Summary
•Meeting Topic: An Overall Development Plan (ODP) for land between Front Range Village and
English Ranch. The ODP is a high level “master plan” showing general land uses, road
connections, etc. The applicants are proposing mostly residential uses on the site, including
lower density single-family homes on the north side and higher density multifamily housing on
the south side near Front Range Village. The conceptual plans also included mixed-use
(commercial and residential) buildings along Ziegler. The plans would require two
modifications—one to allow more than 25% of the site to be used for residential development,
and one to increase the maximum height of residential buildings from three to four stories. This
was the first opportunity to review early ODP documents prior to submitting them to the City
for official review and comment.
•Meeting Details:
o Appr. 105 attendees, including staff and applicants
o Meeting was recorded and posted online at OurCity.FCGov.com/DevReview
•Overview
o Q&A primarily focused on:
Desire to prevent connections between the new development and English
Ranch, particularly any connection to Paddington;
Concerns about safety for pedestrians due to any new connections and
increased overall traffic, and desire for improved bike and pedestrian
infrastructure in the area; and
Concern about the proposed number of units and proposed building heights,
and a lack of compatibility with surrounding homes.
o Attendees who spoke or submitted questions into the chat were mostly opposed to the
development.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9
Packet pg. 109
Corbett & Ziegler Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting
Summary
Meeting Date: February 2nd, 2022
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
City Staff Attending:
Yani Jones - Neighborhood Services
Ryan Mounce - Planning
Nicole Hahn - Traffic Operations
Spencer Smith-Traffic Operations
Sophie Buckingham—Engineering
Applicant Team:
Jason Sherrill, Landmark homes
Jon Mosier, Landmark Homes
Chris Beabout, Landmark Homes
Mike Walker, TB Group
Jason Claeys, Highland Development Services
Matt Delich, Delich Associates
Summary
•Meeting Topic: An Overall Development Plan (ODP) for land between Front Range Village and
English Ranch. The ODP is a high level “master plan” showing general land uses, road
connections, etc. The applicants are proposing mostly residential or mixed-use dwellings on the
site, with opportunities for office, childcare or community facility space on the eastern portions
of the property. The plans would require two modifications—one to allow more than 25% of
the site to be used for residential development, and one to increase the maximum height of
residential buildings from three to four stories. A key change since the first neighborhood
meeting is a vehicular connection north from the site to Paddington Road is not longer proposed
and would be bike/pedestrian access only. This change is an Alternative Compliance request as
part of the proposal's street connectivity standards.
•Meeting Details:
o Approximately 50 attendees, including staff and applicants
o Meeting was recorded and posted online at fcgov.com/developmentreview/agendas
•Overview
o Q&A and comments primarily focused on:
Clarifications that the proposal would no longer make a vehicular connection to
English Ranch and Paddington Road;
Comments about existing and future traffic issues in the area; including difficulty
making left turns onto Ziegler Road and concerns about additional traffic
associated with this proposal and another development proposal near Ziegler/
Horsetooth Roads.
Comments to make sure the City reviews the operation of the roundabout at
Horsetooth and Ziegler as traffic volumes increase.
Concern about the proposed number of units and proposed building heights,
and a lack of compatibility with surrounding homes.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet pg. 110
1
Ryan Mounce
From:Colleen Fullbright <colleenfcco@msn.com>
Sent:Friday, December 31, 2021 12:13 PM
To:Ryan Mounce
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Corbett & Ziegler Development Plan
Dear Ryan,
I contacted your office several months ago, asking if there were notes from the neighborhood
meeting you conducted on Zoom. Thank you so much for kindly sending me the summary, and a link
to the recorded meeting.
This is a such a belated response, but I hope that my comments can still be considered. I don't have
anything new to add, but would like to "second" and "third" the comments by those who are
concerned about the traffic plans. We live on Newbury Ct., just off Paddington. We have a 25 mph
speed limit along Paddington, and I see drivers exceeding that limit all the time. It's kind of scary. If
you open up streets that connect to Paddington, it will be a nightmare. I believe it was Nicole Hahn
who promised a traffic study. I am wondering where in the process that study will be completed. Will
residents get a look at the study before more concrete plans are set by developers? I'm looking at the
process that you outlined, and it seems to me that by the time you get to the "public meeting" in the
post-application process, all will have been said and done--that any desire for major modifications
from the public will no longer be relevant.
I'm also very concerned, as were others, about the proposed density. In my opinion, the property
should be almost entirely residential, and so that modification--asking for no limitations on residential
building--seems fine. But the request for four-story apartment buildings seems excessive, and I would
ask you please, that that not be granted.
Some of what the developer said at the meeting seemed a little disingenuous. When Maureen posed
a question about the park--which is, in the current "master plan", a 1-acre park, split into three by the
roads--he said he just wanted to illustrate the vision of a "gathering place" at the center of the
property. It felt like a token gesture. Granted I am not familiar with pre-application meetings like this;
maybe presentations of a "rough draft", that will go through many iterations, is to be expected. But
something about the plans just doesn't feel quite right. I'm wondering if there will be any more public
meetings before you reach the end of the post-application meeting. It seemed to me there were so
many unknowns, that another meeting would be necessary and justified.
Thank you for reading through this. Wishes to you for a good 2022.
Sincerely,
Colleen Fullbright
4056 Newbury Ct.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 111
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 112
From:Ryan Mounce
To:Beth Roberts
Cc:Development Review Comments
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Ziegler/Corbett Mixed development meeting
Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:01:47 AM
Hello Beth,
Thank you for these comments – I wanted to reply and confirm their receipt and follow-up with
some additional information.
First, regarding notice for the neighborhood meeting, the City sends mailed letters out to properties
within 1,000-ft of the development site. It appears your home falls a little beyond this distance,
however, I’d be happy to add your address to our mailing list so you will receive future notices for
any future meetings and public hearings regarding this proposal.
At last night’s meeting, we heard many similar concerns to what you expressed, especially related to
traffic and possible connections between this property and the English Ranch neighborhood. While
the City does have some development standards that seek to promote connections between
adjacent neighborhoods, we’re also aware of the unique circumstances in this vicinity with proximity
to Front Range Village and ongoing concerns about a connection. We anticipate this will be one of
the key questions and issue to address for any proposal at this location and want to work with
neighbors on different ideas and solutions. Since the applicants for this proposal have not formally
submitted a project for review at this time, the City is still waiting for additional information,
including the project’s required traffic study. Once that is received there will be more updates and
information that can be shared on this issue.
Finally, I also wanted to add that we include any written comments we receive on projects and
provide them to the final decision-makers for a project, which will be the Planning and Zoning
Commission for this proposal. If you have any other comments you’d like to make throughout the
project review process, please feel free to send letters or email messages to me and I will make sure
they’re available for the Board’s review and consideration. I would also reciprocate your offer that if
it’s helpful to chat more about the project in-person or over the phone, I’d be happy to help set up a
time for a meeting.
Regards,
Ryan Mounce
Planning Services
City of Fort Collins
970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com
From: Beth Roberts <bethdudekroberts@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ziegler/Corbett Mixed development meeting
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 113
To Whom It May Concern,
I live in In English Ranch on Newgate and just heard this morning about the virtual neighborhood
meeting that occurred yesterday about the Ziegler/Corbett possible development. I am surprised
that I did not receive your announcement that went out in August to the neighborhood of English
Ranch.
I am opposed to this development for several reasons. First, coyotes live in this field and they will
be displaced upon a creation of a new housing/business development. Second, the area near Target
and Ziegler already is a very busy area and there is a lot of traffic there. The English Ranch
neighborhood would become a cut through neighborhood, significantly increasing the amount of
traffic in the area. Linton School and parks are off of Kingsley and Caribou, which regularly has
children all over the area. When more traffic is increased on these streets, children are in more
danger because of the level of traffic going by.
I am happy to talk more on the phone or in person about why this development is not a good idea
for Ziegler/Corbett/English Ranch area. Feel free to call me at 847-922-5286.
Thank you for your time,
Beth Roberts
2636 Newgate Court
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 114
From:Julie Pignataro
To:Elizabeth Furuiye; Development Review Comments
Subject:Re: Against Ziegler development
Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:36:30 AM
Ms. Furuiye,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am including city staff on this response so
that your comments can go into the official record as this proposed development makes its
way through city processes. Due to the quasi-judicial nature of this matter, I am not able to
comment at this time. Thank you again,
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism
and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Elizabeth Furuiye <furuiye@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:53 AM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Against Ziegler development
Good day-
I was just recently made aware of the plans for Ziegler near target. I am wholeheartedly against this
and would like to voice my strong opinion against it. I live in that area and the congestion and
overload of traffic is already difficult. Additionally, we have almost completely overrun any native
species that live in the area. Please, please, please NO to moving forward with cramming in what
looks like way too many units into the space provided, as well as taking away valuable open space.
Our community is already packed and unwelcomely traffic-heavy.
Thank you for listening-
Elizabeth Furuiye
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 115
From:Julie Pignataro
To:Courtney Adams; Development Review Comments
Subject:Re: English Ranch development
Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:27:41 AM
Ms. Adams,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am including city staff on this response so
that your comments can go into the official record as this proposed development makes its
way through city processes. Due to the quasi-judicial nature of this matter, I am not able to
comment at this time. Thank you again,
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism
and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Courtney Adams <cladams79ca@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:17 AM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: English Ranch development
Hi, Ms. Pignataro -
I am writing to ask you to vote against the proposed development of the open space between
Zeigler and Corbett Drive north of Front Range Village.
The reason I oppose it is the connection of the English Ranch neighborhood to the new
development via Edmonds Rd .
This traffic would cut through the middle of English Ranch, next to the neighborhood park on
Kingsly Dr, and create new traffic dangers for kids walking to the elementary school on
Caribou Dr.
If they don't connect the new development to English Ranch, I have no issues with the plan.
Thank you -
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 116
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 117
From:Julie Pignataro
To:Michael Cada; Development Review Comments
Subject:Re: Ziegler and Front Range development
Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 3:34:59 PM
Mr. Cada,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am including city staff on this response so
that your comments can go into the official record as this proposed development makes its
way through city processes. Due to the possible quasi-judicial nature of this matter, I am not
able to comment at this time. Thank you again,
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism
and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Michael Cada <mjcada@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 12:22 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Ziegler and Front Range development
Hi Julie,
I just wanted to pass on my concerns regarding the aforementioned development. Please, please
consider the amount of additional traffic in this already congested corridor. Growth is inevitable, but it
must be planned for accordingly, and not just put high density housing where it will physically fit. There is
so much building going on in so many different areas, and the impact to our resources needs to be
assessed. At what point does are water, electric, waste water resources get tapped out? Please reject
the zoning change for this land.
Thanks
Mike Cada
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 118
From:Julie Pignataro
To:Nick Jennings; Development Review Comments
Subject:Re: Ziegler and Front Range Village Development
Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:36:56 AM
Mr. Jennings,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am including city staff on this response so
that your comments can go into the official record as this proposed development makes its
way through city processes. Due to the quasi-judicial nature of this matter, I am not able to
comment at this time. Thank you again,
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism
and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Nick Jennings <nick77vet@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:13 AM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Ziegler and Front Range Village Development
Hi, Ms. Pignataro -
I am writing to ask you to vote against the proposed development of the open space between
Zeigler and Corbett Drive north of Front Range Village.
The reason I oppose it is the connection of the English Ranch neighborhood to the new
development via Edmonds Rd .
This traffic would cut through the middle of English Ranch, next to the neighborhood park on
Kingsly Dr, and create new traffic dangers for kids walking to the elementary school on
Caribou Dr.
The Affinity residential area adjacent to the new development area was denied a similar traffic
flow change, because the community doesn't want it. This is still the case.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 119
Please prevent this negative impact to my peaceful neighborhood by forcing the developer to
revisit the plan with a new traffic pattern that does not route traffic through my community.
If they don't connect the new development to English Ranch, I have no issues with the plan.
Thank you -
Nick Jennings on Bromley Dr..
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 120
From:Julie Pignataro
To:Mary Clifford; Development Review Comments
Subject:Re: Ziegler/Front Range Development
Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 4:22:29 PM
Ms. Clifford,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am including city staff on this response so
that your comments can go into the official record as this proposed development makes its
way through city processes. Due to the possible quasi-judicial nature of this matter, I am not
able to comment at this time. Thank you again,
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism
and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Mary Clifford <clifmom@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 4:11 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Ziegler/Front Range Development
Dear Councilmember Pignataro,
PLEASE vote no for this new change in zoning! The traffic is already crazy in Fort Collins and
more apartments are not needed. This town needs affordable housing and more restrictions on
rebuilds or new builds. I grew up in Boulder and hate to even go there because of the traffic! I
know it is impossible to stop progress, but let's stop the greed that is associated with it.
Thanks,
Mary Clifford
Mary Clifford
2944 Golden Harvest Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80528
630.708.7017 (Google Voice)
630.841.7738 (Cell)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet pg. 121
Ziegler - Corbett Overall Development PlanPlanning & Zoning Commission Hearing – 02.17.22ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 122
2Project OverviewOverall Development Plan (ODP)Size: 31.3 acresZone: Harmony Corridor (HC)Proposed Uses50,000sf Office and/or Community FacilityChildcare Center400 – 700 Residential UnitsTwo Modification of Standards & Alternative Compliance proposedITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 123
3Project OverviewProposed Modifications of Standards:4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses (Ratio of Primary & Secondary Uses)4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards (Residential Building Height)Proposed Alternative Compliance:Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern & ConnectivityNo mid-point vehicular access to north; bike/ped access remainsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 124
4Overall Development Plan (ODP)Purpose…establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an overall development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan.Typical ODP review information:Land uses General intensity / density and housing typesTransportation frameworkDrainageITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 125
5Project & Zoning VicinityITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 126
6Policy BackgroundComprehensive PlanSubarea/Corridor PlanBroad, community-level policy direction & land use guidanceCorridor, neighborhood or parcel specific. More specific & detailed land use guidanceITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 127
7Policy Context – Harmony Corridor PlanHarmony Corridor PlanVision for mixed-use corridor with a strong employment base. Land Use Policy Plan:…promotes the maximum utilization ofland within the corridor, higher densitydevelopment, phased growth, a mix ofuses and concentrated building activity.The availability of public facilities, includingstreets, sewer, water, natural gas, andelectricity, establishes the corridor as apreferred location for intense urban activity…(a) Maximize the use of existing services and facilities (streets and utilities).(b) Promote the development of the corridor as a high quality, self-contained and compact business center.(c) Provide for the location of industry and business in the city by identifying prime locations for such uses.(d) Provide shopping and service areas convenient to both residents and employees of the corridor.(e) Provide for a variety of housing types.(f) Preserve and protect existing residential neighborhoods from intrusive or disruptive development.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 128
8Policy Context – Harmony Corridor PlanStandards require 75% primary uses in most areas of the corridorHarmony Corridor Plan amended by Council in early 2000s to support regional shopping center south of ODP siteSITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 129
9Policy Context – Master Street PlanMaster Street Plan (MSP) identifies the long-range vision for the collector & arterial street networkMSP previously identified Corbett Drive connecting from Harmony Road to English Ranch thru ODP siteConcerns during Front Range Village development about the Corbett vehicular connectionCouncil removed collector street connection during 2010 City Plan/ MSP updateITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 130
10ODP MapITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 131
11ODP StandardsPermitted UsesAll proposed land uses permitted in HC DistrictModification requested for ratio of primary/secondary usesDensity 400-700 units proposed (12.7 – 22.4 du/acre) exceeds HC minimum density requirement (7 du/acre)Housing TypesAt least three housing types provided. Single-family attached, multifamily, mixed-use dwellings.DrainageNo drainage concerns. Complies with Fox Meadows Drainage Basin Master Plan.Natural FeaturesNo buffer zones requiredAccess / ConnectivityAlternative Compliance proposed (RE: vehicular connection north of property)ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 132
12Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesLUC RequirementModification Request Proposed Primary Uses(Gross Land Area)Proposed Primary Uses(Square Footage)Minimum 75% primary uses0% primary uses(100% secondary uses)17% (5.3 of 31.3 acres)50,000 square feet(Equivalent intensity to 10 acres of primary employment land, or approximately 33% of ODP land area)Staff evaluation based based on 100% secondary use requestFlexibility to permit either office use OR a combination of office & community facility space in Parcels D & ENo other secondary uses permitted within Parcels D & EITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 133
13Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesStaff EvaluationMeets criterion 2.8.2(H)(2) & 2.8.2(H)(3) due to existing hardship or practical difficulties and providing substantial benefits“the focus of most development activity, especially commercial, should be at the major street intersections…”Harmony Corridor PlanITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 134
14Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesCity Plan Employment Land Demand & Inventory AnalysisIdentified access and visibility as key characteristics for viability of employment and industrial land developmentODP site features reduced visibility and access compared to other key Harmony Corridor propertiesInventory of employment land exceeds anticipated demand through 2040. Harmony Corridor specific recommendation:“Certain remaining parcels along Harmony Road that are further from Harmony Road and behind larger commercial and employment uses could be considered for designation as residential uses. Specifically, the City should strive for higher density residential uses in these areas given their proximity to employment and potential enhanced transit routes” ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 135
15Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesProviding Substantial BenefitsODP will provide on-site childcareAdopted as 2021-2023 Council priority. Policy goals for neighborhood livability and economic health in City PlanAdvances community energy & climate action goalsResidential buildings to feature solar panelsTownhome & condominium structures LEED gold certifiedProposed 1.5-acre park within the development, substantially exceeding HC district standards for park/gathering space (10,000 sf minimum requirement)ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 136
16Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightCode RequirementHC district permits up to 6-story building height for primary uses and up to 3-story building height for residentialModification Request:4-story residential building height on Parcels B & CStaff Evaluation:Meets criterion 2.8.2(H)(1) as the building heights across the ODP meet the intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan in an equal or better way ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 137
17Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightBalancing Harmony Corridor policy goals and land use guidance Corridor suitable for more intensive development Appropriate transitions to residential neighborhoodsThe LAND USE POLILCIES PLANpromotes the maximum utilization ofland within the corridor, higher densitydevelopment, phased growth, a mix ofuses and concentrated building activity.The availability of public facilities, includingstreets, sewer, water, natural gas, andelectricity, establishes the corridor as apreferred location for intense urban activityincluding a mix of residential, industrial,commercial and recreational uses.Land Use Plan Introduction – “Issues”The issues surrounding future land usein the Harmony Corridor appear to focuson the need to manage developmentto achieve a level of quality consistentwith the economic, environmental, visualand other “quality of life” objectives ofthe community; while guiding the corridorto become a major business centerin northern Colorado that attracts desirableindustries and businesses and, at thesame time, provides effective transitionsfrom residential neighborhoods.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 138
18Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightODP Note:PARCEL C - 4TH STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AN AVERAGE OF 10-FT ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES FROM THE FLOOR BELOW.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 139
19Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 140
20Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 141
21Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 142
22Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightFuture Multifamily(English Ranch ODP)190’270’ODP Note:PARCEL B - 4TH STORIES SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10-FT ON ALL SIDES AND THE 4TH STORY FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE FLOOR BELOW, BUT NOT INCLUDING OPEN BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP PATIOS.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 143
23Proposed Alternative Compliance – 3.6.3Code Requirement3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets.“All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. “All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.”ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 144
24Proposed Alternative Compliance – 3.6.3NFormer Master Street Plan Connection & Proposed Alternative ComplianceExisting or ProposedBike/Ped ConnectionZiegler RdITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 145
25Proposed Alternative Compliance – 3.6.3Staff Evaluation No reduction in access / connection for bikes or pedestriansODP site features three north-south bike/ped access pointsAmenities to the north include English Ranch Park, Linton Elementary SchoolLocated half-mile walking distance from center of ODP siteCity policies / PSD walksheds encourage non-vehicular travel at these distancesODP providing onsite park / gathering space; lower school enrollment demandTIS modeled connection / no connection. Both scenarios do not present level of service issuesNo connection requires trips to access an arterial; but detour is limited in distanceNo connection requested by neighborhood; aligns with previous policy decision made by City Council in 2010 to remove connection from MSPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 146
26Staff FindingsIn evaluating the request for the Ziegler - Corbett Overall Development Plan, ODP210004, Staff makes the following findings of fact:1. The Overall Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirementsof Article 2 of the Land Use Code.2. The Overall Development Plan’s proposed alternative street connectivity accomplishes the purposes ofSection 3.6.3 equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards ofthis section because the overall neighborhood including and surrounding the ODP is well served by anetwork of local, collector and arterial streets, the plan continues to enhance the connectivity for bicycle,pedestrian and transit by providing for connectivity through the site, and the proposed on-site amenitiesand land uses minimize and mitigate the generation of vehicular trips to the north.3. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meetscriteria 2.8.2(H)(2) because the ODP plan provides a substantial benefit to the community by addressingimportant community needs including access to childcare and advancing climate action andsustainability goals by providing on-site solar generation capacity and certifying a portion of residentialunits to LEED gold standards;ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 147
27Staff Findings3. (cont.) The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) because the ODP property has unusual and practical difficulties achieving 75% primary uses due to its visibility, location, and prior policy changes which have altered the land use vision for adjacent properties. The ODP property is substantially setback from Harmony Road and major street intersections, reducing its visibility and accessibility for large-scale primary uses. 4. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well because the overall ODP site meets the purpose and intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan to compatibly transition from more intensive development to adjacent residential neighborhoods. This is achieved by an ODP average residential building height of 3-stories and locating those buildings with taller building heights and intensity adjacent to commercial land uses or large buffer/detention areas;5. The ODP complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7).ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 148
28ADDITIONAL RESOURCESITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 149
29Former Master Street Plan Connection & Proposed Alternative ComplianceExisting or ProposedBike/Ped ConnectionNZiegler RdITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 150
30Ziegler Access – Channelized ‘T’NITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 151
31Traffic Signal WarrantsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 152
32Master Street Plan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 153
33ODP Parcels & Land UsesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 154
34ODP NotesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 155
35ODP NotesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 156
36ODP NotesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 157
37English Ranch South – N / NW of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 158
38Affinity– W of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 159
39Front Range Village – SW of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 160
40Front Range Village – S of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 161
41English Ranch – N / NE of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 162
42Broadcom – E / SE of ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 163
43Front Range Village / ODP BermITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 164
44English Ranch ODPITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 165
45Symbios Logic ODP (Prior Site ODP)ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 166
46ODP Map (Zoom)ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 167
47Project Considerations / Key IssuesAppropriate primary vs secondary land use mix given the site’s access, visibility and proximity characteristicsBalancing City Plan & Harmony Corridor Plan policy goals encouraging higher intensity and compatible transitions to adjacent residential zoningVehicular connectivity north to English Ranch ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 168
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPPlanning and ZoningFebruary 17, 2022ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 169
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPZiegler -Corbet ODP MapITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 170
Ziegler -Corbet ODPVisionary Plan Front Range VillageZiegler
CorbetEnglish RanchITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 171
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPVisionary Images –“Making A Place”ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 172
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPModification –Primary and Secondary UsesBenefits of Residential and Secondary UsesBuildings will have Solar and / or Gold LEED Certified as noted in ODPCommitment to a Child Day Care Center as noted in ODPDevelopment that supports and is supported by Front Range VillageRecommended City Plan Transition between large retail Center and Single-Family HousingITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 173
Ziegler -Corbet ODPModification –Building HeightsBenefits of 4thStory Residential BuildingsBuildings will have Solar and / or Gold LEED Certified as noted in ODPBuilding up (instead of out) will allow the applicant more useable park and community / amenity areas than what is required by code.4thstory setbacksComparable to adjacent “Big Box” Buildings at Front Range Village. These 4 story buildings will better screen the backside and loading areas of Front Range Village.Currently HC Zoning allows for 6 Story Multi-use Buildings with 5 floors of Residential. Our request is not going above or beyond a height that is not already allowed in this zone district 4thstory setbacks by Parcel – The following notes have been added to ODP mapPARCEL B - 4thSTORIES SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10-FT ON ALL SIDES AND THE 4TH STORY FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE FLOOR BELOW, BUT NOT INCLUDING OPEN BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP PATIOS.PARCEL C - 4thSTORIES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AN AVERAGE OF 10-FT ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES FROM THE FLOOR BELOW.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 174
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPQuestions and AnswersITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 175
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPDiscussion -Alternative Compliance -Street ConnectionsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 176
Ziegler -Corbet ODPDiscussion -Channelized ‘T’ IntersectionExisting Channelized ‘T’ Intersection just north of Harmony on TimberlineZiegler -Corbet ODPSiteFront Range VillageTimberline Rd.Harmony Rd.Ziegler Rd.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 177
CCR 392CR 392Ziegler -Corbet ODPThank you for your Time and SupportITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 178