Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 April 20, 2017 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley on the Comcast cable system 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 April 20, 2017 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft March 16, 2017, P&Z Hearing Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the March 16, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 April 20, 2017 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. Intergovernmental Agreement with Windsor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange to allow single-family residential as a permitted use on a portion of the Windsor side of the Corridor Activity Center Overlay Zone. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 20, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DRAFT MARCH 16, 2017, P&Z HEARING MINUTES STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To approve the draft minutes for the March 16, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft March 16, 2017, Minutes (DOC) Attachment 1 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 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 March 16, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider, and Whitley Absent: Hansen and Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Leeson, Yatabe, Shepard, Holland, Frickey, Langenberger, Branson, Lorson, Mapes, Wilkinson, Hahn, Ragasa, Thiel and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 2 Attachment 1 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, noting that the Poudre River Whitewater Park PDP was moved to the Discussion agenda. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Nick Hawes, 2233 Katahdin Drive, complimented the newly-established Planning Department procedures for posting supplemental correspondence online so that the public can see all documents just before each P&Z hearing begins. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from February 16, 2017, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the March 16, 2017, Consent agenda as presented; Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Poudre River Whitewater Park PDP 3. The Standard Apartments 4. Whitman Outdoor Storage APU 5. Waters’ Edge PDP 6. Downtown Plan - Recommendation to City Council 7. 2017 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code Project: Poudre River Whitewater Park PDP Project Description: This is a request by the City of Fort Collins to construct a new community park on approximately 11 acres on both sides of the Poudre River. The site is located east of N. College Avenue and south of E. Vine Drive. The western limit is the N. College Avenue bridge and the eastern limit is the BNSF Railroad bridge. Proposed improvements on the north bank include public open space, parking lot, river access, walking trails and future public restrooms. The existing Quonset Hut would be preserved. Proposed improvements on the south bank include an elevated overlook, stone terracing, pergola and picnic facilities. The two banks would be connected by a new bike/pedestrian bridge. In- stream improvements include river channel modifications and new wave features for kayaking. Both banks would be improved with removal of the irrigation diversion structure, installation of new bank stabilization features and planting of new native vegetation. Most of the site is zoned Public Open Lands, P-O-L, with a portion along E. Vine Drive zoned Community Commercial – Poudre River District, C-C-R. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 3 Attachment 1 Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of this project. Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, one citizen email has been received with concerns regarding the homeless population. Also, Traffic Operations provided a memo following up on a work session concern regarding the number of parking spaces being offered. Due to some technical issues, the Board took a break at 6:10pm; the hearing resumed at 6:20pm. Matt Day, Senior Landscape Architect with Park, Planning and Development, provided a detailed presentation of this project, beginning with the history of the project development and how it fits into the City’s Master Plan. He detailed the proposed urban interface with the river and the proposed improvements related to the habitat, stormwater, etc. He showed several renderings from various directions. He highlighted the future accessibility to the river (including ADA accessibility). He stressed the fact that this will be the first recreational and instream water right site. He showed context imagery with river pictures that illustrate the connectivity of the riparian habitat. He explained the project goals: • Eliminating the 100-year overtopping of the river; • Formalizing water quality, including a return system; • Removing river barriers to allow fish passage with habitat enhancements; • ADA access from both sides of the river with trails and connectivity; and • Providing whitewater features, a pedestrian bridge, and future park improvements. Mr. Day also discussed the future parking plans, noting that 65 spaces are planned for off-street parking. He showed a picture of the projected bow-string bridge and some other landscaped scenic areas. He also showed the overlook shelter, which is still being developed as a historic interpretation site. Finally, he discussed the outreach between departments, staff, stakeholders and community (including other Boards and Commissions), saying he feels this project has had a true public/private partnership. Member Hobbs asked whether parking may be available along Vine Drive; Mr. Day responded that there will be curb/gutter parking along all street frontages, including 19 spaces along Vine Drive. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Tim O’Hara, 1929 WCR 56, supports this project, emphasizing his endorsement of the public/private partnership that has developed. Mr. Day clarified that Mr. O’Hara is a member of the Whitewater stakeholder group involved in this project. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs will support this project, commending John Stokes in the Natural Areas department for the work he did on developing the instream flows. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Poudre River Whitewater Park PDP 160039, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider also complimented this project. Vote: 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 4 Attachment 1 Project: The Standard Apartments PDP160035 Project Description: This is a request for two five-story, multi-family apartment buildings, plus a parking structure, consisting of a total of 239 dwelling units and 776 bedrooms. The project site includes re- developing five parcels along the north side of West Prospect Road addressed as 820, 828, 832, 836 and 900 West Prospect Road for Building A. In addition, the existing Blue Ridge Apartments at 775 West Lake Street would also be redeveloped for Building B and the parking structure. Together the assembled parcels contain 4.23 acres. There would be a mix of units ranging in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms per unit and leasing would be by the bedroom. There would be 571 parking spaces all of which would be contained within a five level parking garage. There would be .73 spaces per bedroom. All existing buildings would be demolished. In Building B, along Lake Street, there would be 1,500 square feet of non-residential floor area. Access would be gained from West Lake Street. Access on Prospect Road would be limited to emergency vehicles only. Amenities include a rooftop clubroom, outdoor pool and terrace as well as an indoor rec and fitness room. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that Chief Planner Shepard had made a minor wording change to the Condition of Approval since the work session. Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of this project. Andrew Young, representing Landmark Properties, gave some background of his company, including their evolution into a fully integrated, long- term owner of student housing developments. He stated that this site was selected for its density and location. Linda Ripley, with Ripley Design, Inc., introduced the rest of the project team. She discussed the housing shortage for CSU students, saying that this project will provide a low-moderately priced housing alternative for students. She discussed the entrances and accesses proposed, including the alley amenities for the residents and the neighborhood, pedestrian connections, bus stops planned, and traffic mitigation, saying this project will pay its proportional share of costs to mitigate traffic impacts. This area is a level of service “A”, noting that it has a higher requirement for pedestrian service levels; until other adjacent areas are also developed, the Applicant will provide alternative considerations in lieu of meeting level of services required. She also discussed landscaping, special lighting, enclosed courtyards, existing trees, and connectivity between adjacent streets. Jay Silverman, Architect, discussed efforts made to conceal parking, incorporating service and bicycle parking, maintaining and preserving the pedestrian approach to the site, and integrating the massing approach from the requirements, using courtyards, step-downs, the roof line, and pedestrian entrances to break up the scale of the buildings. He showed slides of each side of the building, noting the elevations, street façade, etc. Ms. Ripley concluded by saying that this project meets the LUC standards and requirements, highlighting that no modifications are being requested. She also enumerated the ways this project is compatible with City Plan, meets parking requirements and development standards, open space policies, and safety and wellness. She recapped the neighborhood outreach and the concerns discussed with the neighbors and the Plymouth Congregational Church, adding that design changes were made to accommodate those concerns as much as possible. Staff Analysis Member Rollins asked about the location of the 4- and 5-bedroom units; Mr. Silverman responded that they are evenly distributed throughout the project. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 5 Attachment 1 Public Input (3 minutes per person) Don Bundy, 1904 Sheely, spoke on behalf of Plymouth Congregational Church, saying he concedes that this project is code compliant and is satisfied with the applicant communications and attention. Patrick Oberhoffer, 1704 S. Whitcomb, asked about the parking space requirements, saying he has concerns with proposed parking, and questioning whether enough spaces have been proposed to ensure that each student (1 per bedroom) will be able to park their cars. Stadium events will also be challenging, and he would prefer to see more parking options rather than just the minimum. Applicant and Staff Response Chief Planner Shepard responded that the parking reduction was allowed per the code, because this project is in the Transit Overlay District, which allows for alternate parking compliance like the “zip” cars as an alternative to having a parked car in a space. Ms. Ripley added that parking requirements were recently increased, but a mitigation chart allows credit for having bus passes, and the Applicant did not opt for taking that credit. She also pointed out that, if the parking requirements were enforced by unit, rather than bedroom, the design is actually providing a greater number of parking spaces. Board Questions Member Rollins asked if residents will have to pay extra for parking; Mr. Young confirmed that this is true, saying there will be a “lift-arm” at the entrance to allow residents in and out. Member Hobbs asked for comparable project outcomes similar to this project; Chief Planner Shepard has not heard complaints about spillover parking from other properties, indicating the parking was properly priced. Chair Schneider asked when the zoning on this property was changed to the HMN zoning; Chief Planner Shepard responded that the zoning was changed during the Central Neighborhoods Plan (1999-2000) and was recently amended during the West Central Area Plan in the mid-2000s. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs commented on the applicability of this project, saying he will support the project based on location and housing needs. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve The Standard Apartments PDP160035, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Member Rollins has a concern with increasing the occupancy limit, asking if it would be possible to condition the approval to require a representative (possibly a property manager and 1 student) be available to meet with the Sheely neighborhoods to maintain communications. Mr. Young confirmed that he is open to having a Community Liaison available. Member Whitley questioned the difference between having a Community Liaison and the 24-hour onsite manager currently planned. Mr. Young offered to have a liaison identified annually and made public for that purpose. Member Rollins suggested that this would be a very positive thing for the community. Member Carpenter questioned how this condition would be monitored by the City. Planning Director Gloss stated there is a Neighborhood Services Department with Staff who could monitor compliance with this condition. Member Whitley asked if this sort of entity exists in other buildings. Mr. Young stated that this has generally been a University Liaison, rather than a Community Liaison. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that this is an appropriate condition for the project based on the potential impacts. Member Whitley is in favor of this amendment. Member Hobbs accepted the friendly amendment to his motion. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 6 Attachment 1 Member Rollins made a motion to amend the approval of the original motion to include the commitment of the Applicant to provide a community liaison with the adjacent neighborhood groups as a condition of approval; Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. There were no final comments on the original motion with the amended language. Vote: 5:0. Project: Whitman Outdoor Storage APU Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan with an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) for the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, vehicles and trucks on a 3.21 acre site in the CL-Limited Commercial Zone District and an Amendment to the existing Development 'Whitman Storage Facility' for access to the proposed development site. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief introduction to this project. Dennis Messner, Consulting Engineer representing Randy Whitman, the Applicant, gave a short presentation of this project. He discussed the project location and purpose, access to the property, lighting, and proposed buffer areas. Staff Analysis Planner Frickey added more details about when the land was originally annexed and the initial zoning. He showed some graphics of the site, access easements, elevations, natural areas requiring buffering, and the APU criteria. He discussed the neighborhood outreach, zoning compatibility, and traffic expectations. He stated that the landscaping requirements per the code will be properly met, and this is an appropriate use of the zoning. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Whitman Outdoor Storage II APU PDP130031, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. The Board took a short recess at 7:52pm; they reconvened at 8:04pm. Project: Waters’ Edge PDP Project Description: The Waters’ Edge proposal is a 55+ age-targeted community in Northeast Fort Collins. The property is located west of Turnberry Road and north of the Richard's Lake Subdivision and includes 108.5 acres. The development proposes 249 single-family dwellings, 82 single-family attached townhomes, and 48 multi-family dwellings. The project is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and Urban Estate (U-E). Although the entire development is age-targeted, the multi-family and Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 7 Attachment 1 single-family attached portions of the project will also be identified as legally age restricted dwellings with the final plan approval. The remaining 249 single family dwellings are age-targeted, but not legally age restricted. Two land use code modifications are proposed related to oil and gas buffer requirements Recommendation: Approval Staff Overview Planner Holland gave a brief overview for this project, providing some background on the evolution of this project, which was originally approved in 2010, and how the plan approval expired in 2014, requiring a new review and approval by the Board. This property is primarily undeveloped and has three existing oil well sites. He discussed the two modifications that were approved by the P&Z Board in 2016 as “stand-alone” modifications, related to oil and gas setbacks for well sites 2, 3, and 5. Planner Holland explained that, in addition to the two modifications approved in 2016, one new modification is currently being presented that pertains to well site #5 (to reduce the buffer to 100’) and a second new modification that applies to all well sites (to reduce the proposed buffer landscaping), for a total of four modifications. Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 16 emails have been received from Hearthfire neighbors with concerns regarding increased density due to multi-family dwellings, traffic issues, increased usage of Richards Lake, decreased home values, increased crime, light/pollution noise, and well integrity. In addition, Planner Holland submitted 2 separate documents: for the plugging of the abandoned wells and an agreement confirmation for such as requested by the Board at the work session. Member Whitley disclosed that he lived in Hearthfire from spring 2011 through summer 2013; he stated he is feels he can be unbiased in his decision. Bill Swalling is with Actual Communities and is the general partner of Waters’ Edge. He detailed the community philosophy and goals of his company in relation to this project to meet the needs of aging residents. He also described the project overall, highlighting the proposed network of trails, park space amenities and gathering areas proposed throughout the community. It will be a 55+ community, and it will have a cutting-edge, non-potable water irrigation system. He discussed the transition areas for the surrounding neighborhoods, the zoning and access to open space, the trail system proposed, proposed buffering to the LMN zone, UE zone and FA-1 county-zoned Serramonte neighborhood, increased building setbacks to the south, landscape buffering and landscape breaks proposed around the perimeter areas. He showed the location of the abandoned oil wells and the requested setbacks. Regarding transportation, he stated they will be replacing an existing segment of Brightwater Drive and outlined the other road improvements, including enhanced medians and a roundabout on Morningstar to provide traffic calming. He explained that the design team has eliminated three lots in the NE corner in order to create deeper lots and more open space along Morningstar, and this is the reason for the 100’ oil buffer reduction request in the NE corner of the site. He discussed the setbacks that have been recommended, saying this design will provide ample buffering. He has procured an agreement for the well plugging and abandonment; the wells should be abandoned by August 2017. Mr. Swalling stated that he has met all commitments to properly handle this situation (will cost approximately $600k). David Dillon, Petroleum Engineer in the State of Colorado, has managed a great number of well pluggings in Colorado. He provided information on the well plugging requirements. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has stringent plugging regulations and also completes field inspections both during and after plugging operations. While there are more than 33,000 plugged wells in Colorado, only about 10 wells have required further mitigation after plugging, and all of these wells were older wells and were plugged and abandoned prior to the COGCC’s current procedures, so it is highly unusual for a well to continue to leak oil or water with the current procedures. He described the well digging process and the plugging process; he also discussed the lack of a need for having a 350’ setback for a plugged and abandoned well, saying that 100’ is more than adequate; he outlined other Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 8 Attachment 1 nearby communities that require less buffering for plugged wells. Mr. Dillon explained that the COGCC does not have a standard metric for a buffer required for a plugged and abandoned well, and that less than 100 feet would be adequate for access to the well. Dave Nesslin, consultant for the proposed project, reiterated that Fort Collins contains dozens of previously plugged and abandoned wells; in this area, there are 7 such wells without any noticeable public impact or safety issues. He also stated that there will be more rigorous standards applied to the wells on this site, and that, as an added measure, a soil survey will also be taken to confirm the abandonment as outlined in the conditions. Staff Presentation Planner Holland discussed density requirements (for both the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use zones), demonstrating that the project is within the prescribed zoning requirements. He also discussed the park and open space requirements, saying these requirements have been properly met and have far exceeded by the project. He also discussed the requirements for housing diversity, multi-family and townhome design, oil well buffering, modifications approved in 2016 plus those currently proposed, and the required disclosure requirements for the abandoned well head buffers that are placed on the plat. He stated that a full transportation impact study has been performed and outlined the transportation improvements required by the development. Member Carpenter asked about the basis for the 350 foot setback and why the setback also applies to plugged/abandoned wells. Planner Holland gave some background, saying that, when the code was revised to increase the buffers from 150 feet to 350 feet for active wells, plugged wells were also included in the 350 foot requirement as a cautionary measure to mitigate potential unknown impacts of abandoned wells. The original code requirement included a 150 foot buffer for active wells and did not include a distinction between active and plugged wells. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Patrick Renworth, 1817 Serramonte Drive, feels this development is inconsistent with the adjacent neighborhood, Serramonte Highlands. He is concerned that he will be able to see six houses in his sight-line, saying that congestion is already a problem. He suggested that more buffering be required to accommodate his neighborhood. George Marcy, 3303 Corte Almaden, is opposed to all modifications being requested, saying there won’t be room for buildings with the proposed setbacks. He feels this project does not fit with the neighborhood and setting, adding that this is also a major wildlife corridor. He doesn’t feel this project is positive because of the potential increase in dense housing and crime. He also questioned why lighting, infrastructure or traffic issues have not been mentioned. Jim Miles, 3403 Apiatan Court, stated that he feels that neighborhood considerations have been properly incorporated into the plan; however, he has a concern with the intersection at Vine and Lemay, which is already a problematic intersection. He cited projections for usage at this intersection, but he is unaware of any plans to improve that intersection. He recommended that this project be provisionally approved. Jerry Dauth, 1925 Serramonte Drive, opposes this development, saying he is concerned that the new homes will look like a wall. He also opposes the two requested modifications, saying the setback reduction will further reduce the transition zone. Regarding the other modification, he suggested that the landscaping be similarly maintained throughout the project. Finally, he is concerned that the wells could eventually leak methane. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 9 Attachment 1 George Peck, 3214 Hearthfire Drive, opposes this development, saying he doesn’t feel this project is compatible with the neighborhood. He has concerns that traffic will be routed through his neighborhood, so he suggested that all intersections be considered during the planning process. He is also concerned that there will be increased usage of Richard’s Lake without a fee requirement. John Daharsh, 3223 Turnberry Road, is opposed to this development, saying that he and his neighbors are frustrated and feeling ignored. He has a particular issue with the surrounding buffers, saying they will not preserve the neighborhood and maintain the ecosystem. He asked the Board to reject this proposal, as he would like to preserve as much open space as possible. Noreen Reist, 1817 Serramonte Drive, reiterated the request that the buffers be preserved between the neighborhoods and that they are zoned UE. Katie Howie, 1617 Serramonte Drive, is opposed to this project, saying she feels her neighborhood will be impacted by this development, potentially losing the rural lifestyle. She doesn’t feel the current plan is suited for this area, noting that Richard’s Lake will suffer with higher usage. She suggested that townhomes be eliminated in favor of single-family homes only. She asked about plans for future retail services for 55+ customers. Connie Dohn, 1701 Serramonte Drive, is opposed to this project, citing issues with neighborhood compatibility, saying she would prefer more of a transition zone and buffer between and into the surrounding neighborhoods. Hunter Harms, 1738 Beamreach Place, supports this project because this has been a vacant lot behind his house. He does have a concern with the age restriction being more concrete. Andrew Lynch, 1814 Keel Cove, is opposed to the project, saying it is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and will affect property values. He also inquired about the cost structure and the projected selling prices of the homes. Mark Fisher, 3209 Hearthfire Drive, is concerned with potential traffic problems, and he would like to see an in-depth traffic study performed. Applicant and Staff Response Mr. Swalling stated that he had conducted extensive outreach with Serramonte and Hearthfire neighborhoods, saying that these neighbors had expressed their acceptance with buffering measures at the time of original outreach and that he had a signed letter indicating their acceptance at that time; the only change since that time has been the addition of the well plugging. He stated that landscape buffering will occur first to allow the trees and other plants to start growing. He also mentioned the awards his company has received in the past, saying that this development will have the same design elements as past awarded projects. Planner Holland addressed the density question by discussing the balance between required minimum density and perimeter buffering, adding that, for this project, the recommended perimeter buffering is met, along with the minimum density standards for the zone districts. He stated that staff generally considers single-family homes adjacent to other single family homes to be compatible and that the north perimeter buffer proposes a 50 foot lot buffer distance that includes a 3-5’ berm, along with the planting of deciduous and evergreen trees in the buffer. A final lighting plan will be reviewed and required to meet the code. He added that the land east of Turnberry was not part of the original proposal, although it was discussed at the initial neighborhood meeting; and at this time, the Applicant is not including this eastern area in the plan currently proposed, only the west side of Turnberry in order to help mitigate transportation impacts. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 10 Attachment 1 Martina Wilkinson, Assistant Traffic Engineer in Traffic Operations, stated that staff has been working extensively on this project for about a year to ensure traffic mitigation requirements are met. Regarding the connection between Hearthfire and Morningstar, she stated that there is a required “collector” roadway connection between the neighborhoods that would allow access to Douglas Road but that the majority of trips are headed south. She discussed the traffic studies that have been required, and included a brief analysis of the difficulties at the Vine and Lemay intersection, saying the City cannot require the developer to mitigate this intersection based on staff’s traffic analysis. Because portions of the development are legally restricted to 55+, a credit can be taken toward traffic generated. Ms. Wilkinson reiterated the improvements required including the signalization at Country Club and Turnberry plus a fee in lieu for additional improvements in the area. Mr. Nesslin responded to the possibility of wells leaking over time and the emission of methane. He stated that such an event occurred in Pennsylvania, but those wells were not properly plugged and shouldn’t be compared to Colorado. Other parts of the country have different requirements for plugging wells. The Applicant will be required to perform a soil test survey above and beyond what is required and all issues are robustly regulated by the COGCC. Chair Schneider also asked about the possibility of redrilling a well; Mr. Nesslin responded that the proposed 100 foot buffer would be more than adequate. Mr. Nesslin also responded that a 25 foot access buffer would be what the COGCC has confirmed as adequate space for equipment access, and that the abandonment is permanent and the need to access the well after abandonment would be highly unlikely. Board Questions Member Rollins asked about the code requirement for the buffer on the west side; Planner Holland stated that there isn’t a specific distance requirement for this related to detached single-family homes adjacent to other single-family homes. Member Hobbs asked why the Applicant is unwilling to deed- restrict the entire project to 55+; Mr. Swalling responded that the home builder has not determined yet whether age restriction would be appropriate. In addition, he said that legal age restriction is generally unneeded. Chair Schneider asked about target market range for home prices; Mr. Swalling stated that the cost to build will be approximately $220/square foot regardless of the home size. Home builders are concerned with the impact of fees and a shortage of labor; therefore, budgets have increased 40%. He also listed some of the home sizes proposed. Regarding the question on perimeter buffering, Planner Holland added that there is another code provision which requires a 25 foot perimeter buffer for multi-family homes adjacent to existing single family homes to provide some perspective. Planner Holland explained that, on the north side, the minimum buffer is 50 foot, along with a berm and deciduous and evergreen trees was seen as appropriate; a slide of more detailed views of the north buffer was shown. Member Whitley asked what the code maximum density is for this site; Planner Holland responded that the LMN zone allows for a maximum of 9 units/acre, and the UE zone allows for 2 units/acre, but that the maximum density depends on the site plan design and a variety of factors. All things considered, the Applicant is currently at the low end of the density range. Regarding the potential of well leakage, Member Hobbs asked about the possibility of ongoing soil sampling due to leakage from fracking; Mr. Dillon responded that, due to the plugging procedures that are intended to be permanent, these wells should not leak, so there shouldn’t be any future concerns. Member Whitley asked for more information about the previous development approval and the agreement with the Serramonte neighbors. Mr. Swalling confirmed the agreement previously mentioned is not a legal agreement between the surrounding neighborhoods for this plan. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 11 Attachment 1 Board Deliberation Member Hobbs stated that the setbacks for the modifications appear to be fine; his concern is the density issues involving LMN zones that abut UE zones. He feels that the developer could still do more on the north side to increase the buffers. There was some discussion as to whether a condition for buffering could be imposed by the P&Z Board; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that impacts of such a condition would not be known. Member Carpenter agreed that a larger buffer would be optimal, but stated that the LUC doesn’t support the Board imposing such a requirement. Member Rollins suggested that the Applicant alter the dwelling unit configuration to allow more open space. Member Hobbs asked that 4 lots be removed along the north and asked whether this would be acceptable. Restricting the north lots to one story was also discussed. Mr. Swalling clarified that the lots in question along the north property line are anticipated to be one story based on the lot design. More discussion continued; Mr. Swalling confirmed that the lots could be removed but that the adjustment would be difficult to accomplish due to the other restrictions in place. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded to a Board question confirming that a reduction in the intensity is possible. Planning Director Gloss said that, assuming that the minimum density is met, the Board could condition the application, and, during the final plan phase, Staff would ensure the condition is fully enforced. Member Whitley asked the height of the trees that would be planted on top of the berm for buffering purposes; Mr. Swalling responded that, while the trees wouldn’t be planted directly on the top of the berm, they will be oriented towards the areas that need to be screened. Planner Holland confirmed that, in the LMN zone, the Applicant is proposing 352 units in the LMN zone; if the units are reduced by 2 units, the project would be barely above the minimum density requirements. Member Hobbs asked if the Board had the ability to allow the minimum density to be beneath the levels required by the LMN zoning; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that this would be a modification of the standard and would need to be analyzed separately. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard #3 to section 3.8.26 (residential buffering relative to oil wells) for Waters’ Edge PDP 160006, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 5:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard #4 (bufferyard D landscape requirement relative to oil wells) for Waters’ Edge PDP 160006, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Member Hobbs does not support the suggested condition of reducing by only 2 lots along the north portion of the project, because he doesn’t believe this will achieve the level of compatibility needed for this project. Member Carpenter agrees but also would like to find a way to reduce the density at this time in a way that is appropriate for all parties involved. Member Hobbs suggested that the project be continued to next month to give the developer time to analyze the suggested reduction of 4 lots. Chair Schneider doesn’t agree that such an analysis could be accomplished in 30 days and that the delay is unwarranted. Member Whitley thinks that the 2-unit reduction plus the single-story height restriction will be adequate for density reduction. Mr. Holland clarified a code statement, explaining that the one-story height limitation is typically not noted on the plans for single-family lots and that the Board’s height condition would clarify this and then would be shown on the plans. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve Waters’ Edge PDP160006, with the conditions of approval on page 26 of the staff report (items 1-6) and the Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 12 Attachment 1 addition of the conditions that the single-family homes along the north edge are designated to be single story only and that they are reduced by 2 lots, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Rollins seconded. Chair Schneider thanked the public for coming out. Vote: 4:1, with Member Hobbs dissenting. Board took a break at 10:15pm; they reconvened at 10:25pm. Project: Downtown Plan - Recommendation to City Council Project Description: The new Downtown Plan replaces the successful 1989 Downtown Plan. The Plan is an inspirational guide for budgets, projects, programs, investments, regulations and other related efforts to keep Downtown vibrant and successful. The City of Fort Collins collaborated with the Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Business Association, and the general public to engage everyone with a stake in Downtown in an open exploration of all issues and opportunities. This plan describes a renewed vision, policy direction, and action items for the next 5, 10 and in some cases up to 20 years to continue success. Recommendation: Adoption Staff Presentation Planning Director Gloss presented the Downtown Plan, the culmination of a 2-year effort to set the stage of the future of Downtown Fort Collins. He gave the location parameters, outreach process, and the various events and polling techniques used to understand community preferences. This plan puts pedestrians first while encouraging innovation and balancing community needs; it is an important and unique aspect that has a true “sense of place” for Fort Collins. The plan is engaging and easy-to-read in format and direction. It considers cultural resources, and it clearly lays out actions and the financial implications. Planning Director Gloss highlighted the main components: buildings, streetscapes, and places of gathering. He discussed the parking proposals, transportation options, technical advances, wayfinding, and affordability. The plan expands “art in public places” and details some aggressive climate action goals. The overall goal is to have a Downtown that is welcoming and a place to host and manage events. He thanked his team: citizens and City Planners (Spencer Branson, Rebecca Everette, Seth Lorson, Amy Lewin, Meaghan Overton, Kai Kleer, and Clark Mapes), DBA and DDA partners, and Maren Bzdek (Historic Preservation - copy editor for project). Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response None noted. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter thanked the Staff and expressed her pride in the final product, which includes specific implementation strategies. Member Whitley and Member Rollins agreed. Member Hobbs is looking forward to the implementation part of the plan. Chair Schneider agreed and complimented the staff on the final plan. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council adoption of the Downtown Plan, based upon the findings of fact contained in the Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 13 Attachment 1 staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Project: 2017 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in 2015. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, Staff submitted a memo to the P&Z Board to clarify the proposed LUC revision pertaining to community-based shelters. Staff Presentation Chief Planner Shepard stated that he has no formal presentation, and the code changes can be approved in total or individually. He discussed the memo on the Community-Based Shelters. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter requested that item #1039 be pulled from the list and discussed separately. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the 2017 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code, with the exception of item #1039, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Member Carpenter stated that she cannot support item #1039, Community-Based Shelter services, due to the transient problems facing the City and the possibility of having unregulated shelters staffed by volunteers. Chief Planner Shepard stated that the intent is to add to the menu of the homeless shelters by creating more options by working with faith-based partners. The City currently has two types of land uses to support this service: homeless shelters and seasonal overflow shelters. The proposed use would be the third. Jackie Theil, Chief Sustainability Officer with the City, introduced the “Safe Place to Rest” program, saying that there is no perfect solution for sheltering overnight. She is using a program developed in Nashville, TN, as a model, citing the community-wide involvement for these issues that will require creative solutions, especially when trying to provide temporary, flexible, and rotating options for the homeless population. One stipulation is that there must be transportation to and from the shelter in order to reduce impacts on neighborhoods. She feels this is a good overall complement to the current overflow shelter system, and she has spent a significant amount of time contacting various churches to obtain support. Planning & Zoning Board March 16, 2017 Page 14 Attachment 1 Member Whitley is concerned with the lack of notification of neighbors. Member Carpenter reminded the group that there are seasonal overflow shelters for cold nights; she is concerned with the lack of City monitoring for this proposed program. Ms. Theil clarified that this program would be running between November through April only; while there are cost implications for seasonal overflow, this program would complement the original seasonal overflow program when it isn’t available. She also commented that there will be ample City involvement (coordination oversight, budgeting, etc.). Ms. Theil stated that this year will be a pilot program and then there will be an analysis of the program in order to determine future needs. Chief Planner Shepard indicated that the City is trying to be proactive with establishing an approved use, rather than waiting until a need arises and then having to go to City Council with an emergency ordinance when the weather gets cold. Member Carpenter will not support this program. Member Hobbs will support the program, saying be feels that having another option for the homeless population is a good thing. Member Whitley will also support this. Member Rollins asked for the language of the ordinance; Chief Planner Shepard read the ordinance language, including a third distinct definition for community-based shelters as accessory uses. Member Rollins asked if the transportation to and from the facility would be codified; Chief Planner Shepard replied that transportation is not codified. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the item #1039 of the Land Use Code, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Chair Schneider will be supporting this change. Vote: 3:2, with Members Carpenter and Rollins dissenting. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 11:09pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 20, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS-WINDSOR IGA AMENDMENT STAFF Tom Leeson, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange to allow single-family residential as a permitted use on a portion of the Windsor side of the Corridor Activity Center Overlay Zone. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: In 2010, recognizing that the I-25/392 Interchange is an important gateway feature for Fort Collins and Windsor, a Corridor Activity Center (CAC) overlay zone district was created. The CAC area is defined to include zoning boundaries within the immediate area surrounding the Interchange. The CAC established land use and gateway design standards to complement and enhance the implementation of the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (Regional Plan), with the District added to the Land Use Codes of each community. As part of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Town, both Land Use Codes were amended in order to implement the vision and establish a new list of permitted land uses, and establish design standards for this joint planning area. The IGA also includes a revenue sharing provision in which each jurisdiction agreed to share the property tax increment and sales tax increment generated by properties and businesses located within the boundaries of the CAC. The purpose of the revenue sharing is to help reimburse each party for the original investment into the I- 25/SH 392 intersection improvements. In 2013, Windsor and Fort Collins amended the original IGA to reflect agreed upon changes to the review of land use approval process, which superseded the original IGA (See Attachment 1 for Amended IGA). In 2015, the Town of Windsor received two separate requests to amend the IGA with Fort Collins to add automobile dealerships and single-family detached residential to the list of allowable land uses within the I-25/SH 392 Corridor Activity Center. After considerable community outreach, discussion and joint meetings between the Windsor Town Board and Fort Collins City Council, the Town of Windsor forwarded a proposal to amend the IGA to the City on April 21, 2016. In response to anticipated development proposals, the Town of Windsor and the City also initiated an effort to adopt enhanced design standards that would apply to development within the I-25/SH 392 CAC. Both communities Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 completed work on the enhanced design standards, each adopting comparable standards in September and October of 2016. Although the auto dealerships eventually withdrew their proposed IGA amendment, the proposal to include single- family detached residential uses remains active; however, Mr. Muth’s master plan amendment and rezoning applications within the Town of Windsor are currently “on hold” pending the outcome of the Windsor Town Board and City Council consideration of the IGA amendment. Amended and Restated IGA On March 27, 2017, the Windsor Town Board approved Resolution No. 2017-27 which authorized the Town Manager to propose to the City of Fort Collins an amendment to the IGA governing development of the I-25/SH392 Corridor Activity Center. The proposed Third Amendment to First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange, together with the identified Exhibits A and B (Attachment 2), includes the following: • Amendment of Permitted Uses. Section 1 contains a specific amendment to Section 3.1.1 of the IGA and the list of permitted uses (“Exhibit A”). The list of permitted uses now includes Single-family Detached Residential uses under Windsor’s column, with a footnote that incorporates the limitations under this Third Amendment. • Limitations on Single-Family Detached Residential. Section 1 also contains specific limitations on Single-family Detached Residential uses. Single family homes are limited to 45 acres on the far eastern edge of the Muth property north of Highway 392 and just west of Larimer County Road 5 as depicted in Exhibit B, with a maximum number within 10% of 116 units. The percentage factor allows some flexibility when actual subdivision planning takes place. • Exhibit A. Exhibit A is the restated List of Permitted Uses, containing the reference to Single-family Detached Residential. Exhibit B is a map showing the area available for the Single-family Detached Residential uses. The Third Amendment to the IGA is very specific, and expressly retains understandings from the original IGA without modification. Except as specifically stated in the Third Amendment, the IGA remains affected. Revenue Sharing Agreement/Economic Analysis The current IGA requires sixty-five percent (65%) of the property and sales tax increment revenues generated in the CAC to be retained by each party and the remaining thirty-five percent (35%) of such revenues to be transferred to the other party to help reimburse each party for the original investment into the I-25/SH 392 intersection improvements. When the original IGA was executed, estimates of revenue were calculated based on the allowable uses and intensity of uses in each jurisdiction. Amending the list of allowable uses in the CAC could have an impact on the total revenue generated, so the Town of Windsor and City of Fort Collins requested Mr. Muth conduct an economic analysis of the proposed amendment. Windsor Investments Ltd., LLC the owners of the property to be rezoned hired Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to prepare a market analysis of the Ptarmigan Business Park properties. The analysis concludes the following about the site: 1. There does not appear to be the market demand for a regional retail center (600,000 square feet plus with significant anchors) at the properties in the foreseeable future: a. Market demand would not justify a regional retail center until 2025; and b. The center would face stiff competition from a number of other potential sites. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 2. The requested zone change will generate significantly less revenue than the current zoning: a. CAC Trip Generation Fees would be slightly less; and b. Property Tax and Sales Tax revenues would generate only 45 percent of the estimates for the current zoning. 3. The proposed zoning, specifically for residential development, would likely begin to generate revenue to the CAC and the communities well ahead of “waiting out” a major regional retail center. Development Issues In addition to the economic analysis, Mr. Tom Muth, has spent the past year working to address various development related issues resulting from the proposed amendment, including the following: • Transportation - The access and traffic circulation pattern have been revised in response to Fort Collins and Windsor staff review comments and the proposed change of uses and the latest concept has been found to be acceptable subject to all plans being updated and engineered accordingly. An updated traffic impact study will be required at the time that site specific development plans are submitted to the Town of Windsor. • Sanitary Sewer - Fort Collins and Windsor staff met with South Fort Collins Sanitation District (SFCSD) on 7/29/16 to discuss sewer service plans for the entire CAC area. SFCSD indicated at that time that they plan to incorporate Fort Collins and Windsor development plans into their updated master plan. SFCSD subsequently confirmed their sanitary sewer infrastructure is adequate for approximately 300 dwelling units. SFCSD indicated that they will be conducting flow monitoring from March to July 2017 to verify available capacity. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2013 IGA Windsor-Ft Collins Agreement (PDF) 2. Third amended IGA I-25 392 (PDF) 3. Exhibit A – Permitted Uses to Windsor-Fort Collins IGA (PDF) 4. Exhibit B – Residential Uses to Amended and Restated IGA (PDF) 5. Staff Presentation (PPTX) Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 THIRD AMENDMENT TO FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (Single-family Detached Residential) THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (“Amendment”) is entered into this day of April, 2017, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”), and the Town of Windsor, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “Town”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining To The Development Of The Interstate I25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“Original Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the City and the Town entered into the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange, which superseded the Agreement, and was amended by that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Amending Certain Provisions of the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange dated May 9, 2013 and that certain Second Amendment to First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (Enhanced Design Standards) ( collectively, the “First Amended Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the First Amended Agreement established certain Permitted Uses within the land area known as the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”), which did not include single-family detached residential uses; and WHEREAS, the Town has received a request to allow a limited amount of single-family residential uses on property owned by a landowner within the Town’s (east side) portion of the CAC (“Windsor CAC”); and WHEREAS, the parties have considered the landowner’s request, have conferred as to its propriety and have concluded that the First Amended Agreement should be further amended to allow a limited amount and location of single-family residential uses as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution, Section 29-20-101 et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Charters of both the City and Town authorize the City and the Town to enter into mutually binding and enforceable agreements regarding the joint exercise of planning, zoning and related powers. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Attachment 2 2 1. That Section 3.1 of the First Amended Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: Section 3.1. Permitted uses. 3.1.1 Pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Parties have by ordinance adopted approved land uses within the CAC. The Parties agree that the approved land uses within the CAC are hereby amended by the addition of Single Family Detached Residential land use in the Windsor CAC, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3.1.2 below, and that from and after this amendment, the approved land uses within the CAC shall be as shown in the respective columns on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Neither Party shall approve any application for land use within the CAC which is not expressly included in the uses permitted for each as described in Exhibit A. All zoning ordinances or other legislation needed to implement this Section 3.1.1 with respect to Single-family Detached Residential uses shall be adopted by the Windsor Town Board no later than July 31, 2017. 3.1.2 The following definitions and limitations shall apply to all Single-family Detached Residential use, any portion of which is located in the Windsor CAC: a. For purposes of this First Amended Agreement, "Single-Family Detached Residential use" shall mean a place of abode containing one (1) unified dwelling space not physically connected with another dwelling space or place of abode. b. No more than forty-five (45) acres of land within the Windsor CAC may be developed for Single-family Detached Residential uses (the “Single-Family Detached Residential Acreage Cap”). The Single-Family Detached Residential Acreage Cap shall include the entire square footage of all lots upon which Single- family Detached Residential units and associated rights-of-way, sidewalks, detention facilities, and open space are constructed. c. No more than one-hundred-sixteen (116) Single-family Detached Residential units shall be constructed in the Windsor CAC, subject in aggregate to the Single- Family Detached Residential Acreage Cap; provided, however, that up to an additional 10% of Single-family Detached Residential units may be constructed in the Windsor CAC to accommodate adjustments made during the site plan and subdivision review and approval process. d. No Single-family Detached Residential unit shall be located outside of the land area depicted as “SFR” on the attached Exhibit B, incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth fully herein, and further subject to adjustments to the boundaries of each the area depicted as "SFR" made during the subdivision review and approval process. All zoning ordinances or other legislation needed to Attachment 2 3 implement this limitation shall be adopted by the Windsor Town Board no later than July 31, 2017. Except as specifically set forth herein, the First Amended Agreement and all prior Amendments duly adopted by the parties shall remain in full force and effect. WHEREFORE, the duly-appointed representatives of the parties have executed this Third Amended Intergovernmental Agreement on the date first appearing above. CITY OF FORT COLLINS _______________________________ Wade Troxel, Mayor ATTEST: [Seal] _________________________________ Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk TOWN OF WINDSOR __________________________________ Kristie Melendez, Mayor ATTEST: [Seal] _________________________________ Patti Garcia, Town Clerk Attachment 2 Exhibit A to Third Amendment to First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange Permitted Uses in the Corridor Activity Center (CAC) Permitted Uses in CAC (East Side) Permitted Uses in CAC (West Side) Adult Day Care Facilities Adult Day Care Facilities Cultural Venues Cultural Venues Drive-thru Restaurants Drive-thru Restaurants Entertainment Facilities/Theaters Entertainment Facilities/Theaters Fast Food Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants Fuel Sales Convenience Stores Fuel Sales Convenience Stores Grocery/Supermarket Grocery/Supermarket Health Club Health Club Hospital Hospital Lodging Lodging Long-term Care Facilities Long-term Care Facilities Medical Center/Clinics Medical Center/Clinics Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Multi-Family Mixed-Use Multi-Family Mixed-Use Offices/Financial Offices/Financial Personal/Business Service Shops Personal/Business Service Shops Retail Establishment/Big Box Retail Establishment/Big Box Retail Store Retail Store Schools – Private/Vocational Colleges Schools – Private/Vocational Colleges Single-family Detached Residential * ------------------------------------------------------- Small Scale Recreation/Events Center Small Scale Recreation/Events Center Standard Restaurant Standard Restaurant Telecommunication Equipment, excluding freestanding towers Telecommunication Equipment, excluding freestanding towers Unlimited Indoor Recreation Unlimited Indoor Recreation * Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 2.2 of that certain Third Amendment to First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange dated April [date] Attachment 3 1 I-25/SH 392 Intergovernmental Agreement Amendments Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director 4-20-17 I-25/SH 392 IGA Amendment Fort Collins Windsor IGA 2 • IGA originally adopted in 2010 • Corridor Activity Center created • Established list of permitted land uses, established design standards for this joint planning area • Revenue Sharing • Amended in 2013 I-25/SH 392 IGA Amendments 3 2015 Town of Windsor Proposed Amendments • Add “Single-Family Detached Residential” and “Automobile Dealerships” to list of permitted uses and definitions • Enhanced Design Standards (Adopted) I-2392 IGA Amendments 4 Town of Windsor Proposed Amendments • Automobile Dealership Limitations • 38 acres • Northerly Moreland property I-2392 IGA Amendments 5 2017 Town of Windsor Proposed Amendments • Add Single-Family to list of permitted uses on portion of CAC • Limit SFR to area shown on Exhibit B (45 acres) • Limit SFR to 116 units (+/- 10%) I-25/392 IGA Amendments 6 Impacts on Revenue Sharing • There does not appear to be the market demand for a regional retail center (600,000 square feet plus with significant anchors) • The requested zone change will generate significantly less revenue than the current zoning • The proposed zoning would generate revenue to the CAC and the communities well ahead of “waiting out” a major regional retail center. I-25/SH 392 IGA Amendments 7