The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/20/2020 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 February 20, 2020 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz 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 February 20, 2020 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • ELECTION OF OFFICERS • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN 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. • 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. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board 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 Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Packet Pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 February 20, 2020 1. UDraft Minutes for the P&Z January HearinUg The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the January 16, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. U128 Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation is a request to annex and zone an existing developed lot adjacent to the former Fort Collins Airpark. The property contains an existing airplane hangar that is being used illegally as a cheer academy. The requested zoning is Industrial (I), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Map. APPLICANT: Troy Jones MTA Planning and Architecture 108 Rutgers Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Racquette Hanger LLC PO Box 495 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Kai Kleer, City Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. UHarmony Gateway Plan and Standards and Guidelines PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the Harmony Corridor Plan by adopting revised Plan polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway’ area located west of I-25. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80523 STAFF ASSIGNED: Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Shar Gerber, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 16, 2020 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the January 16, 2020 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft January 16, 2020 P&Z Minutes Packet Pg. 3 DRAFT Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz 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 January 16, 2020 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Whitley Absent: Schneider Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Ward, Holland, Wilkinson, Virata and Manno Chair Hansen 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. Agenda Review CDNS Director Leeson 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: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, spoke to criteria on PUD’s, the quasi-judicial nature, how determination is made (what it is based upon) and the lack of good planning results within the community. Kathryn Dubial, 2936 Eindborough Dr., spoke to the Harmony Gateway Plan and would like to see full and equal consideration to Plan E. In addition, she has concerns over scenario D and unlimited land use, the neighborhood meeting related to residential building and the last-minute cancelation for a second time. Director Leeson spoke to Kathryn’s comments relating to the neighborhood meeting the previous week. He apologized that there was another cancellation due to additional information being received wherein there was not enough time to allow the Board members to review this additional information. Chair Hansen asked if Council followed the same considerations as the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Yatabe commented that the Planning and Zoning Board did review Montava under the same standards and procedures as Council. Division 4.29 of the Land Use Code. Member Haefele has not been receiving subscription notifications. Someone needs to check to see if something has changed with the notifications. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 19, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which consists entirely of the draft minutes from the December 2019 hearing. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Larimer County Jail Expansion (Midpoint Campus) SPA190004 Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing Larimer County Jail located on Midpoint Drive. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Board to provide comments on the plan to the governing body (Board of Larimer County Commissioners) per State statute. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that a letter was received from Andy Reese, representing the Bucking Horse HOA, stating they are neither for nor against the project, but they are requesting consideration of measures that can lessen the impact on their subdivision. Ex parte communication received Member Katz disclosed that he has a professional relationship with Andy Reese. He also disclosed that he received a text in opposition of this project from someone in the Bucking Horse neighborhood but that he had not responded. He does not feel that either of these points will affect his judgement. Chair Hansen disclosed that he too has a professional relationship with Andy Reese. He does not feel that this will affect his judgement. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Michael Clark, DLR Group, also provided a verbal/visual presentation for the project. The goal is to reduce the overall jail like appearance, increase safety and overall flow. They will be using cut-off lighting and have worked diligently to provide landscaping that works well for the facility and surrounding area. Member Haefele asked about whether staff will be driving through or under a wing to get to intake parking. Mr. Clark responded yes, that this is controlled access. It is one-way flow. Everyone will enter at one point and have options for leaving. Member Katz asked if the site plan is updated from the one presented at the work session; Mr. Clark responded yes. Member Katz asked what the distance was from the Southwest corner of the parking lot to the Bucking Horse neighborhood. Mr. Clark has not measured but felt they provided standard parking stalls and it could be right around 200’. Member Hogestad asked if the “the loop” was a two-lane access. Mr. Clark responded that it could be and is planned for firetruck access if there is an emergency. Planner Holland provided analysis of how this complies with the Land Use Code in relation to the SPAR review process. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Andy Reese, member of Bucking Horse Board, spoke to the possibility to affecting the site layout in particular the Southwest Corner. Are there opportunities to mirror the Southern most parking row so that it would be shifted to the East. Keith Chatfield, 2002 Blue Yonder, he would like clarity on the screening and its density. He wanted to know if the screening could be extended beyond the diagonal area to screen out the bulk of the parking lot. He also spoke to the landscaping and doing what is aesthetically correct, that the trees get watered. Is there an irrigation plan, and if trees die will they be quickly replaced? He also spoke to security and fencing. Staff Response Mr. Hobbs asked if Mr. Clark could speak on behalf of County planning as to if this phase of expansion is seen as a final buildout for the site, or if there are future plans. Mr. Clark responded that there are anticipated expansions of the facility. There is no timeframe at this moment. Member Hobbs wanted to know where or how these future expansions would occur. Mr. Clark responded that currently the most efficient is to extend and build subsequent housing units. Housing units are for inmates, mental and behavioral health. Mr. Clark responded to Mr. Chatfield regarding security. Security arm gates that include a badge-in system are included in both areas. The outdoor storage is for seized vehicles, there is no control over when these items arrive and depart. Screening will be reviewed with the County in relation to security aspects. There cannot be places for people to hide. Mr. Holland responded to Mr. Reese and Mr. Clark in regard to their concerns and comments. It was discussed with the County and the understanding is that it has to do with the number of employees behind the gate. Some of the previous site plan versions showed wider medians with little landscaping, it was suggested that those be removed so that the parking could be opened. Staff is in support of denser screening. Staff would like to talk with County planning and applicant staff in more detail. Irrigation is critical and that landscaping be replaced promptly. Mr. Katz addressed Mr. Clark’s comments about security asking what the process is and if it is quantified in relation to density and screening trees. Mr. Clark responded that it is hard to quantify a living item, but they are looking at every option when it comes to people having the ability to hide. There is a team at the facility that reviews items and reports back. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Member Hobbs questioned staff as to their position on perimeter fencing for shielding. Mr. Clark commented that officers back into their parking spaces and you would get their rear lights. This would happen at shift change. Adding a fence may not be received well because you cannot see if someone were hiding. Member Hogestad asked if the criteria for determining plantings and fences was an established set of criteria or arbitrary. This happens on a case by case basis. Regarding the vehicle storage area, is this for spare cars, damaged cars, etc.? Mr. Clark responded that there is a seized vehicle lot, this lot must be secured and protected. Member Hobbs asked how often there is a shift change. Mr. Clark responded, twice per day, every twelve hours (no idea how many will come in or out, nor do I know how many parking spaces). Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that there are 120 employees at the jail in the course of an average weekday. Member Haefele asked about the largest parking lot that comes closest to the residential neighborhood, that is just the 12-hour shift change parking lot? Yes. The other lots to the East are visitors and other staff? Mr. Clark respond that to the East; the parking is for long term Sheriff’s administration visitors. The central lot is for jail administration. Planner Holland responded that there is a total of 708 parking spaces planned on the campus. They are adding 77 parking spaces, 631 to 708. This includes the two special parking areas. Member Hogestad questioned if the colors would be relatively the same range of colors from the existing buildings. Mr. Clark responded yes, because they are tying into existing buildings. On the existing buildings, there are some metal panels. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Mr. Clark if this phase is a final buildout for the site or if there will be additional items in the future. Mr. Clark feels that there will be future buildout, timing is unknown. It would make most sense to build housing units for inmates, mental and behavioral health inmates. Member Hobbs does not disagree with any of Planner Hollands suggested comments for this SPAR approval. He appreciates the safety and security of the officers, staff and neighborhoods that has gone into the planning and should take precedence. He supports the County staff in what they feel is their highest priority. Member Katz appreciates the applicant’s effort to add the screening and the landscape. He would like to see more solid screening on the Southern and Southwest boarders. Chair Hansen questioned staff in regard to review by County planning staff, how does this play into the overall picture? Planner Holland responded that County planning staff is also reviewing and providing comment. The plan is to coordinate with them. Member Hogestad commented that the neighbors have a valid concern and his hope is that the staff comments are addressed. This is relation to landscaping and screening. Member Haefele concurs. Chair Hansen feels there is a conundrum between providing screening for a buffer and safety concerns. The Land Use Code calls for near 100% screen, in this instance that is not possible, however; breaking it up may help, and he appreciates the efforts. He is leaning toward safety. Member Whitley acknowledges the difficulty in trying to foresee every possible security situation. Member Hogestad questioned if there will be security cameras to cover the site. Mr. Clark responded that there are perimeter cameras on the building, but he could not go further with security location. Member Haefele would like to have the parking lot lights screened. Chair Hansen explained the fixtures and screening of the light source. She does not feel the screening is adequate. Member Hobbs questioned the zero candle and not seeing any bulbs from outside the property. The Board ran through each comment for any changes before making a motion. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Larimer County Jail Expansion Site Plan Advisory Review SPA190004. Given that the location, character and extent is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, mitigates it’s functional and visual impacts to streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise to the extent reasonably feasible with comments as modified in the discussion tonight. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Haefele seconded. Member Hogestad commented about the parking lot and the need for willingness to have trees. Chair Hansen has significant concerns about the safety of employees and officers walking to their cars at the perimeter. Vote: 6:0. Other Business Member Hogestad asked Director Leeson if there has been any progression on the community development review. Director Leeson responded that the results would be gone over in the February work session. Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Tom Leeson Jeff Hansen, Chair Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 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 Board: February 20, 2020 One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning, ANX190001 Summary of Request One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation is a request to annex and zone an existing developed lot adjacent to the former Fort Collins Airpark. The property contains an existing airplane hangar that is being used illegally as a cheer academy. The requested zoning is Industrial (I), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Map. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration at a future date. 44TSite Location Located abutting the former Fort Collins Airstrip and approximately ¾ mile northwest of the intersection of E Mulberry St and S Timberline Rd. 44TProperty Owner Racquette Hanger LLC PO Box 495 Fort Collins, CO 80522 44TApplicant/Representative Troy Jones MTA Planning and Architecture 108 Rutgers Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 44TStaff Kai Kleer, City Planner p. (970) 416-4284 e. 33TUkkleer@fcgov.comU33T 44TContents 33T1.33T 33TBackground33T ............................................... 2 33T2.33T 33TArticle 2 – Applicable Standards33T............... 3 33T3.33T 33TPublic Outreach33T ........................................ 6 33T4.33T 33TFindings of Fact/Conclusion33T ..................... 6 33T5.33T 33TRecommendation33T ..................................... 7 33T6.33T 33TAttachments33T .............................................. 7 44TStaff Recommendation Approval Packet Pg. 9 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Background A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On January 7, 2020, the Fort Collins City Council passed a resolution that found the annexation petition in substantial compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). This Council resolution initiates the annexation proceedings for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held. The resolution further determines whether the proposed annexation complies with C.R.S. 31-12-104 and 105, which establish requirements for annexation eligibility. This is a voluntary request to annex and zone a property located at 128 Racquette Drive. The property contained within the annexation area is 35,000 square feet and excludes Racquette Drive Right-of- Way. The property abuts the Fort Collins Airpark and is approximately ¾ mile northwest of the intersection of E Mulberry Street and S Timberline Road. The proposed zoning for this annexation is Industrial (I). The building is being used illegally as a cheer academy (Limited Indoor Recreation) and will be required to submit a Project Development Plan within 60-days of the completion of the annexation. ‘Limited indoor recreation’ is permitted within Industrial (I) zone district. Due to an unregulated land transfer that happened in 2018, an 80 foot x 200 foot portion of land was conveyed to the subject property. The conveyed property is currently located within City limits and zoned Employment (E). It is expected that this property will be used as part of the future submittal of the required project development plan and will be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Development Status/Current Conditions The site contains a 20,000 square foot steel building which was originally approved and built in Larimer County in 1980. Packet Pg. 10 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top 2. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO TEXT OF CODE AND/OR ZONING MAP The purpose of this division is to provide requirements for changing the text of this code or the boundaries of the zone districts shown on the zoning map. Analysis of the code requirements can be found under section C of this report. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis 2.9.3 – Initiation An amendment to the Zoning Map may be proposed by the Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Director or the owners of the property to be rezoned. As part of the petition to annex and zone the subject property, the property owner has requested placement into the Industrial (I) zone district. 2.9.4 – Text Amendments Review Procedures In order to approve a proposed rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial) the decision maker must find that it satisfies the following criteria: The proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan); and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Packet Pg. 11 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top B. DIVISION 2.12 – ANNEXATION AND DISCONNECTION OF LAND Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis 2.12.1 – Compliance with state law Annexation of lands to the City shall be in accordance with the laws of the state in effect from time to time. 2.12.2 Petition for Annexation and Annexation Plats In addition to all state statutory filing and procedural requirements, all petitions for annexation and annexation plats shall be submitted to the City Clerk, with a copy, and application fee, to the Director. The City Clerk shall schedule the petitions for a meeting of the City Council held at least fifteen (15) days after the date the City Clerk receives the petition and plat. 2.12.3 – Hearing and Report by Planning and Zoning Board The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a hearing on the matter of such annexation and shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council. Such report shall include a recommendation on the proper zoning for the lands if the City Council annexes such lands into the City. 2.12.4 – Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted Because the facility is being used illegally as a cheer academy (Limited Indoor Recreation) the property owner or representative thereof will be required to submit a Project Development Plan (PDP) that will be subject to Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review. This PDP, when submitted, must comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. The development application must be filed with the City within sixty days following the effective date of annexation and, if not processed within six months, the use of the building as a cheer academy must be discontinued within 30 days of the project’s expiration. If approved, the project must be brought into full compliance with the land use code within 60 days following the date of final plan approval. The applicant was made aware of this requirement during a staff review meeting that was held on 09/05/2019 and acknowledges these requirements. 2.12.5 – Effective Date of Annexation An annexation shall take effect upon the tenth (10th) day following passage on second reading of the annexation ordinance. Packet Pg. 12 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top C. ANALYSIS Enclave The requested annexation does not create an enclave. Annexation The annexation meets the required eligibility requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes 31-12-104 by establishing the required 1/6 contiguity between the City of Fort Collins and the property to be annexed. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use The proposed zoning and use of building as a cheer academy is consistent with the surround land uses and is permitted in the Industrial zone district. Further, the use of the site would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment. North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Industrial (I) (Larimer County) Industrial (I) (Larimer County) Industrial (I) (Larimer County) Land Use Airport (former Fort Collins Airfield) Workshop and custom small industry use (High Plains Door & Millwork) Workshop and custom small industry use (Franklin Aircraft Engines) Brewery (Horse & Dragon Brewing Company) Intergovernmental Agreements Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (2008) This property was originally issued a violation by Larimer County sometime in 2018 for operating an unapproved land use (cheer academy) within the existing building. The notification sent to the property owner required that Cheer Central gain approval through a development review process in order to continue operation. Cheer Central submitted a site plan application in October 2018, where it was found that the project would not be able to meet the County’s development requirements without using a portion of their property, which is located within current City Limits. Subsequent to this determination the property owner submitted an annexation petition to the City of Fort Collins on May 31, 2019. Pursuant to Section 5 Applications for Development Within the GMA Zoning District, 5: 16T“… the County agrees it will not accept any development application, as defined in Section 4.2.1(B) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for property which has any contiguity to the City limits and, thus, can be made eligible for voluntary annexation to the City whether through a series of annexations or otherwise. The owner of such property shall instead be required, prior to development, to seek annexation to the City. The County also will not accept a development application for any property in the GMA which was part of a parcel eligible for annexation as of December 18, 2000, but which is no longer eligible because of subsequent land divisions resulting in a break in contiguity, except land divisions created by court order from probate, dissolution of marriage or eminent domain proceedings.” Packet Pg. 13 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top Zoning City Plan (2019) The Structure Plan establishes a broad vision for future land uses in Fort Collins. The proposed zoning of Industrial (I) is consistent with the Structure Plan Map designation and the following stated principle: 16TPrincipal Land Use 16T“Industrial land uses such as manufacturing, assembly plants, primary metal and related industries; vehicle related commercial uses warehouse, outdoor storage yards and distributions facilities; and flex space for small, local start ups as well as large national or regional enterprises. “ The proposed cheer academy would fall under the commercial land use designation and is a permitted use within the Industrial zone district. East Mulberry Corridor Plan (2003) The property is located within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan boundary, jointly adopted by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County in 2003. According to the Land Use Framework Plan, the plan recommends that the subject property be placed into the Industrial (I) zone district and further describes the district as: A place16T “intended to provide a location for a variety of workplaces, such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing; indoor and outdoor storage; and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations.” The proposed zoning of Industrial (I) complies with the sub-area plan. The proposed cheer academy is a permitted use within the Industrial zone district and would fall under the commercial land use designation. 3. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING There is no known controversy and/or significant neighborhood impacts associated with this voluntary petition for annexation and zoning. Therefore, a neighborhood meeting was not held. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments have been received at this time. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the proposed One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning, ANX190001, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property meets State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained within the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. 3. On January 7, 2020, the City of Fort Collins City Council considered and approved a resolution to accept the annexation petition and to initiate annexation proceedings by establishing the date, time and place where a public meeting would be held. 4. The requested zoning complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration and Division 2.9.4 – Quasi-Judicial zonings. 5. The zoning complies with the applicable review criteria for quasi-judicial requests in that the amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and East Mulberry Corridor Plan, which is an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Packet Pg. 14 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX190001 | One Twenty Eight Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the annexation and placement into the Industrial (I) zone district. 6. Attachments 1. Vicinity & Zoning Map 2. Annexation Map 3. Annexation Petition 4. Operations Narrative 5. City Plan – Structure Plan Map 6. East Mulberry Corridor Plan – Framework Plan Map 7. County/Applicant Correspondence Packet Pg. 15 Racqu e tte D r Poudre Pkwy Airw a y Ave Com m erce Dr LMN E © One Twenty LocationDrive Eight & Zoning Racquette Map 1 inch = 167 feet Site ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 SITUATE ONE IN THE TWENTY SOUTHEAST 1/EIGHT 4 COUNTY OF SECTION OF RACQUETTE LARIMER, 7, TOWNSHIP STATE OF 7 NORTH, COLORADO DRIVE RANGE 68 ANNEXATION WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., l 111 SCA/.£ - t "-20' NOVD.IBER 19th, 2019 ""' '""' ',"'-., ,,J,o'' 'b�C'Q ""· v""- "<o,.."'c,."'-- ,,,.� -...,'o�� a .... '""' ',� v� ' ... �� -� , '""' ',""' ',"" kcordi'ng to Colorodo law, you must commence any I� action band upon any def«:t In this surwy w,'thin thrH years oftK you first disc:owr such def«:t. In no """nt, may any action bos«J upon any chfact in this S"urvey be commenc«t more than t1,n years from thi, dat8 of the certif'tcotion sho,m h,m,on, ' -�,.Js..,.'•;. � <it,oe "' ,.... .,,. � °"...... � "-S..,. '-. :1laq,. /� �·� .w ,��<j/ 'l .;,,,, /,/.,,/ 20 20 GRAPHIC SCALE - FW' LEGAL D£SCRtPnON: Lots or � ori, above 99 of and t'(JCOl'ddffcrit,,,100, , SflCCH!d d tracts Rq,contain lot of 35,the 000 Fort aqwr, Collins fHt, Industrial f'fl<>re <>Parlt, r 1<,n, Coonty and ore of Lorim�. !Jubfeet to State t:tll �um,of Colorado. nts and right$-of-woy which Qte e:d$1ing SURVEY NOTES: APPROVED: --This -- plot ��-doy to be of known -cs - 128 pasHd RACOUmE and adopt«J DRfVE 20 _ANNfXATION an _ final • r.ading to tM at City a regular of Fort mHting Collins, County of tM City of Lori� Counc,1 stote of Fort of Collins, C4lorodo Colorado by Ordinone, h•ld on No. th• crrY CWIK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: I, Jay S. Robinson, a Colorado R,gistflf"ed Professional Land Surveyor do h9r,by state that this map of Jond propoud to b• anfltlx«J to tM City af Fort D,//ins, County of Lonn'lllf", State of Colorado, was prepared under my direct supervision from existlng documents of record, and that the .tame is tfl.111 ofld correct to thll best of my knowftldge, informotion and btllitlf. I furthllf" state that not less than one-sixth of the perimettlf" of tM orea propond to btl annexed Is contiguous ta the boundary liflll af the City of Fort D,//ins, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado. J4Y S. ROBINSON Colorado registered Professional Land Surveyor No. :J7899 1. Bearings ore in reference to o recorded subdivision plot and ore based on the North lirtt1 of Lots 99 and 100, Second Rep/at of thll Fort Cc/lins lndustriol Porlc, o,, btloring 5$714'10"£ 2. The lineol unit of mtlQsurement used for tM surveying of ttu, property Is U.S. Survey FHt. :J. This Annexation Plat does not repretltlflt an actual field s1JMJy. It is mode from recorded legal descriptions and plott«J subdMsions ond it Is not fntendtld to btl a Jond survey plot. 4. No rights-of-way or t,0semt:nts. except those shown hereon, -.ere determined by thi"s survey, nor was any reHarch conducted to determine the existence of additional eosements, per the request of the client. 5. The owntlf" did not reqt.lfft o title SfJOrch; thllf"efore this survey does not constitute o title HOrch by the surveyor. Any informotion regarding record tlQ11t1ments, adjoiners, and other documents that might affect the quoh·ty of tltlll to thls troct of land was obtoifltld from general information on dtltlds or etc. supplied by the owners. 6. The certification as shown hereon does not extend to any unnamed party, third party, or the succnsors and/or assigns of the first party as certified to on this survey plot. 7. Stewart ct Associates, Inc., and its owners and employees, will not be liable for more than the cost of this Anfltlxation Plat and then only to those partitlS certified to hereon or in our files by signed work outhon':rotkm. 8. Acceptance and/or use of this lnstrvmflflt for any purpose. constitutes agreement by all parties to all terms ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 23 Operations Narrative of Cheer Academy 11/20/2019 Cheer Academy is an athletic training facility geared toward youth athletes, where training is conducted for competitive cheer teams. Athletes typically receive two-hours of training at a training session. It is not child care, it is active athletic training. We understand that the property is in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain, and it has been brought to our attention that city code section 10-81 does not allow certain types of “critical facilities” within the 500-year floodplain, namely “at risk population facilities” and “essential services facilities.” All three terms are defined in city code section 10-16, as follows: • Critical facilities shall mean structures or facilities, but not the land on which they are situated, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interruption of essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during or after a flood. Critical facilities shall include essential services facilities, hazardous materials facilities, at-risk population facilities and government services facilities. • At-risk population facilities shall mean facilities that house or provide shelter or services to children, the infirm or other persons requiring special assistance or care or life support. At-risk population facilities shall include, but not be limited to: hospitals; non-ambulatory surgery centers; elder care, nursing homes and assisted living facilities; congregate care facilities, residential care facilities and group homes; housing intended for occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a flood without special assistance; day care and child care facilities; public and private schools for all grade levels below high-school graduation; and before-school and after-school care facilities and summer day-camp facilities. • Essential services facilities shall mean facilities for the provision of services needed before, during and after a flood event in order to protect public health and safety. Essential services facilities shall include, but not be limited to: public safety facilities such as police stations, fire and rescue stations, emergency operations centers, storage facilities for emergency vehicles and equipment; emergency medical facilities such as hospitals, ambulance service centers, urgent care centers and non-ambulatory surgical centers; designated emergency shelters; communications facilities, such as main hubs and control centers for telephone service, cable broadcasting, satellite dish broadcasting, cellular systems, television, radio and other emergency warning systems (excluding ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 24 towers, poles, lines, cables and conduits); public and private utility plant facilities for generation, treatment and distribution, such as transmission and distribution hubs and control centers, water treatment plants, electric substations, and pumping stations for water, power and gas (excluding towers, poles, power lines, buried pipelines, transmission lines, distribution lines and service lines, and excluding hydroelectric power generating plants and related appurtenances, and excluding parallel-connected solar and wind power generation); and air transportation lifelines, such as general aviation and commercial airports, helicopter pads and appurtenances serving emergency functions, and associated infrastructure such as aviation control towers, air traffic control centers and emergency equipment aircraft hangars. Cheer Central is not a school, it is an athletic training facility. There is a waiting room for parents on-site, and it is common that parents wait on-site while their children are receiving the athletic training. In the event that athletes are dropped off, the parents are usually nearby since the training does not last longer than 2 hours. Cheer Central does not provide child care or after school care of children. In the past, Cheer Central did offer day camps at this facility, which they will no longer do, now that it is clear that would be prohibited in the 500-year floodplain. Day camps has never been the main crux of the purpose of the training facility, and will be discontinued immediately. By the discontinuance of the day camp sessions, Cheer Central is neither an “at risk population facility,” nor is it a “essential services facility,” in accordance with the definitions, and is therefore not prohibited to operate in the 500-year floodplain. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 25 94 04 | STRUCTURE PLAN FORT COLLINS CITY PLAN 95 Structure Plan The Structure Plan map and accompanying place types—or land use categories—provide a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. Five priority place types have been identiﬁed to help illustrate the challenges and opportunities associated with inﬁll and redevelopment, and the critical role it will play in helping the community achieve its vision over the next 10-20 years. Priority place types are identiﬁed with a and described in more detail beginning on page 103. Together, they provide direction on what types of uses are encouraged where and at what intensities. The Structure Plan map illustrates how the community will grow and change over time, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. It focuses on the physical form and development pattern of the community, illustrating areas where new greenﬁeld development, inﬁll and redevelopment are likely to occur, as well as the types of land uses and intensities to encourage. The Structure Plan: » Guides future growth and reinvestment and serves as official land use plan for the City; » Informs planning for infrastructure and services; » Fosters coordinated land use and transportation decisions within the city and region; and » Helps implement principles and policies. The Structure Plan, in conjunction with the Transportation Plan and other supporting elements, will be used to guide future development decisions, infrastructure improvements, and public and private investment and reinvestment in Fort Collins. The Structure Plan Map serves as a blueprint for the desired future development pattern of the community, setting forth a basic framework for future land use and transportation decisions. Upon annexation or a request for rezoning, the Structure Plan map and City Plan principles and policies provide guidance for decision-makers to identify speciﬁc zoning boundaries and zone districts during the development review process. Neighborhood, corridor and subarea plans supplement City Plan with additional policy and land use or transportation designations for speciﬁc geographic areas. In the event of a conﬂict between a policy or designation in City Plan and a subarea plan, the subarea plan shall prevail. The City maintains a number of adopted subarea and neighborhood plans that include a land use component. These plans are adopted by reference and should be referred to for more detailed guidance. PLACE TYPES Districts Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Campus District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Mixed Employment District ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 27 From: Chad Gray <grayxxcn@co.larimer.co.us> Date: Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Cheer Central / Racquette To: Troy Jones <troy@architex.com>, Jen Cram <cramjl@co.larimer.co.us> Sounds good. Thanks! Larimer County Chad Gray Building and Code Compliance Coordinator Community Development 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor W: (970) 498-7664 cngray@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/codecompliance On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:35 AM Troy Jones <troy@architex.com> wrote: Chad, We have had two rounds of review with the city regarding the annexation of 128 Racquette Drive. They have some redlines on the latest submittal because their technical services department wasn't routed on the first round of review, so the second round was the first opportunity for that department to comment. At any rate, the comments are pretty simple to fix, and we just need to resubmit those revisions, then they will give me an update on the timing of the hearings. As soon as I know, I can let you know the timing. Troy Jones, Architect, Land Planner MTA Planning & Architecture troy@architex.com 970-416-7431 CC: Jen Cram, Wendy Ayers, Justin Caruso On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:42 AM Chad Gray <grayxxcn@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Hi Troy, How is the annexation with the City going? Any word on when? Thanks, Larimer County Chad Gray Building and Code Compliance Coordinator Community Development 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor W: (970) 498-7664 cngray@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/codecompliance On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:59 PM Chad Gray <grayxxcn@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Sounds good. Thanks ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 28 Larimer County Chad Gray Building and Code Compliance Coordinator Community Development 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor W: (970) 498-7664 cngray@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/codecompliance On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:42 PM Troy Jones <troy@architex.com> wrote: Chad, It is my understanding it takes about 4 months from start to finish on an annexation, give or take a month. Troy On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:36 PM Chad Gray <grayxxcn@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Thanks for the update Troy. How long to they take to process and I will calendar out? Larimer County Chad Gray Building and Code Compliance Coordinator Community Development 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor W: (970) 498-7664 cngray@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/codecompliance On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:53 PM Troy Jones <troy@architex.com> wrote: All, The annexation application for the property at 128 Racquette Drive (formerly the site of the Site Plan Review file#18-ZONE241) was submitted to the City of Fort Collins today. Troy Jones, Architect, Land Planner MTA Planning & Architecture troy@archtiex.com 970-416-7431 On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:23 PM Troy Jones <troy@architex.com> wrote: All, We anticipate being ready to submit the annexation application by mid-week, next week. Troy Jones MTA Planning & Architecture troy@architex.com 970-416-7431 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 29 On Tue, May 14, 2019, 2:14 PM Justin Caruso <justin@thespaceagency.biz> wrote: Hi Jen, We have engaged the architect and surveyor a few months back to move full steam ahead with annex into the City. I will need to follow up with them to get a full update on status. Sent from Justin Caruso iPhone On May 14, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Jen Cram <cramjl@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Justin, has Wendy or Ric made any progress with the Annexation application? We are trying to determine if we can close the Site Plan Review file#18-ZONE2415. As noted via email correspondence, it is our understanding that the applicant will pursue annexation into the City of Fort Collins so that appropriate site plan improvements can be made for the use, or the use will cease to operate on the property as of May 31, 2019. We appreciate your assistance. Jenn On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:27 AM Justin Caruso <justin@thespaceagency.biz> wrote: Hi Jen, I hope you had a great weekend. So I spoke with Wendy the owner of the Cheer gym. She was able to get a new investor and capital to go through the annexation process and work with the City on building important. So at this point they would like to move forward with the Annexation of the property and move forward with the City so they can stay. We are on the list for a surveyor to come out and get the process started. Please let me know if you see any problems with this. Thank you Sent from Justin Caruso iPhone On Mar 4, 2019, at 8:43 AM, Jen Cram <cramjl@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Got it. I will get a letter drafted. Jenn On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:29 AM Justin Caruso TSC <justin@thespaceagency.biz> wrote: Hi Jen, I spoke with Wendy the owner of the gym. Their season ends mid may and will transition out at that time. So they will be completely vacated by ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 30 May 31st.. Please let me know if you need anything else for the letter. Thank you On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:37 PM Jen Cram <cramjl@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Justin, thank you for your patience. Chad and I have spoken to Eric Fried, Chief Building Official and Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director and they are both okay with the Cheer Academy staying until May. We would like to formalize this in a letter. Can you please give us an exact date that their use of the building will end? Thank you, Jenn On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Justin Caruso TSC <justin@thespaceagency.biz> wrote: Hi Jen, Happy Friday. Just wanted to follow up on this. Have you had a chance to discuss? On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jen Cram <cramjl@co.larimer.co.us> wrote: Justin, thank you for reaching out. We will discuss and follow up shortly. Jenn On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM Justin Caruso TSC <justin@thespaceagency.biz> wrote: HI Jen, Thank you for the call back I apologize I missed your call. Per your request I thought it might be easier to just email. So after doing a lot of research on what the City of Fort Collins will most likely require and the cost associated with those requirements to allow for the Cheer academy to stay in the currently location. We have come to the conclusion that the improvements are going to be very extensive and expensive for the cheer group that they cant afford. I have spoken to Ric the owner and he has agreed to ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 31 releasing Cheer Central from the lease and re-lease to a tenant that better suites the building and location. The Cheer season end in May and that will be the time in which they will transition out. They have currently contracted with Troy Jones to process the annexation as per the county's request to allow for the Cheer group to stay in the building. This will cost from $8-10K. My questions is, is there any way the County will grant a temporary stay from now until May for the Cheer group to continue to operate with the understand that they will be vacating the property by May and not requiring them to process the annexation? We are hoping so because the cost of $8- 10K is a lot for a small business especially when they now they will be leaving that property in May. Your consideration and response would be greatly appreciated. Thank you -- Regards, Justin M. Caruso The Space Agency Cell: 303.895.1521 url: www.thespaceagency.biz Follow Us: "Like" us on Facebook This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. The information is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of The Space Agency, LLC. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 32 information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. -- Jenn Cram, AICP Planner II Larimer County Community Development Division Planning Department 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 970-498-7696 -- Regards, Justin M. Caruso The Space Agency Cell: 303.895.1521 url: www.thespaceagency.biz Follow Us: "Like" us on Facebook This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. The information is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of The Space Agency, LLC. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. -- Jenn Cram, AICP Planner II Larimer County Community Development Division Planning Department 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 33 970-498-7696 -- Regards, Justin M. Caruso The Space Agency Cell: 303.895.1521 url: www.thespaceagency.biz Follow Us: "Like" us on Facebook This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. The information is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of The Space Agency, LLC. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error- free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. -- Jenn Cram, AICP Planner II Larimer County Community Development Division Planning Department 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 970-498-7696 -- Jenn Cram, AICP Planner II Larimer County Community Development Division Planning Department 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 970-498-7696 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 34 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Board: February 20, 2020 Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment for the Gateway Area Summary of Request This is a request to amend the Harmony Corridor Plan by adopting revised Plan polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway’ area located west of I-25. Vicinity Map Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration on March 3, 2020. Area 420 acres located west of I-25, extending one mile to the north and one-half mile to the south, and the Poudre Valley ‘wall’ to the west. Applicant City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80523 Staff Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager p. (970) 224-6174 e. cgloss@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 9 3. Conclusion ............................................... 14 4. Recommendation ..................................... 14 5. Attachments ............................................. 14 Staff Recommendation Approval Packet Pg. 35 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 2 of 14 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a staff-proposed update of the 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan that adopts revised Plan polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway area’ located west of I-25. The proposed vision reflects a shift in general direction regarding the type of development to occur in the developable portions of the area: away from low-intensity, non-retail employment uses, toward a mixed-use, multi-story pedestrian district that could take better advantage of multi-modal transportation improvements planned for Harmony Road and I-25. While this proposed vision reflects a shift in the basic concept for the mix of uses, three other aspects are consistent with the City’s existing vision for the area: first, a focus on the overall landscape treatment to reflect the Cache la Poudre River Valley setting; second, an approach to development character that is different from typical commercial highway interchanges; and lastly, attention to the mix of uses, and private and public improvements that will match the desire for an inviting, attractive Fort Collins entry that provides a degree of community separation from the adjacent Town of Timnath. The requested Harmony Corridor Plan amendments include three components: • Harmony Corridor Plan Chapter 3 that updates the general policies pertaining to the entire Harmony Corridor; • Harmony Corridor Plan Chapter 5 that updates policies and design strategy specifically for the ‘Gateway’ area; and • New Harmony Gateway Standards and Guidelines. B. GATEWAY AREA CHARACTERISTICS Current Conditions Commercial Uses. Four visually prominent commercial uses have been developed under County zoning adjacent to the west side of the interchange, which substantially affect the image of the area as a gateway to the city. These include a gas station, cell tower, and landscape nursery business on the south side of Harmony Road, and a vehicular-oriented commercial building with outdoor storage on the north side. Across I-25 to the east, the Town of Timnath has developed a regional shopping area anchored by WalMart and Costco. Residential Uses. In 2018, a 368 unit-apartment complex (The Wyatt) was constructed on 23 acres at the southwest corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads. The development plan received a modification from the Planning and Zoning Board to the 25% secondary use limitations. One key attribute to the site design is the retention of the wetland at the corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin and installation of cottonwoods and other river landscaping within an expanded setback. Public Uses. The City of Fort Collins Arapaho Bend Natural Area located north of Harmony Road and east of Strauss Cabin Road, encompasses almost 50% of the land area within the gateway. A state-owned Park-n-Ride facility operated by the City of Fort Collins and officially known as the Harmony Transportation Transfer Center lies north of Harmony Road, ¼ mile west of the interchange. Packet Pg. 36 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 3 of 14 Back to Top Zoning and Land Use Adjacent the Gateway North South East West Zoning County FA-1 – Farming RUL (Rural Open Lands) I-25; Town of Timnath Regional Commercial HC (Harmony Corridor) Land Use Single-family residential; City-owned conservation area Vacant; some delineated wetland resources. Large format and in-line retail Single and multi-family residential Morningside; Banner Medical Center; Hewlett-Packard C. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES Existing 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan The Harmony Corridor Plan (The Plan) was adopted in 1991, for the Harmony Road corridor from College Avenue to I-25. It includes the ‘gateway area’ within its land use designation of “Basic Industrial Non-Retail Employment”, which covers a majority of the corridor. This designation emphasizes office, institutional, light industrial and other similar employment development, and also allows for some limited supporting commercial and residential uses. There were amendments to the Plan in 2006 impacting the use of some properties, including the Front Range Village shopping center site, yet there were no substantive changes related to the ‘gateway area’. The Plan also contains a special chapter (Chapter 5) highlighting the “gateway area” differently from the rest of the Harmony Corridor, due to the exceptional significance of the I-25 interchange entrance to Fort Collins, combined with the Cache La Poudre River valley setting. In effect, the existing Gateway Area chapter suggested that special tailoring of the underlying employment-based land use designation was needed; however, it did not establish a vision or specific strategy for the area over time. Instead, it explained issues that needed significant follow-up work. It also described “Alternative Gateway Concepts”, ranging from typical highway interchange commercial development to public purchase for open space. It concluded that: “Additional work is required to develop a strategy for shaping the future of this important segment of the community.” It also stated that the starting point for additional work was to be the concept of a gateway entrance integrating high- quality development with the natural characteristics of the existing landscape. As the general ideas of the original Plan were explored further in subsequent years, they were clarified into concepts for a community edge tapering down in development intensity, with the river valley floodplain corridor helping to preserve the separate identities of Fort Collins and Timnath through ‘community separators’, and providing scenic, recreational, educational, habitat, and water management functions. The concepts include limited development that would be integrated and unobtrusive in the landscape, with low, horizontal buildings blended into river valley landscaping, with development activity consisting mostly of employment uses. With recent development of a large, multi-phased commercial center (Walmart/Costco/restaurants/inline commercial), the community separator concept has been lost east of I-25 in the Town of Timnath; however, there are design elements supporting preservation of the Poudre River Valley landscape that continue to have validity west of I-25 and that can provide a degree of community separation from Timnath. 2019 City Plan Update City Plan’s land use map (City Structure Plan) continues to designate most of the Gateway Area north of Harmony Road for Parks and Natural/Protected Lands, with the balance (State Lands-owned parcel on the north side of Harmony Road and the entirety of land on the south side of Harmony Road) as a Mixed Employment district. The long-range transportation plan calls for high-frequency transit along Harmony Road and designates the Mixed Employment District at the interchange as a ‘Transit Center/Mobility Hub’. One of the short-term, high-priority implementation actions of the City Plan Update is to assess our land supply to ensure that land is available to support business needs and to create a more detailed vision for the community’s gateways. Packet Pg. 37 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 4 of 14 Back to Top D. IMPETUS FOR CORRIDOR PLAN AMENDMENT The existing 1991 Plan called for additional work to set a strategy for the “Gateway Area”. The proposed Plan update would: • Reflect 29 years of additional work, changed conditions, and new information since the original Plan. • Reflect aspects of the City Plan Update (2019) regarding compact, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development responsive to the needs of employers and the need to improve the linkage between land use patterns and transportation/transit investment. Following are some key changes and new information since 1991: • Since then, the City’s Growth Management Area has expanded approximately three miles further south along I-25. • City Natural Area Purchases. The portion of the Gateway Area north of Harmony Road was purchased as a City Natural Area (Arapaho Bend) in 1995. In a multi-year process (1997- 2003), the City and Larimer County purchased the 843-acre Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space/Natural Area. Eagle View Natural Area was purchased immediately south of Kechter Road in 2002. • Gravel Mining Completed, late 1990’s. Gravel mining operations were completed in the 265-acre portion of the area south of Harmony Road and east of Strauss Cabin Road, leaving a completely altered landscape with extensive open water in gravel pit ponds. These mining operations extended an additional half-mile south from the ‘gateway area’. • City Natural Area Purchase Declined South of Harmony Road. Around 2004, the undeveloped, gravel-mined property south of Harmony Road was offered and considered for purchase as a City Natural Area, mainly for community separator and viewshed purposes. Wildlife habitat was not considered a significant purpose, due to the gravel-mined landscape. The City studied the opportunity, but declined to purchase the property, due to costs and liabilities of mining permit closeout, water augmentation, and site restoration, given numerous other higher priority demands on the Natural Areas Program. There have been subsequent discussions between area property owners and the Natural Areas program staff, yet the status remains unchanged. • Existing Commercial Uses. Four visually prominent commercial uses have been developed under County zoning adjacent to the interchange, which substantially affect the image of the area as a gateway to the city. These include a gas station, cell tower, and landscape nursery business on the south side of Harmony Road, and a vehicular-oriented commercial building with outdoor storage on the north side. Larimer County approved a variance for the cell tower (2007) at the southwest corner of I-25 and Harmony Road over the objections of the City staff. • Transportation Transfer Center (TTC, or Park-and-Ride) Facility Built. The Natural Areas Program sold land on the north side of Harmony Road for this use to the State of Colorado in the late 1990’s and the facility is operated and maintained by the City of Fort Collins. • City Structure Plan (1997). The original City Plan land use map (City Structure Plan) envisioned a low-intensity “soft edge” of the city in the Gateway District area, suggesting that development intensity would generally taper down to a fairly open river valley landscape. Packet Pg. 38 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 5 of 14 Back to Top • Two Community Separator Studies. Reports completed in 1999 and 2003 convened multiple jurisdictions, explored issues, and described opportunities for preserving distinct visual and physical separation and identity of Fort Collins, Timnath, and Windsor in and around the subject area. The 2003 Fort Collins-Timnath-Windsor Community Separator Study specifically identified a separator opportunity consisting of the Poudre River floodplain corridor, which forms a broad swath around all corners of the I-25/Harmony interchange. The separator studies generally described possible implementation actions, which would require increasing cooperation among regional cities and towns at their edges along I-25. • I-25 Land Use Plans Completed. Plans adopted in 2001 (Northern Colorado Regional Plan) and 2003 (Fort Collins) for land fronting the I-25 Corridor. The Regional I-25 Plan called for a common I-25 development vision to be created by Northern Colorado communities, but only Berthoud, Windsor and Fort Collins adopted the Plan. The preferred land use pattern supported development concentrated in mixed-use ‘activity centers’ that support alternate modes of transportation, and that natural areas, open lands and views were protected that contribute to the open character of the corridor. Fort Collins also adopted its own subarea plan mirroring the regional effort and creating complementary design standards. • Retail Development at Interchanges. During the last two decades, the retail industry has seen the evolution of “big box” superstores, power centers, lifestyle shopping centers, and mixed use “town center” developments, all creating increasingly regional market characteristics, typically wanting to locate at or near interstate interchanges. The retail evolution continues as a result of on-line purchase options. • Major Interstate Development. Retail/commercial activity and competition for sales tax has changed rapidly, becoming fairly aggressive along I-25. The interstate has become a focus of annexations and development, with advocates of regional metropolitan development widely promoting I-25 as “Northern Colorado’s Main Street”. In 2003, the Larimer County Events Center and the Centerra Lifestyle Shopping Center opened, adding momentum to development pressures along I-25. A Super WalMart center was constructed in Timnath in 2009 on the northeast corner of the Harmony/I-25 interchange; the floodplain was filled; and the development was built directly against the interchange. Within the same timeframe, the entire east side of I-25, directly across from the Gateway Area, was re-planned by Timnath for Regional Commercial development, extending one mile southward from Harmony Road along I-25, thus significantly undermining Community Separator concepts for this area. Costco opened in 2014, with restaurants and freestanding retailers added since that time. • Taller Buildings (2000’s). Taller buildings began to emerge along I-25 in Northern Colorado, with the 8-story Embassy Suites constructed next to the Larimer County Events Center and other 6-story buildings planned nearby. • Ridgeline Development. Development has occurred and will continue along the top of the bluff, or river valley wall, immediately west of the gateway area, with highly visible buildings along the ridgeline. This diminishes the potential for long scenic vistas across the river valley to the mountains beyond, as a defining concept for the gateway. Packet Pg. 39 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 6 of 14 Back to Top • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Highlights Harmony Road. A multi-year process spanning 2007- 2010. CDOT undertook an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process from 2008-2010, evaluating alternative transportation scenarios for I-25 and related north-south transportation facilities between the Denver Metro area and North Front Range. The Harmony interchange is shown in the draft EIS as a significant hub for future bus transit on both I-25 and Harmony Road. • In 2008, the Riverwalk Project (later renamed Nine Bridges) was proposed on 268 acres at the southwest quadrant of the Harmony interchange that included residential, commercial and employment uses with a channelized water feature/riverwalk passing through the property. The property was annexed after City Council approved a series of emergency ordinances to block Timnath’s annexation of the former Riverwalk site. The annexation issue was resolved through mediation. The development plan did not move forward, and the property was later sold. As part of Riverwalk, and different land use proposals for the other privately-owned properties on the south side of Harmony Road, additional work in the area has included: o gravel mine permit closeout under State Statutes, o consideration of City purchase of portions of the area for Natural Area and/or water utilities purposes, o analysis of earthwork changes to reshape the floodplain under FEMA and City regulations, o sewer, water, and other utility services investigation and planning, and o consideration of various economic land use and development approaches. • Bustang, CDOT’s interregional express bus service, began its north terminus in Fort Collins during 2016. The Harmony Transit Center becomes one of the area’s key pick-up and drop-off sites. • The Wyatt Apartments (2018). A 368 unit-apartment complex was constructed on 23 acres at the southwest corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads. The development plan received a modification to the 25% secondary use limitations. One key attribute to the site design is the retention of the wetland at the corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin and installation of cottonwoods and other river landscaping within an expanded setback. • Larimer County denied a variance request in April 2019 for a freestanding electronic message center sign on the north side of Harmony Road, 1/8 mile west of I-25. The proposed sign would have been non-compliant with the proposed Design Standards and Guidelines. E. PROPOSED HARMONY GATEWAY DISTRICT VISION CONSISTENT WITH CITY PLAN The changes, issues, and additional work noted above, have led to a more refined future vision of this area that aligns with the recently adopted City Plan Update. Packet Pg. 40 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 7 of 14 Back to Top The proposed vision reflects a shift in general direction regarding the type of development to occur in the developable portions of the area: away from low-intensity, non-retail employment uses, toward a mixed-use, multi-story pedestrian district that could take better advantage of transit planned for Harmony Road, the rest of the community, and I-25. While this proposed vision reflects a shift in the basic concept for the mix of uses, three other aspects are consistent with the City’s existing vision for the area: first, a focus on the overall landscape treatment to highlight the river valley setting; second, an approach to development quality that is different from typical commercial highway interchanges; and lastly, attention to private and public improvements that will match the desire for an attractive Fort Collins entry. The proposed vision would move the existing Plan forward to fulfillment of its call for additional work to set a strategy for the area. And finally, it would fit with numerous aspects of City Plan regarding integration of efficient land use, the environment and transportation choices, and investment in the community’s gateways. The Update to Chapter 5 of the Harmony Corridor Plan describes ten basic design elements that apply to future development and public investment and that are implemented through metrics contained within the Standards and Guidelines: 1. Naturalistic River Valley Landscape Cottonwood groves, willows, and other native plantings will form the most dominant aspect of the area’s image as seen by users of Harmony Road and drivers on I-25. Under this approach, a naturalistic river valley landscape, instead of buildings and signs, becomes the primary view that’s experienced. 2. Landscaped Setbacks Along Harmony and I-25 for Visual Image and Character These newly landscaped areas along streets will be designed to screen parked vehicles and intentionally frame intermittent views of buildings and their signage as part of the image of buildings sited within a landscape. 3. Unified Harmony Road Gateway Streetscape In the gateway area, streetscape enhancements will be an extension of naturalistic landscaping in abutting land uses. 4. Fort Collins Entryway Signs A landscaped native stone sign wall or other complementary entry sign would reinforce the gateway impression and will be carefully considered, sited and designed considering relationships to similar initiatives at other City gateways. 5. Habitat Protection and Mitigation Riparian landscaping will contribute to a larger continuous corridor of riparian habitat in rural and open lands across the larger southeast edge of Fort Collins. City, State, and Federal regulations already govern impacts to existing habitat that would likely occur with development. They generally emphasize protection in place but also allow for alternative mitigation of losses, if necessary. 6. Regional Trail Corridor A landscaped trail corridor thirty to fifty feet wide (or more) will run like a ribbon through the south side of Harmony road to assist in linking trails and Natural Areas to the north and beyond the Gateway toward the south—the Poudre River Trail in Arapaho Bend Natural Area on the north, and Fossil Creek Trail in Eagle View. Packet Pg. 41 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 8 of 14 Back to Top 7. Mobility Hub City Plan identifies the Harmony interchange area as a Mobility Hub recognizing its long-term potential to offer transfers, drop-offs, a station for bus rapid transit (BRT), intersecting multi-use trails, and regional bus transit in addition to its park-n-ride function. 8. Limitations on Commercial Signs Commercial signs within the ‘gateway area’ will be consistent with the Plan’s character elements as well as compliant with the City’s Sign Code. Proposed is a prohibition of Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs within the ‘gateway area’ 9. Stealth Wireless Telecommunication Facilities New standards would prohibit conventional wireless and other telecommunication towers, unless in those cases where they are screened, roof-mounted equipment or are “stealth” installations located within church steeples, grain silos or other similar structures common to the area’s landscape. 10. Unique Land Use and Development Standards Development Standards and Guidelines (discussed more fully in the following section) provide clear direction for future development: o The intention is to promote a mixed-use activity center within the ‘Gateway Area’. While retail uses are included, and visibility to traffic is important, the proposed vision does not include typical shopping center or commercial strip formats oriented to the highway. Retail uses would be well-integrated into a pedestrian-oriented development. ‘Big Box’ stores (100,000 square feet or greater in footprint) and drive- through restaurants would be prohibited uses. Under the proposal, the mix of uses would be limited to the following distribution: Residential 25% minimum Retail and Commercial 50% maximum Employment 25% minimum o To maximize community separation and promote a more ‘open’ site character, a minimum of 40% of the ‘Gateway Area’ on the south side of Harmony Road must be as an open, landscaped area with naturalistic plant materials and landforms. Land included within this landscaped area may include: • Landscaped setbacks from I-25 and Harmony Road • Designated floodways • Delineated natural habitat or features • Stormwater detention areas • Other landscaped areas with a minimum land area of 10,000 square feet and 30 feet in width at any location. Landscaping within naturalistic areas is encouraged to be upsized to the extent reasonably feasible. o An incentive to promote civic or cultural uses in the area south of Harmony Road is provided through an exemption of such uses from the Harmony Corridor land use limitations. Packet Pg. 42 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 9 of 14 Back to Top o Building heights limited to three stories for attached residential and five stories for commercial and mixed- use buildings. An exemption permits one additional story for commercial and mixed-use buildings if structured parking is provided. o Beyond the visual image, development would reflect community goals regarding efficient, walkable development. The combination of image and other underlying qualities would define it as a gateway to the community as well as a destination in itself. o Integration of a regional bicycle trail sited and designed to maximum the user experience. o A primary orientation to pedestrians and bicyclists would mutually support public transit planned for Harmony Road and I-25 and allow the gateway area to become less dependent on car traffic over time. F. HARMONY GATEWAY DISTRICT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Harmony Corridor Plan is accompanied by a companion Standards and Guidelines document. This document supplements the already high standards found in the Land Use Code to specifically implement the Plan as development occurs over time. The document includes provisions for required actions known as “standards” (denoted +), and suggested actions which are known as “guidelines” (denoted o). This new section is added to the document, in conjunction with the Plan amendment, to address defining aspects of development including: • Permitted Mix of Uses • Continued Prohibition of Drive through Restaurants • Limitation on the Scale and Number of Large Retail Establishments • Framework of Streets, Drives, and Walkways • Building Grouping and Orientation • Parking Located to Support the Pedestrian District • Transit-Ready Design • Building Character to Enhance the Pedestrian District • Landscape Setbacks Along Harmony Road and I-25 • Landscaping for River Valley Character • Trail Connections • Commercial Sign Limitations 2. Public Outreach A. COMMUNITY MEETINGS Four public events have been held this year to review the status of the Gateway Plan Update. These events included: Workshop 1 (January 15) Establishing the Starting Point This workshop provided an assessment of relevant Harmony Corridor Plan policies and Land Use Code standards, and opportunities and constraints that began the discussion of issues facing the area. The inventory covered topics such as: • Land use summary of existing Structure Plan and Harmony Corridor Plan land use designations, Harmony Corridor zone district use standards, and recommendations from the City Plan Update draft; Packet Pg. 43 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 10 of 14 Back to Top • Natural Resources identifying natural features and conditions such as Poudre River floodplain/floodway, riparian and wetland areas, natural habitat and physical features. • Transportation System including existing and future access and circulation within the Harmony Gateway; and • Appearance and Design summary of existing Land Use Code and Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines requirements and previous viewshed analyses; Workshop 2 (January 30) Concepts and Vision The staff team prepared initial concepts based on public and stakeholder input from the Public Workshop 1, analyzed pros and cons, and worked with citizens in a 2nd hands-on workshop setting to identify additional concepts, and—finally— define a preferred direction for amending the Harmony Corridor Plan. Several tools were used, including GIS mapping and hand drawn sketches, that illustrate the various design and land use options. A consultant illustrator was on-hand to allow participants to “draw” their ideas. Open House (February 27) Refining the Vision Maps and illustrations were refined, along with initial draft Chapter 5 Harmony Gateway text describing the direction provided in the first two workshops. I-25 Gateways Workshop (October 21) Land Use Scenarios Four Land Use Scenarios were developed by staff that depict potential alternative patterns for vacant or redevelopable land within the gateway area. Small group discussions were held that captured preferences for the proposed scenarios and suggest alternative scenarios or changes to the four scenarios evaluated. The four alternative future land use scenarios were distinguished primarily by differences in density/intensity of development, mix of uses, and amount of open and undeveloped areas, as summarized below (See Attachment A): Scenario A: Base-case (current BINREAC (Basic Industrial and Non-Residential Activity Center) Harmony Corridor Plan land use designation) • Mitigate floodplain impacts • Reflect continuation of the current Harmony Corridor Plan policies and HC zone district standards • Assumes at least 75% primary employment/industrial uses, with a maximum of 25% secondary (commercial/retail, housing, public) uses • 6 story non-residential and 3 story residential building height limit • 80-foot wide landscaped setback along Harmony Road and I-25 • Habitat buffer surrounding heron rookery Scenario B: Increased Commercial and Housing with Big Box • Mitigate floodplain impacts • Assumes a mixed-use employment district, with a greater retail and commercial (max 50%) and residential (min 25%) with a minimum of 20% primary employment/industrial uses • Provides limited big box retail (max cumulative 250,000 sq. ft.) • Civic/community facilities are viewed independently and are not subject to the use proportions Packet Pg. 44 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 11 of 14 Back to Top • Allows potential for drive-through restaurants if screened and in areas subordinate to pedestrian spaces and focal points • Average 140-190-foot-wide “naturalistic” landscaped setbacks along Harmony Rd. and I-25 • 6 story non-residential and 3 story residential building height limit • Regional trail corridor • Habitat buffer surrounding heron rookery Scenario C: Increased Commercial and Housing without Big Box • Same as Scenario B, but big box and drive through restaurants are prohibited Scenario D: Reduced Intensity • Mitigate floodplain impacts • Mix of concentrated uses with required open space to reduce development ‘footprint’ of buildings and parking areas • “Naturalistic” Open land areas constitute at least 40% of the area south of Harmony, between I-25 and Strauss Cabin Road. • Assumes a mixed-use employment district, with a greater retail and commercial (max 50%) and residential (min 25%) with a minimum of 20% primary employment/industrial uses • Average 140-190-foot-wide “naturalistic” landscaped setback along Harmony Road. • Maximum height of 5 stories for commercial/retail and 3 for residential • Regional trail corridor located further from I-25 • Habitat buffer surrounding heron rookery All of the scenarios reflect the removal of two of the three remaining open, unlined water ponds fed by groundwater. The ponds were created through the extraction of gravel which illegally exposed the groundwater. Under Colorado law, storing water in a pond requires a storage right unless the pond is included in a plan for augmentation or substitute water supply plan. The remaining pond area with legal rights for storage is located in the southeast corner of the ‘Gateway’, adjacent to which is a great blue heron nest site in a large Eastern Cottonwood tree near the southeast corner of the pond. City Council Work Session May 15, 2019 At its Work Session, City Council directed staff to incorporate the following additional comments into the public process and future drafts of the Harmony Corridor Plan Update for the ‘Gateway Area’:  Land Use Intensity: Staff was requested to further explore alternative land use and development pattern scenarios with lesser intensity. Each of the alternatives should consider impacts to transportation and natural features. The majority of Council expressed pursuit of a ‘middle pathway’ that would make the Gateway Area more inviting, but not too developed. Some members suggested that this earlier proposed DRAFT changes were tantamount to an up-zoning.  Design Character: While there was acknowledgement that proposed design standards include naturalistic elements based on the Poudre River valley character, it was suggested by some members that the design parameters do not fully take into account the existing open character of the area and that Natural Areas and Nature in the City concepts could be incorporated more clearly. Some elements of the design standards, particularly the I- 25 and Harmony landscaped edges, regional trail, and sign limits, were viewed positively.  Review Process: General support was expressed for the Gateway Plan Update community engagement process used to date. It was suggested that more time and public discussion is needed to examine alternative scenarios, Packet Pg. 45 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 12 of 14 Back to Top vet the ideas, and to receive comments from the Transportation Advisory Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. See Attachments 10-22 for the two neighborhood meeting summaries, individual public comments and the Listening Session Feedback summaries. City Council Work Session October 22, 2019 At the October 22nd Council Work Session, staff presented the four alternative land use scenarios that were the result of a four-month public process, including work sessions with six boards and commissions and a community workshop. Council Comments and General Direction The Council generally indicated support for Scenario D, and the concept of additional mixed-use within the ‘gateway’, with further investigation of specific elements of a stakeholder-initiated alternative scenario. Elements within the revised Standards and Guidelines were requested to include:  Potential for limitation of residential uses: Staff is being requested to further investigate potential for reducing residential uses within the floodplain and due to air quality impacts. Staff will provide research to the Council on both topics when the item comes back for consideration.  Design Character: Council reiterated its support for the revised design standards shared at the May Work Session. Staff has been asked to consider a requirement to ‘upsize’ trees as a way to support wildlife. One member expressed concern about the lack of visibility to commercial uses given the dense landscaping proposed along I- 25 and Harmony.  Cultural Recreational Uses: Staff was asked for measures to further incorporate cultural and recreational uses within the ‘gateway’ through development standards or incentives. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A series of comments were collected during the course of the community engagement process that can be summarized under the following major topics (individual comments are provided as attachments): • Opposition to the Quantity of “Naturalistic” Open Space and Setback Depths along I-25 and Harmony Road The controlling property owner interests in parcels south of Harmony Road have expressed opposition to the quantity of “naturalistic” open land areas and depth of I-25 and Harmony Road setbacks. • Expansion of the Gateway Boundary ½ mile further to the South Earlier versions of the Harmony Gateway Amendment expanded the current ‘Gateway Area’ boundary one half mile further to the south, bringing the south boundary to Kechter Road and including land zoned Rural Lands (RL). Objections were received about the appropriateness of expanding the gateway. Based on citizen concerns, the expanded area was removed from consideration so that the Gateway Area boundary remains unchanged from the 1991 delineation. • Update to the Harmony Corridor Plan Unnecessary There has been a general perspective expressed that the Harmony Corridor Plan does not need to be updated and that existing standards reflect present community values. Some citizens contend that the area south of Harmony Road should remain in an undeveloped state, including existing wetlands, ponds and the floodway/floodplain boundary configuration. • Changes do not Support Community Separation Packet Pg. 46 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 13 of 14 Back to Top Some community residents have asserted that Intensive development within the gateway will not support the Community Separator Concept or provide adequate protection of the Poudre River as a resource. • Lack of Support Toward Greater Retail and Residential Uses Some community members have questioned the proposed shift toward greater retail and residential uses considering that the area is within a flood plain and development may impact natural habitat and features. It has been suggested that a smaller percentage of employment, commercial/retail and residential uses be permitted than the proposed ratios. • Heron Rookery Development could have a negative impact on the Heron Rookery located roughly in alignment with Rock Creek Drive. • Mandate for Cultural Uses Some stakeholders expressed an interest in mandating that 20% of the land area south of Harmony Road include a cultural use. • Building footprint limitations for Large Retail Establishments Concerns have been expressed from some community members about allowing large retail establishments (20,000 – 50,000 sq. ft.) in floor area despite the prohibition of “big box” retail uses (50,000 sq. ft. or greater) proposed in the standards. • Lower Building Heights There have been a range of opinions regarding building heights. Some have expressed interest in further limiting building heights to maintain viewsheds and lessen visual impact to the landscape, while others have expressed an interest in maintaining or even promoting taller buildings as a way to reduce building and parking lot footprints. • Upsizing of plant materials A request has been made to require that landscape materials be required to be ‘up-sized’ so that the tree canopy can be established more quickly. • Mandate Low Water Use River Valley Landscape Members of the Water Board, Land Conservation Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and individual citizen comments, have included a request for low water use landscape requirements that reflecting plant materials common to the River Valley landscape. Scenarios Feedback Of the 4 Scenarios presented at the community workshop and with several Advisory Boards and Commission, support for Scenario D was most prominent. An alternative scenario was presented by a group of stakeholders that suggested a further lessening of development intensity than that suggested under Scenario D (see Attachment 7) Packet Pg. 47 P&Z Agenda Item 3 Harmony Gateway Plan Amendment Thursday, February 20, 2020 | Page 14 of 14 Back to Top 3. Conclusion Staff finds that the Harmony Corridor Plan, which is an element of City Plan, is in need of the proposed Plan amendment, and implementing development standards and guidelines, will promote the public welfare, and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan, since it: 1. Fulfills the Harmony Corridor Plan recommendation that a more detailed strategy be provided to define design elements supporting the preservation of the Poudre River Valley landscape and creation of an attractive entry into Fort Collins; 2. Reflects 29 years of additional work, changed conditions, and new information since the original Plan; and 3. Reflects aspects of the City Plan Update (2019) regarding compact, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development responsive to the needs of employers and the need to improve the linkage between land use patterns and transportation/transit investment. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment, including revised Policies, and Standards and Guidelines pertaining to the Gateway Area. 5. Attachments 1. Standards and Guidelines for the Harmony Corridor Gateway 2. Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment to Chapter 5 Harmony Gateway 3. Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment to Chapter 3 Land Use 4. Land Use Scenarios A – D 5. I-25 Gateways Workshop community comments 6. Community comments (as a compilation) 7. Stakeholder Alternative Scenario summary Packet Pg. 48 DRAFT Subject to Further Review and Revision 20178901.1 HARMONY CORRIDOR Standards And Guidelines: DRAFT February 18, 2020 NEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES In the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines, page 51, add a new Section V. HARMONY GATEWAY AREA. This Section will follow the current Section IV. SHOPPING CENTERS. (+) Denotes a development standard (o) Denotes a suggested guideline ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 49 1 V. HARMONY GATEWAY AREA The Harmony Gateway Area is an exceptional location due to high values the community places on the Poudre River valley and the high public visibility of the entryway to the City. The intent for the Gateway Area is to capture the special opportunity to integrate a mixed-use employment activity center within a landscape that expresses community values for environmental features and the larger corridor of open and rural lands edge of the City along the river corridor and Fossil Creek Reservoir in southeast Fort Collins. Development shall be programmed and designed with an emphasis on landscape development to emphasize a sense of place derived from the river valley setting. These Standards and Guidelines are to ensure that as development and redevelopment occurs as part of the Gateway Area, it fulfills the vision described in Chapter 5 of the Harmony Corridor Plan for the area. The Gateway Area comprises two distinct areas: • North of Harmony Road • South of Harmony Road ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 50 2 Design Standards and Guidelines 1. Naturalistic Landscape Development: River Valley Character and Image The intent is to create the effect of Harmony Road passing through a larger river valley landscape that spans across Harmony Road with buildings and parking lots carefully clustered and integrated unobtrusively within the landscape and not merely lining the major roadways with conventional landscaping around buildings and parking lots. Landscaped Setback Dimensions. A landscaped setback area for buildings and parking lots averaging 140 feet in depth for parking lots and 190 feet in depth for buildings shall be provided from the edge of vehicular travel lanes along Harmony Road and I-25. The landscaped setback area may include sidewalks and tree lawns. Minimum landscaped setback depth shall be 70 feet for parking lots and 95 feet for buildings. (+) Landscaped Setback Design. This landscaped setback area shall be comprised of a River Valley landscape design that includes groupings of native cottonwoods, willows, evergreens and other plant materials consistent with the River Valley landscape in conjunction with other native and xeric plantings appropriate to specific positions within the landscape plan and shall consist of one tree and ten shrubs per twenty-five lineal feet of frontage. (+) 2. Parking Lot Location and Screening. Locating large parking lots between buildings and the landscape setback areas along Harmony Road and I-25 is encouraged to consolidate vehicular impacts of both parking and traffic on the roadways away from the internal pedestrian-friendly public space framework. (o) If such parking lots adjacent Harmony Road and I-25 are not fully screened by berms and planting in the landscape setback area, additional screening shall be provided with the following: o At least 30 additional shrubs per one hundred lineal feet of frontage, or o At least 8 additional trees per one hundred lineal feet of frontage, or o An alternative combination of trees and shrubs approved by staff as providing equal or better screening than the above; or o Fences or site walls that replace the need for screening that such landscape plantings would provide. (+) Off-street parking shall be consolidated into shared parking lots wherever appropriate in order to avoid interrupting pedestrian frontages in the public space framework. (+) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 51 3 3. Service and Loading Areas. If any truck operations for servicing and loading are not fully screened from Harmony Road and I-25 by other means, they shall be fully screened by building massing or architectural wall. (+) 4. Potential Channelized Floodway. If the Poudre River floodway is channelized within the Harmony Road and I-25 setback area, the channel and adjacent upland areas shall be designed to complement and reinforce the overall naturalistic landscape with informal, undulating grading of landforms, to the maximum extent feasible and within engineering requirements, not rigidly-engineered geometric grading. (+) The programming and design of naturalistic river valley landscaping should be designed to provide consideration for maintenance activities such as irrigation, weed control, tree trimming, shrub and plant pruning, and replacement and reseeding, which consideration should be equal to the consideration given to design. (o) 5. Incorporation of Water into Landscaped Setback. Drainage channels and/or wetlands are strongly encouraged in landscaped areas along Harmony Road and I-25 to further reinforce the distinct landscape setting. (o) 6. Landscaping Development: River Valley Character and Image. Landscaping should shall be developed to express xeriscape principles and characteristics consistent with Section 3.2.1 (E)(3) and include plants native to the River Valley landscape. More lush plantings that requiring significant watering, such as flower beds and lawns, should shall be limited to appropriate high-use areas. (o+) 7. Mixed-Use Employment Activity Center Within the Landscape Setting – South Side of Harmony A. Public Space Framework Development of streets, buildings, parking lots and other site improvements will be arranged to form a unified mixed-use employment activity center. Within this center shall be a framework of streets and public spaces that provide for an attractive, cohesive and walkable area that reflects the unique site context. A Framework of Streets. Street-like private drives, walkway spines and a trail corridor shall be established to form sites for buildings and parking lots with the emphasis on forming a distinct overall sense of place into which buildings and parking lots fit. (+) On-Street Parking. On-street parking should be maximized on streets scaled and designed to reinforce the distinct pedestrian orientation of the Gateway Area. (o) Trail Corridor. Development shall provide an area for a trail corridor, which may be located within and will be counted towards the area for landscape setbacks. The trail corridor should also create linkage with the Fossil Creek and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 4 Poudre River Trails to the south and north of the Gateway Area respectively. Alignment and design shall be determined in collaboration with the City (+) and maximize the user experience. (o) Bus Transit. Accommodation should be provided for bus stops and routes linking the mixed-use employment center to transit service on Harmony Road. Final transit stops and route configuration is subject to the review and approval of TransFort. (o) B. Permitted Uses All individual uses permitted in the Harmony Corridor (HC) Zone District shall be permitted in the Gateway Area subject to the following minimum and maximum Secondary Use limitations. (+) The use percentages may shall be measured using 1) acreage gross site area on land located within the Gateway Area as set forth on in any applicable ODP, and/or 2) gross site area building square footage of any completed development plan and any approved PUD or PDP. The following use limitations and requirements shall be referred to collectively as the “Land Use Limitation.” Retail/Commercial Limitation. Retail and commercial uses shall not exceed 50% of development on the south side of Harmony Road. (+) Minimum Employment Use Requirement. Office, light industrial, and non- retail employment uses shall occupy at least 25% of development on the south side of Harmony Road. (+) Minimum Residential Use Requirement. Residential uses shall occupy at least 25% of development on the south side of Harmony Road. (+) Minimum Naturalistic Landscaped Area Requirement. Coverage of streets, buildings, and parking lots is limited to 60% of the site area on the south side of Harmony Road. The remaining 40% shall be retained as an open, landscaped area with naturalistic plantings. The following areas shall be counted in fulfillment of the minimum 40% requirement: o Landscaped setbacks from I-25 and Harmony Road o Designated floodways o Delineated natural habitat or features o Stormwater detention areas o Trail Corridor o Other landscaped areas with minimum dimensions of 10,000 square feet and 30-foot width at any location. (+) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 53 5 Civic Uses Effect on Calculations. Civic uses such as parks and recreation space, cultural facilities, community facilities, a trail corridor, and other public uses are not subject to the Harmony Corridor land use limitations. Such uses, if developed, may be applied toward the minimum employment or residential use requirements at the election of the Applicant. (+) Additional uses shall be permitted: Artisan and photography studios and galleries; Limited and Unlimited indoor and outdoor recreation facilities; Dog day-care facilities; Grocery stores; Supermarkets; Exhibit halls; Funeral homes; Parking lots and garages; Small scale reception centers; Large Retail Establishments subject to individual and collective size limitations set forth below; Gasoline stations; Entertainment facilities and theaters; Day Shelters; and open air farmers’ markets. (+) Large Retail Establishment Size Limitations. No individual Large Retail Establishment may exceed 100,000 square foot footprint. (+) Total floor area of large retail establishments (more than 25,000 square feet) in the gateway area shall not exceed 250,000 square feet. (+) Large retail establishment shall mean a retail establishment in a single building occupying more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) gross square feet of floor area. Movie Theaters, recreational, entertainment and indoor recreational uses, and similar shall not be classified as large retail establishments and shall not count towards this limitation. (+) Large Retail Establishment Exceptions. In instances where a large retail establishment (more than 25,000 SF) is developed as part of a vertical mixed-use building, it shall not count towards the Large Retail Establishment Floor Area Limitations. (+) Large Retail Establishment Architecture and Design Features. Large Retail Establishments are subject to all development standards in Section 3.5.4(D) of the Land Use Code except the parking lot location standards of 3.5.4 (C)(3)(b), which shall be compliant with the following building placement standard. (+) Mixed Use Dwellings. Mixed use dwellings are encouraged to add vitality and charm to the sense of place, add interest to the buildings, and reveal and capitalize on specialized residential products uncommon in suburban markets. (o) C. Buildings Building Grouping and Orientation – Public Space Framework. Buildings and their entrances should be brought together along the overall public space framework. Each building should contribute to and reinforce the overall goal of creating a walkable destination with a primary orientation to the overall ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 54 6 framework and other buildings nearby; and orientation to individual parking lots secondary. (o) Buildings should offer attractive pedestrian-scale features and outdoor spaces to complement the streetscape. (o) Maximum Height. 5 stories for commercial and mixed-use buildings and 3 stories for residential buildings, with an exception provided for 6 story mixed- used buildings if structured parking is integrated into the mixed-use building. (+) Building Character. The architectural program for the Gateway Area shall emphasize high-quality building materials providing visual interest for pedestrians and that complement the colors and textures of the Poudre River Corridor (e.g., natural or cultured stone, brick, textured concrete masonry units with architectural finishes, stucco, high quality precast and prestressed architectural concrete, architectural metals, glass, timbers); and architectural lighting. (+) D. Signs Commercial Signs. Signs should be designed and oriented to reduce visual clutter along I-25 and Harmony Road. (o) Wall signs should be designed as an integral element of the architecture, with the sign shape and materials complementing the architectural style and features. (o) Internally illuminated signs should not create glare that would distract motorists or pedestrians, nor should the degree of illumination contribute to night sky light pollution. (o) Two types of signs are prohibited within the Harmony Gateway: 1. Off-premise advertising (billboards); and 2. Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs (+) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 55 1 5 HARMONY GATEWAY AREA Updated 2020 “The goal of gateway planning is to arrange the landscape with a sense of arrival and a positive image of the place” Michael Barrette DRAFT – February 18, 2020 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 2 CHAPTER OUTLINE INTRODUCTION pp 5-10  The Setting  Harmony Corridor Plan Background General Direction for the Gateway Area  Existing Conditions Issues  Changed Conditions and New Information Since the Original 1991 Plan VISION FOR THE GATEWAY AREA pp 11-23  Overview  Naturalistic River Valley Landscape  Landscaped Setbacks Along Harmony and I-25 For Visual Image and Character  Unified Harmony Road Gateway Streetscape  Fort Collins Entry Sign  Habitat Protection and Mitigation  Regional Trail Corridor  Mobility Hub  Limitation on Commercial Signs  Stealth Wireless Facilities  Land Use and Development—South Side of Harmony Road  Land Use and Development—North Side of Harmony Road GOALS p 23 POLICIES and IMPLEMENTATION p 24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 4 The gateway area comprises about 450 acres extending one mile north and one-half mile south of Harmony Road Harmony Road, formerly State Highway 66, smooths out the topography of the bluff North side of the road: Arapaho Bend Natural Area INTRODUCTION This updated Chapter 5 builds upon ideas and recommendations of the original 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan. The Setting The Gateway Area extends along both sides of Harmony Road from I-25 to the edge of the Cache La Poudre river valley, defined by a bluff just over a half-mile west of I-25. The bluff, also known as the valley wall, is a result of the river’s down-cutting action as it meandered within its floodplain for many thousands of years. While it is a notable geographic feature from a historical perspective, it simply presents a modest hill for users of Harmony Road. Lying within the river valley below the bluff, the area consists of low ground, ponds, and wetland areas—all remainders from extensive past gravel mining operations. The Gateway Area is an exceptional location due to high values the community places on the Cache La Poudre River corridor and also on the Harmony Road interchange with I-25 as the most-traveled entryway into the city. This juxtaposition creates the unique opportunities and significance that make the Gateway Area a prominent aspect of the Harmony Corridor Plan. The types of development that highway interchanges typically attract do not mesh well with the community’s values regarding this unique opportunity. The challenge is to balance different and sometimes competing objectives for land use and development. What’s A Community Gateway -- Why Is It Important? Community plans commonly address prominent entryways as special opportunities to cue entry into and departure from the given city. A well-planned gateway can: • Contribute to a sense of community with a look and feel of local values, civic intention, and pride • Offer a sense of arrival and welcome for visitors • Offer a familiar and welcoming feel for residents, signifying home in a positive way • Avoid homogenous highway-oriented corporate character that blurs local identity • Invite attention to the city as a place to visit, in addition to being an area to drive through 5 Harmony Corridor Plan Background: General Direction for the Area The Harmony Corridor Plan, adopted in 1991, identified the ‘Gateway Area’ but did not establish a vision or strategy for the area. Rather, it explained issues that were still in flux at the time and described alternative concepts. It concluded that: “Additional work is required to develop a strategy for shaping the future of this important segment of the community.” The starting point for additional work was to be the concept of a well-planned and attractive entrance to Fort Collins integrating quality development with naturalistic characteristics and features of the river valley landscape. This concept was described as ‘Alternative A’ in the original plan. Key points are: • Incorporate wetlands, lakes and drainageway areas as an elaborate open space network laced with an extensive system of trails. • Blend development into naturalistic landscaping, favoring light industrial and office uses and discouraging commercial uses unless they can be blended unobtrusively into the naturalistic setting. • Provide significant setbacks from streets for any development forming a greenbelt around the interchange. • Establish standards for architecture and landscape plans emphasizing naturalistic character. • Ownership, maintenance and liability issues would need to be negotiated and could include re-investment of tax dollars created by development, dedication of land by property owners or developers, and public funding. The Harmony Corridor Plan’s overarching direction for land use along the entire corridor included the Gateway Area. That is, the area was designated as ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Employment’ for future development with an emphasis on business park-type employment uses and avoidance of highway commercial “strip” type development with a generous landscaped setback area along the roadway. However, while the corridor-wide employment designation was applied to the Gateway Area, the area is also highlighted separately and prominently throughout the plan in addition to having its own chapter. The area is distinct and different from the uplands to the west which comprise the 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS ISSUES Poudre River Floodway In 2020, most of the property in the gateway area is within a 100-year floodplain of the Poudre River, and significant portions of the area are within a floodway (a mapped area reserved for the passage of flood flows with virtually no development permitted). The river itself is the angled north edge of the gateway area. It then crosses I-25 a half-mile north of the interchange and continues east through the Town of Timnath. However, limited flow capacity under the I-25 bridge crossing would cause flood flows to back up behind the bridge in a flood event and break out of the river channel to flow down through Gateway Area across Harmony Road. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City are exploring possibilities for a new I-25 bridge together with downstream flood improvements that could allow flood flows to remain in the river channel and remove the floodway from the Gateway Area. Unless and until such a solution is reached, no residential development is allowed in the floodway, and any other development would face the very difficult challenge of showing no adverse impact on adjacent properties. This challenge would be prohibitive for any significant development in the floodway. However, developers could propose to channelize and realign the floodway by completely reshaping the landscape, to create developable land. The necessary filling and grading would require a multi- year process of engineering, design, coordination and permitting. The City, FEMA, and possibly other jurisdictions and stakeholders would be included. . Floodway issues are a complex interjurisdictional matter beyond the scope of this Harmony Corridor Plan. This plan update establishes a vision and strategy for land use and development in the event that floodway constraints are removed in a separate process. Gravel Pit Ponds In 2020, four gravel pit ponds exist on the south side of Harmony Road in the gateway area and are in varying states of compliance with State water law. These ponds are unintentional residual results of past gravel mining and were never 7 wetlands develop around the edges in addition to the habitat value of open water. Anticipated future changes to the property would necessarily involve at least some degree of loss of habitat, and such changes require mitigation of the habitat loss under City Land Use Code standards. Mitigation requirements would offer opportunities for more intentional habitat improvements as part of a whole reshaped landscape. Existing Land Uses The north side of Harmony Road mostly consists of the City’s Arapaho Bend Natural Area and the Transportation Transfer Center (TTC or park-n-ride), a joint facility of the City and CDOT that was carefully carved out of the Natural Area. The commercial property abutting the northwest corner of the interchange is not within the City Limits. On the south side of Harmony Road, the existing gas station and adjacent cell tower are not within the City Limits. The existing plant nursery business was established under County jurisdiction prior to annexation and has since been annexed along with the remainder of the gateway area on the south side of Harmony Road. The remainder of the south side comprises gravel-mined ponds. Parcels on the southwest and southeast corners of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads are outside of the 100-year floodplain. The southwest corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Road was recently developed with an apartment complex. A 10-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Road was approved in 2015 for a convenience shopping center, although the development plan approval has expired, and the property remains undeveloped. Changed Conditions Since the Original 1991 Plan Major changes and new information since 1991 have informed the planning process for the Gateway Area plan update in 2020. Prominent examples include: • Jurisdiction over Harmony Road was transferred from the Colorado Department of Transportation to the City of Fort Collins, and the designation as a State Highway was removed. • Gravel mining operations were completed, throughout much of the gateway area, altering the landscape. • • The portion of the gateway area on the 8 original 1991 plan to maintain the character of the river valley. • The portion of the gateway area on the south side of Harmony Road was considered for purchase as a City Natural Area for Community Separator and viewshed purposes starting in the late 1990’s. Habitat was not considered a significant purpose due to the gravel mined landscape. The City considered the opportunity on multiple occasions. • A large, visually prominent cell phone tower was built adjacent to the interchange on the south side of Harmony Road in the County’s jurisdiction. • The City’s 1997 Comprehensive Plan update known as City Plan designated Harmony Road as one of four Enhanced Travel Corridors for future high-frequency transit in the long-term structure of the city. • The City Structure Plan map (City Plan’s land use map) envisioned a ‘Green Edge’ of the city along the low- lying southeastern edge of city including the Gateway Area, suggesting that development intensity would taper down to a fairly open and rural landscape, helping to preserve the separate identities of Fort Collins and Timnath. • The City and County twice extended Fort Collins’ Growth Management Area southward from its boundary ½ mile south of Harmony Road at the time of the original Harmony Corridor Plan. In 2020, it extends 3½ miles further south to the SH 392/Carpenter road interchange area. • Two Community Separator studies were conducted, in 1999 and 2003, describing potential opportunities for preserving distinct visual and physical separation and identity of Fort Collins, Timnath, and Windsor. These studies were a forum for discussion of cooperative land use planning among jurisdictions and property owners. • The 2003 Fort Collins-Timnath- Windsor Community Separator Study specifically identified the Poudre River floodplain corridor, which forms a broad swath around the I- 25/Harmony interchange, as a primary opportunity to keep Fort Collins and Timnath separate. The Separator studies generally described possible implementation actions, which 9 development widely promoting I-25 as “Northern Colorado’s Main Street”. • Fort Collins’ position in the regional retail trade area has weakened significantly since 2001. The City of Fort Collins faces increasing competition for regional retail purchases; this has translated into a decrease in retail sales inflow and increased retail sales leakage since 2001. • Soon after the Separator studies were completed in 2004, the Town of Timnath re-designated the east entire east side of I-25 directly across from the gateway area for Regional Commercial development, extending from the interchange one mile southward, negating the Separator concepts for that area. Walmart, Costco, and associated commercial pads were developed. • CDOT conducted an Environmental Impact Study process evaluating alternative transportation scenarios for I-25 and related north-south transportation facilities between the Denver Metro area and North Front Range, showing the Harmony interchange as a significant hub for future bus transit. • Taller buildings began to emerge along I-25 in Northern Colorado, with an 8- story hotel constructed near the Larimer County Events Center and other 6-story buildings planned nearby. • Development along the top of the river valley wall has significantly altered the potential for scenic views looking west across the river valley to the mountains beyond, as described in the original 1991 plan. • Property owners, professional consultants, prospective developers, and City staff have evaluated several land use initiatives for the south side of Harmony Road. These were based on reclaiming gravel-mined land and ponds, completely reshaping the floodplain, developing an activity center, and exploring possibilities for City purchase of certain property. These efforts produced significant information and understanding, but none led to Harmony Corridor Plan amendments or land use actions. • Most of the property in the Gateway Area on the south side of Harmony Road was annexed with the exception of the existing gas station property. 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 3 VISION FOR THE GATEWAY AREA Gateway Area Looking West Overview Property owners, community members, decision makers, and various other stakeholders, both public and private, need a shared understanding of how continuing changes should be channeled to contribute to a positive vision. The original 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan set a direction and starting point: to create a community entryway that integrates high-quality development into a naturalistic landscape with riparian characteristics associated with the river valley. Office and light industrial uses were encouraged; commercial uses were discouraged unless they could be shown to blend unobtrusively into the naturalistic setting. That general direction has remained valid. 29-plus years of changes, new information, and public discussion have built on that starting point and reaffirmed the essential ideas to make the most of the unique opportunity to form a Fort Collins gateway and a special destination over time if land uses change. The community’s vision for this entryway includes specific acknowledgement that the whole approach to land use is notably different from typical commercial development oriented to interstate highway exits. Rather, the vision is to provide relief from the protypical highway development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 4 ESSENTIAL HARMONY GATEWAY DESIGN ELEMENTS Implemented as part of the Harmony Corridor Plan update and related Standards and Guidelines, ten basic design elements will apply to future development within the Gateway Area: 1. Naturalistic River Valley Landscape 2. Landscaped Setbacks Along Harmony and I-25 for Visual Image and Character 3. Unified Harmony Road Gateway Streetscape 4. Fort Collins Entryway Signs 5. Habitat Protection and Mitigation 6. Regional Trail Corridor 7. Mobility Hub 8. Limitations on Commercial Signs 9. Stealth Wireless Telecommunication Facilities 10. Unique Land Use and Development Standards 1. Naturalistic River Valley Landscape Cottonwood groves, willows, and other native plantings will form the most dominant aspect of the area’s image as seen by users of Harmony Road and drivers on I-25. Under this approach, a naturalistic river valley landscape, instead of buildings and signs, becomes the primary view. Example of a landscape-dominant entryway corridor where buildings and signs are afforded intermittent visibility 2. Landscaped Setbacks Along Harmony and I-25 for Visual Image and Character Where buildings and parking lots are developed, landscaped setback areas will be provided that average at least 140-190 feet wide along Harmony Road and I- 25.These newly landscaped areas along streets will be designed to screen parked ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 5 vehicles and intentionally frame intermittent views of buildings and their signage as part of the image of buildings sited within a landscape. As such, the setback area can undulate within the average, with some buildings and parking closer to the roadways if parking is fully screened and encroaching buildings are well-integrated into the landscape. I-25 Landscape Setback Concept Grading in these setback areas will be informal and have vertical undulation, reflecting landforms shaped by river movement to complement plantings and reinforce the naturalistic landscape. Grading should be at a scale perceivable to drivers at speeds and volumes on Harmony and I-25. Grading may double as critical floodway and/or drainage facilities and a trail corridor depending on outcomes of separate efforts regarding floodway changes. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 6 Harmony Streetscape with Naturalistic Landscaping Concept 3. Unified Harmony Road Gateway Streetscape Perhaps the strongest and most direct impression that can be made for people moving through or coming to the area is the Harmony Road streetscape. This streetscape includes the street edges as experienced by users of the street, and medians. It includes improvements within the City right-of-way and improvements as part of abutting land uses. For motorists entering the city, medians and streetscape improvements on the north side of Harmony Road would have the highest visibility. The landscaped medians reduce the scale of the large roadway and add beauty. As much as possible within space constraints, informal groupings of trees including cottonwoods will span across sidewalks which will be detached and slightly meandering in conjunction with naturalistic grading. Harmony Road Streetscape, Landscape Setback Area, and New Street at Park-n-Ride Signal Concepts 4. Fort Collins Entry Sign Streetscape design projects will explore the most complementary way to include an entry sign in conjunction with the landscaping. For years, public interest has been ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 7 expressed in a clearer message to motorists that they are entering Fort Collins, at all major highway entry areas. In the public planning process for the Gateway Area, community members’ input clearly indicated that any isolated, attention-grabbing sign, monument, sculpture or similar entry feature is not important in favor of a naturalistic landscape to move through. A landscaped native stone sign wall or other complementary entry sign would reinforce the gateway impression and will be carefully considered, sited and designed considering relationships to similar initiatives at other City gateways. 5. Habitat Protection and Mitigation Land use changes will include riparian landscaping that contributes to a larger continuous corridor of riparian habitat in rural and open lands across the larger southeast edge of Fort Collins. City, State, and Federal regulations already govern impacts to existing habitat that would likely occur with development. They generally emphasize protection, enhancement, and alternative mitigation of any losses with land use changes. For example, on the south side of Harmony Road where greater land use changes may occur, habitat improvements would be required to mitigate expected losses associated with filling ponds and future development. Newly created ponds, channels, and landscape areas would be part of the framework for development and would be extensively landscaped with native river valley plantings. This would provide a basic degree of urban habitat, mainly for birds and small aquatic species. With complete reshaping of the most or all of the landscape, there are apparent opportunities for improvements to go beyond minimal mitigation of losses and achieve significant enhancement over unintentional and unsanctioned status of the habitat that has formed in the gravel-mined landscape. 6. Regional Trail Corridor A landscaped trail corridor thirty to fifty feet wide (or more) will run like a ribbon through the south side of Harmony road to assist in linking trails and Natural Areas to the north and south—the Poudre River Trail in Arapaho Bend Natural Area on the north, and Fossil Creek Trail in Eagle View in the south. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 8 The corridor will be an integral part of the formative framework of public space into which buildings and parking lots will fit. The corridor may be located within required landscape setback areas and should be sited and aligned to maximize the user experience. Developers will coordinate with the City on appropriate trail design, including alignment, width, surface materials and details. Trail Corridor Concept, North Portion of South Side of Harmony 7. Mobility Hub City Plan identifies the Harmony interchange area as a ‘Mobility Hub’ recognizing its long-term potential to offer transfers, drop-offs, a station for bus rapid transit (BRT), intersecting multi-use trails, and regional bus transit in addition to its park-n-ride function. This recognition centers around the TTC; but if any significant development is brought to fruition on the south side of Harmony as envisioned, it will complement the functioning of the TTC starting with a BRT stop and a comfortable pedestrian crossing of Harmony Road. Such development could add options such as car shares, electric charging, and shuttles to connect across Harmony. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 9 8. Limitations on Commercial Signs Commercial signs within the gateway area will be consistent with the Plan’s character elements as well as compliant with the City’s Sign Code. Present code provisions prohibit off-premise signs (billboards) and place limitations on sign size, height, and manner of display. Requests for modifications and/or variances to the Sign Code will be evaluated against adopted Harmony Gateway policies. Further, any Planned Unit Development (PUD) application would be required to include a Uniform Sign Program specifying sign type, heights, sizes, placement and lighting. 9. Stealth Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Making a provision for wireless telecommunication facilities (typically cell towers) balances the needs for residents and the travelling public to have adequate telecommunication services while still protecting key views and upholding the naturalistic design character of the Gateway. New standards would prohibit conventional wireless and other telecommunication towers, unless in those cases where they are screened, roof-mounted equipment or are “stealth” installations located within church steeples, bell towers, flagpoles, grain silos, structures common to the area’s landscape or integrated into building architecture. 10. Land Use and Development Standards South Side of Harmony Road This 136-acre area has been zoned for development under the Basic Industrial Non- Retail Employment Activity Center land use designation since 1991, with the potential for major development if the floodway was to be removed and gravel pit ponds filled. In 2020, a 10-acre parcel of developable land exists at the southeast corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads. For development to proceed on the south side of Harmony Road beyond the vacant 10-acre parcel, the entire gravel-mined floodplain landscape would need to be completely reshaped from the current gravel pit configuration, filling the ponds in conjunction with a solution to contain the floodway. Naturalistic river valley landscaping dominated by groupings of cottonwoods and willows would be required to create a significant riparian greenbelt image along Harmony Road and I-25. This landscaping would complement and contribute to the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 10 larger swath of open and rural lands at this southeast edge of the city and riparian tree groves on the north side of Harmony Road. Coverage of streets, buildings and parking lots would be limited to 60% of the site area, with the remaining 40%comprising he newly created naturalistic landscape setting. Groupings of evergreen trees would screen parking and help to frame selective intermittent visibility of buildings and their signage and add winter interest. Development will form an interesting, walkable mixed-use destination with buildings brought together along sidewalks and other walkways and outdoor spaces. While most people will arrive by private vehicle, the pattern will make it convenient and inviting to ‘park once’ and walk within the area. Because of the focus on a walkable framework, development would be mutually supportive of public transportation, by being convenient for walking, transit use, and bicycling upon arrival. Buildings Brought Together in a Walkable, Mixed-Use Area Beyond the visual image, the pattern would reflect multiple community values regarding livable, sustainable community development. Its character would define it as a notable gateway to Fort Collins and a unique shopping/employment/living destination in the region and state. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 11 Mixed Land Uses A diverse mix of businesses, jobs, and urban housing at relatively high densities, allowing as many opportunities for cross-use as possible within walking distance. This mix offers a chance for people to live, work, and visit with minimal dependency on cars. Uses could include retail, restaurant, office and institutional buildings, corporate and light industrial employment, lodging and hospitality uses, and a variety of urban styles of housing. The mix of uses would be limited to the following distribution (as a percentage of net developable acreage): Residential: 25% minimum Retail and commercial: 50% maximum Employment: 25% minimum (office, light industrial, institutional) Public Space Framework of Streets Buildings and parking lots will be fitted into a well-planned framework of public space, with blocks formed by streets, or pedestrian ‘spines’ adequate to function in lieu of streets. ‘The term ‘streets’ is inclusive of street-like private drives. Pedestrian Crossings of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads Prominent pedestrian crossings would be provided at Strauss Cabin & Harmony Roads for reasonably comfortable east-west and north-south pedestrian ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 12 movement throughout the area. . Strauss Cabin Pedestrian Crossing Concept at Apartments on West Side Buildings and Parking Lots Buildings and their entrances would be brought together along streetfronts that may combine with a trail corridor and small park and public spaces and define the district. Building Fitted in and Brought to Streetfronts Accordingly, parking would be either distributed along active pedestrian streets, or consolidated in lots or structures that do not interrupt the pedestrian and visual environment. Landscape plantings internal to parking lots reflect the overall plant pallet for the area. North Side of Harmony Road ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 13 The existing land use is likely to remain within a reasonable planning time horizon. The park-n-ride could potentially expand to a degree or add a parking structure as part of long-range plans for a transit hub, but its essential footprint, function, streetscape, and naturalistic landscape are expected to remain consistent with the overall vision. At such time that these properties redevelop, the Land Use and Development Standards described above for the south side of Harmony Road will be apply to the north side of Harmony Road. TTC (Park-n-Ride) Landscape Setback Character The commercial property abutting the interchange, under County jurisdiction, appears unlikely to request annexation and redevelopment within a planning time frame. In the meantime, it will remain a reminder of a past era when it was zoned for commercial uses at an outlying highway exit beyond the City Limits. Northeast Commercial Corner Abutting the Interchange ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIES Architectural, site, landscape and sign plans will be subject to design standards and guidelines that emphasize a distinct place and image consistent with the vision. PUBLIC SPACE MANAGEMENT Trail corridor and other open spaces: ownership, maintenance and liability issues would have to be negotiated. Retaining significant amounts of open space may require the expenditure of public funds or a reinvestment of tax dollars created by the development. GATEWAY AREA GOALS Shape the future of the gateway area to: 1. Emphasize opportunities of the river valley setting. 2. Express a positive image, community values, and a distinct local feel. 3. Shape development south of Harmony Road to form a walkable, mixed-use district south, including diverse businesses, jobs, urban styles of housing and city amenities. 4. Take advantage of future public transportation systems along Harmony Road and I-25 by evolving a transit hub. POLICIES GW-1 Establish a well-planned and attractive gateway entrance to Fort Collins at the I-25 interchange, emphasizing the natural scenic qualities of the area. GW-2 Protect and enhance the natural resource value of the Cache la Poudre River. GW-3 Encourage continued master planning efforts in the gateway area. GW-4 Establish design standards and guidelines for development in the gateway area that emphasize scenic and natural resource values. GW-6 Create networks of open space and trail systems, that incorporate urban wildlife habitat. GW-7 Support a balanced transportation system within the context of a pedestrian district that prioritizes pedestrian, transit and bicycle use as well as driving. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The following actions need to be taken by the City to ensure that the gateway section of the Plan is implemented. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 15 1. PLAN ADOPTION Gateway Plan amendment adoption by City Council. 2. GATEWAY PLANNING PHASE TWO The City should continue the gateway planning effort through the following design and coordination activities: DESIGN • Adopt Harmony Corridor Gateway Design Standards and Guidelines. • Develop and fund a Harmony Road gateway streetscape design. • Design a Fort Collins entry sign and develop a funding mechanism. • Develop a conceptual plan for a regional multi-purpose trail. • Design a naturalistic landscape design for the Harmony and I-25 rights-of-way. COORDINATION • Coordinate with the long-range planning efforts of other City departments – Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. • Coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportation in regard to decommissioning of frontage roads, and landscaping in the highway right-of-way. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 3 LAND USE The final test of an economic system is not the tons of iron, the tanks of oil, or miles of textiles it produces. The final test lies in its ultimate products – the sort of men and women it nurtures and the order and beauty and sanity of their communities. LEWIS MUMFORD ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 79 INTRODUCTION The national image enjoyed by Fort Col- lins as an excellent place to live and do business is well deserved. Few cities in the nation have a more spectacular set- ting, a more qualified work force, or a more pleasing climate. The Harmony Corridor isa key opportunity to maintain and enhance the community’s positive image and quality of life. As the Harmony Corridor emerges as a focus of development activity in south- east Fort Collins, this is an opportune time to look at current development trends and determine what specific fu- ture land uses would be most desirable to complement other development in the area. ISSUES The issues surrounding future land use in the Harmony Corridor appear to fo- cus on the need to manage development to achieve a level of quality consistent with the economic, environmental, visual and other “quality of life” objectives of the community; while guiding the corri- dor to become a major business center in northern Colorado that attracts desir- able industries and businesses and, at the same time, provides effective transitions from residential neighborhoods. Another important issue is the concern that the Harmony Corridor should not develop as a typical commercial “strip” with frequent curb cuts, inadequate land- scaping, and highly fragmented develop- ment lacking coordinated site planning. Finally, the corridor offers unique oppor- tunities to attract desirable industries and uses that can provide long-term economic stability for the community. Fort Collins has the opportunity to choose which in- dustries are important for its future. These choices will set the direction for the community’s economy for the next forty years. In this regard, the issue ap- pears to focus on the need for more pre- dictability in guiding industries and busi- nesses choosing to locate in the corridor area. CURRENT LAND USE POLLICIESPOLICIES AND REGULATIONS City Plan, the City’s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, is the official statement of long-range planning policy regarding a broad variety of land use planning issues including growth management, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 3-3 15890253 environmental protection, and locational policies for specific land use classifica- tions. The Harmony Corridor serves as an element of City Plan. The Land Use Code, on the other hand, is not a Plan. It is a land use regulatory mechanism, like zoning, which is used to implement the goals, objectives and policies of City Plan. The Harmony Corridor Plan promotes the maximum utilization of land within the corridor, higher density development, phased growth, a mix of uses and concentrated building activity. The availability of public facilities, includ- ing streets, sewer, water, natural gas, and electricity, establishes the corridor as a preferred location for intense urban ac- tivity including a mix of residential, in- dustrial, commercial and recreational uses. Properly designed, multiple use develop- ments make sense from both a public and private standpoint. People can and should have the opportunity to live near where they work, where they shop where they go out to eat, and where they find recre- ation. The auto becomes less necessary, thereby relieving the transportation sys- tem and reducing air pollution. Direct- ing growth to those areas of the commu- nity where utilities are already in place, saves money and makes more efficient use of the existing public investment in in- frastructure improvements. The adopted LAND USE POLICIES PLAN also encourages a variety of retail activity in the corridor, including commu- nity and regional shopping centers. Only neighborhood scale shopping centers are allowed in residential areas. Strip com- mercialStrip commercial development is discouraged. in fa-vor of compact shopping centers. Transitional land uses or areas are also provided for in the Plan to be located between residential and commercial ar- easareas except in specified areas where a mix of residential and commercial uses are encouraged in a live-work environment. All residential areas are encouraged to include a mix of single family and multi- family dwelling units of differing types and densities. Other uses such as parks and schools are also expected to develop in the future to serve the expand- ingexpanding residential areas. Since the late 1970’s, development in the 3-4 15890253 residential development in the area has also been very good. The challenge at hand is to determine if any additional land use policies are needed which could improve upon, reinforce and enhance the pattern of land use occurring within the corridor. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE INTRODUCTION Both the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board have the responsibil- ity and the authority to undertake the preparation of long range plans and poli- cies. This planning effort offers an op- portunity to establish a refined vision for the corridor. It includes creating a desir- able living and working environment for future inhabitants, an exciting gateway into the community, as well as an impor- tant center for business and commerce. The land use plan for the Harmony Cor- ridor is intended to improve upon, rein- force and enhance City Plan. It offers a vision of a future that many people and interests can identify with and seek to implement. THE PROCESS Several different land use alternatives were considered before finally arriving at the recommended one. These alterna- tives ranged considerably in intensity of development, character and practicality. They were reviewed by the property own- ers in the study area and the general pub- lic. The recommended land use plan was synthesized by staff based on several months of public review and comment at a variety of forums. The land use plan is depicted on Map 10. The intent of the land use plan and map is to provide for an orderly, efficient and attractive transition of vacant rural land to urban use; and to: (a) Maximize the use of existing services and facilities (streets and utilities). (b) Promote the development of the corridor as a high quality, self-con- tained and compact business center. (c) Provide for the location of industry and business in the city by identify ing prime locations for such uses. (d) Provide shopping and service areas convenient to both residents and em- ployees of the corridor. (e) Provide for a variety of housing types. (f) Preserve and protect existing residen- 3-5 15890253 THE VISION The vision for the corridor area is that it become a major business center in north- ern Colorado attracting a variety of busi- nesses and industries serving local as well as regional markets. It should also include a mixture of land uses including open space, residential, office, recreational, and retail activities. The focus of most development activity, especially commercial, should be at the major street intersections. The intensity of land use should decrease as distance from Harmony Road increases and as the distance from the major intersections in- creases. To promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit use, development in the area should be compact. Buildings, spaces and street frontages should be well-designed and of high quality materials and work- manship. Business and industry provide the major economic focus of the corridor area. The land use mix also includes a variety of commercial uses to meet tenant and neighborhood resident needs. Community and regional commercial ac- tivities are introduced in well-planned shopping centers or , industrial parks, de- signed and mixed used areas, designed to draw shoppers from the sur- roundingsurrounding community and region. Free-standing highway related commer- cial (convenience stores, fast food restaurants, gas stations and the like) are not permitted to locate outside of planned shopping centers or industrial parks. Only neighborhood scale shopping centers are allowed in residential areas, although this restriction does not apply in certain mixed use areas. Hotels to serve business tenants within the park will grow in importance. These hotels will be sited near major industrial parksemployment hubs, and in most cases be visible from Harmony Road. Low intensity retail, restaurants, day care facilities, health clubs, personal service shops, business services (print shops, of- fice supply, etc.), banks and other similar commercial activity is concentrated in at- tractively designed centers and, integrated into planned industrial parks and into mixed use areas. Buffer areas (transitional land uses, linear greenbelts, or other urban design ele- mentselements) are provided to serve as 3- 15890253 LAND USE PLAN GOAL STATEMENT Encourage and support mixed land use development in the Harmony Corridor while dis- couraging “strip commercial” development and promoting the vitality and livability of existing residential neighborhoods. POLICIES LU-1 Strive for excellence and high quality in the design and construction of buildings, open spaces, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streetscapes by establishing and enforcing design guidelines specific to the corridor area. An important part of the Harmony Corridor Plan is the desire to continue the high standard of quality established by recent development projects in the corridor area. One way that this can be accomplished is through the development and implementation of design guide- lines specific to the corridor itself. These guidelines should be adopted as a part of the criteria that the City uses to review development of the corridor area. These guidelines should address the following issues: Streetscapes, including fencing and screening. Landscaping. Street and parking lot lighting. Building setbacks. Architectural design and materials. Pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. LU-2 Locate all industries and businesses in the “Basic Industrial and Non- Retail Employment Activity Centers” in the areas of the Harmony Cor- ridor designated for such uses on Map 10. Secondary supporting uses will also be permitted in these Activity Centers, but shall occupy no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total gross area of the Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable. The Harmony Corridor offers an opportunity for creating a major business and industrial center in northern Colorado, due to its desirable location, accessibility, available infrastruc- ture, and land ownership pattern. Attracting desirable industries and businesses into the community, and in particular, the Harmony Corridor, achieves an important public pur- pose because it promotes primary and secondary jobs and generally enhances the local economy. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 3- 15890253 Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers are locations where indus- trial uses and/or office or institutional type land uses are planned to locate in the future in business park settings. Base industries are firms that produce goods and services which are produced for export outside the city, and thereby import income into the city. Typical business functions include research facilities, testing laboratories, offices and other facili- ties for research and development; industrial uses; hospitals, clinics, nursing and personal care facilities; regional, vocational, business or private schools and universities; finance, insurance and real estate services; professional offices; and other uses of similar character, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. Secondary uses include hotels/motels; sit-down restaurants; neighborhood convenience shopping centers; childcare centers; athletic clubs; and, a mix of single family and multi- family housing. If single family housing is provided, at least a generally equivalent number of multi-family dwelling units must also be provided. “Multi-family” shall mean attached single family dwellings, 2-familly dwellings or multi-family dwellings. Secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and in appearance with an office (or business) park, unless a special exemption is granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. In order for such an exemption to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the granting of the exemption would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impact the intent and purposes of the foregoing requirement and that by reason of exceptional narrowness, small parcel size, or other special condition peculiar to a site, undue hardship would be caused by the strict application of this require- ment. The essence of the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center is a com- bination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transporta- tion modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. LU-3 All retail and commercial land uses, except those permitted as secondary uses in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers, shall be located in Mixed-Use Activity Centers which comprise different types of shopping centers. All shopping centers, except neighborhood convenience shopping centers, shall be limited to the locations shown on Map 10. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall also be permitted in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center as described in LU-2. The Plan allows for a broad range of retail uses to occur in shopping centers which satisfy the consumer demands of residents and employees who live and work in adjacent neighborhoods, as well as from the community or region. Coordinated planning of a “center” rather than isolated individual uses is the most effective means of avoiding the “strip” type of development. The scale and design of the shopping centers should be compatible with neighboring uses. Shopping centers can and should play an important role in the identity, character and social interaction of surrounding neighborhoods. They should be easily accessible to existing or planned segments of public transit. Adequate auto accessibility, especially for ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 3- 15890253 community and regional shopping centers, is important. Shopping centers should have a physical environment that is conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. LU-4 Allow a broader range of land uses within the Gateway Area as shown on Map 10. The Gateway Area permits a mix of all uses allowed in the “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers” plus additional complementary uses that fit a special urban design framework as described in Chapter 5. All uses including the individual uses in Convenience Shopping Centers may occur throughout the area. Retail and commercial uses shall occupy no more than 50% of the mix of uses in the Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development as applicable. Development in the area is intended to form a mixed-use place to attract employment uses with the convenient mixing of uses as an amenity. Retail and commercial uses are allowed in any portion of the area because development will be coordinated to minimize impacts on sensitive uses such as residential uses and on visual quality. The focus within the Gateway Area will be on naturalistic landscaped edges along I-25 and Harmony Road; and on urban design of pedestrian-friendly placemaking in areas of building development. Building development will be clustered away from I-25 and Harmony Road and designed to blend unobtrusively into the landscape setting. LU-5 Provide for the advance planning of large, undeveloped properties in the corridor area. Coordinated planning of large parcels of land in the corridor area can generally provide greater opportunity for more innovation and variation in design, increase efficiency in utility services, and accomplish many more of the policies and objectives of the commu- nity than does a more piecemeal approach to development planning. LU-6 Locate a broader range of land uses in the areas of the Harmony Corridor known as Mixed-Use Activity Centers as shown on Map 10. Mixed-Use Activity Centers are areas where a broader range of land uses may locate. The Mixed-Use Activity Center permits, in addition to the uses listed in the “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center,” a range of retail and commercial uses to occur in shopping centers. If single-family housing is provided, at least a generally equiva- lent number of multi-family dwelling units must also be provided. Neighborhood service centers, community shopping centers, and regional shopping centers, and a lifestyle shop- ping center shall be limited to those locations shown on Map 10. The essence of the Mixed-Use Activity Center is a combination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. LU-7 All retail Retail and commercial land uses, except those permitted as second- ary uses in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers, shall be located are intended to be concentrated in shopping centers in most areas. All shopping centers, ex- cept neighborhood convenience shopping centers, shall be limited to the locations show on Map 10. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall also be permitted in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center as described in LU-2. Retail and commercial land uses will be allowed in the Gateway Area both within shopping centers and as components of mixed use development. The Plan allows for a broad range of retail uses to occur in shopping centers which satisfy the consumer demands of residents and employees who live and work in adjacent neigh- borhoods, as well as from the community or region. Coordinated planning of a “center” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 3- 15890253 rather than isolated individual uses is the most effective means of avoiding the “strip” type of development. The scale and design of the shopping centers should be compatible with neighboring uses. Shopping centers can and should play an important role in the identity, character and social interaction of surrounding neighborhoods. They should be easily accessible to existing or planned segments of public transit. Adequate auto accessibility, especially for community and regional shopping centers, is important. Shopping centers should have a physical environment that is conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. LU-68 Recognize the importance of the continued livability and stability of existing residential neighborhoods as a means to expanding future eco- nomic opportunities in the corridor. The corridor area contains existing residential areas whose existence contributes to the future economic health of the corridor area. Future development in the corridor should be sensitive to these areas. LU-79 Preserve a transition or cushion of lower intensity uses or open space between existing residential neighborhoods and the more intense indus- trial/commercial areas. An important goal of the Harmony Corridor Plan is to provide a harmonious relationship between land uses and to protect the character of new and existing residential neighbor- hoods against intrusive and disruptive development. Open space, setbacks, landscaping, physical barriers and appropriate land use transitions can be effective was to provide a cushion between different uses. The following are generally considered to be appropriate transitional land uses: professional offices multi-family housing churches childcare centers; and assisted living, memory care,and short-term care facilities. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 15890253 Potential Lifestyle/Regional Shopping Center HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN 3-10 LAND USE PLAN MAP 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 88 3- 15890253 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The following actions need to be taken by the City to ensure that the land use section of the Plan is implemented over the years to come. 1. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board should adopt the Plan amendment. 2. The City should annex all unincorporated areas within the Harmony Corridor, in accordance with the parameters of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. 3. The City should amend design standards and guidelines which reinforce the dis tinctiveness and quality of the corridor area. 4. When reviewing new development proposals in the corridor, the City shall evalu- ate such proposals according to the standards and guidelines adopted as part of the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines are in addition to existing development regulations that apply to specific development proposals. 5. The City should amend design guidelines to further elaborate on the effective use of design measures for buffering between residential and non-residential land uses. 6. The City should establish means of effectively encouraging industries and busi- nesses to locate in the Harmony Corridor. 7. The City should consider adopting a “superblock” planning requirement which assures the coordinated planning of large parcels of land. 8. The City should explore local landmark district designation of existing historic structures. 9. The City should continue to study the distribution of basic industrial and non- retail jobs as part of the City Plan Update (2019) implementation recommendations and consider amendments to the Land Use Code recognizing changes in land use policy.. Revise policies of the Plan as needed. Formatted: Not Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 89 3- 15890253 10. The City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Town of Timnath should join efforts to plan for the appropriate development of Harmony Road east of I-25 compatible with the Harmony Corridor Plan. 11. Pioneer Mobile Home Park, located on the northeast corner of Harmony Road and College Avenue, is home for many low-income families and elderly persons on fixed incomes. Although the Plan indicates future redevelopment of the site, the displacement of persons in the neighborhood should be carefully planned and sensitive to the particular needs of the residents. 12. The “Harmony Bikeway Study” (currently underway) should be prepared to rein- force the goals and vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan, as well as the City’s overall transportation objectives. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 90 MEMORANDUM Date: October 22, 2019 To: Mayor and Councilmembers From: Dean Klingner, Interim Planning, Development & Transportation Director Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager Through: Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Darin Atteberry, City Manager Re: Summary of October 21st I-25 Gateways Workshop On October 21st, approximately 75 individuals attended a 2-hour public workshop to review the history of Planning along the I-25 Corridor and evaluate possible changes at three major Fort Collins I-25 ‘gateways’: Harmony, Prospect and Mulberry. During the workshop, attendees had facilitated group discussions (up to 10 individuals per group) regarding the four alternative scenarios being considered for the Harmony ‘gateway’. A summary of comments, grouped by topic area, was captured through meeting facilitator notes and individual comments. In addition to the following public comments, some of individual citizens representing themselves as Protect our Gateway (POG) submitted an alternative Scenario E that was discussed during the Workshop (Attachment A). In general, the comments underscore how difficult it will be to balance the desire from many community participants to provide a more open, naturalistic Harmony gateway corridor while having an economically viable solution. Some of the more significant economic challenges sited were the ability to provide viable commercial uses when visibility is lessened from the highway, the high cost to retain illegal gravel ponds, and the ability to provide public funding for civic and cultural amenities. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 91 Discussion Notes Harmony Gateway Scenario A • The least preferred option at the table is Option A. Scenario B • I like Scenario B because it provides the most flexibility • If it is going to be a big box acknowledge this and do not try to hide it with landscaping and buffering. • A huge negative of Scenario B is that the backside of the big box would abut the natural area. • Scenario B works the best – Put the trail on the interior of the site and not as great of a setback • No “Big Box” retail • Differentiate from traditional access into a community. Don’t put big box retail here just because it’s along I-25 • No big box stores (especially with limited connections to the area) • If you have intensive land use, isn’t an interchange an appropriate place for that? • No big box development in that area • Big Box is old news • Don’t support big box retail Scenario C • I like the idea of mixed-use and believe it makes a true sense of place • We need office, residential and commercial mix. Should focus on regional and local Scenario D • Option D – least similar to a strip mall, don’t need a mini-Centerra. • Like the reduced intensity due to aesthetics/traffic • Scenario D is the best balance between natural landscape and development Scenario E (Citizen-initiated) • At one table, the POG representative went through the handout and their preferred alternative. He said that the alternative was similar to Alt. D but said that it added the 20% cultural use requirement and therefore reduced the remaining buildout potential from 60% to 40%. The most preferred is the option at this table is that proposed by POG. • At this table, there is no support for options other than D; but D not preferred; POG option preferred over D by the table; one resident questioned the 20% cultural use viability, but it could just be added ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 92 passive space as a type of cultural use. Concerned that the 20% cultural uses in the POG option will not be used, area would not be a destination for these uses. • All of the options are too pro-growth and not considering entire context of the city which includes more generous open space interspersed. Open space considered by the table attendants as a future infrastructure need with should be more prominently incorporated into HC corridor gateway. Need bolder statement than the options shown. Too weak, timid. • Gravel pits and ponds are the most relevant resource within the South Gateway • Not suggesting that the landowner pay to subsidize open areas or cultural/civic uses • Need to understand where revenues would come from to pay for the improvements • Highest percentage of green space possible for the Harmony Gateway • Small percentage of residential and commercial • Low density, low height buildings Other Land Uses • Could this be a hotel or convention space? Or perhaps a corporate identity or campus, like Woodward? • Interest in cultural/welcome center, open space and no other development in this area. • Gateway is supposed to be a place where the travelers can learn about Fort Collins • Neighborhood group scenario: 20% should be for cultural uses (trails, museum, visitor center) • Agricultural history museum and a welcome center with a connection to Old Town is preferred • City should buy the land General Land Use Comments • Harmony is definitely a commercial employment corridor. • Demand for employment is a big challenge. Screams commercial office around natural space to the south and would be a lost opportunity if the future buildings did not take advantage of this amenity. • More restaurants and retail not needed; takes away from the integrity of the corridor aesthetic that is desired by the table attendants who provided input. Almost all of the attendants at the table provided input. • Desire small commercial like on Lady Moon • Perhaps a Harmony Tech Corridor • Harmony is a gateway to Horsetooth Reservoir • As much density as possible in a smaller area • Like the lagoon at CSU – include place with food trucks and music • Need a different feel than the Costco entryway • Small businesses, places to sit and enjoy the outdoors ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 93 • Some plans have not been followed • Southwest part of the site seems like it would be better utilized as mixed use. • This a southern gateway that is deserving of special attention • The Wyatt apartments are ugly and too tall • All scenarios call for too much development in the area Economic Viability • Are all of the scenarios economically feasible? • The land use at that Harmony gateway will be largely based on market conditions and will be dependent on current and future market demand • A lot of retail plans lost out on Costco • Need market demand – some flexibility should be allowed • Need to protect existing property rights • Fort Collins is far removed from I-25. Setbacks are terrible. Businesses are coming to be seen and not screened from view • Floodplain, pond issues/illegal water – with these constraints, how much is really developable? • Any public place/role that the City can play? Examples may include a regional park, a transit stop, open space. • Lots of questions about partnership/ownership and maintenance of any cultural amenities. Placement of such amenities is very important. • Need to have public/private partnership for some of the scenarios. Is there a funding mechanism for this? • The addition of the regional trail, as a buffer along I-25, might really constrain development • Will this space serve community, highway, or a combination of both? If serving community, what kind of retail would do this? • Less interest in office/commercial, more interested in residential development • What is the market for retail in this area? • Can commercial be viable without highway orientation? • Without rooftops/residential units, why would anyone visit this space? • Cost to bring out of floodplain doesn’t really support residential development • How will water be channeled in this area for irrigation, etc.? • Another resident was concerned with the economic viability of the POG option. • Setbacks not as beneficial • View angles are a concern for retailers and commercial. • Types of retail that will be successful in the area are really influenced by distance from I-25 • Development in the floodplain seems unwise • View window from I-25 is a concern. Retailers want to be seen. • I don’t support TIF financing. I want that known. No reason to subsidize development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 94 Wildlife Habitat • Concern that the options A-D don’t do enough to protect/create habitat and bird migration. • Would like to leverage the underground Harmony Road connection as a wildlife corridor. • Could be a passive cultural use such as similar to Chapungu Sculpture park, but also a concern that Chapungu is not a destination. Gateway Design Character • I think of Harmony as a “high-end” access point to the community. The gateway should retain this type of character. • Greet people as they come into Fort Collins • Each gateway should have a unique character • The southern gateway is deserving of special attention • Not just another exit; should signal that you are in Fort Collins • Should have design standards • Design standards should be unique to Fort Collins character • Earth-toned • Natural building materials • Harmony median Zeigler to I-25 – need to include median design as part of Gateway aesthetic. • Several agreed that the HC gateway could have its own related theme, and the other interchanges could have similar unified themes. All themes should relate but HC should be different. Unique design but similar; all same color range. • Harmony – could be more angular/architectural and other Gateways’ character more natural. • Gateway for Harmony – need to carry theme throughout Harmony – add features at top of hill and to Timberline to carry design elements further, more than just Gateway, so that it’s more apparent that the gateway design is not just a CDOT intersection design and that’s it; need bigger, broader statement. • Harmony – Nothing denotes that you’ve arrived in Fort Collins – Make a gateway feature for each interchange • Several agreed that the HC gateway could have its own related theme, and the other interchanges could have similar unified themes. All themes should relate but HC should be different. Unique design but similar, all same color range. • Separate the character of the west side of I-25 from the existing character on the east side. • If the east side, in Timnath, looked like Scenario D, would we feel differently? • There should be a lessening of height restrictions. Three-story apartments with no structured parking is sprawl; build 4 or 5 stories with podium or structured parking. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 95 • The ‘gateway’ is part of the Poudre River Corridor and should separate Fort Collins from Timnath • Additional buffer along I-25 Transportation • Challenging to bike the corridor, SE FC area is becoming its own district that feels detached from the community. I-25 development should be more focused on multi-modal; preconditions on greenfield development are not sufficient. Planning department is too lenient, more restrictions needed and more contribution to alternative transportation infrastructure (off-site improvements, better building design and massing were concerns expressed). Developers getting off too easy – not sufficiently paying into overall infrastructure to offset added development impacts (congestion/safety/added vehicle volume). • How traffic is handled and managed is an overarching concern, and that traffic/congestion should be better utilized to control development growth rates. • Harmony interchange riddled with traffic; I avoid it at all costs. • It is important to allow the regional trail to be in close proximity to the residential or mixed-use buildings. It does not make sense to stick it between the highway and the uses that would be located closer to the interstate. • trail needs to be more embedded in the community than on the I-25 corridor. • Currently there’s poor access to the South Gateway site • Future access – consider adding a signalized intersection • Traffic is crazy in the area – people use Kechter to avoid traveling down Harmony Road • Too much traffic in the area • If you build too much, the traffic will be horrendous • There will be an increase in traffic regardless of the scenario ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 96 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM Date: October 22, 2019 To: Mayor and Councilmembers From: Dean Klingner, Interim Planning, Development & Transportation Director Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager Through: Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Darin Atteberry, City Manager Re: Summary of October 21st I-25 Gateways Workshop On October 21st, approximately 75 individuals attended a 2-hour public workshop to review the history of Planning along the I-25 Corridor and evaluate possible changes at three major Fort Collins I-25 ‘gateways’: Harmony, Prospect and Mulberry. During the workshop, attendees had facilitated group discussions (up to 10 individuals per group) regarding the four alternative scenarios being considered for the Harmony ‘gateway’. A summary of comments, grouped by topic area, was captured through meeting facilitator notes and individual comments. In addition to the following public comments, some of individual citizens representing themselves as Protect our Gateway (POG) submitted an alternative Scenario E that was discussed during the Workshop (Attachment A). In general, the comments underscore how difficult it will be to balance the desire from many community participants to provide a more open, naturalistic Harmony gateway corridor while having an economically viable solution. Some of the more significant economic challenges sited were the ability to provide viable commercial uses when visibility is lessened from the highway, the high cost to retain illegal gravel ponds, and the ability to provide public funding for civic and cultural amenities. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 97 Council Memo Update – Harmony Gateway Workshop Summary Page | 2 Discussion Notes Harmony Gateway Scenario A • The least preferred option at the table is Option A. Scenario B • I like Scenario B because it provides the most flexibility • If it is going to be a big box acknowledge this and do not try to hide it with landscaping and buffering. • A huge negative of Scenario B is that the backside of the big box would abut the natural area. • Scenario B works the best – Put the trail on the interior of the site and not as great of a setback • No “Big Box” retail • Differentiate from traditional access into a community. Don’t put big box retail here just because it’s along I-25 • No big box stores (especially with limited connections to the area) • If you have intensive land use, isn’t an interchange an appropriate place for that? • No big box development in that area • Big Box is old news • Don’t support big box retail Scenario C • I like the idea of mixed-use and believe it makes a true sense of place • We need office, residential and commercial mix. Should focus on regional and local Scenario D • Option D – least similar to a strip mall, don’t need a mini-Centerra. • Like the reduced intensity due to aesthetics/traffic • Scenario D is the best balance between natural landscape and development Scenario E (Citizen-initiated) • At one table, the POG representative went through the handout and their preferred alternative. He said that the alternative was similar to Alt. D but said that it added the 20% cultural use requirement and therefore reduced the remaining buildout potential from 60% to 40%. The most preferred is the option at this table is that proposed by POG. • At this table, there is no support for options other than D; but D not preferred; POG option preferred over D by the table; one resident questioned the 20% cultural use viability, but it could just be added ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 98 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services passive space as a type of cultural use. Concerned that the 20% cultural uses in the POG option will not be used, area would not be a destination for these uses. • All of the options are too pro-growth and not considering entire context of the city which includes more generous open space interspersed. Open space considered by the table attendants as a future infrastructure need with should be more prominently incorporated into HC corridor gateway. Need bolder statement than the options shown. Too weak, timid. • Gravel pits and ponds are the most relevant resource within the South Gateway • Not suggesting that the landowner pay to subsidize open areas or cultural/civic uses • Need to understand where revenues would come from to pay for the improvements • Highest percentage of green space possible for the Harmony Gateway • Small percentage of residential and commercial • Low density, low height buildings Other Land Uses • Could this be a hotel or convention space? Or perhaps a corporate identity or campus, like Woodward? • Interest in cultural/welcome center, open space and no other development in this area. • Gateway is supposed to be a place where the travelers can learn about Fort Collins • Neighborhood group scenario: 20% should be for cultural uses (trails, museum, visitor center) • Agricultural history museum and a welcome center with a connection to Old Town is preferred • City should buy the land General Land Use Comments • Harmony is definitely a commercial employment corridor. • Demand for employment is a big challenge. Screams commercial office around natural space to the south and would be a lost opportunity if the future buildings did not take advantage of this amenity. • More restaurants and retail not needed; takes away from the integrity of the corridor aesthetic that is desired by the table attendants who provided input. Almost all of the attendants at the table provided input. • Desire small commercial like on Lady Moon • Perhaps a Harmony Tech Corridor • Harmony is a gateway to Horsetooth Reservoir • As much density as possible in a smaller area • Like the lagoon at CSU – include place with food trucks and music • Need a different feel than the Costco entryway • Small businesses, places to sit and enjoy the outdoors ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 99 Council Memo Update – Harmony Gateway Workshop Summary Page | 4 • Some plans have not been followed • Southwest part of the site seems like it would be better utilized as mixed use. • This a southern gateway that is deserving of special attention • The Wyatt apartments are ugly and too tall • All scenarios call for too much development in the area Economic Viability • Are all of the scenarios economically feasible? • The land use at that Harmony gateway will be largely based on market conditions and will be dependent on current and future market demand • A lot of retail plans lost out on Costco • Need market demand – some flexibility should be allowed • Need to protect existing property rights • Fort Collins is far removed from I-25. Setbacks are terrible. Businesses are coming to be seen and not screened from view • Floodplain, pond issues/illegal water – with these constraints, how much is really developable? • Any public place/role that the City can play? Examples may include a regional park, a transit stop, open space. • Lots of questions about partnership/ownership and maintenance of any cultural amenities. Placement of such amenities is very important. • Need to have public/private partnership for some of the scenarios. Is there a funding mechanism for this? • The addition of the regional trail, as a buffer along I-25, might really constrain development • Will this space serve community, highway, or a combination of both? If serving community, what kind of retail would do this? • Less interest in office/commercial, more interested in residential development • What is the market for retail in this area? • Can commercial be viable without highway orientation? • Without rooftops/residential units, why would anyone visit this space? • Cost to bring out of floodplain doesn’t really support residential development • How will water be channeled in this area for irrigation, etc.? • Another resident was concerned with the economic viability of the POG option. • Setbacks not as beneficial • View angles are a concern for retailers and commercial. • Types of retail that will be successful in the area are really influenced by distance from I-25 • Development in the floodplain seems unwise • View window from I-25 is a concern. Retailers want to be seen. • I don’t support TIF financing. I want that known. No reason to subsidize development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 100 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services Wildlife Habitat • Concern that the options A-D don’t do enough to protect/create habitat and bird migration. • Would like to leverage the underground Harmony Road connection as a wildlife corridor. • Could be a passive cultural use such as similar to Chapungu Sculpture park, but also a concern that Chapungu is not a destination. Gateway Design Character • I think of Harmony as a “high-end” access point to the community. The gateway should retain this type of character. • Greet people as they come into Fort Collins • Each gateway should have a unique character • The southern gateway is deserving of special attention • Not just another exit; should signal that you are in Fort Collins • Should have design standards • Design standards should be unique to Fort Collins character • Earth-toned • Natural building materials • Harmony median Zeigler to I-25 – need to include median design as part of Gateway aesthetic. • Several agreed that the HC gateway could have its own related theme, and the other interchanges could have similar unified themes. All themes should relate but HC should be different. Unique design but similar; all same color range. • Harmony – could be more angular/architectural and other Gateways’ character more natural. • Gateway for Harmony – need to carry theme throughout Harmony – add features at top of hill and to Timberline to carry design elements further, more than just Gateway, so that it’s more apparent that the gateway design is not just a CDOT intersection design and that’s it; need bigger, broader statement. • Harmony – Nothing denotes that you’ve arrived in Fort Collins – Make a gateway feature for each interchange • Several agreed that the HC gateway could have its own related theme, and the other interchanges could have similar unified themes. All themes should relate but HC should be different. Unique design but similar, all same color range. • Separate the character of the west side of I-25 from the existing character on the east side. • If the east side, in Timnath, looked like Scenario D, would we feel differently? • There should be a lessening of height restrictions. Three-story apartments with no structured parking is sprawl; build 4 or 5 stories with podium or structured parking. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 101 Council Memo Update – Harmony Gateway Workshop Summary Page | 6 • The ‘gateway’ is part of the Poudre River Corridor and should separate Fort Collins from Timnath • Additional buffer along I-25 Transportation • Challenging to bike the corridor, SE FC area is becoming its own district that feels detached from the community. I-25 development should be more focused on multi-modal; preconditions on greenfield development are not sufficient. Planning department is too lenient, more restrictions needed and more contribution to alternative transportation infrastructure (off-site improvements, better building design and massing were concerns expressed). Developers getting off too easy – not sufficiently paying into overall infrastructure to offset added development impacts (congestion/safety/added vehicle volume). • How traffic is handled and managed is an overarching concern, and that traffic/congestion should be better utilized to control development growth rates. • Harmony interchange riddled with traffic; I avoid it at all costs. • It is important to allow the regional trail to be in close proximity to the residential or mixed-use buildings. It does not make sense to stick it between the highway and the uses that would be located closer to the interstate. • trail needs to be more embedded in the community than on the I-25 corridor. • Currently there’s poor access to the South Gateway site • Future access – consider adding a signalized intersection • Traffic is crazy in the area – people use Kechter to avoid traveling down Harmony Road • Too much traffic in the area • If you build too much, the traffic will be horrendous • There will be an increase in traffic regardless of the scenario ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 102 UMemo to Cameron Gloss (from Mike Feldhousen) (Regarding Incomplete Draft HCP Update Documents) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 103 “Land Use: Insure that cultural content is included” There is no reference yet in the Land Use Draft (Chapter 3) indicating that U“Cultural Content”U would be representative of the “Community Gateway” concepts articulated in the Harmony Gateway Area Draft (Chapter 5). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 104 “Harmony Gateway Area: All Gateway Area Goals should have Implementation Actions identified for each to achieve them” • There are (8) Policy Statements (LU-1 thru LU-8) proposed in the Land Use Plan Draft (Chapter 3): In examining the “Implementation Actions”, there does not appear to be actions associated with every policy statement. The implementation actions should be updated, or expanded, to adequately cover each of the Policy Statements • Missing Content: There should be an additional Policy Statement regarding the development of the Harmony Gateway consistent with the “Community Gateway” concepts. And there should be some specific implementation actions associated with it. This could also include actions related to fostering a public/private partnership to help fund the cultural content necessary to implement the “Community Gateway”. • Incorrect/Incomplete Content: There are references to Land Use limits/percentages that don’t line up with the apparent proposed recommendation of Scenario D for the Gateway Area. Since the Gateway Area zoning is being treated separately from the rest of the Harmony Corridor area, maybe it makes sense to have 2 sections for Land Use, one covering the HC and one more specific to the Gateway. Additionally, there is no reference to the Open Space requirement in the Gateway. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 105 HC Standards and Guidelines: needs to be consistent w/Scenario D & E (some examples: •e.g. Multi-use definition allows for 5 story residential buildings As we have been led to believe, if there is a multi-use building (even though it is primarily residential), it would be allowed to be at a height of 5-6 stories. We believe the intent of a 3-story residential building is just that – In order to limit residential buildings to 3-story in order to control density and protect the viewshed. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 106 • “Retail Establishments”: – What does “No Big Box” mean for scenario? – (4) “superstores” (over 50,000 sq ft) are still allowed? This does not seem consistent with the P&Z statements that Big Box stores are not allowed In scenarios A/C/D/E. • There appear to be no limits on # of “large retail stores” (25k-50k sqft) size w/multi-use. o (As a point of reference, a football field is approximately 45k sq ft.) o Do we really want to allow an unlimited number of large retail stores of this size? • Drive-in restaurants are still allowed. “Drive-in and Drive-thru restaurants. Drive-in and Drive-thru restaurants and accessory drive-thru facilities for other uses shall be permitted only if located in relegated to screened, secondary locations and subordinate in emphasis to pedestrian spaces, and facilities, and focal points. (+)” This does not appear to be consistent with scenarios A/C/D/E. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 107 From: Marci White To: mnm5@frontiernet.net; Ken Summers; Darin Atteberry Cc: Subject: �; Cameron Gloss; Gretchen Schiaqer; Tom Leeson; Laurie Kadrich; Jeff Mihelich; SAR Admin Team re: Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process (Council SAR#48351) Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:23:54 PM Attachments: imageOOl.jpg Dear Mr. Feldhousen, Thank you for sharing the additional information on the Advocates for Our Gateway. Please see the following response provided by Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager, on behalf of Councilmember Ken Summers and City Manager Darin Atteberry. Kindly, Marci White Business Support I City of Fort Collins 970-221-6266 office m�@fc�� _ _ cid:image001.jpg@01D3676B.2DFC56FO Dear Mr. Feldhousen, Thank you for the background information on the Advocates for Our Gateway and your engagement in the Harmony Corridor Plan Update public review process. Our City Planning and Development Services staff continues its work on the Harmony Corridor Plan amendments that pertain to the 'Gateway' area. This work was described as an action item in the original 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan but was never completed. A Work Session with the City Council has been scheduled for May 14th at 6pm where there will be a discussion of DRAFT Plan Amendments, including the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines and a revised Harmony Plan Gateway chapter. You will have an opportunity to attend the Work Session, watch on Channel 14 or stream the meeting on line. This is not a public hearing, so there is no opportunity for the public to address the Council during the Work Session. An agenda will be published a week prior to the meeting and posted on the fcgov.com website so you can get a better sense of the specific timeframe during the meeting that the Harmony Gateway item will be discussed. Yesterday, a City webpage dedicated to the Gateway Plan update was brought on line that describes the planning process and ways for you to be involved. You can view it here: https://ourcity.fcgov.com /harmonycorridor. Beyond the Council Work Session, the public review process will continue for the next few months so that the various perspectives on the Gateway Area can be better understood. City staff will be presenting to advising Boards and Commissions to get their insight and formal recommendations in addition to the continued outreach with the public. With respect to your questions about the relaying of written public comments, we ask that you continue to provide your perspectives to the Planning and Development Services staff. With our long-range plans oftentimes including hundreds of individual comments, it is our practice to provide both a summary of written comments as part of the City staff's analysis and individual public ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 108 comments when the Plans come up for formal consideration. Regards, Cameron Gloss Long-Range Planning Manager 970-224-6174 cgloss@fcgov.com Original Reqµ�st - - -- - - -- · - From: Ken Summers Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:22 PM To: Michael Feldhousen Subject: Re: Further Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Michael I am delayed in a full response. However, the protocol, as I understand, is for emails to be sent to P&Z Members through the city clerks office. I would encourage you to avail yourself to that access on the issues that relate to their processes. I will check on how the schedule is posted related to planning and zoning applications. I believe there are some requirements for these notices, so if Cameron has not indicated a timeline, it is probably because one has not been established. This issues are hard to predict because of all that can happen to delay considerations and approval as an application or review moves through the process. Ken 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 Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 5:25:11 PM To: Ken Summers Subject: Further Update from Advocates for our Gateway- HCP Update Process Hi, Ken. In an effort to keep you updated on our Harmony Corridor Plan Update engagement efforts since our last contact several weeks ago, I provide the following information: 1. Larimer County formal filing - As mentioned in previous reporting to you, we made our formal filing to the Larimer County Clerk expressing our dissatisfaction with the P&Z HCP Update process because of it's linkage to the H-25 proposal. Since that time, (10) members of our Advocates for our Gateway have been individually threatened with a lawsuit by the developer's attorney. We have been forced to undergo both the distraction and the expense to retain counsel as a result. 2. P&Z Board Review - Just recently, we have attended the 03/15 P&Z Board HCP Update Review given by Cameron Gloss. While there does seem to be progress on maintaining the rural nature of ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 109 the Southern parcel, P&Z is still on the path of an "Activity Center" designation for the Northern parcel with corresponding re-zoning. This mirrors the developer's H-25 proposal which we still object to on the grounds that it will lead to over-development of the area. Our contention all along has been that the current HCP and corresponding zoning would be adequate and appropriate for development. We have minimal faith that P&Z is capable of holding the line with the developer, given what is happening with the H-23 development already underway at Strauss Cabin by the same developer, supposedly under the current HCP zoning and design guidelines. 3. Circulation of Advocate's previous P&Z formal reports - I have been in continual conversation with Cameron Gloss to understand the planned P&Z process, P&Z Board review & approval process, and the anticipated City Council review & approval process. I recently asked Cameron a question about whether the P&Z Board had/would receive our previous reports to P&Z per our multiple requests. His answer is: "All public comments received are entered by the staff into the public record and will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and City Council. The materials will be provided as attachments when the item is considered." This answer appears as somewhat evasive to me and could mean, "when the issue comes up for a vote". That would seem to be unacceptable given that Cameron just had a Work Session Review with the P&Z Board and they may not yet have our reports. Where would the transparency be here? I will be going back to Cameron for clarification. We could have the same issue with his current plan to try and have a City Council Review session as soon as April 23rd. Note: Do you have any advice for us if Cameron will not confirm reports have been sent? I would just go ahead and forward to the P&Z Board & others, but their emails are not listed on the FC Planning & Zoning site? 4. Upcoming P&Z Board Regular Meetings - We are considering an Advocates presence at the Regular P&Z Board monthly meetings where we could speak during the "Public Participation" portions. (Next one is this coming Thursday). 5. Advocate's Website - We are getting ready to formally roll out our Advocate's website to the public. It is located at (https://harmonygateway.org Protect Our Gateway- No Regrets harmonygateway.org Copyright - OceanWP Theme by Nick Close Menu ). It's still in its initial stage and we plan to add a lot more content in the coming weeks. Feel free to check it out and let me know what you think. Ken, that's about it for now. Please get back to me with your reactions, thoughts, ideas, etc. We value your insight as we continue to be advocates for the public's interest in your District. Thanks, Mike Feldhousen Advocates for our Gateway ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 110 (585) 734-5652 Against Over-Development "Let's have No Regrets" HarmonyGateway.Org Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 11:55 AM To: Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> Cc: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net>; Walter Lyons <walyons@frii.com> Subject: Re: Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Thank you for your report of this meeting. I would encourage you· to address the issues of concern from group regardless of how staff may be guiding the process. I believe, from what I have seen, your group is well informed and through in your research. Ken Summers Council member District 3 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 on line 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. On Mar 2, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> wrote: Dear Mike, Just a quick detail update for you. There were 16 people at the Open House meeting Wednesday night from our Advocates group, out of a total of 42 people in attendance. So, our group accounted for 38% of the total attendance. 15 to 20 of those present were city employees or representatives of the H-25 developer. Thus, our group accounted for 60-73% of the total number of citizens in attendance. The first meeting had 35 total in attendance, the second had 25. City employees made you about half each time. We had 7 at the first meeting and 10-12 at the second. So, when you subtract city employees and our group from the totals, attendance/citizen input in these meetings has been quite low. In addition to that fact, input has been restricted to specific design details with no opportunity to discuss overall concerns about the update's direct ties to the H-25 development and how that development would be inconsistent with other city plans. There1s been no option for our group to express opposition to amending the Harmony Corridor Plan/Gateway Area Plan and no mention of our opposition in the reporting of community input obtained. This is concerning, because the workshops, thusly, are not serving as a true feedback ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 111 mechanism from citizens to Civic leaders. When one considers that even city representatives (people who were on the committee that wrote the HCP) expressed opinions at the December 22, 2018 meeting that the HCP does not necessarily need updating in order for development to happen in the Harmony Corridor/Gateway, it is disconcerting that the city has chosen to try to railroad the HCP update process through in this fashion. Thank you for keeping our city council representative abreast of our experience. Best regards, Kara Get Outlook for Android From: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 6:20:35 PM To: Ken Summers Cc: Walter Lyons; Kara Linn Subject: Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Hi, Ken. Just a brief update for you of recent activities and events: 1. P&Z HCP Update meeting (02/27) - Advocates for our Gateway Citizen's Group was well represented at the recent 02/27 P&Z HCP Update meeting chaired by Cameron Gloss. We have decided to increase our group's public engagement efforts as of late. With the way that the HCP Update process is proceeding (2 January meetings), it is difficult for us to ascertain the true intent/end result of the process, as it relates to our documented concerns. We are still hopeful, but we can't put all our trust in that. o Our group made up 25% of attendees, with the rest being City staffers and other public. o We continued our ongoing engagement with the city via attendance and dialog. o We had posters to highlight our main concerns with the process so far. o We handed out copies of our Larimer County formal filing (see below). 2. Larimer County Formal Filing: o We made a public statement at the previous January meetings regarding our concerns about the HCP Update process. These included our documented belief that an HCP update (allowing for re zoning) is not really necessary in order for development efforts in the area to proceed. ( e.g. Harmony Corridor Guidelines could be updated to address the visions for the Gateway as identified in the current HCP). Additionally, we feel there is a strong linkage between the HCP Update process and the previously submitted H-25 proposal (despite P&Z's contention that there is not). o We did not feel that there was an adequate response, or assurance, to our concerns, and that there was no real way to formally notify the city. o So, we took the step to formally file a formal notice with Larimer County (The Formal Notice is attached), documenting our concerns. It was filed on 02/27, and we made copies available at the 02/27 meeting as noted above. o We asked Cameron Gloss at the meeting to circulate our filing to City staff. He agreed. We will follow that up with a formal request. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 112 3. Advocates for our Gateway Press Release: o We have been aware of several local articles published in the local media, strongly supporting both the developer's H-25 plans and the city's support. None of these articles referenced any conflicts in this direction, or that there was any public concerns. As a result, we felt our concerns need to be more aggressively communicated within the FC community. o As a result, we sent out a Press Release on 02/27 to numerous media outlets in Northern CO and Cheyenne, WY. (The Press Release is attached.) 4. Request for Interviews from the Coloradoan: o We were immediately contacted by Pat Ferrier, Senior Business Editor, for the Coloradoan. o She requested an interview with myself, and one other person from our group. I have completed my interview on 02/28. The other was completed today with Kara Linn. Kara provided Pat with info on the 02/27 meeting which she attended. During my interview, I provided Pat with a timeline of events dating back to May 2018. One of the items I mentioned was our group's update with you in early December. I made it very clear to her that we had:  Cleared this contact with you in advance with city staffers.  We contacted you in regard to this potential development being in your District and our being residents of your District.  We only discussed, and provided to you, publicly available information.  You made no commitments of any kind to our group.  Since we have no editorial review rights to an interview, hopefully she will accurately represent any reference to our discussion.  She made no commitments regarding publishing intent. Ken, if you have any further questions, please let me know. Regards, Mike Feldhousen Advocates for Our Gateway (585) 734-5652 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 113 From: Michael Feldhousen To: Clark Mapes Subject: RE: Response - RE: H-25 Concerned Citizen"s Group - Input on Proposed Amendment Date: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:52:03 PM Hi, Clark. Thanks for the clarification in your note below. We have spent a considerable amount of time and effort researching City documents and land use policy, We’re glad that you feel our citizen’s report reflects that. This is our report to the City. We encourage you to disseminate this as widely as possible among any City personnel so that they understand some of the key policies that should govern decisions on this project’s proposed land use changes. In addition, this report highlights some of the citizen reaction that will result when people understand the ramifications of possible overdevelopment of a key City natural resource area such as the ”Gateway”. We fully understand your perspective that “the most important discussion to be had is between the differing perspectives here”. And, “it’s important to get well-vetted responses to all points.” We believe that the City Planning team is the public “guardian” for our citizens of Fort Collins. We prefer that Planning & Zoning, understanding the “spirit” of our issues and concerns, represent them to the developer, along with any other direction the City would like to provide, in order to steer H-25 in a better direction. After all, these are the City’s policies, not ours. We expect that the City, as part of its review process, to give appropriate feedback to the developer. In our opinion, the developer’s proposed Amendment does not appear to us to be a “good faith” proposal. It clearly reflects the developer’s desire to maximize their potential profits at the expense of what is best for the City and its citizens. Either the developer has not done due diligence to the City’s policies, or, he has chosen to ignore them. Additionally, the developer has been quite vague about his proposal details, and is appearing to try to use the loophole of an Amendment to justify revising City policy and pursue re-zoning. Until we have evidence to the contrary, we do not believe that it is appropriate for us, as citizens of Fort Collins, to deal directly with the developer at this point in time. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 114 So; we do not wish for our report to be shared “directly” with the developer, or his representatives. We hope you can understand our position. Our citizens group considers itself advocates for our Gateway. We welcome the opportunity to continue working with representatives of the City to help determine what is the best outcome for all of the citizens of Fort Collins. Please feel free to call to discuss further, thanks, Mike Feldhousen (585) 734-5652 “Advocates for Our Gateway” From: Clark Mapes [mailto:CMAPES@fcgov.com] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 2:26 PM To: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Subject: RE: Response - RE: H-25 Concerned Citizen's Group - Input on Proposed Amendment Yes! The most important discussion to be had is between the differing perspectives here. Assuming we continue with work on a more complete and balanced plan amendment, it’s important to get well-vetted responses to all points. It will really be helpful for Padilla and his team to see this. Clark Mapes, AICP City Planner cmapes@fcgov.com 970-221-6225 From: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernetnet> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 1:14 PM To: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com> Subject: Response - RE: H-25 Concerned Citizen's Group - Input on Proposed Amendment Hi, Clark. We are glad you have found our report informative and helpful. Your question regarding, “sharing with the developer team”. Are you referring to Padilla and/or his proposal development team? ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 115 Please clarify, and we will get back to you. Thanks, Mike Feldhousen From: Clark Mapes [mailto:CMAPES@fcgov.com] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 11:27 AM To: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Subject: RE: H-25 Concerned Citizen's Group - Input on Proposed Amendment Hello, This is excellent use and interpretation of community planning – looks like you hired a Carolyn White! I assume you don’t mind if I share this around starting with the developer team. Clark Mapes, AICP City Planner cmapes@fcgov.com 970-221-6225 From: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernetnet> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:02 PM To: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgovcom> Subject: H-25 Concerned Citizen's Group - Input on Proposed Amendment Clark, please find attached, our H-25 Concerned Citizens Report. We have prepared this as our citizens feedback in response to the current H-25 Development Amendment Proposal. We would appreciate it if you could circulate this information to the appropriate parties on the City Planning and Zoning Boards. We plan to attend the upcoming scheduled City Council Meeting and to represent our concerns as outlined in this report. Thanks in advance for your attention to this, and please reply/call with any questions, Mike Feldhousen H-25 Concerned Citizens Group (585) 734-5652 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 116 From: Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 2:07 PM To: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: Thank you Hi Cameron, Again, thank you for your clarification. In order to make sure I understand, I have the following questions: Premise: I understand, then, that the citizens’ scenario that Mike, et al, submitted to you on Wednesday, Oct. 9, cannot be added as Scenario E (5) to the P&Z’s current scenarios A-D. You cite the “Cultural land” piece as the reason since it would require a public/private partnership for that portion of the land as a developer could not be required to develop 20% of the land in that fashion. Secondly, it makes sense to me—though, you did not say this—that if there is to be a citizens’ scenario, it should rightly be opened up to any citizen who wishes to give input during the process so that a consensus position on behalf of citizens could be put forward as a Scenario E (or 5). So, here are my questions: 1. Will Mike Feldhousen be designated as one of the facilitators at the Harmony Gateway table with her role being to facilitate citizen input on a 5th Citizens’ Scenario? 2. If a consensus emerges on the citizen scenario that retains the desire for a 20% of the land being designated for cultural use and, thus, necessitating that portion to be pulled out for a public/private partnership, will the city agree to present such a Scenario 5 with a clear caveat that the 20% cultural use piece will require a public-private partnership (PPP) and that will have to be the subject of a plan to accomplish such a partnership? OR, will you (P&Z) say, we can’t make a Scenario that includes the need for a PPP part of our proposal to the City Council? It’s very important that we know the answer to this question. The Cultural Use piece of our proposal is truly what makes our proposal unique and, I would argue, that it ensures a smaller development footprint at H-25, which ensures lower intensity. But, just as importantly, the Cultural Use piece is what ensures that the plans, philosophies, values, policies, of the community are represented in the development of that area. If you answer to question 2 is NO, we just need to know. If it is YES, then there are a host of questions I would have as to how we could make a plan for a PPP to occur. What I would love to see what be a project with guidelines and deadlines for doing all the things that would have to be done by public entities and by private entities in order to make this happen. You can be sure that the energy, research, diligence, and commitment we have put into tracking the Harmony Gateway plans would be redirected to fully embrace a PPP collaboration. I think this could be exceptionally beneficial and a ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 117 real community building endeavor that would have a positive impact on how development proceeds in the Harmony Gateway. I look forward to your reply, Cameron. Thank you, Kara From: Cameron Gloss [mailto:cgloss@fcgov.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 10:09 AM To: Kara Linn; Tom Leeson Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: RE: Thank you Kara, Thanks for your message and participation in Wednesday morning’s discussion. I got the sense that we all have a better understanding of how to create a positive path forward. I would like to clarify one point you made in your message. At the conclusion of the meeting we agreed that the staff would NOT be preparing a 5th Scenario, but rather receiving information from the community about possible permutations of ‘Scenario D – Reduced Intensity’. As Tom pointed out, the major issue cited that doesn’t ‘fit’ in Scenario D is that of the “cultural use” minimum which the City can’t require of a private land owner. You can be assured that information that we receive from the community about alterations to the scenarios will be accurately portrayed in future conversations with Boards, Commissions and the City Council. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached through email or either number listed below. Regards, Cameron Gloss, AICP Long Range Planning Manager City of Fort Collins cgloss@fcgov.com 970.224.6174 direct 970.214.6926 cell ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 118 From: Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 9:35 PM To: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com> Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com> Subject: Thank you Cameron, Thank you for your willingness to give citizens a legitimate voice in planning standards and guidelines for the Harmony Gateway Area. It means a lot. We ask not for any guarantees, only a fair opportunity to be heard. I sincerely hope that adding the 5th option for the Harmony Gateway plan will contribute to an ultimate decision that will be most productive and beneficial to our community. Tom, Thank you for your support of our request to Cameron to meet with you all, for your approval for allowing our scenario to be considered as an option, and for your time on Wednesday. With kind regards, Kara Kara Linn, Senior Consultant Denham & Steele LLC (307)266-9239 krld@DenhamAndSteele.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/kara-linn-001b6b2/ The information contained in this communication is confidential. This communication is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me promptly and delete the message. Any distribution or copying of this message without my prior consent is prohibited. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 119 From: Marci White To: mnm5@frontiernet.net; Ken Summers; Darin Atteberry Cc: Subject: �; Cameron Gloss; Gretchen Schiaqer; Tom Leeson; Laurie Kadrich; Jeff Mihelich; SAR Admin Team re: Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process (Council SAR#48351) Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:23:54 PM Attachments: imageOOl.jpg Dear Mr. Feldhousen, Thank you for sharing the additional information on the Advocates for Our Gateway. Please see the following response provided by Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager, on behalf of Councilmember Ken Summers and City Manager Darin Atteberry. Kindly, Marci White Business Support I City of Fort Collins 970-221-6266 office m�@fc�� _ _ cid:image001.jpg@01D3676B.2DFC56FO Dear Mr. Feldhousen, Thank you for the background information on the Advocates for Our Gateway and your engagement in the Harmony Corridor Plan Update public review process. Our City Planning and Development Services staff continues its work on the Harmony Corridor Plan amendments that pertain to the 'Gateway' area. This work was described as an action item in the original 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan but was never completed. A Work Session with the City Council has been scheduled for May 14th at 6pm where there will be a discussion of DRAFT Plan Amendments, including the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines and a revised Harmony Plan Gateway chapter. You will have an opportunity to attend the Work Session, watch on Channel 14 or stream the meeting on line. This is not a public hearing, so there is no opportunity for the public to address the Council during the Work Session. An agenda will be published a week prior to the meeting and posted on the fcgov.com website so you can get a better sense of the specific timeframe during the meeting that the Harmony Gateway item will be discussed. Yesterday, a City webpage dedicated to the Gateway Plan update was brought on line that describes the planning process and ways for you to be involved. You can view it here: https://ourcity.fcgov.com /harmonycorridor. Beyond the Council Work Session, the public review process will continue for the next few months so that the various perspectives on the Gateway Area can be better understood. City staff will be presenting to advising Boards and Commissions to get their insight and formal recommendations in addition to the continued outreach with the public. With respect to your questions about the relaying of written public comments, we ask that you continue to provide your perspectives to the Planning and Development Services staff. With our long-range plans oftentimes including hundreds of individual comments, it is our practice to provide both a summary of written comments as part of the City staff's analysis and individual public ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 120 comments when the Plans come up for formal consideration. Regards, Cameron Gloss Long-Range Planning Manager 970-224-6174 cgloss@fcgov.com Original Reqµ�st - - -- - - -- · - From: Ken Summers Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:22 PM To: Michael Feldhousen Subject: Re: Further Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Michael I am delayed in a full response. However, the protocol, as I understand, is for emails to be sent to P&Z Members through the city clerks office. I would encourage you to avail yourself to that access on the issues that relate to their processes. I will check on how the schedule is posted related to planning and zoning applications. I believe there are some requirements for these notices, so if Cameron has not indicated a timeline, it is probably because one has not been established. This issues are hard to predict because of all that can happen to delay considerations and approval as an application or review moves through the process. Ken 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 Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 5:25:11 PM To: Ken Summers Subject: Further Update from Advocates for our Gateway- HCP Update Process Hi, Ken. In an effort to keep you updated on our Harmony Corridor Plan Update engagement efforts since our last contact several weeks ago, I provide the following information: 1. Larimer County formal filing - As mentioned in previous reporting to you, we made our formal filing to the Larimer County Clerk expressing our dissatisfaction with the P&Z HCP Update process because of it's linkage to the H-25 proposal. Since that time, (10) members of our Advocates for our Gateway have been individually threatened with a lawsuit by the developer's attorney. We have been forced to undergo both the distraction and the expense to retain counsel as a result. 2. P&Z Board Review - Just recently, we have attended the 03/15 P&Z Board HCP Update Review given by Cameron Gloss. While there does seem to be progress on maintaining the rural nature of ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 121 the Southern parcel, P&Z is still on the path of an "Activity Center" designation for the Northern parcel with corresponding re-zoning. This mirrors the developer's H-25 proposal which we still object to on the grounds that it will lead to over-development of the area. Our contention all along has been that the current HCP and corresponding zoning would be adequate and appropriate for development. We have minimal faith that P&Z is capable of holding the line with the developer, given what is happening with the H-23 development already underway at Strauss Cabin by the same developer, supposedly under the current HCP zoning and design guidelines. 3. Circulation of Advocate's previous P&Z formal reports - I have been in continual conversation with Cameron Gloss to understand the planned P&Z process, P&Z Board review & approval process, and the anticipated City Council review & approval process. I recently asked Cameron a question about whether the P&Z Board had/would receive our previous reports to P&Z per our multiple requests. His answer is: "All public comments received are entered by the staff into the public record and will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and City Council. The materials will be provided as attachments when the item is considered." This answer appears as somewhat evasive to me and could mean, "when the issue comes up for a vote". That would seem to be unacceptable given that Cameron just had a Work Session Review with the P&Z Board and they may not yet have our reports. Where would the transparency be here? I will be going back to Cameron for clarification. We could have the same issue with his current plan to try and have a City Council Review session as soon as April 23rd. Note: Do you have any advice for us if Cameron will not confirm reports have been sent? I would just go ahead and forward to the P&Z Board & others, but their emails are not listed on the FC Planning & Zoning site? 4. Upcoming P&Z Board Regular Meetings - We are considering an Advocates presence at the Regular P&Z Board monthly meetings where we could speak during the "Public Participation" portions. (Next one is this coming Thursday). 5. Advocate's Website - We are getting ready to formally roll out our Advocate's website to the public. It is located at (https://harmonygateway.org Protect Our Gateway- No Regrets harmonygateway.org Copyright - OceanWP Theme by Nick Close Menu ). It's still in its initial stage and we plan to add a lot more content in the coming weeks. Feel free to check it out and let me know what you think. Ken, that's about it for now. Please get back to me with your reactions, thoughts, ideas, etc. We value your insight as we continue to be advocates for the public's interest in your District. Thanks, Mike Feldhousen Advocates for our Gateway ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 122 (585) 734-5652 Against Over-Development "Let's have No Regrets" HarmonyGateway.Org Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 11:55 AM To: Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> Cc: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net>; Walter Lyons <walyons@frii.com> Subject: Re: Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Thank you for your report of this meeting. I would encourage you· to address the issues of concern from group regardless of how staff may be guiding the process. I believe, from what I have seen, your group is well informed and through in your research. Ken Summers Council member District 3 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 on line 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. On Mar 2, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Kara Linn <krld@denhamandsteele.com> wrote: Dear Mike, Just a quick detail update for you. There were 16 people at the Open House meeting Wednesday night from our Advocates group, out of a total of 42 people in attendance. So, our group accounted for 38% of the total attendance. 15 to 20 of those present were city employees or representatives of the H-25 developer. Thus, our group accounted for 60-73% of the total number of citizens in attendance. The first meeting had 35 total in attendance, the second had 25. City employees made you about half each time. We had 7 at the first meeting and 10-12 at the second. So, when you subtract city employees and our group from the totals, attendance/citizen input in these meetings has been quite low. In addition to that fact, input has been restricted to specific design details with no opportunity to discuss overall concerns about the update's direct ties to the H-25 development and how that development would be inconsistent with other city plans. There1s been no option for our group to express opposition to amending the Harmony Corridor Plan/Gateway Area Plan and no mention of our opposition in the reporting of community input obtained. This is concerning, because the workshops, thusly, are not serving as a true feedback ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 123 mechanism from citizens to Civic leaders. When one considers that even city representatives (people who were on the committee that wrote the HCP) expressed opinions at the December 22, 2018 meeting that the HCP does not necessarily need updating in order for development to happen in the Harmony Corridor/Gateway, it is disconcerting that the city has chosen to try to railroad the HCP update process through in this fashion. Thank you for keeping our city council representative abreast of our experience. Best regards, Kara Get Outlook for Android From: Michael Feldhousen <mnm5@frontiernet.net> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 6:20:35 PM To: Ken Summers Cc: Walter Lyons; Kara Linn Subject: Update from Advocates for our Gateway - HCP Update Process Hi, Ken. Just a brief update for you of recent activities and events: 1. P&Z HCP Update meeting (02/27) - Advocates for our Gateway Citizen's Group was well represented at the recent 02/27 P&Z HCP Update meeting chaired by Cameron Gloss. We have decided to increase our group's public engagement efforts as of late. With the way that the HCP Update process is proceeding (2 January meetings), it is difficult for us to ascertain the true intent/end result of the process, as it relates to our documented concerns. We are still hopeful, but we can't put all our trust in that. o Our group made up 25% of attendees, with the rest being City staffers and other public. o We continued our ongoing engagement with the city via attendance and dialog. o We had posters to highlight our main concerns with the process so far. o We handed out copies of our Larimer County formal filing (see below). 2. Larimer County Formal Filing: o We made a public statement at the previous January meetings regarding our concerns about the HCP Update process. These included our documented belief that an HCP update (allowing for re zoning) is not really necessary in order for development efforts in the area to proceed. ( e.g. Harmony Corridor Guidelines could be updated to address the visions for the Gateway as identified in the current HCP). Additionally, we feel there is a strong linkage between the HCP Update process and the previously submitted H-25 proposal (despite P&Z's contention that there is not). o We did not feel that there was an adequate response, or assurance, to our concerns, and that there was no real way to formally notify the city. o So, we took the step to formally file a formal notice with Larimer County (The Formal Notice is attached), documenting our concerns. It was filed on 02/27, and we made copies available at the 02/27 meeting as noted above. o We asked Cameron Gloss at the meeting to circulate our filing to City staff. He agreed. We will follow that up with a formal request. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 124 3. Advocates for our Gateway Press Release: o We have been aware of several local articles published in the local media, strongly supporting both the developer's H-25 plans and the city's support. None of these articles referenced any conflicts in this direction, or that there was any public concerns. As a result, we felt our concerns need to be more aggressively communicated within the FC community. o As a result, we sent out a Press Release on 02/27 to numerous media outlets in Northern CO and Cheyenne, WY. (The Press Release is attached.) 4. Request for Interviews from the Coloradoan: o We were immediately contacted by Pat Ferrier, Senior Business Editor, for the Coloradoan. o She requested an interview with myself, and one other person from our group. I have completed my interview on 02/28. The other was completed today with Kara Linn. Kara provided Pat with info on the 02/27 meeting which she attended. During my interview, I provided Pat with a timeline of events dating back to May 2018. One of the items I mentioned was our group's update with you in early December. I made it very clear to her that we had:  Cleared this contact with you in advance with city staffers.  We contacted you in regard to this potential development being in your District and our being residents of your District.  We only discussed, and provided to you, publicly available information.  You made no commitments of any kind to our group.  Since we have no editorial review rights to an interview, hopefully she will accurately represent any reference to our discussion.  She made no commitments regarding publishing intent. Ken, if you have any further questions, please let me know. Regards, Mike Feldhousen Advocates for Our Gateway (585) 734-5652 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 125 From: Bruce Hollenbaugh To: Cameron Gloss Subject: Fort Collins Gateways - My Suggestions Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:56:44 AM Attachments: FC Gateways.jpeg FC Gateways.pdf Good Morning Cameron, Thank you for hosting the meeting at Lincoln Center last evening. I gained some valuable information from CDOT and Fort Collins staff. I did some brainstorming on my own this morning and came up with some signage ideas for the three interchanges that we discussed. These signs are intended to be read in both directions while traveling I-25. Attached are rough sketches of my thoughts in pdf and jpeg formats. The signs are similar to tie them together but also focus are specific attributes of our fine city. Mulberry: Welcome to Fort Collins Home of Music (FoCoMX, NewWestFest, Armory, Washingtons, etc.) Prospect: Welcome to Fort Collins Home of Colorado State University (CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital, CSU Canvas Stadium, etc.) Harmony: Welcome to Fort Collins Home of Technology (Harmony Technology Park, HP, Intel, AMD, Broadcom, etc.) Bruce Hollenbaugh 970-646-2062 Retired Cartographer Volunteer for Visit Fort Collins Resident of ObservatoryVillage near Strauss Cabin Road ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 126 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 127 From: Weiss, Michael <mweiss@murphynet.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:41 AM To: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com> Subject: Harmony Gateway Project Planning Cameron, appreciate all your work helping our community plan for the future infrastructure. I saw the Coloradoan post on Facebook about the upcoming meeting on the Harmony Gateway and wanted to reach out to your directly. Having a 6-month old at home doesn’t afford me enough free time to attend this meeting or be as involved as I’d like to be with city planning elements, but I do feel I bring a valuable perspective I’d like to share with you on the Harmony Gateway project. My father has been on the city planning board in my hometown back in Indiana my entire life, and I’ve lived in two other major metro markets (Indianapolis & Atlanta) prior to moving to our forever home of Ft Collins in early 2014, so I have a fair amount of perspective on how other cities conduct themselves with these sorts of planning initiatives. Having seen some of the comments on the Facebook page for the Coloradoan article I would assume your job related to this project is 9/10ths dealing with people having unhelpful prerogatives, so hopefully I can buck that trend just a bit :) My feedback is that although Harmony Road is definitely the main artery into Ft Collins and the topic at hand with this project, I think it’s very valuable to look at the Harmony Gateway project from a 50,000 ft view in the next 50 years sort of perspective. In the next 5-7 yrs Prospect is going to have a new, major Middle/High School along with a revamped bridge adding more entry to the city, and Mulberry is going to continue growing as a main access to Old Town and is “the last great frontier” for commercial development entering the north end of Ft Collins with the current infrastructure in place. And lastly looking into our future, Mountain Vista is likely to become a 4th corridor in the coming decades if the Montava project gets off the ground as it too presents opportunity for long term growth both commercially and residentially for what “can become” the future of Ft Collins. So to me when asking ourselves what should Harmony Gateway look like, we actually should ask, “What do the three existing I-25 arteries look like” b/c ultimately this sort of beautiful architecture might possibly be something worthwhile to implement across each artery if done right the first time. For me (starting North to South), Mulberry represents access to Old Town and the history of Ft Collins. Prospect represents the university as it’s the most direct path to all things CSU. And although Harmony has gotten heavily developed in the last two decades, Harmony represents (as is in the project name) the gateway to the foothills (i.e. Horsetooth Reservoir, hiking, the outdoors, nature, animals, water). Whatever design your team decides on, I firmly believe it should show visitors our city’s love for recreation and respect for the outdoors. Work with a local nursery like Bath to plant native species of flowers, shrubs, and trees. Look for ways to implement boulders and picturesque “Rockies” scenery. And if there’s a visual way for the gateway portion to artistically depict the flow of the Poudre River itself that would be great. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 128 Just my two cents. Hope it’s helpful. And if you ever want to grab coffee or pick each other’s brains I am not hard to get ahold of. Best of luck to you on this project! Mike Weiss Service - Account Manager Northern Colorado Murphy Company A Century of Solutions Cell: 720.298.9275 Main: 303.371.6600 E-Mail: mweiss@murphynet.com<mailto:mweiss@murphynet.com> *Sent via mobile device. Please disregard any grammatical errors.* ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 129 From: Gary Wockner <gary.wockner@savethepoudre.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:52 PM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Cc: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com> Subject: Save The Poudre input on Harmony Gateway Plan Dear City Council: Save The Poudre is a stakeholder in the Harmony Gateway Plan. Thank you (Cameron Gloss) for reaching out to us about the City's plans and meetings. The Harmony Gateway borders the Cache la Poudre River which is a gem that the vast majority of our community wants protected. We support the Citizens' Stakeholder Proposal which has been developed as an alternate to the Scenarios A – D being formally considered by the P&Z staff. In May of 2018, as you know, the City Council rejected the HCP Update that would have facilitated the massive development that was depicted in the application for plan amendment.* As you also know, the consensus of the Council at that meeting was support for a down zoning of that area, a reworking of the proposal from the P&Z department, and a recommendation for less intensity than what the city’s proposal would have allowed. The Citizens' Stakeholder Proposal insures future development that would be less intensive than what the P&Z has been advocating, but also because the Citizens’ Proposal is unique compared with the official scenarios A – D in that it respects and honors what multiple city plans and policies have to say about community values and character. This component of the Citizens' Proposal would call forth a Public/Private partnership for 20% of a development in the Gateway Area. None of the P&Z’s other 4 scenarios have this feature, and therefore, none of the official scenarios honor this part of our community’s planning documents. We ask that you consider this scenario even if the P&Z staff do not recommend it, or even mention it. I think you will find it well thought out and thoroughly researched. We think it is an option that would greatly benefit and be in line with the unique values of our community as well as the Poudre River corridor in the Gateway area. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our carefully considered proposal. And, thank you for your service to our community. Best regards, * https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/neighborhood- mtgs/harmony_gateway_plan_amendment.pdf -- Gary Wockner, PhD, Director Save The Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper Author: "River Warrior: Fighting to Protect the World's Rivers" (2016) PO Box 20, Fort Collins, CO 80522 http://savethepoudre.org http://www.facebook.com/SaveThePoudre https://twitter.com/savethepoudre 970-218-8310 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 130 Thoughts on Potential Characteristics and Features of the Harmony Gateway What are some of the values that attract people to Fort Collins? We would suggest the following would rank high and should be part of the Harmony Gateway conceptual planning: * Our respect for and embrace of Nature in the City and the extensive and connected Park/Trail/Natural Areas systems * Keeping crass commercialism toned down to the extent possible. * Inclusion of numerous water bodies (Poudre, Horsetooth, ponds, lakes, etc.) * Links to our historical past, including agriculture What characteristics would or would not be advantageous for the H-25 development? * Not the “same old, same old” found at every I-25 interchange from here to Denver * Not a “Centerra with Condos” or similar collection of retail and box stores overlain with a “veneer” of mixed use * A development that would in itself be a destination, a place worth stopping to see * A development that would be unique to, and reflect the values of, Fort Collins * Nature, wildlife and the Poudre River would be given a high priority in the concept * Those retail outlets involved should, to the extent possible, complement and not cannibalize business from nearby Fort Collins centers, including Front Range Village. It is clear that Timnath is moving towards establishing a historical district (the sign says “Old Town Timnath”) by preserving its old shops and buildings for future development (and thus potentially taking business away from our City). While H-25 will be new construction, the design should echo the classic designs of our past and our history and values, while looking toward the future. We propose something that conceptually could be modeled in some ways after Fort Collin’s present Old Town. Certainly it would not be a duplicate of Old Town, but one that has the same vibe, with a little of Pearl Street thrown in. We envision a compact community where you one can easily walk to a large variety of different activities from specialty retail, to dinning, arts venues, medical and professional offices, and of course, many residential opportunities. Workspaces for high tech and entrepreneurial activities (leveraging the City’s gigabit Connexion resource) should be included, but light manufacturing would seem out of place in this context. And the design should not just “tolerate” but also rather embrace the existing natural features. Just as Old Town is incorporating the Poudre River, H-25 should promote the natural resources of the area, including the heron rookery and adjacent reservoir rich in bird life. Some Ideas That Might be Incorporated into the Harmony Gateway Development * The overall design should incorporate the existing wildlife resources, especially of the southern reservoir (assuming it is not possible to extricate that land as a future natural area). Why not call the development “The Heronry”? The developer would be wise to ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 131 consider the area’s nature is not “a bug but a feature” – a space where activities can co- exist with nature. People would love to stop in spring and early summer to watch the herons in their nests through spotter scopes set up on the perimeter of the exclusion zone. * While the two large ponds that require augmentation apparently must go, can they not be replaced (in part) by “legal” water features? People find nothing more attractive than buildings arranged around a lake (it works for the Broadmoor). A lake large enough to allow people to have fun in paddleboats is appealing. * There should be numerous walkways/bike trails through “The Heronry” with direct connections to Eagle View and Arapaho Bend. * Access to the perimeter of the southern reservoir could use a series of elevated walkways. Have seen this approach used very effectively in natural areas in Norway and at White Sands. It is practical way to allow passage through a natural area while safeguarding the delicate landscape features. Restaurants overlooking the reservoir and its birdlife could have a substantial marketing bonus. * Fewer, but taller, buildings should minimize the structural footprints, leaving more room for green space, trails and water features. * Parking ramps should be incorporated into the building to minimize massive paved- over areas. * Design for a true mixed-use concept. Rather than have spatially separate pods of retail, office and residences hundreds of yards apart, emphasis should be on all such activities co-existing in the same or adjacent structures (similar to some new of the complexes arising in Old Town North). The comingling of activities is one of the key and desirable attributes of Old Town and desirable mixed-use urban living. In Fort Collins’ newest attraction, the ideal should be to live less than a 10-minute walk from both nature and a coffee shop (or similar social gathering place). * Fort Collins can never seem to have enough restaurants and these should be a key feature of this development, along with the attendant craft breweries/ distilleries (another part of our local culture). This location would be ideal for serving the exploding populations of Timnath and Windsor as well. * A trout pond serving a “catch your own” restaurant could be a chance to highlight the nearby sport fishing opportunities. * Outdoor gazebos would permit small concerts and community activities. * Children must be considered in the design. How about a day care center? A small playground area and/or dog park would appeal to both residents and passers-by. * The design should encourage hosting activities like “food truck jamborees.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 132 * This might be a good place to schedule holiday fireworks shows that serves the residents of the southeast. * Small clubs catering to the live music devotees could be encouraged. * Could a small movie house be included? Can the area support a second “Lyric” on the southeast side? * The concept should encourage artist and sculpture galleries, and similar showplaces for for local artisans. * Small business incubator and artist studios could be part of the available business rental space. * A store featuring Colorado (and Fort Collins) products would seem a good fit. * Perhaps one or more old farmhouses and/or barns could be rescued, moved and repurposed in H-25, a la Jessup Farm. * Perhaps a small “zoo” with a Bison or two (from Terry Lake Ranch?), and some rams (CSU must have a supply somewhere). Even a Clydesdale or two from Budweiser? This would draw both locals and visitors. Does the Raptor Center need a new home? * And if live animals in a “zoo” are not practical, perhaps the Swetsville Zoo could be persuaded to relocate? * Taking a page from Loveland, incorporate significant public art into the landscaping, a la the Chapungu sculpture garden. * Include the terminus for expanded bus transit routes along Harmony, with connections up to Mason and on to the original Old Town. It should be easy to get from one to the other via public transit. * This would be a perfect location for the Ft. Collins Tourism Center. While probably impractical to relocate it down from off Prospect, maybe a smaller facility introducing the area to visitors and tourists would be in order? * A significant percentage of retail spaces should be reserved for local or regional firms with a de-emphasis on national retailers. * Depending on the status of the current Sinclair station, any “new” gas station could be designed to have an “old timey” feel, maybe along with a classic railway car diner restaurant. Don’t know if the service station could have attendants ready to wipe windshields, but something that retro just might fly. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 133 * Agriculture was/is a key component of Fort Collins past and present. Community gardens (maybe serving on site restaurants) would be of interest. And with the need for water conservation, perhaps a xeriscaping exhibit? *Or, take a bolder step. Urban agriculture is a coming thing, with buildings being used to grow high value vegetable crops. Perhaps someone (at CSU?) could be pursued to pursue an experiment along these lines. A new twist to “farm to table.” * Area garden clubs and maybe CSU Horticulture would have ideas for garden/farm related exhibits with related retail options. Perhaps something in conjunction with Harmony Gardens if that business does not relocate? Perhaps a small field of sugar beets grown during the summer would be the center of an exhibit about our farming history? * Why not a permanent space for a farmer’s market serving the southeastern part of the city (with maybe a small indoor pavilion for the “off” season)? * Might the Discovery Science Center be interested in teaming up with local conservation and wildlife groups to create an exhibit on the biodiversity of the Poudre River Corridor – in which this land is situated. * Along these lines, building designs should include “green roofs” with gardens and trees. Multi-terraced buildings could also provide for large numbers of small trees and bushes incorporated into their design. Solar panels should be ubiquitous. * The rooftop designs will be especially important to the hundreds of people living high above H-25 on the adjacent bluffs who right now stand to look down upon a sea of commercial roofs, air conditioning ducts and the like (as per the current visualizations.) This would be just a plain ugly view. Light pollution issues must also be considered. * There is the venerable Wonder View Tower tower on I-70 near Genoa, which once used to be a key stop for those travellers who wished “to see six states.” How about incorporating a visitors viewing platform into the design of one of the taller buildings? It would not have to be that tall in order to provide a panoramic view of both the mountains and plains and would certainly be an attraction for visitors. * Complementing that concept, maybe a “scale model” (or huge aerial photo mosaic) of Fort Collins that people could walk around and explore? (Such a model of Manhattan Island was a huge hit at a NYC World’s Fair). * And there always could be series of small signs along I-25, “Only XX Miles to The Heronry.” It works for Wall Drugs! * Are we sure an underpass beneath Harmony to Arapaho Bend is not possible? The water level of the southern reservoir is a good ten feet below that of the land and ponds to the north. There is clearly no intrusion of ground water there. An underpass would ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 134 encourage pedestrian exchanges, and perhaps at night, provide a safe passageway for wildlife (just saw a coyote running out on the ice of the southern pond an hour ago.) If no underpass, a bridge over Harmony seems essential – I for one would never try to cross Harmony, lights or no lights. The overpass could also be a platform for some form of public art introducing the City to drivers and their passengers, i.e., an actual Harmony Gateway. The above are illustrative of the plethora ideas that could emerge from a public brainstorm session. Some might even turn out to be really good! If any future developer is willing to listen, and think outside of the box (stores), maybe something really special could happen? But however this all evolves, saving the rich wetland and wildlife resources of the southern reservoir should be a key component of any new Amendment. In any case, this is my ten cents worth (that 2 cents worth, adjusted for inflation.) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 135 Dear Mr. Lyons, Thank you for your questions related to the long-range Harmony Corridor (and Gateway) planning area. Please see here responses related to the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines pertaining to the Gateway Area, in addition to some information about development and permitting processes. • “(1) It at least now mentions the heron rookery, but says nothing about how it will be protected. (BTW: Looks like ~40 breeding pair in the tree this spring.) There is lot of talk about protecting habitat and mitigating habitat losses ….but no indication is provided as to how this will be done. Basically all of the area south of Harmony is paved over, save for the triangle lake next to the heron rookery (that's a good thing).” The intent of the Harmony Gateway Plan is to provide guidance for future development on land use and the desired character for the Harmony Gateway planning area. Requirements for wildlife habitat and natural resource protection are established after a development proposal has been submitted to the City. So far, no such development proposal has been submitted. If/when a proposal is submitted, it would be evaluated against the regulations found within our Land Use Code (LUC). Section 3.4.1 of the LUC provides standards for protecting and mitigating impacts to natural habitats and features through buffering. Both quantitative buffer distance standards (e.g. 100-ft buffer around a wetland) and qualitative performance standards (specific requirements that must be met regardless of the buffer size) are required to ensure the resource is protected. Protection and mitigation requirements would be determined during the development review process with the goal of maintaining or enhancing the ecological value of existing natural resources. • “It talks about protecting habitat and mentions the rookery…yet, the adjacent large pond to the south of H25 is a prime food source for the herons and ~60 other bird species. Massive construction in H25 will disrupt what goes on in the adjacent pond in the rural lands zoned parcel. Without at least a basic Ecological Characterization Study of the adjacent pond that has become naturalized over the years and is now a viable wildlife habitat, how will anyone know how what impacts have to be mitigated, and how?? An ECS for the adjacent pond east of Strauss Cabin Road and Rock Creek Drive is needed… soon!” City staff share interest in protecting the heron rookery and associated habitat in this area. An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for the area south of the rookery to Kechter Road would be required when a development proposal is submitted for that area. The ECS is required at least 10 days prior to a Project Development Plan to allow City staff time to review findings and mitigation recommendations. Multiple ECS documents have been submitted previously for the area north of the rookery to Harmony Road (January 26, 2015 and October 1, 2014). Due to the time lapse of the last ECS documentation, City staff would require an updated ECS when a new development proposal is submitted. • “ (2) The map on page 80 shows a trail wandering through the H25, and exiting around Rock Creek Drive…but how does it connect to Eagle View and Fossil Creek? “ The trail alignment is yet to be determined. The intent of the map is to indicate a goal of providing future trail connections as the planning area develops. The trail alignment will be determined collaboratively with the City and developer during the development review process. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 136 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com February 25, 2019 City of Fort Collins 281 N College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Harmony Corridor Plan – Amendment: DRAFT Language Review Dear Cameron, Clark, & Tom; Thank you for providing a preliminary draft of your proposed edits to the Harmony Corridor Plan on February 20, 2019. We have carefully reviewed these proposed revisions as they apply to Chapters 3 and 5, and provide the following comments and concerns as they specifically relate to the property owned by this ownership group on the south side of Harmony Road. Chapter 3: 1. We believe the percentage breakdown of uses as proposed are approximately in line with what we’d like to see, but see potential for confusion. The Harmony Corridor zoning is based on a premise of primary vs. secondary uses. It may be much easier for developers and the City alike to keep a consistent language, and with that in mind we would propose the language read that a maximum 70% Secondary Uses and a minimum 30% Primary Uses be permitted. 2. Is it the City’s intent to classify the Gateway area as a Mixed-Use Activity Center in the HC Plan- per revision in LU-3 for consistency of language and uses in the Gateway? And modify Map 10 as such? And/or should language be added to LU-4 that the uses allowed in the Mixed-Use Activities Centers also be allowed in the Gateway? 3. It appears to us that the deletion of prior LU-4 may have a ripple effect in areas outside of the Gateway. We don’t believe that is the intent of this amendment and should likely remain as is. 4. New LU-3 – We believe that the Gateway Area should be potentially be added into to this as a Mixed-Use Activity center that allows for retail/commercial or further refine the new LU-4 that the Mixed-Use Activity Center uses are allowed in the Gateway. 5. New LU-4 a. We believe it’s appropriate to specifically reference that the Gateway permits all uses allowed in the Mixed-Use Activity Centers. At one time we also had a discussion that some additional uses should be added to the Gateway that were not covered under the Secondary Use list – we would like to review this with you. b. We believe this is the appropriate section to reference %’s of Secondary and Primary Uses. c. For specificity: We should identify what the additional complementary uses are that the draft references. d. End of 2nd paragraph needs revision and the last paragraph need edited/removed. We don’t believe it is appropriate to reference landscape within this section as it does not pertain to land uses 6. We are providing our initially proposed language to Chapter 3 for review and compare against the current draft for our work session next Monday. South Half / Map: 1. At this time, we don’t believe the south half of the area south of Harmony Road should be included as part of this amendment. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 137 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Chapter 5: 1. Because ODP’s frequently are updated and or completely redone during the life of a development project, we don’t think its necessary/appropriate to include references to a currently approved ODP in this document. 2. Vision: “Dominant aspect of cottonwoods and native plantings on Harmony Rd & I-25” This language seems a bit specific to us. We agree that some river valley landscaping should be incorporated into the Gateway area, but there are different ways to achieve this. 3. Setbacks – Current requirements specify a minimum 80’ setback in this area, we believe that this setback is ample and provides opportunity for extensive landscape buffering, trail corridors and other desirable features. The proposed 150’ - 250’ seems excessive and would result in the loss of anywhere from 12 acres to more than 20 acres of developable land along Harmony Road and I-25. This is excessive and potentially damaging to viability of the project. If the Plan is finalized with this requirement intact, it arguably goes beyond the City’s typical land use regulation powers and represents a taking of the owner’s property. In the event this setback requirement is not revised, the Plan should contemplate the City compensating the developer for this acreage, similar to the language currently included on pg. 28 relative to the trail corridor. 4. Many aspects of Chapter 5 seem to be better located in the Standards & Guidelines – not the body of the Harmony Corridor Plan. 5. Entry Sign – it may be appropriate to add language that this is located on the North side of Harmony Rd for entry traffic travelling West. 6. Trail Corridor – A trail corridor of 30’-50’ wide is problematic for the same reasons as stated above relative to the landscape setback. Multimodal trails of 10’ are generally considered sufficient, and the Plan should contemplate a smaller dimension if included at all. If the requirement is kept, the Plan should expressly state that the trail may be located within the landscape setback and/or meet any sidewalk requirements. The owner further notes that, if the trail is required, it would request compensation for this public amenity as contemplated on pg. 28 of the draft... 7. Pg. 28: The “Public Space Management” section includes a reference to “[r]etaining significant amounts of open space.” Is it unclear if the City is requesting more open space than is required by the underlying code. The City should not require more open space than already articulated with the trail and setback concepts, which as noted above, should be revisited prior to finalizing. 8. Land Use South Side Gateway Area: North Half: a. There are several landscape related paragraphs in the “land use” section, we believe this is more appropriate in another section, perhaps in Standards & Guidelines. b. Land Uses - see comments above, Chapter 3, item #1. c. Pedestrian Orientation – This may apply to a portion of the development, but not all. This is a large development area and while there is likely to be a more urban, mixed-use component of the development, there is also the opportunity for free-standing uses to develop (i.e. hotels, office buildings, residential uses, etc.) and this statement would seem to preclude this type of develop d. Trail corridor – See previous thoughts, #6 above. e. Parking distribution – This may apply to a portion of the development area that develops in a more urban context but not all. Unsure if this is appropriate to include this strength of language that would see to apply to all of the development and preclude some types of development. f. Building Heights – A height imitation of 4 stories as suggested in the “Building and Parking Lots” section is extremely problematic. As HC currently allows 6 stories, the Plan appears to be attempting to downzone the property. The plan is a policy document that does not override what is allowed in the underlying one district, and it should not be this prescriptive. In addition, this density may be needed to support the economic and development goals of making this a successful mixed-use destination and employment/retail sales generator. While the developer agrees that ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 138 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com having all development in this area at six stories is likely not desirable from a visual perspective, in some instances it may be appropriate. We note that a reference to development being allowed up to 6 stories is included on pg. 29, and that the draft further states that development “at relatively high densities” (pg. 25) should be allowed. South Half: a. As previously noted, at this time, we do not believe that this part of the property should be part of the Harmony Corridor Plan or in the Gateway area. Policies: a. Policy statement GW-4 should be modified or deleted –We will be establishing the guidelines via this HC Plan update making this policy obsolete. Standards & Guidelines: 1. Included with this response letter we are providing the draft letter of the standards and guidelines that we had previously provided to Staff for review. We believe its appropriate to address these items as noted in that document as well during this process. 2. The standards & guidelines should be specifically crafted with the body of this document for the City and us to understand exactly what is proposed & implemented. Thank for providing the opportunity to comment on these draft materials. We appreciate the City’s willingness to work with our and team consider our comments, especially as landowners deeply invested in the future of this property. Sincerely, Norris Design Ryan F. McBreen Principal ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 139 HARMONY CORRIDOR Standards And Guidelines: DRAFT April 9, 2019 4/25/19 EDIT NEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES In the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines, page 51, add a new Section V. HARMONY GATEWAY AREA. This Section will follow the current Section IV. SHOPPING CENTERS. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 140 V. HARMONY GATEWAY AREA The Harmony Gateway Area is an exceptional location due to high values the community places on the Poudre River valley and its premiere location at the Harmony Road and I- 25 interchange. The intent for the Gateway District is to capture the special opportunity to integrate a mixed-use employment activity center within a landscape that expresses community values for environmental features and the larger corridor of open and rural lands edge of the City along the river corridor and Fossil Creek Reservoir in southeast Fort Collins. Future development shall form a ‘sense of place’ derived from the river valley setting. Development shall be programmed and designed with an emphasis on landscape development to emphasize a sense of place derived from the river valley setting. These Standards and Guidelines are to ensure that as development and redevelopment occurs as part of the Gateway Area, it fulfills the vision described in Chapter 5 of the Harmony Corridor Plan for the area. The Gateway Area comprises three two distinct areas: • North of Harmony Road – zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor • South of Harmony Road – Northern Portion – zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor • South of Harmony Road – Southern Portion – zoned R-U-L, Rural Lands ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 141 Design Standards and Guidelines 1. Naturalistic Landscape Development: River Valley Character and Image Landscaped Setback Area - Harmony Road and I-25. The intent is to create the effect of Harmony Road passing through a larger river valley landscape that spans across Harmony Road with buildings and parking lots carefully clustered and integrated unobtrusively within the landscape and not merely lining the street with landscaping along buildings and parking lots. • Landscaped Setback. A landscaped setback area for buildings and parking lots averaging 140 feet in depth for parking lots and 190 feet in depth for buildings shall be provided from the edge of vehicular travel lanes along Harmony Road and I-25. • Minimum landscaped setback depth shall be 70 feet for parking lots and 95 feet for buildings., with the following exception: with the following exceptions: 1. Where depth is less than the required average, a. Site grading and planting shall fully screen parking lots and the site rather than providing increased visibility; and, b. Buildings may encroach if exceptional architectural design is exhibited. (+) • Along Harmony Road Setback Exception: setback for Within 300 feet of the signalized intersection at the Transportation Transfer Center (park-n-ride) and the Strauss Cabin Road intersections buildings and parking lots shall be permitted for buildings located within 300 feet of the signalized intersection at the Transportation Transfer Center (park-n-ride) and the Strauss Cabin Road intersection. Thehave a minimum setback within these areas shall be of 80 feet. (+) This landscaped setback area shall include groupings of native cottonwoods and willows and other plant materials consistent with the River Valley landscape in conjunction with other native and xeric plantings appropriate to specific positions within the landscape plan. (+) Parking lots are encouraged to be located between buildings and Harmony Road and I-25 to buffer internal pedestrian-oriented development, but they shall be screened from view with dense plantings in the setback area which may include berms, evergreens near the parking lot, walls, fences, or a combination, to provide 75%-100% screening of parking lots from the ground up at the edge of the parking lot as seen from the Harmony Road and I-25 roadway travel lanes. (+) Commented [RM1]: What qualifies as exceptional architecture? Who decides what is “exceptional”? Needs refinement. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 142 Where landscaped setbacks are at or above the minimum, openings of up to 175 feet between trees and dense landscape clusters shall be permitted for carefully managed commercially adequate visibility of building and their signage. (+) Potential Channelized Floodway. If the Poudre River floodway is channelized within the Harmony Road and I-25 setback area, the channel and adjacent upland areas shall be designed to complement and reinforce the overall naturalistic landscape with informal, undulating grading of landforms and, to the extent feasible, not rigidly engineered geometric grading. (+) In the programming and design of naturalistic river valley landscaping, maintenance must be an equal consideration in conjunction with design including irrigation, weed control, tree trimming, shrub and plant pruning, and replacement and reseeding. (o) Incorporation of water, drainage channels, and/or wetlands is strongly encouraged in landscape areas along Harmony Road and I-25 to further reinforce the distinct landscape setting. (o) 2. Mixed-Use Employment Activity Center Within the Landscape Setting -- South Side of Harmony Northern Portion Development of buildings, parking lots and other site improvements will result in a unified mixed-use employment activity center. Within this mixed-use employment activity center shall be a framework of streets and public spaces that provide for an attractive, cohesive and walkable area that reflects the unique site context. Public Space Framework. A framework of streets, street-like private drives, walkway spines and a trail corridor shall be established to form sites for buildings and parking lots with the emphasis on forming a distinct overall sense of place into which buildings and parking lots fit. (+) Permitted Uses. All individual uses permitted in the Harmony Corridor (HC) Zone District shall be permitted in the Gateway Area subject to the following minimum and maximum Secondary Use limitations. (+)The use percentages may be measured using 1) acreage, and/or 2) building square footage of any completed development and anyin approved PUD, ODP or PDP. Additional uses shall be permitted: Artisan and photography studios and galleries; Limited and Unlimited indoor and outdoor recreation facilities; Dog day-care facilities; Grocery stores; Supermarkets; Exhibit halls; Funeral homes; Parking lots and garages; Small scale reception centers; Large Retail Establishments; Gasoline stations, Entertainment facilities and theaters, Day Shelters, Drive-thru restaurants, and Vehicle sales, leasing and rentals with outdoor storage and open air farmers’ markets. (+) Commented [RM2]: Moved down. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 143 • Retail/Commercial Limitation. Retail and commercial uses shall not exceed 60% of development in the northern portion of the south side of Harmony Road. The percentage may be measured using 1) acreage, and/or 2) building square footage in approved Project Development Plans. • Minimum Employment Use Requirement. Office, light industrial, and institutional non-retail employment uses shall occupy at least 3025% of development in the northern portion of the south side of Harmony Road. • Minimum Residential Use Requirement. Residential uses shall occupy at least 25% of development in the northern portion of the south side of Harmony Road. • * Civic Uses Effect on Calculations. Civic uses such as parks and recreation space, community facilities, a trail corridor, and other public uses are not subject to the Harmony Corridor land use limitations. Such uses, if developed, may be applied toward the minimum employment or residential use requirements. Additional uses shall be permitted: Artisan and photography studios and galleries; Limited and Unlimited indoor and outdoor recreation facilities; Dog day-care facilities; Grocery stores; Supermarkets; Exhibit halls; Funeral homes; Parking lots and garages; Small scale reception centers; Large Retail Establishments; Gasoline stations, Entertainment facilities and theaters, Day Shelters, Drive-thru restaurants, and Vehicle sales, leasing and rentals with outdoor storage and open air farmers’ markets. (+) Large Retail Establishments Large Retail Establishment Size Limitations. The Ttotal floor areanumber of large stand-alone retail establishments (over 250,000 square feet) in the gateway area shall not exceed four such establishments 250,000 square feet. The total number of stand-alone retail establishments (between 25,000-50,000 SF) shall not exceed five such establishments. Except Large Retail Establishments Exceptions. iIn instances where these large retail establishments (over 25,000 SF) are developed as part of a mixed-use building or block, there is no limit to the number or size of such establishmentsr. Architecture and Design Features Large Retail Establishments are subject to all development standards in Section 3.5.4(D) of the Land Use Code except the parking lot location standards of 3.5.(C)(3)(b), which shall be compliant with the following building placement standard (+) Building Placement ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 144 Large Retail Establishments located within a mixed-use building or block shall be placed and designed with a main entrance facing and abutting a street sidewalk in the overall framework of the area. (+) Drive-in and Drive-thru restaurants. Drive-in and Drive-thru restaurants and accessory drive-thru facilities for other uses shall be permitted only if located inrelegated to screened, secondary locations and subordinate in emphasis to pedestrian spaces, and facilities, and focal points. (+) 3. Buildings within an Employment Activity Center Building Grouping and Orientation – Public Space Framework. Buildings and their entrances should be brought together along the overall public space framework. Each building should contribute to and reinforce the overall goal of creating a walkable destination with a primary orientation to the overall framework and other buildings nearby; and orientation to individual parking lots secondary. (o) Buildings should offer attractive pedestrian-scale features and outdoor spaces to complement the streetscape. (o) Maximum Height. 6 stories. (+) Building Character. The architectural program for the District shall emphasize high-quality building materials providing visual interest for pedestrians and that complement the colors and textures of the Poudre River Corridor (e.g., natural or cultured stone, brick, textured concrete masonry units with architectural finishes, stucco, high quality precast and prestressed architectural concrete, architectural metals, glass, timbers); and architectural lighting. (+) Mixed Use Dwellings are encouraged to add vitality and charm to the sense of place, add interest to the buildings, and reveal and capitalize on specialized residential products uncommon in suburban markets. (o) 4. Parking Lots Off-street parking shall be consolidated into shared parking lots as needed to not interrupt pedestrian frontages in the public space framework. (+) Locating large parking lots between buildings and the landscape setback areas along Harmony Road and I-25 is encouraged to consolidate vehicular impacts of both parking and traffic on the roadways away from the internal pedestrian-friendly public space framework. Commented [RM3]: Define secondary? ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 145 Parking Lot Design to Support River Valley Landscape Image. In the outer portions of any parking lots abutting the landscape setback areas along Harmony Road and I-25, parking lot islands shall be wide enough to allow integration of cottonwood trees and other river landscape materials into the parking lot construction. (+) In these outer portions of parking lots, islands and drainage areas should be depressed and designed to catch and filter runoff, with direct surface connections to the landscape setback areas for integration if a viable stormwater engineering design can be incorporated. (o) 5. On-Street Parking On-street parking should be maximized on non-arterial streets scaled and designed to reinforce the distinct pedestrian orientation of the District. (o) Landscaping Development: River Valley Character and Image Landscaping should be developed to express xeriscape principles and characteristics appropriate to the North Front Range. More lush plantings that requiring significant watering, such as flower beds and lawns, shall be limited to appropriate high-use areas. (o) [Is this the appropriate place for this landscape guideline? Should this go to Section #1?] 6. Bus Transit. Accommodation should be provided for bus stops and routes linking the mixed-use employment center to transit service on Harmony Road. Final transit stops and route configuration is subject to the review and approval of TransFort. (o) 7. Trail Corridor. Development shall provide an area for a trail corridor, which may be located within the landscape setbacks, and assists to linking the Fossil Creek and Poudre River Trails to the south and north of the District respectively. Alignment and design shall be determined in collaboration with the City. (+) 8. Commercial Signs. Signs should be designed and oriented to reduce visual clutter along I-25 and Harmony Road. Signs should be designed to achieve a high level of visual compatibility with building architecture and the site characteristics of the Poudre River valley using similar form, color, materials, detailing and lighting. Wall signs should be designed as an integral element of the architecture, with the sign shape and materials complementing the architectural style and features. Internally-illuminated signs should not create glare that would distract motorists or pedestrians, nor should the degree of illumination contribute to night sky light pollution. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 146 Signs shall be permitted within Harmony Road and I-25 landscape setbacks and shall integrate into the landscape character, as appropriate. Two types of signs are prohibited within the Harmony Gateway: 1. Off-premise advertising (billboards); and 2. Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 147 3 LAND USE The final test of an economic system is not the tons of iron, the tanks of oil, or miles of textiles it produces. The final test lies in its ultimate products – the sort of men and women it nurtures and the order and beauty and sanity of their communities. LEWIS MUMFORD ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 148 INTRODUCTION The national image enjoyed by Fort Col- lins as an excellent place to live and do business is well deserved. Few cities in the nation have a more spectacular set- ting, a more qualified work force, or a more pleasing climate. The Harmony Corridor f a key opportunity to maintain and enhance the community’s positive image and quality of life. As the Harmony Corridor emerges as a focus of development activity in south- east Fort Collins, this is an opportune time to look at current development trends and determine what specific fu- ture land uses would be most desirable to complement other development in the area. ISSUES The issues surrounding future land use in the Harmony Corridor appear to fo- cus on the need to manage development to achieve a level of quality consistent with the economic, environmental, visual and other “quality of life” objectives of the community; while guiding the corri- dor to become a major business center in northern Colorado that attracts desir- able industries and businesses and, at the same time, provides effective transitions from residential neighborhoods. Another important issue is the concern that the Harmony Corridor should not develop as a typical commercial “strip” with frequent curb cuts, inadequate land- scaping, and highly fragmented develop- ment lacking coordinated site planning. Finally, the corridor offers unique oppor- tunities to attract desirable industries and uses that can provide long-term economic stability for the community. Fort Collins has the opportunity to choose which in- dustries are important for its future. These choices will set the direction for the community’s economy for the next forty years. In this regard, the issue ap- pears to focus on the need for more pre- dictability in guiding industries and busi- nesses choosing to locate in the corridor area. CURRENT LAND USE POLLICIESPOLICIES AND REGULATIONS The City’s LAND USE POLICIES PLAN and LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM (LDGS) are the two documents which have been used most frequently to guide the planning and development of the corridor for the past ten years. The LAND USE environmental protection, and locational policies for specific land use classifica- tions. The LAND USE POLICIES PLAN does not dictate specific kinds or specific locations of land uses that could occur in the community, but does pro- vide general guidance, with special em- phasis that development be well-designed and mitigate any negative impacts before they be allowed to develop. Once the Harmony Corridor Plan is adopted, it will serve as an element of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and will supplement the LAND USE POLICIES PLAN for this section of the community. The LDGS, on the other hand, is not a Plan. It is a land use regulatory mecha- nism, like zoning, which is used to imple- ment the goals, objectives and policies of the LAND USE POLICIES PLAN and the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The LAND USE POLILCIESPOLICIES PLAN promotes the maximum utilization of land within the corridor, higher density development, phased growth, a mix of uses and concentrated building activity. The availability of public facilities, includ- ing streets, sewer, water, natural gas, and electricity, establishes the corridor as a preferred location for intense urban ac- tivity including a mix of residential, in- dustrial, commercial and recreational uses. Properly designed, multiple use develop- ments make sense from both a public and private standpoint. People can and should have the opportunity to live near where they work, where they shop where they go out to eat, and where they find recre- ation. The auto becomes less necessary, thereby relieving the transportation sys- tem and reducing air pollution. Direct- ing growth to those areas of the commu- nity where utilities are already in place, saves money and makes more efficient use of the existing public investment in in- frastructure improvements. The adopted LAND USE POLICIES PLAN also encourages a variety of retail activity in the corridor, including commu- nity and regional shopping centers. Only neighborhood scale shopping centers are allowed in residential areas. Strip com- mercialStrip commercial development is discouraged in the LAND USE POLLICIES PLAN in fa-vor of compact shopping centers. Transitional land uses or areas are also provided for in the Plan to be located between residential and commercial ar- residential development in the area has also been very good. The challenge at hand is to determine if any additional land use policies are needed which could improve upon, reinforce and enhance the pattern of land use occurring within the corridor. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE INTRODUCTION Both the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board have the responsibil- ity and the authority to undertake the preparation of long range plans and poli- cies. This planning effort offers an op- portunity to establish a refined vision for the corridor. It includes creating a desir- able living and working environment for future inhabitants, an exciting gateway into the community, as well as an impor- tant center for business and commerce. The land use plan for the Harmony Cor- ridor is intended to improve upon, rein- force and enhance the City’s COMPRE- HENSIVE PLAN. It offers a vision of a future that many people and interests can identify with and seek to implement. THE PROCESS Several different land use alternatives were considered before finally arriving at the recommended one. These alterna- tives ranged considerably in intensity of development, character and practicality. They were reviewed by the property own- ers in the study area and the general pub- lic. The recommended land use plan was synthesized by staff based on several months of public review and comment at a variety of forums. The land use plan is depicted on Map 10. The intent of the land use plan and map is to provide for an orderly, efficient and attractive transition of vacant rural land to urban use; and to: (a) Maximize the use of existing services and facilities (streets and utilities). (b) Promote the development of the corridor as a high quality, self-con- tained and compact business center. (c) Provide for the location of industry and business in the city by identify ing prime locations for such uses. (d) Provide shopping and service areas convenient to both residents and em- ployees of the corridor. (e) Provide for a variety of housing types. (f) Preserve and protect existing residen- tial neighborhoods from intrusive or disruptive development. THE VISION The vision for the corridor area is that it become a major business center in north- ern Colorado attracting a variety of busi- nesses and industries serving local as well as regional markets. It should also include a mixture of land uses including open space, residential, office, recreational, and retail activities. The focus of most development activity, especially commercial, should be at the major street intersections. The intensity of land use should decrease as distance from Harmony Road increases and as the distance from the major intersections in- creases. To promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit use, development in the area should be compact. Buildings, spaces and street frontages should be well-designed and of high quality materials and work- manship. Business and industry provide the major economic focus of the corridor area. The land use mix also includes a variety of commercial uses to meet tenant and neighborhood resident needs. Community and regional commercial ac- tivities are introduced in well-planned shopping centers or , industrial parks, de- signed and mixed used areas, designed to draw shoppers from the sur- roundingsurrounding community and region. Free-standing highway related commer- cial (convenience stores, fast-food restau- rants, gas stations and the like) are not permitted to locate outside of planned shopping centers or industrial parks. Only neighborhood scale shopping centers are allowed in residential areas, although this restriction does not apply in certain mixed use areas. Hotels to serve business tenants within the park will grow in importance. These hotels will be sited near major industrial parksemployment hubs, and in most cases be visible from Harmony Road. Low intensity retail, restaurants, day care facilities, health clubs, personal service shops, business services (print shops, of- fice supply, etc.), banks and other similar commercial activity is concentrated in at- tractively designed centers and, integrated into planned industrial parks and integrated into mixed use areas. Buffer areas (transitional land uses, linear greenbelts, or other urban design ele- mentselements) are provided to serve as cushions between the adjacent residential neighbor- hoodsneighborhoods and the LAND USE PLAN GOAL STATEMENT Encourage and support mixed land use development in the Harmony Corridor while dis- couraging “strip commercial” development and promoting the vitality and livability of existing residential neighborhoods. POLICIES LU-1 Strive for excellence and high quality in the design and construction of buildings, open spaces, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streetscapes by establishing and enforcing design guidelines specific to the corridor area. An important part of the Harmony Corridor Plan is the desire to continue the high standard of quality established by recent development projects in the corridor area. One way that this can be accomplished is through the development and implementation of design guide- lines specific to the corridor itself. These guidelines should be adopted as a part of the criteria that the City uses to review development of the corridor area. These guidelines should address the following issues: Streetscapes, including fencing and screening. Landscaping. Street and parking lot lighting. Building setbacks. Architectural design and materials. Pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. LU-2 Locate all industries and businesses in the “Basic Industrial and Non- Retail Employment Activity Centers” in the areas of the Harmony Cor- ridor designated for such uses on Map 10. Secondary supporting uses will also be permitted in these Activity Centers, but shall occupy no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total gross area of the Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable. The Harmony Corridor offers an opportunity for creating a major business and industrial center in northern Colorado, due to its desirable location, accessibility, available infrastruc- ture, and land ownership pattern. Attracting desirable industries and businesses into the community, and in particular, the Harmony Corridor, achieves an important public pur- pose because it promotes primary and secondary jobs and generally enhances the local economy. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 153 Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers are locations where indus- trial uses and/or office or institutional type land uses are planned to locate in the future in business park settings. Base industries are firms that produce goods and services which are produced for export outside the city, and thereby import income into the city. Typical business functions include research facilities, testing laboratories, offices and other facili- ties for research and development; industrial uses; hospitals, clinics, nursing and personal care facilities; regional, vocational, business or private schools and universities; finance, insurance and real estate services; professional offices; and other uses of similar character, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. Secondary uses include hotels/motels; sit-down restaurants; neighborhood convenience shopping centers; childcare centers; athletic clubs; and, a mix of single family and multi- family housing. If single family housing is provided, at least a generally equivalent number of multi-family dwelling units must also be provided. “Multi-family” shall mean attached single family dwellings, 2-familly dwellings or multi-family dwellings. Secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and in appearance with an office (or business) park, unless a special exemption is granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. In order for such an exemption to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the granting of the exemption would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impact the intent and purposes of the foregoing requirement and that by reason of exceptional narrowness, small parcel size, or other special condition peculiar to a site, undue hardship would be caused by the strict application of this require- ment. The essence of the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center is a com- bination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transporta- tion modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. LU-3 Support business and industry growth by encouraging development designed to attract elite employers within the area of the Harmony Corridor known as the “Gateway Activity Center” as shown on Map 10. The Harmony Corridor Gateway Activity Center area is intended to support catalytic growth of new businesses and industries by encouraging mixed use, amenity-driven development with residential components. This development format is targeted to provide the type of working environment that highly skilled employees and their employers demand. Development within this area is intended to help the City achieve community-wide employment objections, and it may become a model for future planning initiatives in other areas of the City. The Gateway Activity Center permits a broad range of uses, including all uses allowed in “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center” as described above in LU-2, retail and commercial uses, and residential uses. Unlike the “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 154 Employment Activity Center,” it is intended that secondary uses in the Gateway Activity Center would be greater than 25 percent (25%). As used in this section LU-3, “secondary uses” means all of the uses listed in Section 4.26(D)(2) of the City’s Land Use Code. Within the Gateway Activity Center, secondary supporting uses may occupy up to 75 percent (75%) of the total gross area of the Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable. “Primary” or “permitted” uses may occupy any portion of a proposed development. In contrast to a Mixed Use Activity Center, retail and commercial uses are allowed to occur throughout the areas of the Harmony Corridor designated as the Gateway Activity Center, and not just in shopping centers. The focus within the Gateway Activity Center will be is a combination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. LU-4 Provide for the advance planning of large, undeveloped properties in the corridor area. Coordinated planning of large parcels of land in the corridor area can generally provide greater opportunity for more innovation and variation in design, increase efficiency in utility services, and accomplish many more of the policies and objectives of the commu- nity than does a more piecemeal approach to development planning. LU-45 Locate a broader range of land uses in the areas of the Harmony Corri- dor known as Mixed-Use Activity Centers as shown on Map 10. Mixed-Use Activity Centers are areas where a broader range of land uses may locate. The Mixed-Use Activity Center permits, in addition to the uses listed in the “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center,” a range of retail and commercial uses to occur in shopping centers. If single-family housing is provided, at least a generally equiva- lent number of multi-family dwelling units must also be provided. Neighborhood service centers, community shopping centers, and regional shopping centers, and a lifestyle shop- ping center shall be limited to those locations shown on Map 10. The essence of the Mixed-Use Activity Center is a combination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. LU-5 All retail6 Retail and commercial land uses, except those permitted as second- ary uses in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Centers, shall be located are intended to be concentrated in shopping centers in most areas. All shopping centers, ex- cept neighborhood convenience shopping centers, shall be limited to the locations show on Map 10. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall also be permitted in the Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center as described in LU-2. Retail and commercial land uses will be allowed in the Gateway Activity Center both within shopping centers and as components of mixed use development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 155 The Plan allows for a broad range of retail uses to occur in shopping centers which satisfy the consumer demands of residents and employees who live and work in adjacent neigh- borhoods, as well as from the community or region. Coordinated planning of a “center” rather than isolated individual uses is the most effective means of avoiding the “strip” type of development. The scale and design of the shopping centers should be compatible with neighboring uses. Shopping centers can and should play an important role in the identity, character and social interaction of surrounding neighborhoods. They should be easily accessible to existing or planned segments of public transit. Adequate auto accessibility, especially for community and regional shopping centers, is important. Shopping centers should have a physical environment that is conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Commercial and retail uses are allowed both inside of and outside of shopping centers in the Gateway Activity Center because development in this area will be coordinated to minimize impacts of commercial activities on sensitive uses, such as residential uses. LU-67 Recognize the importance of the continued livability and stability of existing residential neighborhoods as a means to expanding future eco- nomic opportunities in the corridor. The corridor area contains existing residential areas whose existence contributes to the future economic health of the corridor area. Future development in the corridor should be sensitive to these areas. LU-78 Preserve a transition or cushion of lower intensity uses or open space between existing residential neighborhoods and the more intense indus- trial/commercial areas. An important goal of the Harmony Corridor Plan is to provide a harmonious relationship between land uses and to protect the character of new and existing residential neighbor- hoods against intrusive and disruptive development. Open space, setbacks, landscaping, physical barriers and appropriate land use transitions can be effective was to provide a cushion between different uses. The following are generally considered to be appropriate transitional land uses: low intensity professional offices multi-family housing churches childcare centers; and nursing homes and/or elderly retirement homes. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 156 Potential Lifestyle/Regional Shopping Center HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN 3-10 LAND USE PLAN MAP 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 157 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The following actions need to be taken by the City to ensure that the land use section of the Plan is implemented over the years to come. 1. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board should adopt the Plan. 2. The City should annex all unincorporated areas within the Harmony Corridor, in accordance with the parameters of the Urban Growth Agreement. 3. The City should adopt design standards and guidelines which reinforce the dis- tinctiveness and quality of the corridor area. 4. When reviewing new development proposals in the corridor, the City shall evalu- ate such proposals according to the standards and guidelines adopted as part of the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines are in addition to existing development regulations that apply to specific development proposals. 5. The City should prepare design guidelines which further elaborate on the effective use of design measures for buffering between residential and non-residential land uses. 6. The City should establish means of effectively encouraging industries and busi- nesses to locate in the Harmony Corridor. 7. The City should consider adopting a “superblock” planning requirement which assures the coordinated planning of large parcels of land. 8. The City should explore local landmark district designation of existing historic structures. 9. The City should study the distribution of basic industrial and non-retail jobs as part of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The planning effort should also determine the relative importance of the Harmony Corridor in achieving commu- nity-wide employment objectives. And, based on the results of the study, the City should prepare incentives and/or regulations to assure implementation of the employment objectives in the Harmony Corridor. Revise policies of the Plan as needed. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 158 10. The City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Town of Timnath should join efforts to plan for the appropriate development of Harmony Road east of I-25 compatible with the Harmony Corridor Plan. 11. Pioneer Mobile Home Park, located on the northeast corner of Harmony Road and College Avenue, is home for many low-income families and elderly persons on fixed incomes. Although the Plan indicates future redevelopment of the site, the displacement of persons in the neighborhood should be carefully planned and sensitive to the particular needs of the residents. 12. The “Harmony Bikeway Study” (currently underway) should be prepared to rein- force the goals and vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan, as well as the City’s overall transportation objectives. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 159 Advocates for Our “Gateway” Input on H-25 Development Proposal 09/17/18 Index Executive Summary ………………………………………………... Page 2 For Context: The Proposed Development Area: • Current Zoning …………….…………………………………... Page 3 • Proposed “Mixed Use” re-zoning ……………………........... Page 4 • The Expanded “Gateway” ……………………………...…….. Page 5 Required Findings: ………………………………………………..... Page 6 • “Is the Harmony Corridor Plan in Need of the Proposed Amendment?” ………………………………. Page 6 • “Will the amendment promote the public welfare and be consistent with the City’s vision and goals?” ………. Page 8 o Community Values: Subarea Plans: …………………. Page 8 o Community Values: The HCP “Gateway” Vision: …. Page 10 o Community Values: “Edges & Separators” ………… Page 13 o Community Values: “Connectivity & Poudre River Corridor” ………………………………. Page 17 o Community Values: “Open Lands & Natural Areas” …………………………………….... Page 23 Key Questions that need to be answered: • “(North Half) Is the shift in land use mix appropriate - i.e. with retail and residential use to be 75%?” (Issues) … Page 27 • “(North Half) Should residential use be required in new standards to ensure a mix as envisioned in the proposal?” (Issues) ………………………………………. Page 31 • “(South Half) Is the change from Rural Lands zoning to urban mixed use zoning appropriate?” (Issues) ………... Page 31 • “What aspects of potential future development should the Plan amendment include?” (Recommendations) ….… Page 37 • Other Issues: …………………………………………………... Page 40 o Nature o Traffic & Safety ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 160 Executive Summary: Our group of concerned residents has examined the published H-25 development proposal information provided by the developer. We have also thoroughly examined important City Documents that are intended to guide development efforts. These have been approved by past City Councils with significant public input and approval: • “Harmony Corridor Plan” (2006) • “FC City Plan” (2011) • “FC Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan” (2004) • “FC Natural Areas Master Plan” (2014) • “FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan” (2015) In review of these multiple City plans, we have found that the current H-25 proposal is inconsistent with these plans in a significant number of aspects. In order to promote his own agenda, the developer is unilaterally and arbitrarily asserting that these City plans are no longer appropriate and valid for development of the area and is substituting (via proposed amendment), his own alternatives to the existing “Harmony Corridor Plan’s” Land Use, Urban Design, and Gateway guidelines. Additionally, the developer wishes to re-zone an existing parcel designated “Rural Lands” containing a reservoir rich in wildlife, to allow for further development. For his development plan to be approved, it would require the City to substitute the developer’s vision and goals for those of the City and the public. In addition, the proposed amendment does not meet the requirement for “minor amendment” for changes to the City Plan as defined by the Plan (p.168) which states: “The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.” This is clearly not the case with this development proposal! The developer’s proposed amendment is clearly and significantly inconsistent with the City Plan! We have provided our recommendations for what an appropriate development proposal should include in order to be consistent with the City’s vision, and community values for the area. We have also identified items in the development proposal that we feel are inconsistent with, or in conflict with, the identified City policies. Given the amount of effort over the decades by many City constituencies, and the ongoing success of Fort Collins as a result of these efforts, we feel that it would be inappropriate to approve this proposal as submitted. Fort Collins will only have one chance to develop this property in line with its previously documented visions, goals, and community values. Once the development is complete, we will all have to live with whatever has been allowed. Let’s do the right thing now, and not be sorry later. Our current City leaders have a responsibility to all of those who came before, to help fulfill their visions for the Harmony “Gateway”. We have documented our findings in this report. They provide ample evidence to support our case for rejecting this proposal in its current form. We appreciate the opportunity given to us to comment. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 161 For Context: The Proposed Development Area: “Current Zoning”: As shown below, the proposed development area consists of (2) parcels currently zoned: 1. North Parcel: “Employment” (Harmony Corridor District) 2. South Parcel: “Rural Lands” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 162 For Context: The Proposed Development Area: Proposed “Mixed Use” Re-zoning: The amendment proposes that these two parcels be re-zoned to a “Mixed Use” zoning with an “Activity Center” designation. The following depiction of the request for re-zoning, aka the proposed amendment, is clearly inconsistent with the Land Use descriptions above for the North and South Parcel. (Pink Highlighted area is proposed development area) (FC Planning Slide 7) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 163 For Context: The Proposed Development Area: The “Gateway” Expansion: The “Gateway” has been referred to in various City documents as the area bordering on Harmony Road at the I-25 intersection. This now includes the Arapahoe Bend Nature Area to the north of Harmony Road which has been maintained consistent with the various City visions for the “Gateway”. The area to the south of Harmony Road is the northern parcel of the proposed development area. The developer additionally wants to include the adjacent parcel (currently zoned “Rural Lands” and never part of the Gateway designation) referred to as the southern parcel of the proposed development area. With this inclusion, the “Gateway” area has now been expanded as shown in the map below. It should be developed consistent with the various City Planning documents describing the “Gateway” vision, but left with its current zoning. (Black outlined area is Expanded “Gateway” area – which includes a reservoir that does not require water augmentation) (FC Planning Slide 8) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 164 Required Findings: “Is the Harmony Corridor Plan in Need of the Proposed Amendment?” There are numerous issues that we feel are important in answering this question: 1. Does the Amendment meet the necessary requirements of an Amendment to the existing “FC City Plan”? 2. Is the Amendment appropriately justified? 3. Do we want to ignore (throw out) the current Land Use guidelines in the existing “Harmony Corridor Plan”? 1. Does the Amendment meet the necessary requirements of an Amendment to the existing “FC City Plan”?: (as defined in City Plan p. 168) “Requests shall be submitted to the City’s Advance Planning Department at least 60 days prior to the hearing date for the Planning and Zoning Board. The 60-day submittal requirement is necessary in order to permit adequate public notice to be given and to allow adequate time to complete the background work for considering a plan amendment. A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: • The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment, and • The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.” We assert that the proposed amendment is not consistent with a multitude of vision, goals, principles and policies of the “City Plan”, as well as other City documents (as documented here). Therefore; we feel that it is not compliant with the city’s stated requirement and should not be approved. 2. Is the Amendment appropriately justified? In the developer proposal, Carolynne White (attorney) writes the following in the cover letter to the city: “RE: Application for City Plan Amendment for Harmony I-25 Dear City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board and City Council: The enclosed application for an Amendment to City Plan Fort Collins (“City Plan”) (1) amending the City Structure Plan (the “Structure Plan”) to designate the southern portion of the 265.6-acre property located at the southwest intersection of Harmony Road and I-25 in Fort Collins (the “Property”) from Rural Lands Edge to Employment District, and (2) amending the Harmony Corridor Plan (“HC Plan”) to create a new Harmony Corridor Gateway “Activity Center” designation that would allow secondary uses to occupy up to 75% of gross area (the “HC Gateway”) (together, the “Amendment”) is submitted on behalf of the Property owner, Harmony McMurray LLC (“HM LLC”).” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 165 This explicitly states that the proposal wants to modify the HCP to allow for another Activity Center in the Northern parcel and to change the Land Use designation for the Southern parcel. It ignores many of the other policies/guidelines that still exist in the city-wide “FC City Plan”, “FC Land Use Conservation Plan”, and the “Nature in the City Strategic Plan”. By, and, therefore, fails to justify that there is a need for the proposed amendment; it also fails to demonstrate that such an amendment will promote the public welfare or that it complies with important city planning documents and guidelines. Therefore, the proposed amendment fails to satisfy the requirements set forth for an amendment per the FC City Plan (p. 168). 3. Do we want to ignore (throw out) the current Land Use guidelines in the existing “Harmony Corridor Plan”? We see no reason that this is necessary. The developer purchased the land knowing full well what the Land Use guidelines were for the property. We believe that this property can be developed in full accordance with City policies. The Harmony Corridor does not need to have an additional “Mixed Use Activity Center” to allow for additional retail at the expense of giving up the “Gateway” vision and the natural aspects of the Poudre River Corridor flood plain. The “Harmony Corridor Plan” has designated this area as: • “Special Urban Design Opportunity – Gateway Development with Orientation to Natural Character” • “Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Activity Center” Harmony Corridor Plan (Land Use Plan – Map 10) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 166 Required Findings: “Will the amendment promote the public welfare and be consistent with the City’s vision and goals?” Multiple City plans have set out goals and guidelines for development of this area. The H-25 proposal is not consistent with several key community values established in written City policy and development guidelines. The proposal ignores and contradicts these established community values in an effort to justify a business development option that benefits the developer and his proprietary business interests in isolation from established and documented community values, that is, in isolation from what serves the public welfare. We have chosen to highlight, and focus on, (5) community values areas that are replicated across multiple City documents. We feel they apply to the development area. It is instructive to highlight some of the aspects of these various plans to understand what this Gateway “shared uniqueness” should look like. These are: • Subarea Plans • The Harmony Corridor Plan “Gateway” Vision • Community Edges & Separators • Connectivity & The Poudre River Corridor • Open Lands & Natural Areas Community Values: Subarea Plans: One of the reasons that the City has had a hard time with defining the specifics of what the “Gateway” means in terms of development, is because it resides in the overlap/confluence of (4) important, but differently defined, land use areas: 1. Subareas Map – “FC City Plan” (2011) 2. The Poudre River Corridor – “FC City Plan” (2011) 3. The “Gateway” – “Harmony Corridor Plan” (2006) 4. Arapahoe Bend/Fossil Creek/Eagle View Natural Areas – “FC Natural Areas Master Plan” (2014) All of these plans have different sets of priorities, and some even have outright conflicts due to the overall size of the areas (e.g. economic emphasis vs nature/wildlife emphasis). In reality, the “Gateway” (according to the City visions) probably does not specifically belong to any one of these areas, but has a “shared uniqueness”. This is why various plans and documents have tried to carve out this area separately and refer to it as “The Gateway”, in an attempt to treat it as a special area separate from any other, deserving of special care. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 167 We assert that the proposed development has not been created with the “special care” that this area deserves. At the very least, the H-25 development plans must be able to demonstrate a significant compliance with all prevailing city policy and plans as well as a significant attention to and consideration of what is in the public’s welfare. Ideally, the question of public welfare should require direct involvement and input from a significant portion of the public, especially those most impacted by the development. (Below is the Subareas map that shows this overlap/confluence.) Yellow Highlighted area is proposed development area (FC City Plan P. 57) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 168 Community Values: The Harmony Corridor Plan “Gateway” Vision: In the following sections, we have highlighted (in red) those goals and guidelines that are contained in the HCP and should be reflected in any proposal for this area. We would be supportive of a development proposal that makes a “good faith effort” to meet these community values. This current proposal does not make any effort, much less a “good faith effort” to meet the following: • “The most significant natural areas in the Harmony Corridor are associated with the Cache la Poudre River and are located near I-25. This area has been termed the “gateway” because it is the first point of entry to Fort Collins from the south…….With creative management and appropriate reclamation practices, these areas have the potential to become recreational, educational and scenic resources for the community……The fact that the area is located at the gateway to Fort Collins intensifies its importance”. (HCP pp. 2-4) • “Most of the people visiting Fort Collins for the first time enter the city through this corridor…….“An unusually wide right-of-way and spacious median provide an excellent opportunity to develop a well landscaped parkway. Harmony Road has the potential to become one of the most attractive entryway corridors in northern Colorado.” (HCP pp. 1-3) • “The Cache la Poudre River floodplain, numerous lakes, wetlands and spectacular mountain views combine to create an impressive and scenic gateway at the I-25 interchange. The gateway area offers unique opportunities and challenges the community to discover creative ways to balance development potential with natural resource assets.” (HCP pp.1-4) • “The gateway to the corridor at the I-25 interchange has many positive visual attributes. Riparian vegetation identifies the river’s meandering path. The natural scenic qualities of the river, the floodplain, wetlands and associated vegetation is enhanced by the dramatic backdrop of Longs Peak and the Front Range….. Significant vegetation helps soften the general appearance.” (HCP pp. 2-18) • “We have an opportunity to affect how the corridor will look in the future. The gateway area, located in the floodplain of the Cache la Poudre River is largely undeveloped. We have an opportunity to successfully balance natural resource assets and economic development at this important gateway entrance.” (HCP pp. 2-20) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 169 • ALTERNATIVE GATEWAY CONCEPTS: “The gateway area located between I-25 and the bluffs east of Hewlett-Packard has many unique physical qualities including open water, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and spectacular mountain views….Most of the area lies within the 100-year floodplain of the Cache la Poudre River and significant portions are located in the floodway. These physical conditions create a variety of development constraints and at the same time offer many recreational and educational opportunities…..The commercial development that already exists in the gateway, as well as the kinds of development that interchange locations typically attract, do not mesh well with the scenic and natural resource values of the area. This combination of circumstances challenges the community to find a way to balance natural resource assets with economic development.” (HCP p. 5-1) • THE FLOODPLAIN: “The 100-year floodplain is the most significant development constraint in the gateway area. Most of the property in the gateway area lies within the 100-year floodplain, and significant portions of the area are within the floodway…..Since serious land development restrictions are associated with the floodplain and natural resource areas, the gateway is an excellent resource for alternate, less intensive land uses. The river and its floodplain along with associated wetlands and wildlife habitat is an integrated system. The ability to manage floodplain lands for appropriate uses is important to the river’s natural resource value.” (HCP p. 5-4) • THE GATEWAY PLAN GOAL STATEMENT: “Shape the future of the gateway area, so that scenic qualities are emphasized and natural resources are protected. Enable the community to take advantage of recreational and educational opportunities associated with the Cache la Poudre River, lakes and wetlands.” (HCP p. 5-13) • THE GATEWAY PLAN (ALTERNATIVE A): “The intent is to create a gateway entrance that integrates quality development with the natural characteristics of the existing landscape. Wetlands, lakes and floodway areas are left undeveloped and become the focus of an elaborate open space network. The open space areas are laced with an extensive system of trails. The character of the gateway area as a whole is naturalistic with heavy emphasis on native plants and wildlife habitat. The challenge for development is to blend into the natural scheme of things with as little visual disruption as possible……Light industrial and office uses are encouraged. Commercial land uses are discouraged unless they can be shown to blend unobtrusively into the naturalistic setting. Setbacks would be in the magnitude of 80-100 feet from the right-of-way, creating a significant greenbelt around the interchange.” (HCP p. 5-10) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 170 • “THE GATEWAY PLAN (ALTERNATIVE B): How this area is planned and developed will impact the value of the river as a natural resource. This alternative recommends public acquisition of the gateway area for open space…..having scenic open space at the front door to our community speaks loud and clear about the community’s values and emphasizes our appreciation and concern for the natural environment.” (HCP p. 5-11) • Community Response (LOCAL VALUES): “Staff held numerous meetings with affected interests and work sessions with boards and commissions. The feedback overwhelmingly supported Alternative A. Responses indicated that people are not totally comfortable with the ability of existing City policies to coordinate and guide development in this area. They are concerned that natural resource value will be lost and important opportunities will be missed if we do not put forth a conscious effort to coordinate and plan this area with community values in mind.” (HCP p. 5-12) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 171 Community Values: “Edges & Separators”: The concept of “Edges and Separators” is articulated in the “FC City Plan (2011)”, the “Natural Areas Master Plan (2014)”, and the FC Land Conservation Plan (2004)”. The proposed development area is located within, and between, areas defined as Community Separators, Rural Lands, Open Lands and Poudre River Corridors. City Structure Plan Map-1 (FC City Plan) (Highlighted in Red – Proposed Development Area) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 172 The following noted City documents clearly identify policies and guidelines for development in such an area. The current H-25 development proposal does not address these policies and guidelines, and thus, cannot be approved. Edges (“FC City Plan”): “Edges form the boundaries of the community, both inside and outside of the Growth Management Area….Three types of Edges are identified on the City Structure Plan Map” • Community Separators • Foothills • Rural Lands Community Separators (“FC City Plan - 2011”): “Purpose: Community separators will be used as a long term tool to preserve a permanent physical and visual separation between Fort Collins and surrounding communities.” Principle LIV 40: Community separators will provide physical and visual separation between Fort Collins and surrounding communities to maintain and enhance the separate identities of each community. Policy LIV 40.1 – Maintain Community Separators “Maintain and promote large separations between communities. Community separator areas may include low intensity residential development, undeveloped lands, and natural or rural landscapes including open lands, natural areas, farmland, clustered residential development, and recreational areas such as golf courses.” Policy LIV 40.2 – Provide Urban/Rural Transitions “Aim to provide rural/open land transitions between urban level development and areas beyond the Growth Management Area to help maintain community separators.” Policy LIV 40.4 – Reflect Sense of Rural Character “Reflect a sense of rural character by incorporating the protection and preservation of natural areas, agricultural uses, appropriate residential development, and other types of open lands into the separations between communities.” (“FC City Plan” p.93) Community Separators (“Natural Areas Master Plan - 2014”): COMMUNITY SEPARATORS FOCUS AREAS: “Community separators are parcels of undeveloped or minimally developed land that create a buffer between municipal jurisdictions and preserve the individual identity of communities. Separators often consist of undeveloped farmland, low density rural developments, floodplains, or other areas that may or may not be desirable for residential or commercial development.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 173 LOWER POUDRE AND WINDSOR SEPARATOR: “This separator area, located southeast of Fort Collins, contains opportunities to protect rare species habitat, wetland and riparian communities, and agricultural values along the Poudre River.” (“Natural Areas Master Plan” p. 31): Community Separators (“FC Land Conservation Master Plan - 2004)”: Policy CS-1.1 Community Separators. “Strategic open lands that serve as community separators inside and outside the Growth Management Area will be identified for either public ownership or other land conservation measures. Community separators should be as large as possible and could include low intensity residential development, undeveloped lands, and natural or rural landscapes including open lands, natural areas, farmland, clustered residential development and recreational areas such as golf courses.” (“FC Land Conservation Master Plan” p. 40) Community Separators (“FC Land Conservation Master Plan - 2004”): 15. Lower Poudre River and Windsor Separator, Resource Values: Habitat, Viewshed, Community Separator, Floodplain Purpose: “To protect rare species habitat, wetland/riparian communities, and agricultural values along the Poudre River to the southeast of the city. Both habitat and agricultural conservation activities in this area will contribute to the Fort Collins - Windsor community separator project.” (“FC Land Conservation Master Plan” p. 22-23): Important Note: The original Windsor-Lower Poudre Separator plan did not develop as envisioned by the City of Fort Collins. With the re-zoning of the area east of I-25 by Timnath to commercial, there is no current Community Separator south of Harmony Road down to the originally planned Windsor-Lower Poudre Separator. This will be the last opportunity for the City of Fort Collins to revive any type of Community Separator. To do so, they need to encourage a plan for the proposed development land that will include Separator concepts. Without doing so, a “Centerra-type” canyon of development will most likely occur on both sides of I- 25. This would destroy any hope of the City realizing a vision for it’s “Gateway”. (Please see the map below) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 174 “FC Natural Areas Master Plan (2014) – p. 29 (Highlighted Red = Proposed H-25 Development Area) (Highlighted Black = Re-zoned (Comm/Retail) Lower Poudre-Windsor Separator Area ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 175 Community Values: “Connectivity & Poudre River Corridor” “The new paths for water and overflow will encourage cottonwood growth and biodiversity of plant life. That, in turn, will attract more species of birds and other animals and give them a path for migrating down the river.” Matt Day, Project Manager, FC Downtown Whitewater Park Proj, Coloradoan (9/9/18) Note: Residents have noted that bald eagles, hawks and osprey are all increasingly common in this “proposed development area, along with many blue herons, white pelicans, red wing blackbirds, cormorants, mallards, gulls, swallows and egrets, to name a few. It appears there are times when more birds are visible in this reservoir than there are at Fossil Creek Reservoir. Connectivity (“FC Nature in the City – 2015”) “Connectivity was identified as an overarching priority for “Nature in the City” throughout discussions with residents and stakeholders. Residents wanted to be able to leave their home, and quickly access a trail that would lead them to a larger open space.” (“FC Nature in the City” p.34) Below is an aerial photograph of the proposed development area. It shows its unique location between (2) environmentally sensitive existing Natural Areas, Arapahoe Bend, and Eagle View. This parcel of land needs to be developed with a strong focus and priority on maintaining “Connectivity” to these two other areas. (Black outlined area is Expanded “Gateway” area), with the southern portion being expropriated for the proposed development (FC Planning Slide 10) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 176 “This graphic illustrates a continuum from landscapes that are connected to ones that are more fragmented, or disconnected. The top image illustrates two land areas that are connected by a corridor. The middle image illustrates the two land areas with various size patches in between them, but they lack a connected corridor. The bottom image also illustrates fragmentation by showing how roadways can bisect a connected corridor. For some species, e.g. birds and butterflies, the top or middle image may still be perceived as a connected landscape, whereas for other species, e.g., mammals and reptiles, a fully connected landscape is preferred for movement.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 177 “During the outreach conducted for Nature in the City, the issue of connectivity, or the ability for people and wildlife to access nature without the interruption of barriers, arose again and again. While definitions of connectivity vary, regardless of age, income level, geographic location or ethnic background, the community expressed a strong desire to enhance the connectivity between the natural spaces we have, for people and wildlife. The following objectives are designed to achieve that goal:” C1: Increase connectivity for plant and wildlife species: “The impacts of fragmented, or disconnected, natural systems include reduced genetic diversity, invasive species establishment and overall ecosystem health decline. The City will protect connections between existing natural spaces and capitalize on opportunities to reconnect disconnected spaces with appropriate habitat to provide travel corridors, shelter, food and adequate hunting habitat for numerous species.” Outcome: A system of connected natural spaces that wildlife can access with minimal fragmentation. C2: Increase connectivity for residents: “Residents’ ability to easily access nature is important due to the numerous health, social, economic, educational and recreational benefits nature can provide…..Barriers may include inaccessible private land, arterial streets or a lack of sidewalks or paths. Where gaps or barriers exist, the City will seek opportunities to provide access through land acquisition, access easements, or installing new infrastructure such as pedestrian underpasses beneath arterial streets.” Outcome: Accessible network of connected natural spaces for all City residents within a 10-minute walk. (“FC Nature in the City” pp. 41-42) According to City policies and guidelines, this area needs to support, and include • A major trail connection between the two areas for residents hiking use • Maintaining of “Open Lands & Natural Areas” concepts to protect the parcel’s own already existing landscape and natural habit. • Natural spaces that will support the continued migration of wildlife down the Poudre River Corridor allowing for a geographic and physical connection between the Corridor and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area. Given the above, a rezoning of this land to support a high density “Activity Center” is totally at odds with the stated objectives of the City as outlined above. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 178 Poudre River Corridor: “I think it will be a catalyst for appreciation of the river. I think if you look at the history of the Poudre River, it’s gone through a lot of different phases over a long time. It was maybe ignored, neglected, polluted….Now, I think what we are doing is saying let’s re- engage. Let’s make sure we protect it as a natural entity but find ways to engage it, enjoy it, experience it”. Kurt Friesen, FC Dir of Park Planning & Dev, on Whitewater Park, Coloradoan (9/9/18) Below is a map of the Poudre River Corridor (and its relationship to the Fossil Creek Corridor): “FC Natural Areas Master Plan (2014) – p. 29 (Highlighted Red = Proposed H-25 Development Area) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 179 Poudre River Corridor (“FC City Plan – 2011”) POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR: “The community has expressed interest in managing and protecting the Cache la Poudre River’s biological, aesthetic, and ecological values since the first City Plan in 1997……The principles and policies in this section strengthen the City’s resolve to support a healthy river ecosystem, and also carry forward ideas from prior versions of City Plan related to the restoration and enhancement of natural habitat, conservation and protection of natural features, educational opportunities, floodplain management, and regional coordination.” “Principle ENV 23: Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced. Policy ENV 23.1 – Poudre River Corridor Overlay The City Structure Plan Map contains a special overlay designating the Poudre River Corridor. The intent is to highlight the Corridor as an area needing special consideration due to its great importance to the community.” “Principle ENV 24: The City will support a healthy and resilient Cache la Poudre ecosystem and protect, enhance and restore the ecological values of the River. Policy ENV 24.1 – Support Ecological Resilience Support a healthy river ecosystem that is resilient; i.e., a river ecosystem that has the capacity to persist and adapt over time in the face of natural and human-caused challenges. Protect or enhance opportunities for natural processes to drive ecosystem renewal. Policy ENV 24.2 – Conserve Natural Features Conserve and protect important natural areas and natural values within the Poudre River Corridor. This will include acquiring land for public natural areas and conservation easements to protect natural area values on privately owned lands,…. Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers Maintain natural area protection buffers along both banks of the Poudre River to protect natural features and scenic qualities and to account for the natural instability of the River channel. The buffer should be a minimum of three hundred (300) feet wide, beginning at the outer limits of the river bank or areas of riparian vegetation. Policy ENV 24.4 – Restore and Enhance Restore or enhance degraded or disturbed areas of the Poudre River Corridor to improve natural habitat conditions, biodiversity, and aesthetic and recreational values.” (“FC City Plan” pp. 42-44) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 180 Poudre River Corridor (“FC Natural Areas Master Plan – 2014”) LOCAL FOCUS AREAS “Local focus areas encompass stream corridors, foothills habitat, and pockets of open land within and near Fort Collins city limits that provide opportunities for a variety of land protection goals, including wildlife habitat, recreation, agriculture, and land in the local focus areas tends to have higher costs for acquisition as a result of development potential. Stewardship costs are also typically higher due to greater recreation pressure and restoration needs due to impacts from past land use and urbanization.” POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR “The Poudre River, often considered the life blood of the Fort Collins community, is not only a critical water source for irrigation, drinking, and industry, but also a haven for wildlife and recreationists. Resource values include wildlife habitat, floodplain, and watershed protection. The City has a strong desire to protect and enhance the natural state of the river by expanding its current inventory of natural areas from the canyon mouth to I-25. Continued protection along the river will ensure floodplain protection, habitat, and migration/travel corridors for both wildlife and people.” (“FC Natural Areas Master Plan” p. 30) LOWER POUDRE AND WINDSOR SEPARATOR This separator area, located southeast of Fort Collins, contains opportunities to protect rare species habitat, wetland and riparian communities, and agricultural values along the Poudre River. The City has successfully helped to protect 338 acres along the Lower Poudre, which in combination with Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area (nearly 1,400 acres) creates community separation between Fort Collins and Windsor. (“FC Natural Areas Master Plan” p. 32) The Importance of the Poudre River Corridor to “Connectivity” While the Poudre River actually proceeds east of I-25 (just north of Harmony Road), the original floodplain continues south of Harmony Road, west of I-25, through the proposed development area. It continues to have a natural habitat and much of the original vegetation of the floodplain. Because of this, it continues to be the home of much wildlife associated with the habitat. This also becomes important when considering the “Connectivity” concepts of the preceding section. This parcel of land provides the actual physical connection between the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area (to the north) and the Eagle View Natural Area (to the south), which further connects to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area. Any wildlife migration path down the corridor that proceeds to Fossil Creek would go through this parcel (on the west side of I-25). It would not follow the river to the east. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 181 Community Values: “Open Lands & Natural Areas” Nature Areas & Land Conservation: “Many factors contribute to the success of Fort Collins. The physical environment of Fort Collins, with its beautiful location on the Rocky Mountain Front Range and, in particular, the matrix of conserved natural areas in and around the City, is a fundamental part of the City’s renowned character. Additional factors include a culture of entrepreneurship, an accomplished local school system, Colorado State University, an engaged community, and in particular a devotion to the outdoors and environmental protection... Fort Collins’ natural areas are a leading expression of our community’s values, hopes, and aspirations.” (“FC Natural Areas Master Plan”, p. iii) “For example, conservation at the local level can play a vital role in connecting biological corridors that would otherwise be disconnected by urban development… In the case of the Poudre, biologists note that riparian corridors in Colorado are the primary reservoirs of biological diversity in the state. The City’s history of conserving land along the Poudre, and more recent efforts to reconnect the river to its floodplain.” (FC Natural Areas Master Plan, p. v) “Open Lands” (“FC City Plan” – 2011”): OPEN LANDS, PARKS, AND WATER CORRIDORS: Purpose: “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors are intended to preserve natural and man-made drainage ways, wildlife habitat, and wildlife corridors, and to provide trails, paths, parks, and open lands for recreation use where appropriate. These Corridors collectively comprise a network linking larger open lands, Neighborhoods, Districts, and other land uses.” Principle LIV 44: “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors form an interconnected system that provides habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems; serves the needs for drainage and water conveyance; and provides opportunities for recreational, educational, environmental, transportation, and other activities.” Policy LIV 44.1 – Maintain System of Open Lands “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas, conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet community needs.” Policy LIV 44.2 – Provide Parks Facilities “Maintain and facilitate the development of a well-balanced system of parks, trails, and recreation facilities to provide a variety of recreational opportunities.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 182 Policy LIV 44.4 – Utilize Buffers “Utilize buffers and other requirements for development along water corridors and near other natural features to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore important wildlife habitat, riparian areas, wildlife corridors, and other natural features, and to maintain channel stability, water conveyance, and flood protection.” Policy LIV 44.5 – Interconnect Trails/Paths “Integrate a trail/path system that connects open lands, parks, and water corridor areas, excluding motorized vehicles (except emergency and maintenance vehicle access.” (“FC City Plan” pp. 96) Land Use and Development (“Nature in the City” – 2015”): Policy Area: Land Use and Development “As the City grows toward its buildout population, this plan addresses how to incorporate nature into the increasingly urban environment in two ways: (1) through development or redevelopment (2) through existing neighborhoods. There are many neighborhoods, businesses and districts in the City not poised to redevelop, but that have expressed an interest in incorporating greater access or higher quality experiences with nature.” LU1: Revise Land Use Code open space standards “The City’s Land Use Code is a regulatory document that guides orderly land development consistent with community values as set forth in City Plan. Currently, there are specific requirements in the Land Use Code with regard to open space in new developments, such as full tree stocking, defining the diameter of trees planted in development projects, and a section on protecting and enhancing existing natural resources within the City. While these requirements protect existing natural resources, and provide shading and a uniform urban tree canopy, additional standards are needed to encourage the creation of habitat friendly landscapes and more diverse natural spaces. To achieve these goals, Land Use Code changes should be designed to provide flexibility to allow site-specific solutions based on context, scale and objectives.” LU2: Develop Land Use Code changes regarding multiple tree sizes and diversity within new developments “Currently, the Land Use Code has standard tree size requirements for shade, ornamental and evergreen trees, and for shrubs and perennials as well as minimum diversity requirements for trees. While these standards create the optimum uniform environment for creating an urban tree canopy, in natural landscapes a diversity of vegetation sizes and a greater variety in species may be preferred. This policy is designed to more explicitly encourage multiple plant sizes when incorporating Nature in the City principles into a design (e.g., in a public plaza, courtyard, or larger open space as discussed in Policy LU1). Further, greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging native and appropriate non-native species that provide wildlife habitat and structure diversity. To ensure success, these changes should be developed with the Land Use Code change team as well as with Natural Areas and Forestry staff with expertise in installing natural landscapes.” (“FC Nature in the City” pp. 47-49) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 183 “Open Lands and The Poudre River Overlay” (“FC City Plan” – 2011”): POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR OVERLAY Purpose: The Poudre River Corridor is highlighted in City Plan because of its special significance to the entire Fort Collins community. The Poudre River Corridor bisects the northern third of the city, from LaPorte in the northwest approximately eight (8) miles to Timnath in the southeast. The width of the corridor varies from less than one-quarter (1/4) mile to nearly one and one-half (1½) miles, depending on natural features and existing land uses. The City Structure Plan Map contains a special overlay designating the Poudre River Corridor. The intent is to highlight the Corridor as an area needing special consideration due to its great importance to the community. Changes within the Corridor should be crafted with care and with meaningful opportunities for community participation. The principles and policies for the Poudre River Corridor are intended to maintain a multiple-use corridor in which the river and surrounding lands are carefully managed to protect and enhance a diverse set of public values and allow appropriate private uses within the corridor. Public values that are important within the Poudre River Corridor include the following: • Natural areas, wildlife habitat, environmental and water quality • Recreation, parks, trails, and designated public access areas • Rural character and agricultural use • Floodplain and flood hazard management • Scenic and aesthetic resources • Education, research, and interpretation • Historic landmarks and cultural landscapes The overlay map (referenced above) designating the Poudre River Corridor is below: Yellow area is proposed development area (“FC City Plan” p. 99) (It contains portions of Poudre River floodplain and floodway) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 184 As shown above, the proposed development area is adjacent to Segment 5, which is designated as “Conservation Open Lands”. Policy LIV 45.3 – River Segments 5. Conservation Open Lands (Drake Road to Harmony Road). “This river segment possesses significant natural and historic resources. Land uses in this area should emphasize natural areas protection, natural and beneficial floodplains functions, open lands conservation, ecological restoration, and historic structures preservation.” (“FC City Plan” pp. 97-98) Additionally, this area is surrounded, to both the north and the south, by Natural Areas as identified in the FC Natural Areas Master Plan: (FC Natural Areas Master Plan (2014) (pp. 24-25) The development of this land should be carefully considered: • Northern parcel – borders on the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area. Because of this, it needs to be developed with “Open Lands” concepts and should not be re-zoned to anything resembling commercial. • Southern Parcel – Borders on the Eagle View Natural Area and is already zoned “Rural Lands”. It should not be re-zoned. With the above considerations, a major trail connection/link should be pursued through both parcels to allow for connecting the Arapahoe Bend area with the Eagle View area. By doing this, all trail connections in the Poudre River Overlay will now also be connected to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area as well. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 185 Key Questions that need to be answered: (North Half) Is the shift in land use mix appropriate - i.e. with retail and residential use to be 75%? The obvious answer here is no, it is not appropriate. Earlier, we have addressed the “Gateway” visions of the various city planning documents. A shift to an “Activity Center” designation would ignore these visions. We do not need a “Centerra-like” mixed use, high density retail (Activity Center) development for our community “Gateway”. There will be only one opportunity for Fort Collins to develop this area in a way that is consistent with the common aspects of these various visions. The current “Employment Center” designation within the “Harmony Corridor Plan”, could be integrated with the “Gateway” visions given a developer with the appropriate development plan. The following principles from the “FC City Plan” could be emphasized to create that integration: (Those areas highlighted in red seem to be the most important to the area and/or seem to be unaddressed in the current proposal). • Principle ENV 18: “The City will minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, recognize and manage for the preservation of floodplain values, adhere to all City mandated codes, policies, and goals, and comply with all State and Federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in flood prone areas.” (p. 38) o Policy ENV 18.1 – Balance Environmental, Human and Economic Concerns o Policy ENV 18.2 – Manage Risks o Policy ENV 18.3 – Minimize Flood Damage o Policy ENV 18.4 – Manage Floodplain • Principle ENV 23: “Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced.” (p. 42) o Policy ENV 24.1 – Support Ecological Resilience o Policy ENV 24.2 – Conserve Natural Features o Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers o Policy ENV 24.4 – Restore and Enhance o Policy ENV 24.5 – Coordinate to Provide Adequate Instream Flows • Principle ENV 25: “The City will provide enhanced recreation opportunities within the Poudre River Corridor, with an emphasis on scenic values, heritage education, and interpretation while avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 25.1 – Minimize Impacts o Policy ENV 25.2 – Integrate Parks and Recreation Sites o Policy ENV 25.3 – Extend the Poudre River Trail o Policy ENV 25.4 – Develop Trail/Path Linkages ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 186 • Principle ENV 26: “The City will manage the Poudre River floodplain to minimize potentially hazardous conditions while promoting natural processes associated with flooding, erosion, and channel migration to occur over time as appropriate.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 26.4 – Development in the Floodplain • Principle ENV 27: “Historic landmarks, cultural landscapes, and scenic and aesthetic qualities will be protected within the Poudre River Corridor.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 27.2 – Maintain and Enhance Visual Resources o Policy ENV 27.3 – Develop Landscape Guidelines o Policy ENV 27.4 – Restore and Enhance • Principle ENV 29: “The City will collaborate with gravel mining interests to ensure that mining operations are conducted to meet community values and restore ecological function.” (p. 44) o Policy ENV 29.1 – Gravel Mined Land Purchases o Policy ENV 29.2 – Reclaim Gravel Mined Areas • Principle LIV 1: “City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements.” (p. 49) o Policy LIV 1.3 – Coordinate at Community Edges • Principle LIV 11: “Public spaces, such as civic buildings, plazas, outdoor spaces, and parks will be integrated throughout the community and designed to be functional, accessible, attractive, safe, and comfortable.” (p. 61) o Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces • Principle LIV 13: “Community gateways are located at primary entryways into the community, including at the I-25 corridor interchanges, at the north and south ends of College Avenue, and at entrances to unique districts and corridors (such as the Downtown River District). The City will recognize gateways as important locations to draw attention to and convey the character of the surrounding district.” (p. 62) o Policy LIV 13.1 – Enhance Interchange Gateways o Policy LIV 13.3 – Establish Gateway Design • Principle LIV 19: “The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future.” (p. 68) o Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations o Policy LIV 19.2 – Guide for Future Zoning Decisions o Policy LIV 19.3 – Amendments ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 187 • Principle LIV 38: “Employment Districts will be the major employment centers in the community, and will also include a variety of complementary uses to meet the needs of employees. By design, they will be accessible to the City’s multimodal transportation system and encourage walking, bicycling, car and van pooling, and transit use.” (p. 91) o Policy LIV 38.1 - Mix of Uses o Policy LIV 38.3 – Land Use Transitions o Policy LIV 38.5 – Coordinate District Design o Policy LIV 38.6 – Design for Accessibility o Policy LIV 38.7– Address Parking o Policy LIV 38.8 – Provide Walkways and Bikeways • Principle LIV 40: “Community separators will provide physical and visual separation between Fort Collins and surrounding communities to maintain and enhance the separate identities of each community.” (p. 93) o Policy LIV 40.1 – Maintain Community Separators o Policy LIV 40.2 – Provide Urban/Rural Transitions o Policy LIV 40.4 – Reflect Sense of Rural Character • Principle LIV 44: “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors form an interconnected system that provides habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems; serves the needs for drainage and water conveyance; and provides opportunities for recreational, educational, environmental, transportation, and other activities.” (p. 96) o Policy LIV 44.5 – Interconnect Trails/Paths • Principle LIV 45: “Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced.” (p. 97) o Policy LIV 45.1 – Land Uses o Policy LIV 45.2 – Development Standards and Design Guidelines o Policy LIV 45.3 – River Segments The current “Employment Center” designation within the “Harmony Corridor Plan”, could be integrated with the “Gateway” visions given a developer with the appropriate development plan. The following principles from the “Harmony Corridor Plan” could be emphasized to create that integration: • LAND USE PLAN: Goal Statements: “Encourage and support mixed land use development in the Harmony Corridor while discouraging “strip commercial” development and promoting the vitality and livability of existing residential neighborhoods.” (p. 3-6) o LU-2 Locate all industries and businesses in the “Basic Industrial and Non- Retail Employment Activity Centers” in the areas of the Harmony Corridor designated for such uses on Map 10. Secondary ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 188 supporting uses will also be permitted in these Activity Centers, but shall occupy no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total gross area of the Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable. (p. 3-6) o LU-6 Recognize the importance of the continued livability and stability of existing residential neighborhoods as a means to expanding future economic opportunities in the corridor. (p. 3-9) • URBAN DESIGN PLAN: Goal Statement: “Guide development in the corridor so that collectively a perceivable, unified urban design theme and landscape character is created along Harmony Road. Utilize urban design principals to ensure that Harmony Corridor continues to be a great place to live, work and play.” (p. 4-10) o UD-3 Establish a well-planned and attractive gateway entrance to the community at the I-25 interchange, emphasizing the natural scenic qualities of the area. (p. 4-10) o UD-4 Promote the development of an extensive recreational trail that connects to the city-wide trail system. (p. 4-10) • THE GATEWAY PLAN: Goal Statement: “Shape the future of the gateway area, so that scenic qualities are emphasized and natural resources are protected. Enable the community to take advantage of recreational and educational opportunities associated with the Cache la Poudre River, lakes and wetlands.” (p. 5-13) o GW-1 Establish a well-planned and attractive gateway entrance to Fort Collins at the I-25 interchange, emphasizing the natural scenic qualities of the area. (p. 5-13) o GW-2 Protect and enhance the natural resource value of the Cache la Poudre River. (p. 5-13) o GW-4 Establish design guidelines for development in the gateway area that emphasize scenic and natural resource values. (p. 5-13) o GW-5 Discourage development from encroaching upon the bluffs that define the edge of the floodplain. (p. 5-13) o GW-6 Create networks of open space and trail systems that incorporate wetlands and wildlife habitat. (p. 5-13) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 189 (North Half) Should residential use be required in new standards to ensure a mix as envisioned in the proposal? We don’t believe new standards are required given the existing zoning. (South Half) Is the change from Rural Lands zoning to urban mixed use zoning appropriate? The obvious answer here is no, it is not appropriate. We feel this Land Use designation is currently appropriate for this area and is consistent with the numerous principles, policies, and guidelines identified in the “FC City Plan – (2011)”, and “The FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan – (2015)” Preceding sections of this report enumerate numerous City policies regarding the importance of “Open Land”, Nature, and Wildlife issues. We have further identified issues around Connectivity, Community Separators, and the Poudre River Corridor. The developer has offered no rationale, or justification, for ignoring these in their proposal. This parcel currently contributes to the “Community Separator” concept called out in many of the City Policies. An example is the “FC City Plan” (2011) Policy of LIV 40.1 (Maintain Community Separators). Assuming that the North parcel gets developed, it is even more critical that this parcel remains with its current zoning to continue to fulfill its role in this policy. If the developer does not wish to develop this land according to the current zoning and policies identified below, then a possible alternative would be for the City to acquire the land and develop the land appropriately with a park and educational opportunities. We understand that the pond/wetlands on this parcel do not require expensive mitigation. The following principles from this plan should be emphasized to create the appropriate development in this parcel: (Those areas highlighted in red seem to be the most important to the area and/or seem to be unaddressed in the current proposal). • Principle ENV 1: “Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced.” (p. 27) o Policy ENV 1.1 – Protect and Enhance Natural Features o Policy ENV 1.2 – Regulate Development along Waterways • Principle ENV 2: “Open lands and natural areas within Fort Collins, the Growth Management Area, and the region will be conserved, preserved, and protected to provide habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems, and to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins by providing opportunities for education, scientific research, nature interpretation, fishing, wildlife observation, hiking, and other appropriate recreation activities as well as protecting view-sheds.” (p. 27) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 190 o Policy ENV 2.1 – Maintain System of Open Lands o Policy ENV 2.6 – Manage Conflicts o Policy ENV 2.9 – Provide Access o Policy ENV 2.10 – Maintain Access • Principle ENV 3: “Open lands will benefit the City by providing a well- defined edge, establishing community separators, directing development, and conserving rural character.” (p. 29) o Policy ENV 3.1 – Utilize Conservation Tools • Principle ENV 4: “The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands.” (p. 29) o Policy ENV 4.1 – Improve Connectivity o Policy ENV 4.4 – Provide Neighborhood Natural Areas o Policy ENV 4.6 – Utilize Corridors • Principle ENV 18: “The City will minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, recognize and manage for the preservation of floodplain values, adhere to all City mandated codes, policies, and goals, and comply with all State and Federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in flood prone areas.” (p. 38) o Policy ENV 18.1 – Balance Environmental, Human and Economic Concerns o Policy ENV 18.2 – Manage Risks o Policy ENV 18.3 – Minimize Flood Damage o Policy ENV 18.4 – Manage Floodplain • Principle ENV 23: “Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced.” (p. 42) o Policy ENV 24.1 – Support Ecological Resilience o Policy ENV 24.2 – Conserve Natural Features o Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers o Policy ENV 24.4 – Restore and Enhance o Policy ENV 24.5 – Coordinate to Provide Adequate Instream Flows • Principle ENV 25: “The City will provide enhanced recreation opportunities within the Poudre River Corridor, with an emphasis on scenic values, heritage education, and interpretation while avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 25.1 – Minimize Impacts o Policy ENV 25.2 – Integrate Parks and Recreation Sites o Policy ENV 25.3 – Extend the Poudre River Trail o Policy ENV 25.4 – Develop Trail/Path Linkages ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 191 • Principle ENV 26: “The City will manage the Poudre River floodplain to minimize potentially hazardous conditions while promoting natural processes associated with flooding, erosion, and channel migration to occur over time as appropriate.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 26.4 – Development in the Floodplain • Principle ENV 27: “Historic landmarks, cultural landscapes, and scenic and aesthetic qualities will be protected within the Poudre River Corridor.” (p. 43) o Policy ENV 27.2 – Maintain and Enhance Visual Resources o Policy ENV 27.3 – Develop Landscape Guidelines o Policy ENV 27.4 – Restore and Enhance • Principle LIV 1: “City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements.” (p. 49) o Policy LIV 1.3 – Coordinate at Community Edges • Principle LIV 19: “The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. (p. 68) o Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations o Policy LIV 19.2 – Guide for Future Zoning Decisions o Policy LIV 19.3 – Amendments • Principle LIV 40: “Community separators will provide physical and visual separation between Fort Collins and surrounding communities to maintain and enhance the separate identities of each community.” (p. 93) o Policy LIV 40.1 – Maintain Community Separators o Policy LIV 40.2 – Provide Urban/Rural Transitions o Policy LIV 40.4 – Reflect Sense of Rural Character • Principle LIV 42: “Rural Lands and agricultural uses will be a valuable component of Fort Collins’ economy, culture, and heritage, and be used to create an edge to the community.” (p. 94) o Policy LIV 42.1 – Protect Rural Lands • Principle LIV 44: “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors form an interconnected system that provides habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems; serves the needs for drainage and water conveyance; and provides opportunities for recreational, educational, environmental, transportation, and other activities.” (p. 96) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 192 o Policy LIV 44.1 – Maintain System of Open Lands o Policy LIV 44.2 – Provide Parks Facilities o Policy LIV 44.3 – Retain Water Corridors o Policy LIV 44.4 – Utilize Buffers o Policy LIV 44.5 – Interconnect Trails/Paths • Principle LIV 45: “Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced.” (p. 97) o Policy LIV 45.1 – Land Uses o Policy LIV 45.2 – Development Standards and Design Guidelines o Policy LIV 45.3 – River Segments Land Use and Development - “FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan” (2015): The following principles from this plan should be emphasized to create the appropriate development in this parcel: Policy Area: Land Use and Development “As the City grows toward its buildout population, this plan addresses how to incorporate nature into the increasingly urban environment in two ways: (1) through development or redevelopment (2) through existing neighborhoods. There are many neighborhoods, businesses and districts in the City not poised to redevelop, but that have expressed an interest in incorporating greater access or higher quality experiences with nature.” LU1: Revise Land Use Code open space standards “The City’s Land Use Code is a regulatory document that guides orderly land development consistent with community values as set forth in City Plan. Currently, there are specific requirements in the Land Use Code with regard to open space in new developments, such as full tree stocking, defining the diameter of trees planted in development projects, and a section on protecting and enhancing existing natural resources within the City. While these requirements protect existing natural resources, and provide shading and a uniform urban tree canopy, additional standards are needed to encourage the creation of habitat friendly landscapes and more diverse natural spaces. To achieve these goals, Land Use Code changes should be designed to provide flexibility to allow site-specific solutions based on context, scale and objectives.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 193 LU2: Develop Land Use Code changes regarding multiple tree sizes and diversity within new developments “Currently, the Land Use Code has standard tree size requirements for shade, ornamental and evergreen trees, and for shrubs and perennials as well as minimum diversity requirements for trees. While these standards create the optimum uniform environment for creating an urban tree canopy, in natural landscapes a diversity of vegetation sizes and a greater variety in species may be preferred. This policy is designed to more explicitly encourage multiple plant sizes when incorporating Nature in the City principles into a design (e.g., in a public plaza, courtyard, or larger open space as discussed in Policy LU1). Further, greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging native and appropriate non-native species that provide wildlife habitat and structure diversity. To ensure success, these changes should be developed with the Land Use Code change team as well as with Natural Areas and Forestry staff with expertise in installing natural landscapes.” (“FC Nature in the City” pp. 47-49) In addition, the FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan has identified additional policies. “This plan outlines 33 policies the City will pursue to accomplish the broader goals and vision of Nature in the City. Each policy identifies a key outcome resulting from implementation. The 33 policies are categorized into five policy areas.” The ones that seem most appropriate for this Rural Lands parcel are highlighted below: Connectivity Policies C1 - Increase connectivity for plant and wildlife species C2 - Increase connectivity for residents C3 - Prioritize transportation infrastructure to increase access to nature C4 - Provide public transit connections to nature C5 - Provide innovative wayfinding and informational resources C6 - Continue to make the Cache la Poudre River a conservation priority (“FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan” p.13) Land Use and Development Policies LU1 - Revise Land Use Code open space standards LU2 - Develop Land Use Code changes regarding multiple tree sizes and diversity within new developments LU3 - Create design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site restoration LU4 - Develop training resources for the installation and ongoing maintenance of diverse landscapes LU5 - Coordinate and incentivize natural space improvements at the neighborhood scale LU6 - Support and protect the multiple values of the City’s ditch system LU7 - Provide Level of Service guidance for Nature in the City projects LU8 - Update storm water basin guidelines to include Nature in the City principles LU9 - Encourage natural drainages to be re-created LU10 - Promote and preserve urban agriculture that supports a triple-bottom line approach (“FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan” p.14) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 194 City Practices and Policy Coordination CP1 - Align City mowing and weed control policies to support local species while balancing public safety and aesthetics CP2 - Work cross-departmentally and with external partners toward a darker night sky CP3 - Expand the City’s tree inventory to include wildlife habitat CP4 - Pollinator and bird-friendly habitat in City Streetscapes CP5 - Provide quiet spaces in the City to escape from the urban environment CP6 - Amend the City’s Stream Rehabilitation Program to incorporate Nature in the City Principles CP7 - Continue the City’s current policies related to nature and coordinate Nature in the City initiatives with future planning and policy updates CP8 - Coordinate with all applicable City planning processes over time to ensure opportunities to implement Nature in the City efforts and initiatives are included CP9 - Update Nature in the City Strategic Plan CP10 - Celebrate nature in the urban environment (“FC Nature in the City Strategic Plan” p.15) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 195 What aspects of potential future development should the Plan amendment include? North Parcel: • Building Designs – The building designs should be designed to integrate into, and be a complement to, a natural landscaped habitat. • Nature in the City Strategic Plan Land Use and Development standards (LU1 thru LU10) should be followed. Particular emphasis should be given to LU2 (Develop Land Use Code changes regarding multiple tree sizes and diversity within new developments) since this is already a natural vegetation area. • Major Trail Links – As identified in the “FC City Plan (2011), Policy ENV 25.3 (Extend the Poudre Trail) & Policy ENV 25.4 (Develop Trail/Path Linkages) need to be followed. • Parking – Parking ramps should be utilized to minimize negative visual impacts and allow for maximum use of “Open Space” concepts in the development area. “FC City Plan (2011)” Policy LIV 30.4 (Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking) needs to be followed. • Lighting – Given that this development area is in the lower level floodplain, it has high visibility from the residential areas to the west. Development should minimize “light pollution” since it would detract from the City’s Dark Sky initiatives. • Building Heights – The current H-23 Development underway in the floodplain seems to be in violation of the “Harmony Corridor Plan (2006)”, Policy GW-5 “Discourage development from encroaching upon the bluffs that define the edge of the floodplain.” As you can see from the pictures below, the current 3+ story building height disrupts the view of the bluffs from the floodplain. This would seem to indicate that any further development proposed for H-25 cannot exceed these heights. • Roofing - Given that this development area is in the lower level floodplain, it has high visibility from the residential areas to the west. Development should minimize highly visible roof colorings that would negatively impact views for the west and higher level ground/residences. “FC City Pan (2011)” Policy LIV 22.7 (Consider Landmarks and Views) needs to be followed. The pictures below highlight the existing view of H-23 buildings (in the floodplain) as seen from above the bluffs to the west. As you can see, these roofs are highly visible to the current residents above the floodplain. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 196 South Parcel: • Building Designs – Any building designs allowed, should be designed to integrate into, and be a complement to, a natural landscaped habitat. • Major Trail Links – As identified in the “FC City Plan (2011), Policy ENV 25.3 (Extend the Poudre Trail) & Policy ENV 25.4 (Develop Trail/Path Linkages) need to be followed. • Lighting – Given that this development area is in the lower level floodplain, it has high visibility from the residential areas to the west, with structures situated 50 to 90 feet above pond levels. Any allowed development should minimize “light pollution” since it would detract from the City’s Dark Sky initiatives. • Roofing - Given that this development area is in the lower level floodplain, it has high visibility from the residential areas to the west. Development should minimize highly visible roof colorings that would negatively impact views for the west and higher level ground/residences. “FC City Pan (2011)” Policy LIV 22.7 (Consider Landmarks and Views) needs to be followed. The pictures below highlight the existing view of H-23 buildings (in the floodplain) as seen from above the bluffs to the west. As you can see, these roofs are highly visible to the current residents above the floodplain. View (from floodplain) of obstructed bluffs by current H-23 development in floodplain ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 197 View (from bluffs – Northern Lights Drive) of current H-23 development in floodplain Distant View (from bluffs – Cinquefoil Lane) of current H-23 development in floodplain ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 198 Other Issues: • Nature: o Heron Rookery – There is an existing Heron Rookery near the intersection/boundary area of the 2 parcels. Current policy requires an 825 foot buffer/exclusion zone around the area during the nesting season. (Policy LUC 3.4.1 (E)).This needs to be protected during construction and should be maintained as a wildlife resource on a permanent basis. Please see map below for reference. o Wildlife – Given the abundance of wildlife in this natural area, we belief a Wildlife Quantification Study would be warranted for the area to insure that proper mitigation can be done during the development plan reviews. o Elevated Walkways (South parcel) – Considering that much of this area is wetlands, it would seem prudent to elevate portions of nature viewing areas and/or trails to accommodate the changing seasonal environment and fragile grounds. • Traffic & Safety: o Traffic & Pedestrian Safety (Harmony Road) – Given the high traffic flow on Harmony Road and the desire to have access to the Arapahoe Bend Nature Area, care should be given to safe highway crossings. Additionally, as the area is developed, there will be increased traffic flows on Strauss Cabin Road. Safe pedestrian crossings need to be developed. “FC City Pan (2011)” Policy T 12.5 (Safe & Secure) and Policy T12.6 (Street Crossings) need to be followed. o Traffic Flow & Pedestrian Safety (Strauss Cabin Rd) – Given the high traffic flow on Kechter Road (including a very narrow bridge across I-25) and the desire to have access to the Eagle View Nature Area, care should be given to safe highway crossings. Additionally, as the area is developed, there will be increased traffic flows on Strauss Cabin Road. Safe pedestrian crossings need to be developed and speed limits managed to insure safety at crossings. “FC City Pan (2011)” Policy T 12.5 (Safe & Secure) and Policy T12.6 (Street Crossings) need to be followed. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 200 20281084 Carolynne C. White Attorney at Law 303.223.1197 tel 303.223.0997 fax cwhite@bhfs.com 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 main 303.223.1100 bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP February 6, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: February 20, 2020 Planning & Zoning Board Agenda Item 3, Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment for the Gateway Area (“Amendment”) Dear Planning & Zoning Board: This firm represents the owner of virtually all of the privately owned property (“Property”) included within the proposed Harmony Corridor Gateway area, Harmony McMurray, LLC (“Owner”). With this letter, we set forth a summary of Owner’s comments on the proposed Amendment for the consideration of the Planning & Zoning Board and for the record. As a threshold matter, the Owner generally agrees that the Harmony Corridor Plan and corresponding zoning is somewhat outdated and needs updating. In that regard, we agree with the general direction of the proposed Amendment in the sense that it seeks to diversify the desired mix of land uses allowed within the Gateway area and allow a mix of uses which is more tailored to current market needs. As many of the staff are aware, the Owner originally sought to propose an amendment along similar lines. However, as the Owner has also discussed with staff since the inception of the current staff-proposed update, the Owner objects to several of the additional changes proposed, particularly in the Standards and Guidelines, which limit or reduce the ability to develop the Property to such a degree as to render it infeasible to develop. The Amendment as submitted for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board is based on development scenario (“Scenario D,” described in the Staff Report at p. 11) which is infeasible from a market standpoint, and the feasibility of which has not been evaluated by staff in recommending the Amendment. This letter explains in more detail the Owner’s concerns in this regard. It should also be noted that the Staff Report and package presented to you for decision making this evening, while summarizing in great detail and giving great weight to the comments and concerns of neighbors residing near the Property, does not mention at all the Owners, or their comments regarding the proposed Amendment. The only evidence of the Owners’ position is the letter dated February 25, 2019 (which, incidentally, notes that the excessive undeveloped land requirements constitute a taking). The Owners have had numerous meetings and submitted numerous comments to staff since that time, and its position regarding many of the issues in that letter remains unchanged. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 201 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board February 6, 2020 Page 2 20281084 A package which completely omits any reference to the sole property owner affected by the proposed changes and the severe negative impacts to its property, is not a complete, or valid basis for decision making. Background and History As a threshold matter, existing constraints to development on the Property already make the property already difficult and expensive to develop. The Property is the site of a former gravel mine, and includes several former gravel pits, presently filled with water, which will need to be filled at significant cost in order to develop the Property. Additionally, the Property will require the design and construction of a floodway channel, a lengthy process that will require coordination with FEMA and CDOT, as well as the City, and imposes significant cost on the Property. The Property overlies a high water table, which requires that any utilities must be installed at a greater depth, and pursuant to heightened specifications, further increasing development cost. The Owner has already spent a great deal of time and resources evaluating and designing solutions for these problems, as well as working with staff to evaluate alternative development scenarios. Specific Concerns The proposed Amendment would further restrict the developable area, increase development costs, and decrease the potential revenue generating capability of the Property. In particular, the Owner objects to the following provisions of the Amendment  Standards and Guidelines requiring 40% undeveloped open space.  Standards and Guidelines requiring 140 – 190 foot setbacks from Harmony Road and I-25. Nowhere else in the City does the Code or Comprehensive Plan require such significant open space or setbacks – not even in places where the Code seeks to protect extraordinary habitat or wildlife values. While some may think that the Property contains such extraordinary habitat or wildlife values, it should be noted that the City has declined on several occasions to purchase or even accept a donation of any portion of this land for management by the Natural Areas department. The 40% open space requirement would take an additional approximately 55 acres from the Owner, and would also increase landscaping and maintenance costs for not only this 55 acres, but also the entire property. Similarly, the setback and landscaped buffer requirements would take approximately 12 acres from the Owner, while also increasing landscaping and maintenance costs. These additional constraints, when added to the existing constraints on development of the Property, push the Property over the threshold, rendering it infeasible to develop. Acquisition of Open Space Without Compensation We are also concerned that it appears the City is seeking to acquire open space and community separators without paying for either. There is a clear history demonstrating the City’s goal of preventing development on this property dating back to at least 2005. This position has been stated in a variety of City staff summaries, presentations and memos over the years since 2005. Several City Council members, past and present, have stated a goal of preventing development of the Property on various public occasions. The Staff memo itself notes, on page 4, that City staff has considered the opportunity to ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 202 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board February 6, 2020 Page 3 20281084 purchase the property but declined, due to “costs and liabilities of mining permit closeout, water augmentation and site restoration.” All of these factors also affect the ability of the Property to develop. Within the last 30 days the Owners have proposed to the City that the City consider purchasing or accepting a donation of all or a portion of the Property proposed for open space, which the City has declined. As numerous courts have noted over the years, it is not fair to require a single property owner to bear a public burden which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The requirement to leave at least 40% of the property undeveloped, particularly in light of this history, takes the Owners property without compensation, which is prohibited under state and federal law. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Amendment, and, at a minimum, to ensure that the record reflects the viewpoint of the Owner. We request that the Planning & Zoning Board decline to recommend the Amendment in its current form to the City Council. Sincerely, Carolynne C. White cc: Brad Yatabe, Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett, City Attorney ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 203 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 204 The alternative Harmony Corridor Plan “Stakeholder Proposal” The City’s Planning & Zoning Board staff has developed (3) “alternative” scenarios to what they originally proposed as a Harmony Corridor Plan Update. The original proposal was rejected by the City Council as being too dense/highly developed and not characteristic of what the voting citizens of Fort Collins wanted to see for a Fort Collins community-oriented “Gateway”. As you will see in the summarized chart below, (2) of the newly proposed scenarios (B &C) still allow for 90+ % development of the area. (Land Use mix was minimally changed to essentially lower the amount of allowable retail). As Citizens, we believe this misses the point of what multiple City policies have consistently conveyed of the community’s vision for the “Gateway” area. Scenario D is a step in the right direction with 40% open space, but the development mix is still not appropriate for our “Gateway”. We interpret appropriate criteria for this area to include the City’s policies on “Corridors & Edges”, an “Open Lands & Natural Areas” connection between Arapahoe Bend & Eagle Ridge/Fossil Creek Nature areas, a development honoring the “Poudre River Corridor”, and initiatives for increasing “Culture and Recreation” opportunities for our citizens. (Policy attached) Stakeholders believe any future multi-use development in the area should create a “Sense of Place” by addressing these City policies. This would be accomplished by including a specific 20% minimum for a “Cultural Use” category which could promote such things as a “Visit Fort Collins” Welcome Center, a weekend Farmer’s Market space, a public cultural “art-park”, local artisan craftsmanship retail spaces, celebration of our historical roots with farm to market restaurants, and educational “Exploring Nature/Wildlife” areas for covering our waterways, the wildlife, and our unique “Heron Tree” nesting area. This may require a public/private partnership to make this concept economically viable. Despite this challenge, it should still be included as part of the vision & priorities for our City’s primary “Gateway”. This can be accomplished while still allowing for a “reasonable” level of development that minimally adds to an already congested traffic flow in the Harmony Road corridor. It also meets the City Council request for an alternative “down-zoning” scenario. The Stakeholder Proposal column summarizes the criteria. Criteria Description Scenario A Current Harmony Corridor Plan Scenario B City Proposal Scenario C City Proposal Scenario D City Proposal Stakeholder Proposal Mixed Use/Land Mix No Yes Yes Yes Yes - Employment Min% 75 20 20 20 10 - Comm/Retail Max% 25 50 50 50 15 - Residential Min% 25 25 25 25 15 - Civic/Community Limited No Limits No Limits No Limits Limited - “Cultural Use” Min% N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 - Open Space No No No 40 40 Density/Intensity - Building Heights 6 0ffice/3 Res 6 0ffice/3 Res 6 0ffice/3 Res 5 0ffice/3 Res 5 0ffice/3 Res - “Big Box” Retail Not allowed Allowed Not Allowed Not allowed Not allowed - Drive-thru Rest. Not allowed Allowed Not Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Site Characteristics - Trail Connector No Yes/Minimal Yes/Minimal Yes/Minimal Yes/Maximum - Heron Protection Nest Season Nest Season Nest Season Nest Season Year Round - Tree Maturity/Size Small/Med Small/Med Small/Med Small/Med Med/Large - Architecture Stnds Standard High High High High - Other Standards No Yes Yes Yes Yes Corridors and Edges The concept of “Corridors and Edges” is articulated in the “FC City Plan – 2019. (also in the “Natural Areas Master Plan - 2014)”, and the FC Land Conservation Plan – 2004). City Structure Plan (FC City Plan – 2019 p. 105) “Types of corridors and edges identified on the Structure Plan map include: • Parks and Natural/Protected Lands; • Community Separators; and • Adjacent Planning Areas “Green” corridors such as the Poudre River, streams, drainage ways and trails collectively create a network that links open lands to areas of the city where residents live and work. Edges form the boundaries of our community, both inside and outside the GMA. In some cases, edges are defined by adjoining communities. In other cases, edges reflect a transition from the developed areas of Fort Collins to the rural character of Larimer County. The City will recognize planning efforts within the growth management and planning areas of the adjacent communities of Laporte, Wellington, Timnath, Windsor and Loveland. These edges will take on many forms, including open lands and natural areas, foothills, agricultural/rural lands and rural neighborhoods.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 206 Open Lands & Natural Areas Nature Areas & Land Conservation (FC Natural Areas Master Plan - 2014, p. v) “For example, conservation at the local level can play a vital role in connecting biological corridors that would otherwise be disconnected by urban development… In the case of the Poudre, biologists note that riparian corridors in Colorado are the primary reservoirs of biological diversity in the state. The City’s history of conserving land along the Poudre, and more recent efforts to reconnect the river to its floodplain.” Environmental Health (FC City Plan – 2019 pp. 60-61) • Policy ENV 1.3 - Nature in the City “Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the GMA by: o Directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible; o Identifying opportunities to integrate or reintroduce natural systems as part of the built environment to improve habitat in urbanized areas and expand residents’ access to nature; o Utilizing green infrastructure to manage storm water and increase greenspace in public right-of-ways and as part of public and private development; and o Supporting the use of a broad range of native landscaping that enhances plant and animal diversity.” • Policy ENV 1.5 - Access to Nature “Design trail routes in open lands to limit ecological impacts. Determination of type of trail or suitability for access will be made through an analysis of potential ecological impacts and city- and region-wide recreation opportunities. Special attention will be given to environmentally sensitive and context-sensitive trail design, location and construction. Mitigation strategies will be pursued to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts if a new trail is built. Ensure that development activities provide and maintain access to public open- land areas, where appropriate.” • Policy ENV 1.6 - Wildlife Corridors “Conserve and enhance wildlife movement corridors through a network of public open lands and natural habitat buffers along natural features such as streams and drainage ways.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 207 Poudre River Corridor Poudre River Corridor (FC City Plan – 2019 p.65) • Policy ENV 7.2 - Siting and Design of Recreational Features “Locate and design recreational features within the Poudre River Corridor in a way that avoids or minimizes impacts to natural areas, wildlife habitat, water quality and other environmental values. Place emphasis on integrating natural, environmental, historical and cultural values within new public recreation sites.” • Policy ENV 7.3 - Visual Resources “Locate and design development and/or recreational facilities within the Poudre River Corridor to best maintain or enhance views of the Poudre River, its natural setting, the protected corridor features, and the foothills and mountains.” Poudre River Corridor (FC Natural Areas Master Plan – 2014 p.30) • LOCAL FOCUS AREAS “Local focus areas encompass stream corridors, foothills habitat, and pockets of open land within and near Fort Collins city limits that provide opportunities for a variety of land protection goals, including wildlife habitat, recreation, agriculture, and land in the local focus areas tends to have higher costs for acquisition as a result of development potential. Stewardship costs are also typically higher due to greater recreation pressure and restoration needs due to impacts from past land use and urbanization.” • POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR “The Poudre River, often considered the life blood of the Fort Collins community, is not only a critical water source for irrigation, drinking, and industry, but also a haven for wildlife and recreationists. Resource values include wildlife habitat, floodplain, and watershed protection. The City has a strong desire to protect and enhance the natural state of the river by expanding its current inventory of natural areas from the canyon mouth to I-25. Continued protection along the river will ensure floodplain protection, habitat, and migration/travel corridors for both wildlife and people.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 208 Culture and Recreation Sense of Place & Culture (FC City Plan – 2019 pp. 51 & 72 & 41) • 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 drainage ways to connect to destinations such as schools, open lands and neighborhood centers.” • Policy CR 2.3 - Public and Private Partnerships “Develop and maintain effective public and private partnerships to provide a comprehensive system of parks, common open lands and outdoor spaces that are distributed equitably throughout the community and accessible to all.” • Policy SC 4.3 - Community Gardens and Markets “Support cooperative efforts to establish community gardens; support and maintain new and existing local producers; and encourage retail opportunities, markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares.” • Policy LIV 3.2 - Access to Outdoor Spaces “Incorporate Nature in the City principles and other outdoor amenities into the design of high- density projects, particularly in areas lacking convenient and direct access to nature.” • Policy LIV 3.3 - Gateways “Enhance and accentuate the community’s gateways, including Interstate 25 interchanges and College Avenue, to provide a coordinated and positive community entrance. Gateway design elements may include streetscape design, supportive land uses, building architecture, landscaping, signage, lighting and public art.” • 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.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 209 Note: The areas shaded in red identify scenario criteria that allow for the highest density/intensity. The areas shaded in dark green identify criteria that is different from most of the other scenarios, resulting in less density, more “Gateway” type cultural content, and more environmental/wildlife sensitivity. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 205 commercial areas. The existing, low density residential uses in the surrounding neighborhoods are main- tainedmaintained and enhanced. As business activ- ityactivity expands, new housing stock of a mix of types and densities is introduced as integral parts of the business and indus- trialindustrial parks and mixed use areas. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 152 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 151 easareas except in specified areas where a mix of residential and commercial uses are encouraged in a live-work environment. All residential areas are encouraged to include a mix of single family and multi- family dwelling units of differing types and densities. Other uses such as parks and schools are also expected to develop in the future to serve the expand- ingexpanding residential areas. Since the late 1970’s, development in the Harmony Corridor has been especially attractive and sensitive to the unique char- acteristics and importance of the area. The decision by Hewlett-Packard to lo- cate in this corridor has had the positive effect of attracting other light industries and office users. The quality of recent commercial and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 150 POLILCIESPOLICIES PLAN (1979), an element of the City’s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, is the offi- cial statement of long range planning policy regarding a broad variety of land use planning issues including growth management, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 149 cushions between the adjacent residential neighbor- hoodsneighborhoods and the commercial areas. The existing, low density residential uses in the surrounding neighborhoods are main- tainedmaintained and enhanced. As business activ- ityactivity expands, new housing stock of a mix of types and densities is introduced as integral parts of the business and indus- trialindustrial parks and mixed use areas. Formatted: Font color: Auto, Not Strikethrough ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 tial neighborhoods from intrusive or disruptive development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 82 Harmony Corridor has been especially attractive and sensitive to the unique char- acteristics and importance of the area. The decision by Hewlett-Packard to lo- cate in this corridor has had the positive effect of attracting other light industries and office users. The quality of recent commercial and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 80 • Eagle View Natural Area was purchased immediately south of the area across Kechter Road. • An Overall Development Plan (ODP) was approved for the south side of Harmony Road based on the requirement for 75% ‘Primary’ uses (non-retail employment and institutional uses). A Convenience Shopping Center was subsequently approved under the ODP as a ‘Secondary use’. The ODP presumes filling of ponds and complete reshaping of the floodplain. • An apartment complex was built at the southwest corner of Strauss Cabin Road. • Regional traffic volumes continue to increase on Harmony, Strauss Cabin, and Kechter Roads. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 would require increasing cooperation and decreasing competition for sales tax among regional cities and towns at their edges along I-25. • The retail industry saw the evolution of “big box” superstores, power centers, and lifestyle shopping centers, all serving an increasingly regional market. • In 2003, the Larimer County Events Center and the Centerra Lifestyle Shopping Center opened. • Retail/commercial activity and competition for sales tax has changed rapidly and becoming increasingly aggressive along the I-25 corridor. The interstate has become a focus of annexations and development, with advocates of regional metropolitan ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 north side of Harmony Road was purchased by the City as the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. (With the exception of the commercial property abutting the northwest corner of the interchange which remains under County jurisdiction at the present time.) • The Transportation Transfer Center (TTC, aka park-n-ride), was built on the north side of Harmony Road, by the City and CDOT (on land purchased from the Natural Areas Program). The TTC and Arapaho Bend implemented ideas described protected wetland, wildlife and vegetative areas were described in the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 intended to be the permanent land use on the property. The technical complexity of the water issues is beyond the scope of this plan, similar to the floodway issues noted above, and are interrelated with the floodway issues. For planning purposes, at least two of these ponds should be considered as likely to be completely changed, with exposed water significantly reduced by filling and grading. The habitat value associated with the ponds has been increasing with time as ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 rest of the corridor. The plan’s direction for additional work based on ‘Alternative A’ included a listing of Implementation Actions—giving direction on the additional work needed. Over the past 25-plus years, a large body of that work along with new information, changed conditions, developer initiatives, studies and analysis has led to this 2020 amendment which sets forth a vision to fulfill the direction of the original plan. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 Research & Development/Flex District Industrial District Neighborhoods Other Rural Neighborhood Suburban Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Parks and Natural/Protected Lands Community Separator BOUNDARIES City Limits Growth Management Area (GMA) Adjacent Planning Areas HOW TO USE THE STRUCTURE PLAN The Structure Plan establishes a broad vision for future land uses in Fort Collins. In most cases, land use categories generally follow existing parcel lines, roadways and other geographic boundaries. If the place-type boundary shown on the Structure Plan map does not follow an existing parcel line, the actual delineation of place types will be established at the time of a proposed re- zoning and development submittal. Underlying zoning was reviewed and considered as updates to the Structure Plan were made to ensure that consistency between planned land uses and zoning could be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. However, in some instances, place-type categories do differ from underlying zoning, as was necessary to meet the broader objectives of the Plan. To fully achieve the Plan’s objectives, re-zoning may be required when some properties develop or redevelop in the future. Future zone changes should generally adhere to the place-type boundaries depicted on the Structure Plan, but ﬂexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted provided the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained in this Plan. Density ranges outlined for each place-type category are based on gross acreage and are intended to address overall densities for a particular area rather than for individual parcels. The Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool; rather, it should be considered in conjunction with the Transportation Master Plan and the accompanying principles, goals and policies contained in City Plan. P RICHARDS LAKE PARK GREENBRIAR PARK SOFT GOLD PARK RABBIT BRUSH PARK LEGACY PARK LEE MARTINEZ COMMUNITY PARK ALTA VISTA FREEDOM PARK SQUARE PARK GRANDVIEW CEMETERY CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE CITY PARK ROSELAWN CEMETERY ROGERS PARK EASTSIDE PARK OVERLAND PARK AVERY PARK EDORA COMMUNITY PARK INDIAN LILAC HILLS PARK PARK SPRING PARK BLEVINS PARK ROLLAND MOORE COMMUNITY PARK WOODWEST PARK LEISURE PARK BEATTIE PARK SPENCER ROSSBOROUGH PARK PARK SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK COLLINDALE GOLF COURSE WARREN PARK ENGLISH RANCH WESTFIELD PARK PARK TROUTMAN PARK GOLDEN MEADOWS PARK LANDINGS PARK RIDGEVIEW PARK HARMONY PARK MIRAMONT PARK TWIN SILO COMMUNITY PARK FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK SOUTHRIDGE GOLF COURSE RADIANT PARK REGISTRY PARK HOMESTEAD PARK COTTONWOOD GLEN PARK WATER'S WAY PARK CRESCENT PARK ARCHERY RANGE §¨¦25 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 £[287 £[287 ¬«14 ¬«1 ¬«392 W HORSETOOTH RD V E RM O NT DR S LINK LN S SUMMIT VIE W DR W H E AT O N DR S T I MBE R LI N E RD C O R B E TT D R W T ROUTMA N PKWY LA D Y M O O N DR S N O W M ES A DR E STUART ST N HOWES ST W LAUREL ST A UT U M NR I D G E D R TI C O N D ER O G A D R E LAUREL ST C O N S T I T UTIO N A V E W H A L E R S W A Y T RI A N G L E D R C ARIBO U D R W WILLOX LN LITTLE JOHN LN JE R O M E ST P O NDE R O SA DR W VINE DR BUCKINGHAM ST COUNTRY CLUB RD MAPLE HILL DR T I L D E N S T E SW A LLOW R D E ELIZABETH ST G RE E NFIE LDS D R S EN E C A S T C O L O N Y D R E PITKIN ST CINQUEFOIL LN H I G H C A S T LE D R MORNINGSTAR WAY CUSTER DR Y O R K S H I R E S T RICHARDS LAKE RD REMI NGTO N ST W MOUNTAIN AVE E WILLOX L N BAR HARBOR DR FO S S I L CREE K PKWY C A RRI A G E P K W Y K EEN L AND D R S T ETS O N C RE E K D R ME A D O W L A R K AVE TRUXTUN DR THORE A U RD R IG D EN P K W Y N MASON ST CHERRY ST RE D M O U NTAIN D R B R I TT A N Y D R NA N CY G R A Y A V E MCHUGH ST S O U T H R I D GE G REE N S B L V D COLUMBIA R D W P R O S PEC T RD H INSD A LE D R LAPORTE AVE MA NH A TT A N A V E L OC H W O O D D R C E N TE N N I A L R D W PLUM ST GARGANEY DR ST A R F L O W ER D R S LOOMIS AVE WABAS H S T W I L LI A M N E AL PKWY B R IGH T W ATER DR B OA R DWALK DR PROVI N CE R D D U N B A R A V E N LEMAY AVE W SWALLOW RD ZEP H YR RD W ELIZA B ETHST HICKORY ST ROC K CREEK D R B O N H O M M E R I C H AR D DR KI N G S L E Y D R STOVE R S T E COUNTY ROAD 50 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR AVO N D A L E R D OA K RI D G E D R H A M P S HI R E R D W A T E R GL EN D R SYKES DR I N TE R N A TI O NA L B LVD CONIFER ST MILES H OUSE A V E ST A NF O RDRD W DRA K E RD SPRING PARK DR ABBOTSF O RD ST T IMB E R CR EE K D R E COUNTY R RIV E RSID E A V E M C CLELLAN D DR W LAKE ST W S T UAR T S T GREG O RY R D E HORSETOOTH RD E SKYWAY DR E MULBERRY ST N SHIELDS ST P A DD I NGTON RD N TIMBERLINE RD ZIEGLER RD COUNTY ROAD 54G W HARMONY RD W DOUGLAS RD S HOWES ST KECHTER RD R E D W O O D ST S COLLEGE AVE THOREAU DR W MULBERRY ST LINDEN ST S O V ERLAND TRL 9TH ST MID P OINT D R DO N ELLA C T CENTER AVE MAIN ST E PROSPECT RD W TRIL BY RD PARK W O O D DR E LI N COLN A VE TECHNOLOGY PKWY S MA S O N S T CE N TR E AV E PROSPECT PARK WAY E HARMO N Y RD TIMBERWOOD DR E MO N R O E DR S COU N TY R O A D 1 3 TER R Y L A K E RD S L EM A Y AV E E T ROUTMAN PKWY E DRAKE RD JO HN F K E NNEDY PK W Y N COLLEGE AVE E S U NIGA RD BUSC H D R S COUNTY ROAD 11 E VINE DR COUNTY ROAD 42C CARPENTER RD S COU N TY ROAD 5 S COUNTY ROAD 7 E TRILBY RD RE S EARC H B LVD N COUNTY ROAD 17 E COUNTY ROAD 48 N COUNTY ROAD 19 INVERNESS RD STR A USS CAB I N RD S TAFT HILL RD E COUNTY ROA D 30 Y 287 N TAFT HILL R D E COUNTY ROAD 52 E COUNTY ROAD 54 E DOUGLAS RD S COUNTY ROAD 19 N COUNTY ROAD 5 GIDDINGS RD N COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 9 STAT S SHIELDS ST NOVER LAND T R L W COU N T Y ROA D 3 8 E S C E N T EN N I A L D R E MOUNTAIN AVE Muskrat D i tch Lindenm e ier O utlet Richar d s Lake Inlet B u r n s T r i b u t a r y Coll e ge Lak e Inlet JacksonDi t c h Smith Cr e ek D ixon C reek Sta n ton C reek Stone C reek M ail Cre e k Trilby Lateral L a n g G u l c h F oot hills Chann e l Coy D itch Coo p er Slo u gh Terry Lake Inle t F o ss Spring Cr e ek A rthur Di t ch Little C ache la P o u d r e Dit c h Cache la Poudr e Re s Inl e t Di x o n Cana l Boxelder Ditch F o s sil Creek Re s ervoir O She r wood Later a l M cClellands Cre e k N o 8 O utl e t D ixon Canyon Lateral Fossil Creek Reserv o ir Inlet N ew M ercer D itch Mail Creek Ditch New Mercer Ca n al Pl e asant V alley and Lake Canal Larime r Cou n ty C a nal No 2 Terry Lake Richard's Lake Horsetooth Reservoir Long Pond Claymore Lake Harmony Reservoir Sheldon Lake College Lake Lindenmeier Lake Larimer and Weld Canal Lee Lake Robert Benson Lake Warren Lake Duck Lake Portner Reservoir Parkwood Lake Dixon Reservoir Lake Sherwood Fossil Creek Reservoir Donath Fossil Creek Reservoir Outlet Rigden Reservoir North Gray Reservoir South Gray Reservoir Trap Baker Lake Nelson Reservoir COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTHILLS CAMPUS TIM WINDSOR Structure Plan Map ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 26 stated hereon. ANNEXAnON INFORMAnON: Contlgu«is Boundary • 200.00 fHt / Minimum / / / Cc-n/ / tiguous / - lndicotes FHt Required Current - City 125.00 of Fort fHt Collin$ Boundary line ,. "' Cf) �� w <( I- 0 1:;rii �d"' I" ,: oi�r o U ri CfJ !iliH I (f):l .,; o" <( z� � � g ;;; t� I- el �� i iH 0 0:: �:;�· <( � �� :s=: w I- (u � � � Cf) I ; I ,1 .; ct: �� a I § � � ;� � �! p !i � uj ; f5 � �i'i�i§!.JOEI.-Jm .. let.f§ l t"' fi � - ""'""" _,,o ONE OF ONE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 17