HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/01/2008-RegularApril 1, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Bonnie Adamson, 1444 Front 9 Drive, League of Women Voters, expressed the League's strong
support for maintaining community separators between the cities and towns of Northern Colorado.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, asked why Fort Collins would not meet the 2010 goals for
greenhouse gas reduction.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson Street, stated his concern that the goal set in 1999 for reduction of
greenhouse gases by 2010 would not be met. He urged Council to adopt the recommendations from
the Climate Task Force and to work to meet the goals set for 2010.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, urged Council to adopt a resolution calling for the withdrawal of
U.S. troops from the war in Iraq.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, thanked Shamrock Taxi for providing free transportation
to disabled persons and senior citizens so they could attend the transportation summit last week.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Manvell stated having annual goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases would be
a good measure of progress towards meeting the 2020 goal.
Councilmember Ohlson stated citizens were strong in their support of the importance of open space,
natural areas, trails and community separators. He asked for the reasons why the city will not meet
the 2010 goals for greenhouse gas reduction.
Councilmember Roy stated community separators are important to maintain.
Councilmember Poppaw stated open space and community separators are part of the core values of
the community.
213
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Troxell thanked Shamrock Taxi for giving to the community by providing transit
services to the regional transportation summit held last week.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the City is striving to meet the 2010 goals for greenhouse gas reduction and
progress has been made.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there was no change to the published Agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 4.2008 Regular Meeting and the
March 11, 2008 Adjourned Meeting_
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Proiects Fund -
Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements Project, Phase III For Construction of Road
Improvements.
Arterial street improvements have been planned for the construction of Ziegler Road, from
Environmental Drive south to Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on March 18, 2008, appropriates funds for the Project. The Drake and Ziegler
Project has been a City project using funds from Street Oversizing Fees and developer
contributions from Rigden Farm and Sidehill developments.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2008, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins.
Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development ofthe
Authority.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2008, expands the
boundaries ofthe Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) District to include
the following properties:
Fort Collins Regional Library District Main Library, 201 Peterson Street (owned by
the City of Fort Collins)
Library Park, 207 Peterson Street (owned by the City of Fort Collins)
Fort Collins Museum, 200 Mathews Street (owned by the City of Fort Collins)
This annexation resulting in a boundary line adjustment will effectively amend the DDA's
Plan of Development.
214
April 1, 2008
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2008, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
Ordinance No. 036, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2008,
authorizes the lease of City property located at 6916 South College. This lease is for land
only and does not allow use of City -owned water on the property. The City has leased this
property for hay production since 2003 and would like to continue leasing the property.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2008, Authorizing the Use of the Zimmerman
Conservation Easement as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2008, authorizes the
use of funds already spent on this conservation easement as a match towards a grant from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS will be entitled to monitor and enforce the
conservation of the Zimmerman property pursuant to the match obligation, which will be
recorded against the property. The $250,000 grant will fund Rocky Mountain Bird
Observatory's (RMBO) critical research and monitoring work to form conservation strategies
and management for 28 high priority grassland birds within the Laramie Foothills Mountains
to Plains Project and in the Chihuahuan Desert of Mexico.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2008, Desi ng ating the E. J. Gregory Property
Whedbee Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 038, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2008,
designates the E. J. Gregory Property, 215 Whedbee Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
owners of the property, Christopher J. Reid and Rosemary Davenport, are initiating this
request.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2008, Desi ng ating the Bradley House, 1609
Remington, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 039, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2008,
designates the Bradley House, 1609 Remington, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of
the property, Timothy Sharkey, is initiating this request.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund -
Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements Project, Phase III For Construction of Road
Improvements.
215
April 1, 2008
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2008, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins,
Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authority.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2008, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2008, Authorizing the Use of the Zimmerman
Conservation Easement as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2008, Designating the E. J. Gregory Property, 215
Whedbee Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2008, Designating the Bradley House, 1609
Remington, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all
items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Mary Atchison, President of the Fort Collins Regional Library District Board of Trustees, presented
the annual report on the Regional Library District. She noted many services have been restored and
the hours of operation have been increased. The intergovernmental agreement between the District,
City of Fort Collins and Larimer County has been signed.
Councilmember Roy asked what the cost would be to the Library District if the Town of Wellington
is successful in its attempt to remove property from the Library District. Brenda Cams, Executive
Director of the Regional Library District, stated the exact amount is not known, but the greater
implication would be the impact on other library districts.
City Manager Atteberry noted Fort Collins was recognized in Forbes and Money magazines as a
place that offers outstanding business opportunities. He stated Linden, a local graphics/marketing
company, has been hired to help with the design of an alternative City logo. Linden will provide
several logo options. Two public forums will be held to gather public input. There will be three
options for the City Manager to choose between: (1) stay with the old logo; (2) stay with the new
logo; or (3) choose a new design.
City Manager Atteber y stated Alamosa, Colorado is having significant community health issues
related to its public water supply. Fort Collins Utilities has helped Alamosa by providing a water
tanker truck and a mobile chlorination unit.
216
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Roy attended a recent Air Quality Advisory Board meeting where Boardmembers
received a presentation from staff on an issue coming before Council. He requested staff present
issues to boards and commissions before the issue is presented to Council at a work session as the
input from the boards and commissions is valuable to Council at that time. He acknowledged the
special recognition given to Councilmember Ohlson on February 15 for his longtime commitment
to preserving open space in Fort Collins and serving its citizens.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the Fort Collins Housing Authority has accepted 11 participants into
its tenant -based housing vouchers for the community dual -disorders team program.
Ordinance No. 031, 2008,
Amending Chapter 23, Article III of the City Code for the Purpose
of Adding a Division Regarding Encroachment Permits for Newsracks
Postponed to May 6, 2008 or May 20, 2008
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 4, 2008, the City Council adopted on First Reading, Ordinance No. 031, 2008, pertaining
to newsrack condominiums. The Ordinance presented to the Council on Second Reading has
changed slightly from that which was presented on First Reading. A summary of the changes is
listed below:
• Section 23-97. Due to Code publication restrictions, the map of the "Newsrack
Condominium Area, " has been removed from the ordinance and a definition of "Newsrack
Condominium Area " has been added to indicate that the area is shown on a map which will
be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk The boundaries of the area have not changed;
• Section 23-100 has been revised to limit the indemnification language to free standing
newsracks and that portion of newsrack condominiums that the publishers are required to
maintain;
• Section 23-101(e)(3) has been revised to clarify that the 300 foot spacing requirement does
not apply to individual newsracks in the same cluster;
• Section 23-101(g) has been revised to clarify that individual newsracks will be allowed
within the downtown boundary until at least nine locations have been designated for
condominiums by the City Manager and the condominiums have actually been installed;
after that, all publications must be included within the condominiums. Language has also
been added to more clearly state the criteria that will be used by the City Manager in
determining condominium locations;
217
April 1, 2008
• Section 23-102(a) has been revised to clarify that pay publications will be generally located
in the upper areas of the condominiums to better assist customers in the use of coin boxes,
and beyond that, spaces will still be allocated through a random selection process, and
• Section 23-103(c)(1) has been revised to delete the prohibition against placing newsracks
within the "sight triangle " at street intersections. This change was made at the request of
the Publisher's Coalition. If newsracks within the sight triangle prove to be problematic
from a safety standpoint, Engineering staff will recommend an amendment in the future to
address that concern.
On March 13, the Downtown DevelopmentAuthority Board of Directors approvedfunds to purchase
condominiums at three additional locations within the downtown boundary, for a total of 12
locations.
Ordinance No. 031, 2008 was adopted on First Reading on March 4, 2008 by a vote of 4-2. (Nays:
Roy, Troxell; Absent: Brown)
Kelly DiMartino, Community and Public Involvement Director, noted the changes to the Ordinance
since First Reading. After the adoption on First Reading, staff has made changes to address concerns
expressed by the publishers. The publishers had noted that the City should not hold them responsible
for the condominiums when the City and the DDA would be the owners of the condos. The
Ordinance now states the publishers would only be required to indemnify the City for the portion the
publishers maintain and for their individual newsracks placed outside the downtown area. The
interim time between passage of the ordinance and actual construction of the condos has been
clarified to allow individual newsracks in the downtown area until condominiums are actually
constructed in at least nine locations. The map of the downtown area that was included in the First
Reading has been removed as placing a map in City Code causes technical difficulties. The language
has been amended to state the map is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Placement and spacing
of newsracks on sidewalks has been clarified. Pay publications will generally be located on the top
portion of the condominiums. The "sight triangle" requirement has been removed. The publishers
were quite concerned with the limitation of publications to nine locations in the downtown area and
wanted more locations to be allowed. The Downtown Development Authority has authorized
funding for three additional locations for condominiums within the downtown area.
City Manager Atteberry stated staff believes the condominiums are a good solution to address the
problem of aesthetics and maintenance in the downtown area. He suggested Council continue this
item to a future date if it wants to work on further compromise.
Chip Steiner, Downtown Development Authority Director, thanked Council for its support of
condominiums on First Reading of the ordinance and stated the DDA would revisit its participation
after any proposed modifications have been formalized.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, requested recycling of paper be brought into the discussion on
newsracks.
218
April 1, 2008
Michael Mockler, Editor of Scene magazine, thanked Council for working towards further
compromise and taking into consideration the effect of the proposed changes on small businesses
such as his magazine.
Ben Mosher, Lyric Cinema Cafe, did not support the use of condominiums in the downtown area.
Seth Anthony, 1225 West Prospect, Northern Colorado ACLU, stated the ACLU opposes the
ordinance as it is currently written as it suppresses freedom of the press. He urged Council to pursue
a more collaborative approach to solve the issue of aesthetics.
Veronica Nitchie, 2750 Annelise Way, asked what process would be used to expand the number of
condominiums or remove extra condominiums, depending on the demand. She questioned why the
current Code requirements were not being enforced.
Christine Chin, Publisher of the Coloradoan, stated the publishers have suggested a compromise that
was a mix of condos and corrals and would address all the parties needs related to aesthetics,
maintenance, locations, unique identity and free speech. She thanked Council for considering the
compromise and working towards a more collaborative solution.
David Short, Downtown Business Association Executive Director, supported the use of condos only
in the downtown area. The DBA is willing to discuss a compromise and he asked that current
newsrack problems be addressed by staff.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, did not support the use of condominiums in the downtown area.
Councilmember Troxell stated the downtown area is thriving and the publication business is an
important part of the business community. He asked for a financial impact statement about the
operation of condominiums by the City. DiMartino stated the maintenance cost has been included
in the funding appropriated through the DDA.
Councilmember Troxell asked if changes to enforcement and the permitting process will be
considered. City Manager Atteberry stated staff will follow the permit process and enforcement
contained in the proposed City Code changes. DiMartino stated better enforcement will occur with
the more specific Code changes. City Code currently does not allow strict enforcement. City
Attorney Roy noted the ordinance primarily addresses the permitting process and the requirements
related to newsracks citywide and contains significant changes in those regulations. He stated it
would be helpful to staff to have a clear sense of direction from the Council as to the scope of the
changes the majority of Council would like to have made to the ordinance.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2008, until the first or second meeting in May so that City staff and
the publishers can develop an optional version of the ordinance that will allow for both newsrack
condominiums and newsracks in the downtown area.
219
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Manvel stated this issue was brought to Council by the downtown business
community who support a condominium system for the newsrack problem. The condos come in
modules that can be removed if the demand for space in condominiums lessens. Staff has estimated
the cost of maintenance would probably be less to maintain condominiums. He suggested a
compromise where condominiums are placed in the most congested areas of downtown and allow
small clusters of newsracks. The compromise must address the problems that exists downtown.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the area proposed for condominium use only is a very small part of
the geographical area of Fort Collins. To keep downtown healthy takes constant support and work.
The Ordinance is one way to protect the downtown area. He was willing to listen to additional
proposals and work towards a compromise that addresses the downtown issues.
Councilmember Brown stated the ordinance was the wrong approach to take and would harm
publication businesses. The problem of aesthetics should be resolved by cooperation between the
publications and downtown businesses.
Councilmember Manvel asked that the ordinance discuss condominiums and newsracks as separate
items. Newracks will be located in other parts of the city and most of the language in the ordinance
addresses those newsracks. He supported a limited number of condos in the downtown area with
more control available in the downtown and enforceable regulations for the rest of the city.
City Attorney Roy asked if Council wanted staff to reconsider the requirement of condos in favor
of condos plus corrals or newsracks. Within that issue the question arises of whether Council wants
control over the size and orderliness of the clusters. The corrals would serve that purpose. If corrals
were not required, the other regulations do not speak to the size and orderliness of clusters. Council
needs to decide if a majority supports any changes in other parts of the ordinance. Specific direction
is necessary to ensure the changes reflect Council's thinking.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the postponement of consideration of this item is not to start from scratch
and develop a new ordinance. A significant process has been followed and the current Ordinance
was passed on First Reading. This postponement was to allow some flexibility so there is not a "one
size fits all" solution. The downtown businesses came to Council and asked that the problems be
fixed. Having flexibility to examine which areas definitely require condos, such as the intersection
of College and Mountain, is important. Other places in the downtown area may not require condos.
Newsracks could be allowed and a solution could be found to solve the problem of aesthetics and
maintenance. The City Manager and staff need to advise Council as to whether any possible
compromise will solve the problem.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the motion is not about the Ordinance itself, but was made to allow
more time for compromise to occur and to develop a solution that is better for the majority involved.
City Attorney Roy asked if the intent of the motion was to postpone the item until May and, in the
interim, allow staff to work on a revision to that portion of the ordinance (Section 23-101(g)) that
speaks to where newsracks, within the newsrack condominium area, have to be placed.. He asked
if Council wanted the postponement to allow for further discussion of a compromise on where and
220
April 1, 2008
how newracks need to be located and displayed in the downtown, whether just in condominiums,
condominiums and corrals, or condominiums and individual newsracks. Staff would not revise any
other portion of the ordinance, except to align the language to meet with this change.
Councilmember Roy stated it did not seem likely that compromise will be reached unless the entire
Ordinance is revisited and all aspects made available to be changed.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the option is to either adopt the Ordinance on Second Reading now or to
allow time for revision, but not to reinvent the entire ordinance. Much work has already gone into
the process and starting over would negate much of that work.
Councilmember Manvel stated a reasonable proposal would be for a certain number of condos to
take the place of large clusters of newsracks. A certain number of other downtown locations would
be allowed for clusters of newsracks, with a limited number allowed in each location. Having extra
controls in the downtown area along with the regulations for newsracks in the rest of the city would
be preferable.
Councilmember Troxell stated Section 103(c)(3) of the Ordinance states no newsrack may be used
to advertise anything other than the newspaper or periodical sold therein. He noted many newsracks
contain community service notices, such as CSU events and community events and he did not think
those notices should be prohibited. He agreed to address this change to the Ordinance on Second
Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for more information as to what advertisements could or could not
be allowed in this section of the Ordinance, such as prohibiting for profit ads, but allowing public
service notices for community events.
City Attorney Roy clarified the direction given is for staff to focus on where newsracks should be
placed in the downtown area.
Councilmember Manvel supported the concept of a mix of condos and newsracks, with the option
of returning to the issue at a later date if the newsracks were not maintained on a voluntary basis.
Councilmember Troxell requested language be added to the ordinance that would not allow
newsracks to be secured to private property without written permission of the property owner. City
Attorney Roy clarified the request was to change Section 101(e)(8) to add "without the permission
of the property owner so that it would be possible to do so with permission."
Mayor Hutchinson stated the language change request could be addressed on Second Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
221
April 1, 2008
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2008- 035
Affirming the Adoption of the Update to the Cooper
Slough Basin Stormwater Master Plan, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
The capital cost of all identified improvements in the Master Plan Update is $11.8 million.
Approximately $5.9 million of that will be built in conjunction with and paid for by development.
The remaining $5.9 million will be paid by the City Stormwater Fund with revenue from stormwater
rates and development fees. This will not require an increase in rates or significantly affect the 30-
year stormwater program build out.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, Council adopted the City's Stormwater Master Plan. Since that time, a more detailed
analysis has been completed for the portion of the Cooper Slough Basin above the Lorimer -Weld
Canal (north of Vine Drive). This information provides guidance for storm drainage capital
improvements andrequirementsfordevelopingproperties in thispart ofthe basin. CityCodeallows
for stormwater master plans to be updated by the Utilities General Manager. The Utilities General
Manager approved the Cooper Slough Master Plan Update known as Upper Cooper Slough in
August 2007. A major property owner in the basin, Anheuser-Busch Inc, has requested City
Council affirm the General Manager's approval.
IJt[ysfelilZ/�
The City's current Stormwater Master Plan was adopted in 2004. The Master Plan analyzed each
stormwater basin's flooding and water quality problems and provides general direction for
stormwater management. The Master Plan includes:
Recommendations for cost effective projects to reduce flood damages to homes and
businesses, the potential for the loss of life, as well as, reducing the over topping of roads,
railroads and irrigation ditches.
2. Provides guidance for new development.
3. Provides guidance for enhancement to the riparian habitat along stream corridors to
improve water quality.
4. Provides guidance for stabilizing streams where necessary.
222
April 1, 2008
When the City's Stormwater Master Plan was adopted in 2004, the entire Cooper Slough Basin was
analyzed; however, detailed information to guide future activities in the basin was only provided
below the Larimer- Weld Canal (Lower Cooper Slough). The portion ofthe Master Plan related to
Upper Cooper Slough (above the Larimer- Weld Canal) still needed to be developed. The Update
has now been completed and an executive summary of that Master Plan is attached.
Elements of the Update
The upper portion of Cooper Slough basin is sandwiched between the Dry Creek and Boxelder
Creek basins and encompasses about 26 square miles. This area is largely outside of the City's
Growth Management Area and is farmland with some urbanization taking place.
The major elements of the Update include a regional detention pond north of the Lorimer- Weld
Irrigation Canal; an outfall for the portion of the basin west of the No. 8 Outlet Irrigation Ditch;
safety, aesthetic and water quality improvements to the No. 8 Outlet Irrigation Ditch; water
treatment best management practices to protect the Cooper Slough below the Larimer-Weld Canal;
further study to address the stability and lack ofvegetative diversity ofthe lower slough; and various
road, irrigation ditch, and railroad crossings.
The No. 8 Outlet Irrigation Ditch flows north to south on the west side of the basin. It carries a
large amount of storm runoff and as well its normal irrigation flows. The existing ditch is
characterized by unsafe, steep, unsightly and unstable banks, has limited habitat value and
contributes negatively to water quality. A plan was developed to improve its safety, expand its
habitat value and decrease its impacts on water quality.
Impacts on the Lower Cooper Slough
Cooper Slough, now located in the County and in the lower portion of the basin, is a valuable
natural resource for the area. Cooper Slough has the potential to be impacted by future
urbanization. An assessment was performed on Cooper Slough by a consultant specializing in
wildlife habitat assessments, to define what the implications might be offuture urbanization in the
basin.
In regard to groundwater flows in the Slough, the report stated as increased urbanization occurs,
there will be an increase in groundwater flows. The Slough would remain more in a "warm -water'
condition andpotentially an increase in more migratory and winter use by waterfowl. However, this
increase would be limited due to the poor structural diversity in vegetation along the Slough and
narrowness of the water channel.
The report did raise a concern that increased surface flows along the Slough could have an effect
on the Slough. The report identified the importance of doing Best Management Practices (BMPs),
such as cleaning up the surface flows before they reach the Slough or reducing the amount of
surface flows would reduce the impact significantly. The design ofthe large detention ponds above
the Larimer-WeldCanal will play an important role in protecting the Slough by the incorporation
ofwater quality treatment in their design. Also, with adoption ofthe Master Plan, new development
223
April 1, 2008
in the basin would have to provide on -site BMPs when they develop. The report also recommends
that the City continue to study the Slough to address its stability and identify measures to increase
the diversity of its vegetation and to continue to monitor the water quality in the Slough.
Adoption by the Utilities General Manager
Section 26-543 of the City Code allows for updates or enhancements to current master plans to be
approved by the Utilities General Manager as long as the updates are for the sole purpose of
enhancing the existing master plan and does not diminish the general purpose or specific objectives
of the adopted master plan and does not diminish the ability of the plan to address the disposition
of stormwater. The Utilities General Manager approved the Update to the Cooper Slough Basin in
August 2007. Since that time, a major landowner in the basin, Anheuser-Busch Inc, has asked City
Council to affirm the General Manager's adoption of the Master Plan Update.
Public Outreach
The development of the Update to the Cooper Slough Master Plan was a collaborative effort
between the City and Anheuser-Busch Inc. City staff performed one-on-one public outreach with
the other property owners in the area, primarily large -tract property owners. The Update was
reviewed by the City's Water Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning
Board. Both the Water Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board took formal action and
adopted motions recommending adoption ofthe Update. The Planning and ZoningBoarddiscussed
the matter at a work session and did not take formal action on the Master Plan Update.
Bob Smith, Water Planning and Development Manager, stated the Cooper Slough Basin Plan has
been split into the Upper Cooper Slough and the Lower Cooper Slough. The original Master Plan
was adopted in 2004 for the entire Slough. At that time, the Master Plan delineated the entire Basin
and identified the amount of flows but it only provided the improvements necessary below the
Larimer-Weld Canal. It did not provide the necessary improvements for the area north of the Canal.
This Update provides detail for the area north of the Canal and will be used to guide new
development and needed infrastructure improvements. This Update does examine the water quality
for the Lower Cooper Slough as the original Master Plan did not cover that aspect. The Update has
been approved by the Utilities Executive Director, as allowed by City Code. The Natural Resources
Board and the Water Board both recommend adoption. The major landowner in the area, Anheuser-
Busch, has requested Council affirm the action of the Utilities Executive Director.
The Cooper Slough Basin is west of I-25, between the Boxelder Basin and the Dry Creek Basin,
covering approximately 26 square miles. The Lower Cooper Slough is within the City's Urban
Growth Area, with about half of the Lower Cooper Slough located within City limits. Regional
improvements are listed in the Master Plan and include railroad crossings and road crossings, canal
crossings, Lower Cooper Slough water quality and habitat improvements. New development would
be required to pay stormwater plant investment fees, stormwater monthly fees, provide onsite water
quality features, maintain existing detention, provide new detention for the development and the
conveyances features to pass the flows through the Basin. Improvements to the No. 8 Ditch are also
listed in the Update. New development will increase the groundwater flows, which could cause
224
April I, 2008
erosion in the Lower Slough. This Update provides an opportunity to develop a vision for the area
and improve the water quality before the water enters the Slough.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the location of the proposed detention ponds in the Plan on private
property would prohibit the property owner from using that portion of the property. Smith stated
staff has worked with the property owners to determine the best location and configuration for the
detention ponds.
Councilmember Manvel noted the cost of the improvements is estimated at $11.5 million, with half
to be paid by developers as development occurs and the other half paid by general stormwater funds.
He asked if the ponds would count as a contribution -in -kind towards the developer fees. Smith
stated a detention pond would count as a contribution -in -kind, if there were a regional component
to the pond. When a property is developed, the developer is required to detain and release runoff
water at the 2-year historic rate for that property.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for an explanation of why the Update was done. Smith stated the
Update provides a vision and direction for future developments. Currently, the discharge flow rate
for this area is not included in the Master Plan. The Update gives authority to examine water quality
to maintain or enhance the Cooper Slough. Jim Hibbard, Water Engineer/Field Service Manager,
stated the Update provides the blueprint for the development of properties in the area to ensure
orderly development and proper management of stormwater issues. He noted the Stormwater Utility
is examining all polices to ensure "best management practices" are in place. The Update provides
guidance, but it does allow flexibility as new techniques and practices are developed.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why Anheuser-Busch would not be required to detain developed
runoff at 2-year historic rate. Hibbard stated the Master Agreement with Anheuser-Busch requires
that it not discharge any more than 100-year historic flows. If Anheuser-Busch develops part of its
property, it will be allowed to discharge the 100-year rate, but it cannot increase the discharge rate.
The Master Agreement with Anheuser-Busch will expire in 2012 and the discharge rate could be
renegotiated at that time. Anheuser-Busch cannot damage downstream property by discharging more
stormwater, but the provisions of its Master Agreement are not as stringent as what has now evolved
in the rest of City. Staff had discussions with Anheuser-Busch about amending the Master
Agreement but Anheuser-Busch would not agree to any amendments. Smith noted the Update takes
into account the agreement with Anheuser-Busch and its runoff rates and it gives guidance for future
developments.
City Manager Atteberry asked for staff s opinion about the discharge flows allowed by Anheuser-
Bush. Hibbard stated the Update puts the City on a much better footing with regard to dealing with
Anheuser-Busch and other property owners in the Cooper Slough area. The Anheuser-Busch Master
Agreement with the City, signed in 1982, contains items that would not be accepted today. The
Update does provide a clearer understanding in areas that were previously vague. This Master Plan
will allow the City to work with Anheuser-Busch when it does propose new development. The Plan
does limit the amount of water it can dump on downstream properties.
225
April I, 2008
Councilmember Roy asked what improvements have been implemented in the Lower Cooper Slough
since the Master Plan was adopted in 2004. Smith stated no improvements have been made as the
Lower Cooper Slough is located in Larimer County. No structural improvements north of Mulberry
were identified in the original Master Plan. Hibbard stated $15 million of improvements were
identified in the Lower Cooper Slough Basin as a part of the 2004 Master Plan. This area is located
in Latimer County so the County would have to make those improvements. City staff will work with
the County and the Natural Resources Department to identify the vision for the Slough.
Councilmember Roy asked if improvements to the Upper Slough would cause damage to the Lower
Slough. Smith stated the interaction between the Upper and Lower Slough were examined and the
Update does include a water quality study for the Lower Slough. Hibbard noted future development
could have a negative impact on the Slough and the stormwater improvements are needed to ensure
that development impacts are minimized by using best management practices and all tools available.
Councilmember Roy asked why only the Upper Cooper Slough is included in the Update. Hibbard
stated the Resolution addresses stormwater improvements in the Upper Cooper Slough and the
impact of development in the Upper Cooper Slough on the Lower Cooper Slough. It directs staff
to take measures to ensure the Lower Cooper Slough is not damaged by development in the Upper
Cooper Slough.
Councilmember Manvel asked what improvements were proposed for the Lower Slough and why
the cost of such improvements was much greater than the cost of improvements for the Upper
Slough. Hibbard stated most of the $15 million in improvements to the Lower Slough are
concentrated at Mulberry and I-25 and south, in areas that are already developed. Few improvements
are proposed from the Larimer-Weld Ditch, Vine Drive and Mulberry.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why water quality data for the Cooper Slough had not been collected
before now. Hibbard stated the area is not in the City limits but collection of water quality data will
now be added to the City's collection points.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what mitigation efforts would be done to lessen the impact of
increased volume of runoff in the Slough and what percentage of funds would be used to improve
habitat. Hibbard stated the quality of habitat of the streams and wetlands would be improved.
Stormwater Utility spends approximately $1 million per year on habitat, wetlands and educational
programs. The proposed Update is providing structure and guidelines for development to occur, but
it is not removing any property from a floodplain.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why Anheuser-Busch requested Council approval of the Update.
Hibbard stated staff wass uncertain of Anheuser-Bush's reasons for requesting Council approval.
Anheuser-Busch has invested much money in a consultant who worked with City staff in developing
this Update and Anheuser-Busch seems to want Council affirmation of the Update to protect its
investment.
Councilmember Roy asked for a list of circumstances that might damage the Lower Slough after
actions are taken in the Upper Slough and what mitigation plans have been developed. Hibbard
226
April 1, 2008
stated the City is committed to moving forward with improvements projects for the Lower Slough
after more data has been gathered and design work has been done.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2008-035.
Councilmember Ohlson stated staff must continue to develop and monitor mitigation measures to
limit the harm done to Lower Cooper Slough when the runoff from the Upper Slough increases due
to increased development.
Councilmember Troxell stated the Water Board and Natural Resources Board unanimously endorsed
this Master Plan Update.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Northeast Corner East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning,
Postponed to April 15, 2008
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-028 Amending the City Plan Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the
Northeast Corner of the Prospect Road and I-25 Interchange.
B. Resolution 2008-029 Amending the I-25 Subarea Plan.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the
Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning.
This is a request to amend the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone
105 acres located at the northeast corner of I-25 and East Prospect Road.
The current Structure Plan map and I-25 Subarea Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres is the
Employment District; the designation for remaining 19 ofthe 105 acres is the Urban Estate District.
The applicant proposes amendments to the Structure Plan map and I-25 Subarea Plan to change
existing Employment into Commercial Corridor and change Urban Estate into Employment along
with corresponding rezonings to the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District. As
indicated, the applicant is proposing amendments to existing City plans because the requested
rezonings are not consistent with the Structure Plan map and I-25 Subarea Plan. In order for
Council to approve the rezonings, amendments to the existing plans will be necessary.
227
April 1, 2008
BACKGROUND
In June 2007, the City received two rezoning requests for properties adjacent to the Prospect
Road/I--25 interchange. Neither request was consistent with the existing land use designations for
the properties as depicted on the Structure Plan map or the maps and policies of the I-25 Subarea
Plan. The rezoning request at the Southwest corner of the interchange for 143 acres ofEmployment
District was not consistent with City plans which showed the area as a Commercial Corridor
District (25 acres) and open space (118 acres). The rezoning request at the Northeast corner of the
interchange for 66 additional acres of Commercial Corridor and 39 acres ofEmployment was not
consistent with City plans which showed the area for a larger 86 acre parcel of Employment, 30
acres of Commercial Corridor, and 20 acres of Urban Estate District.
Rather than decide immediately to recommend denial of the rezoning requests to the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council based on inconsistency with adopted City plans, staff took the
opportunity to do a detailed review for land uses around the interchange. The review was intended
to determine the pattern for land uses around the interchange as a benefit to the City as a whole,
independent of the specific rezoning requests. Staff recognized that the rezoning requests could
elevate the importance of the interchange in the City's economic development efforts. In total, the
requests could net an additional 96 acres ofEmployment District to provide locations for primary
jobs in the community and could net an additional 55 acres of Commercial Corridor District for
retail development. The resulting Commercial Corridor parcel size in the Northeast corner would
be large enough for the development of major regional retail uses.
In their simplest forms, the rezoning requests represent a shifting of land uses already expected in
Cityplans to develop adjacent to the interchange. For example, instead of25 acres of Commercial
Corridor developing at the Southwest corner, the results of the rezonings could be that those acres
would be shifted to the Northeast corner. And, instead of 86 acres ofEmployment developing in the
Northeast, the results of the rezoning could be that most of those acres would be shifted to the
Southwest corner.
After reviewing the rezoning requests in detail, staff determined that the requests represented a
better land use pattern for area around the I-25/Prospect interchange than the land uses in existing
Cityplans. Since neither rezoning request was consistent with adopted Cityplans, staffdecided to
recommend approval of the changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map in order
to help justify the rezonings to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
In October 2007, the City Council agreed to amend the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan
map and approved the rezoning requests for the Southwest corner ofthe Prospect/I-25 interchange.
The rezonings specifically changed 25 acres of C, Commercial District and 118 acres of POL,
Public Open Lands District to 143 acres of E, Employment District.
Staff is recommending changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map and approval
of the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial District into 66 acres of C, Commercial District and 20
acres of E, Employment District; and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate District to
the E Employment District. The Northeast corner rezonings would result in at total of 96 acres of
228
April 1, 2008
C, Commercial zoned area (66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres of existing C zoning) and 39 acres
of E, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide a buffer between the 96
acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east. The table below
summarizes the land use data.
Comparison of Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
for the Northeast Corner of the Prospectll-25Interchange
Existing Zoning
Acres
Proposed Zoning
Acres
Commercial
30
Commercial
96
Industrial
86
Industrial
0
Employment
0
Employment
1
39
Urban Estate
19
Urban Estate
0
Total
135
Total
135
The next table indicates the available supply of buildable lands within the GMA boundary for each
of the affected zoning districts, the existing supply and the supply if the Northeast rezoning were to
be approved.
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Acres and Available Acres if the Northeast Rezoning Were Approved
Zoning District
Existin Acres
After Rezoning
Commercial
422
488
Industrial
724
638
Employment
853
892
Urban Estate
2,254
2,235
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/I--25 interchanged is based on:
City Council direction to staff indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level
of "commercial " use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located
in the Southwest quadrant of the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange. Staff concluded that
rezoning a portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment) would
encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as
an attractive community gateway, and would be in the best interests of the City.
a. Short history: The Utilities Department operated a sludge application process on
the property until transferring that operation to other sites in northern Larimer
County. The Natural Resources Department purchased 144 acres from the Utilities
Department to be preserved as open space, the Running Deer Natural Area, and in
2003, purchased an additional 151 acres as open space. In May 2004, the City
Council, following the policies and implementation actions contained in the I-25
Subarea Plan, rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E, Employment into the POL, Public
229
April 1, 2008
Open Lands District. At the time ofpurchase, the eastern portion of the RRFwas not
described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas
Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City.
Because the eastern portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low
natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning
process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In
August of 2005, the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF
property with the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council
indicated its general preference for a higher level of "commercial" use for the
property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural Resources Department
concluded that rezoning a substantial portion of the property (118 acres) from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment would be in the best interests of the City.
Employment zoning would allow the property to be used for economic development
purposes. The adopted I-25 Subarea Plan - as well as other constraints on the
property, would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves an
aesthetically pleasing viewshed from I-25 as well as protect adjoining areas with
high natural values (namely Box Elder Creek and the Running Deer Natural Area).
The rezoning request excluded Boxelder Creek, as it will remain zoned POL.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the
Northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange requesting a change in zoning
of 86 acres of I, Industrial and 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate.
The table below combines land use data for both the Southwest and Northeast rezoning requests.
The table indicates the amount of acres in each land use category prior to the rezoning requests and
the amount of acres in each land use category if both rezoning requests were to be approved.
Comparison of Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
for the Southwest and Northeast Corners of the ProspectlI--25 Interchange
Existing Zoning
Acres
Proposed Zoning
Acres
Commercial
55
Commercial
96
Industrial
86
Industrial
0
Employment
0
Employment
182
Urban Estate
19
Urban Estate
0
Public Open Lands
118
Public Open Lands
0
Total
1 278
1 Total
1 278
The next table indicates the available supply of buildable lands within the GMA boundary for each
of the affected zoning districts when considering the areas in both the Southwest and Northeast
corners of the Prospect/I-25 interchange, i.e., the existing supply and the supply if the Northeast
rezoning were to be approved.
230
April 1, 2008
Buildable Lands Inventory After Approval of the Southwest and Northeast Rezonings
Zoning District
Existin Acres
After Rezoning
Commercial
447
488
Industrial
724
638
Employment
710
892
Urban Estate
2,254
2,235
The City Council will ultimately need to decide if City plans should be amended for the proposed
land use patterns. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are
separate, independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests
are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Said another way, the rezonings are
designed to realign the City land use regulations with the preferred land use patterns as shown on
the respective plans.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the Northeast corner is:
Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a
community/regional retail center in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect Road/I--25 interchange?
The rezoning requests represent a significant land use and economic development policy issue to
add the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the limited inventory ofsites within the GMA boundary suitable
for the development of community/regional retail uses. Such sites are necessaryfor the City to
maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado.
Land Use Planning
Fundamental land use issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the Northeast corner are:
Recognition that I-25 is no longer an eastern urban edge of the community as previously
contained in City Plan visions.
o More specifically, the area on the Structure Plan map east of the Fort Collins GMA
showing Rural Land Use to make a clear distinction between urban uses inside the
Fort Collins GMA and rural uses outside the GMA is no longer valid. Initially, the
land uses east of I-25 depicted a transition from high intensity urban uses
(commercial and employment) adjacent to I-25, to urban estate residential (maximum
oft units/acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (1 unit/2.29 acres) outside
the GMA.
The land uses adopted in the recent Land Use Plan amendment to the Timnath
Comprehensive Plan have changed the vision for the area east of the Fort Collins
GMA from rural residential to higher density residential uses and urban types of
employment and commercial land uses.
The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA create the need for Fort Collins to
reconsider the land uses on the Structure Plan map.
231
April 1, 2008
The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA will have impacts (largely unknown at this
time) on the City ofFort Collins' land uses, economy, infrastructure, and public services and
facilities.
The City's plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context ofwhat
is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, and
regionally, along the 125 corridor.
The Prospect/I-25 interchange was previously identified in the I-25 Subarea Plan as an
"activity center. "
The rezoning includes changing 19 acres f •om Urban Estate to E, Employment; and 20 acres
of I, Industrial to E, Employment, for a total of 39 acres of E, Employment. The current
Urban Estate zoning is not feasible f •om a marketing/quality of life standpoint; it is unlikely
anyone will choose to build an estate home so near the interstate and adjacent to commercial
uses. The employment rezoning of this area makes sense; provides a better buffer to the
existing estate subdivision; and adds to the inventory of employment land. Based on
comments f •om a neighborhood meeting conducted in September 2007, the existing residents
preferred the employment zoning.
Part of the reason for enlarging the C zoning in the Northeast is to devote about 20 acres
oflandtothepropermanagement oftheBoxelderCreekfoodplain. Portions oftheproperty
currently zoned C, Commercial will be "lost" to foodplain and/or storm drainage
management areas. Hence, the proposed zoning, enlarging the commercial zoned property,
is partially in response to this.
The loss of commercial zoning, about 25 acres in the Southwest corner of the Prospect
Road/I--25 interchange needs to be compensated for by increasing the amount ofcommercial
zoning in the Northeast corner.
The amount of commercial zoning should maximize the capability of providing
sufficient ground to locate a community/regional retail center at the Northeast
corner.
The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of
economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that the interchange
maximize the abilityfor the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses.
Rezoning Question: Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the
development ofa community/regional retail center in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect
RoadII--25 interchange?
o The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an
expanded role in the City's economic development strategies.
232
April 1, 2008
Economic Development
Fundamental economic development issues to be addressed in the rezoning requestfor the Northeast
corner are:
Recognition that sales tax revenues are vital to the City's economic (budget) health and the
provision of municipal services and facilities.
Fort Collins' position as a regional retail trade center is weakening; regional shopping
patterns are shifting as new centers become operational; because of its central location and
ease of access, the 1-25 corridor is quickly becoming the primary regional retail corridor in
Northern Colorado.
Community/regional retail centers are key contributors to City sales tax revenue.
The competition for retail sales tax dollars is significantly different now than in
previous years. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado
market, undeveloped community/regional retail sites need to be provided in desirable
locations.
The Downtown, the Foothills Mall, Harmony Road, and South College Avenue are
typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations in the City.
However, these locations cannot accommodate largerformat regional retail centers,
because they are largely built out. With such a limited supply ofsites suitable for the
development of community/regional retail uses, Interstate interchanges need to be
considered as locations for regional retail trade.
A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate
future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next ten years
an increase ofapproximately 1.5 million feet ofregional retail space is anticipated. Ifthe
City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City
needs to allow regional retail sites to locate along Fort Collins' interchanges.
Transportation
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA) and the City have little/no funds to aid in the reconstruction of the Prospect/I-25
interchange, a key transportation entryway, and related street improvements.
It waspreviously not anticipated that the responsibilityfor improving the Prospect/I-
25 interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners
using public/private partnerships. The reality is that for the past ten years or more,
interstate interchanges throughout Colorado have been built/improved through a
combination ofprivate and local funding sources.
233
April 1, 2008
A regional/community retail center the Northeast quadrant could help contribute tax
revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/I--25 interchange improvements and
related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, development from
all four quadrants around the interchange will need to contribute funding to improve
the interchange.
The rezoning requests need to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities
(APF) requirements. Development plans for parcels in the Northeast quadrant must include a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the
development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) on City streets (not the interchange) and
the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin
construction, developments must either build the needed improvements, or have funding
appropriated that will cover improvement costs.
The Site:
The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows
N: C, Commercial and LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, undeveloped
E: County FA-1, Farming, Kitchell Estates, large lot residential subdivision, and UE, Urban
Estate, undeveloped 100 acre parcel owned by the Poudre School District
S: C, Commercial, and County Commercial, partially developed retail and office uses
W.• C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 235 acre Galatia Annexation
in 1990 and zoned HB, Highway Business, JP, Planned Industrial, and RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential Districts. All of the zoning districts had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
condition attached which required development proposals to be reviewed against the criteria ofthe
Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) which was the City's PUD ordinance at the time.
In 1997, the 235 acres of the Galatia Annexation were rezoned as part of the City Plan
comprehensive community rezoning. The 30 acres of HB, Highway Business was rezoned C,
Commercial; the 86 acres of1P, Planned Industrial was rezoned I, Industrial; and the 119 acres of
RLP, Low Density Planned Residential was rezoned UE, Urban Estate. The HB, IP, and RLP
Districts were eliminated from the Land Use Code in 1997. No parcels were rezoned as a result of
adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan in 2003.
Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre School
District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields and school bus
storage.
City Plan and the 1-25 Subarea Plan
In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan map
showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four quadrants immediately adjacent to
234
April 1, 2008
the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange; Employment District designations for other areas in the
Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast quadrants; Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation
in the Northwest quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors designation for other
areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan map also identified the needfor additional planning
in the I-25 corridor and designated the area as the " I--25 Special Study Corridor. " In addition, City
Plan's chapter on Principles and Policies contained the following:
PRINCIPLELU-4: More specific subareaplanning efforts willfollow the adoption
of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's citywide
perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as
priorityfor future subarea planning:
• I-25 Corridor
Concurrent with the development ofthe 1-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi jurisdictional cooperative
planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan. The
planning boundaries ofthe two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the I-25 corridor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan
studied the areafrom County Road 52 to Carpenter Road (Colorado State Highway 392). The most
significant difference between the two plans is that the subarea plan dealt with land uses in more
detail than the regional plan. The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the
participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a
transportation element, and open lands/natural areas policies. The Northern Colorado Regional
Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the City in November 2001.
In 2003, the City adopted the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points,
conclusions, and policies of the 1-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows:
• The I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 ftom around the
Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road
5 on the east.
• No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed.
• Two activity centers were identified, one at the Mulberry Street interchange and the other
at the Prospect Road interchange. The Northeast quadrant ofthe Mulberry interchange was
planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. The Northeast
quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with
commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
• Employment and industrial districts adjacent to 1-25 are to be designed in a manner as to
maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
235
April 1, 2008
• Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in
employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least % mile from I-25 to
avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within 114 mile of7--25.
• Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within 112 mile of Mulberry
Street.
• The balance ofareas planned for residential development is to be urban estate development.
• The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
• The subarea is planned to eventually be served with multi -modal transportation options. A
supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the
need to utilize I-25 for short trips.
• Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development.
Land Use Code
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the
Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates thefollowing:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundredforty (640) acres ofland
or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, 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
236
April 1, 2008
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.
NORTHEAST CORNER APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION:
The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning requests:
• The Prospect / I-25 interchange was constructed in 1966. Since its construction, traffic
volumes have increased significantly and the interchange structure has deteriorated.
• A recent North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team analysis ofthe interchange
indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTL Y experiencing afailing Level of
Service (LOS) quality F (failure).
• Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic volume
for the interchange in the next 20 years.
• North I-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate Right -of -Way (ROW)
to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and improvements to the
on/off ramps and safety lanes. As a result, any reconstruction of the Prospect interchange
must accommodate a wider footprint. The current interchange ROW will not accommodate
this widening.
• Cost estimates/projections for the interchange and Prospect Road improvements are
substantial:
o The projection for the interchange itself is $25, 000, 000.00 (excluding ROW
acquisition costs).
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect Road. west of interchange is $3, 000, 000.
o Prospect Road east of the interchange to County Road 5 is $1, 700, 000 to $2, 300, 000
(excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation of Timnath inlet
canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection).
o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1, 000, 000 to 1, 300, 000
(similar exclusions).
0 The total, thus, ranges from $30, 700, 000 to $31, 600, 000, at a minimum.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of this interchange and
related street improvements.
A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirement for
the new CSU R&D center in the Southwest quadrant as well as for the property owner's
anticipated project or other developments on the interchange corners. A new interchange
will serve as a "Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by the University. Ifthe City wishes to have
this interchange constructed anytime in the near future, it will likely need to be funded by a
public/private financing vehicle.
The I-25 Subarea Plan and the current Overall Development Plan (ODP) on the property
were developed prior to the current interchange cost projections and proposed land use
237
April 1, 2008
changes on the City -owned property becoming available. Clearly such magnitude of
interchange constructions costs and such land use changes could not have been anticipated.
Gene Andrist, a financial planner involved with the financing of many interchanges and
other major projects throughout the state, has developed a number offunding scenarios for
public/private financing of the interchange. Increased levels of retail space at the
interchange corners appears to be the key to provide increased revenue sources to the City
to pay for interchange and related improvements.
A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate
future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years
an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is anticipated. The City is in a
very competitive market with the Towns of Timnath, Windsor and Wellington for this retail
space. If the City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales
tax) the City needs to move quickly and aggressively.
The property owners (the Whites) have been very involved in a series of planning related
studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor. Listed
below is a summary of their involvement:
BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE
Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a
group ofprivate property owners.
Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Lorimer County, Colorado Water
Conservation Board) who EQUALLYfunded the stormwater masterplan.
Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which
provided overall direction to the Alliance's efforts. The TAC:
o Prepared the Scope of Work for the engineering consultant,
0 Selected the engineering consultant,
o Provided ongoing direction to%oordination with the selected consultant
o Reviewed/commented on work products,
o Held monthly public meetings to discuss progress,
o Participated in weekly/biweekly meetings to complete tasks for the Alliance,
o Reviewed/commented on final Regional Master Plan,
o Participated in Alliance presentations to Alliance members and town councils.
Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC).
o FAC was formed to ensure financial feasibility to the engineering options.
o Independently funded legal consultant to the FAC.
o The FAC:
Completed funding analyses of the Master Plan alternatives,
Researched project financing options,
Completed damages & consequences assessments,
April 1, 2008
Developed Funding/Implementation Strategy for final Master Plan,
Coordinated with TAC in developing a recommended alternative.
Prepared list ofproperty owners in vicinity ofI-25/Prospect (400 names) for public notices.
Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues.
Coordinated with Alliance members including: Lorimer County, Town of Wellington, the
City, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, North Poudre Irrigation Company, Boxelder
Sanitation Distirict, New Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Transportation and others.
NORTHI--25 EIS
• Attended North I-25 EIS Technical Advisory Committee meetings (usually was the only
member of the public in attendance).
• Participated in all local (Group 7) meetings.
• Organized group of landowners in the neighborhood ofI-25/Prospect and advised them of
interchange issues.
• Met regularly with City Transportation staff as well as CDOT and Felsburg Holt Ullevig.,
consultants on the North I-25 EIS project.
• With City Transportation staffandotherproperty owners, influencedtheproposedalignment
and details of the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the advantage of City.
• Facilitated meetings between North I-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Stormwater Alliance to
resolve mutual issues.
• Researched and resolved historic preservation issue with North I-25 EIS team.
Organized group of local property owners concerning issues pertaining to future Prospect
Road improvements.
Coordinated regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff.
Facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Timnath Engineer, and local
property owners to address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems.
These issues included:
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west ofI-25,
o Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of Prospect,
o Boxelder Sanitation District sewer crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane,
o Relocation of Timnath Inlet canal to allow future widening of Prospect,
a Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues,
a Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal).
o With Town ofTimnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre
Valley School District and a local developer, developed cross section profile of
future Prospect ROW which is in use today.
oft]
April 1, 2008
GREELEY WATER EXTENSION & TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET)
Background: Greeley's GWET project is a 60-inch diameter waterline delivering water from their
pre-treatment plant northwest of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom
of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60
inches ofsoil making the total depth of their pipeline excavation and backf:ll approximately 12 feet.
The sheer size of this project makes it important to anticipate related issues in advance of the
project's construction. The 2007 segment of this project included a crossing of Prospect Road at
McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of I-25 at a location north of Prospect and completion to a point in
the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark The 1-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three
irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District
sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one
another.
• The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley,
Timnath, BoxelderAlliance, City TransportationlEngineeringandStormwater Departments,
the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected
landowners, and others to discuss details of the project.
• Arranged to have GWET representatives attend several Boxelder Alliance TAC meetings to
coordinate the particularly tight and complex 1-25 crossing as well as other mutual issues.
• Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GAM developers to discuss
project alignment to minimize impacts to properties in vicinity of Timnath.
• Worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the
GWET project across the District's and White's properties.
• The 2007 segment of the GWET pipeline is nearing completion.
Amendments to the Structure Plan map and the I-25 Subarea Plan
The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets forth a
basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. The 1-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides greater detail and policies
for the 1-25 corridor. For the Northeast corner, the maps in these existingplans currently designate
30 acres as commercial, 86 acres as employment, and 19 acres as urban estate (not including the
100 acres owned by the Poudre School District) in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect RoadII--25
interchange. To recommend approval of the rezoning proposal, the City Council has to find that:
1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and 2) the proposed changes would promote the
public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. The
applicable criteria are contained in Appendix C of City Plan.
Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments: Appendix C of City Plan outlines
mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor
amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states:
"A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings
that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the
240
April 1, 2008
proposed amendment; and the proposed plan amendment will promote the public
welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City
Plan and the elements thereof. "
To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary.
Attachment I contains the statements, policies, and maps which need to be amended within the I-25
Subarea Plan.
Attachment 2 is a summary of the recommended change to the City Plan Structure Plan map.
Analysis Based on Rezoning Review Criteria
How the rezoning requests address the requirements in the City's Land Use Code are summarized
below:
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
As indicated earlier, staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road11--25
interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the Southwest quadrant, and the
private property owner, for the Northeast quadrant, to determine what would be the best land use
Pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific
rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are
independent actions.
Also as indicated earlier, the requested rezonings are not consistent with the current Structure Plan
map or the 1-25 Subarea Plan for the Northeast quadrant. First, current City plans designate the
Northeast quadrant more as an Employment District (86 acres) versus a Commercial District (30
acres). The rezonings would essentially switch to focus to more ofa Commercial District (96 acres)
than an Employment District (39 acres). And, second, the 1-25 Subarea Plan identified the northeast
quadrant of the Mulberry and 1-25 interchange, not the Prospect interchange, as the potential
location of a regional/community shopping center.
Before being approved by the Council, the proposed rezoning in the Southwest quadrant was also
not consistent with the existing Structure Plan map or the I-25 Subarea Plan. Cityplans designated
the Southwest quadrant more as a Commercial District (25 acres) and open space (118 acres). The
Southwest rezonings switched the focus to an Employment District (143 acres).
In order for Council to approve the Northeast rezonings, amendments to the existing plans will be
necessary, just as Council approvedplan amendments in order to approve the Southwest rezoning.
If the amendments to City plans are approved, the Northeast rezoning requests are simply
implementation actions to the plan amendments. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to
allow additional commercial and employment land uses to develop in the Northeast quadrant ofthe
Prospect Road/I--25 interchange.
241
April 1, 2008
It is becoming more apparent that I-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The
importance ofthe 1-25 corridor to the economic development of Northern Colorado can be viewed
all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character
of areas east oft-25 from the rural, low density residential areas envisioned in both the initial City
Plan of 1997, and the 2004 update, to urban types of uses. In staffs opinion, the City's plans need
to be changed to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's Growth
Management Area (GMA) boundary.
In City Plan, one of the stated community goals is:
Fort Collins will maintain its role as a regional economic center.
As part of working toward that end, the City Council has created and adopted an Economic Action
Plan. Its purpose is to describe specific activities to enhance the local economy. Over the years, a
healthy economy in Fort Collins has been achieved by focusing on preserving and enhancing the
natural environment, preserving and maintaining programs and services that contribute to a high
quality of life, continuing to build on the success of the Downtown area, and maximizing the value
of Colorado State University in our community. The Economic Action Plan contains an Economic
Vision and Economic Values statements as follows:
Economic Vision: A healthy economy reflecting the values of our community in a
changing world.
The Plan also lists several Economic Values, including the following:
Municipal services contribute to making Fort Collins a great and visionary city and depend
on a healthy economy that fuels a reliable revenue stream.
The item above is the link between high quality municipal services and a reliable income stream.
Since the majority of the City's tax revenues come from sales tax, this is the key point of the
Economic Action Plan that relates to community/regional retail development in the I-25 Corridor.
The plan talks about being proactive regarding economic issues. The City has been proactive in
working with the developers and adjoining communities on issues of transportation and new
regionally oriented retail development. Staff routinely analyzes monthly tax collections to better
understand where the community is losing local retail opportunities and factors that information
into the City's overall retail strategy. The plan also talks about identifying key infrastructure gaps
that may stall development. This relates to groups like the Boxelder Alliance which is working on
solving floodplain issues, and on needed improvements to the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange.
Lastly, the plan talks about keeping the buildable lands inventory up-to-date to be constantly aware
of land area needs for all types of land uses and to be able to identify where community/regional
commercial activities are best directed.
In summary, staff believes that the City Council's Economic Action Plan provides a comprehensive
frameworkfor addressingjob creation objectives balanced withpursuing the rebuildingofthe City's
sales tax base. The work that has been done in evaluating the economic impact of the Mason
242
April 1, 2008
Corridor project, analysis of the plan amendment request at Prospect Road and I-25 all consistent
with the Economic Action Plan.
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
There are several changed conditions that help justify the plan amendments and rezoning request.
When the I-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003, it was assumed that the necessary improvements
to the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange would be funded by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since it was part of
the federal/state highway system. It was not anticipated that the responsibilityfor improving the
interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners using public/private
partnerships.
The competition for retail sales tax dollars is also significantly different now in 2007 than it was in
2003. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado market, undeveloped
retail commercial sites in desirable locations need to be provided. The City is lacking in areas to
attract new community/regional/community retail establishments. Interstate interchanges are the
type of desirable sites for such regional serving retail uses.
Land use plans by other jurisdictions, particularly the Town of Timnath, are changing the character
ofareas east ofI--25 from the rural, low density residential, areas shown on the City's plans, to more
intense urban uses. In June 2007, the Timnath Town Board approved an amendment to Timnath's
Land Use Plan which extended Timnath's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary north of
Timnath to County Road 52 (the northern boundary ofthe Anheuser-Busch Brewery). The Timnath
Land Use Plan also intensified the residential densities and land uses in the area to include
commercial and employment uses. This is a significant change of conditions that affects areas
within the Fort Collins GAM boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to
decrease in intensityfrom employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban
residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of I-25 are
beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of I-25. Even the 100 acres of UE zoned
property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields and school bus storage
are not low intensity, rural types of land uses.
In addition to the above, Section 2.9.4[H][3] provides factors that may be considered along with
the mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. Staff has prepared a response to each of
the additional factors, demonstrating how the optional criteria could also be met:
(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;
The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for the
Northeast corner. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from the C,
Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and east. The E,
Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial District for the property to
243
April 1, 2008
the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses.
Regulations contained in the Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the
1-25 corridor designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of setback requirements,
maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of
f oodplains.
(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;
Staff sperspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District
at the Northeast corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Again, development applications will be subject to the City's development standards relative to
natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Part of the reason for
enlarging the C, Commercial zoning in the Northeast quadrant was to devote land to the proper
management of the Boxelder Creekfoodplain.
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The Prospect RoadII--25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community gateway,
combining a balance ofeconomic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such
an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available for the development ofa mix
of commercial and employment types of uses. The City's development standards will require
adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the East Prospect Road and 1-25 rezonings and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea
Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, staff makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions as explained in detail above:
The request for amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map would be
consistent with the City Plan's overall vision, goals, principles, and policies.
2. The rezoning requests are consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, based
on the Structure Plan map amendment and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
3. The proposed C, Commercial District and E, Employment District are appropriate for the
Northeast corner and are consistent with the types of land uses previously planned for the
interchange area.
4. The proposed rezonings will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
244
April 1, 2008
5. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development.
STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval ofthe amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C Commercial and 20 acres
ofE, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment. to create
a 39 acre Ezoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential
areas to the north and east.
Staff is also recommending that a zoning condition be placed on the requested rezoning. The
purpose of the zoning condition is for the City to be able to "control" development of the entire
property via an overall development plan (ODP) if smaller parcels are sold off to other owners
before developmentplans are submitted to the City. In other words, the City can require a property
under single ownership that will develop in phases to submit an ODP for the total development of
the property, but the City cannot require other parcels/owners to also be involved under a single
ODP. Again, the zoning condition will give the City the ability to control development of the total
105 acres via an ODP.
Section 3 of the rezoning ordinance contains the following:
"That, under the authorityprovided in Section 2.9.4(I) and Section 2.2.9 ofthe Land
Use Code, the rezoning as described in Section 1 (legal description ofthe property)
is conditioned upon the requirement that all ofthe lands described in Section 1 shall
be developed under a single overall development plan, in order to insure that the
rezoning will result in a a logical and orderly development pattern. "
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on September 20, 2007, voted 7-0
to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings. "
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the request for rezoning the northeast corner of Prospect Road was
not consistent with the City's Structure Plan map and the maps in the I-25 Subarea Plan. Staff
looked at the land uses around the interchange to determine what would be the best land use pattern
for the interchange, independent of the individual rezoning request. The request was for a shifting
of land uses that were already planned for the interchange. This rezoning request is to change the
property from industrial zoning to a combination of commercial and employment zoning and
eliminating some urban estate zoning. The policy issue before Council is whether the Plans and
zoning should be amended to permit the development of a regional shopping center and employment
uses at the interchange. There are two criteria for Council to use to justify the rezoning. Council
could decide the rezoning is consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including, but
not limited to, the Structure Plan Map, the various policies within the Plan or any Subarea elements
or Council could allow the rezoning on changed conditions in the area or a combination of both. The
City Structure Plan Map forms a basis for judging rezoning requests.
245
April 1, 2008
The I-25 Subarea Plan currently states there will not be change to the Growth Management Area
boundary. It identified two activity areas at the Mulberry interchange and the Prospect interchange,
with the Mulberry interchange identified for regional retail use. Employment districts adjacent to
the I-25 Corridor were to have additional design guidelines to maintain the feel of openness with
the Resource Recovery Farm to be preserved as public open lands. The rezoning request is not
consistent with the Subarea Plan and staff is recommending amendments to the Plan. The rezoning
will result in a change in the amount of commercial zoning from 30 acres to 96 acres, which would
increase the importance of the interchange as a potential location for regional retail.
Conditions have changed since the adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan. The competition for sales tax
dollars is significantly different now. Interchanges are desirable sites for regional retail uses and
there are limited opportunities within the Growth Management boundary for new regional retail.
Staff believes this rezoning can be an important component to help the community maintain a
leading role as an important economic center.
Land use plans of neighboring jurisdictions are changing the character of areas planned along I-25.
Those plans are significantly different and are not consistent with the vision contained in the City
Structure Plan. The Structure Plan anticipates that the area east of the Growth Management Area
boundary would be a rural land use so the intensity of development would feather out east of I-25.
The Town of Timnath has adopted an amendment to its Land Use Plan that greatly changes its Plan
from one that was consistent with the Fort Collins City Structure Plan to a plan that introduces a
series of urban -type uses north of the Timnath Reservoir with increased residential densities, and
approves employment and commercial land uses for the Mulberry corridor and immediately adjacent
to the City's Growth Management Area. As a result of these changes, I-25 would no longer be an
eastern urban edge of the community as currently contained in the City Plan vision.
Improvements to the Prospect/I-25 interchange are not likely to be funded by the Colorado
Department of Transportation of the Federal Highway Administration. Using local financial
resources are probably the only way to fund necessary interchange improvements in the future.
In addition to the criteria to be used by Council in deciding the rezoning request, other criteria exist
in the Land Use Code that Council can also consider: whether or not the proposed land uses would
be compatible with existing land uses or planned land uses in the vicinity of the rezoning; would the
rezoning create any adverse impacts, particularly on the natural environment; and does the rezoning
permit development in a logical and orderly pattern. Staff feels the land uses to the north, south and
west of the proposed rezoning are designated as a mix of commercial and employment so rezoning
this property as commercial and employment would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The
employment zone would provide a good transition of land use to the residential properties located
to the north and east of the proposed rezoning site. The criteria within the Land Use Code would
deal with compatibility issues and impacts on the natural habitat, including issues that would arise
from development around the Boxelder Creek floodplain, located on the northeast corner of the
property.
David May, 225 South Meldrum, Chamber of Commerce President, encouraged Council to amend
the I-25 Subarea Plan, the Structure Plan Map and to rezone this property as requested. The
246
Apri11, 2008
interchange is a key community gateway and the rezoning will provide an important economic
development opportunity.
Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, opposed the rezoning request as it does not fit in with the
City's vision.
Jan Jackson, 4553 Quest Drive, asked for clarification of employment and commercial districts.
David White, 6810 West Chatfield, Littleton, subject property owner and designated property
manager, stated resolving key infrastructure issues before a developer becomes involved with the
property is important. He has participated in many ways to mitigate floodplain issues and has
facilitated meetings about the Prospect/I-25 interchange with neighboring property owners, the City
and other stakeholders to take all issues into account. He urged Council to approve the rezoning.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, asked whether the Prospect/I-25 interchange was the ideal location
for a potential regional shopping center. He did not support use of development funds to improve
the interchange.
Gina Janett, 730 West Oak, stated City Plan should not be amended as it is a long-range plan for Fort
Collins and the proposed rezoning will not benefit the community.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the proposed rezoning as a regional shopping center
is not needed. A shopping center located at Prospect and I-25 would only encourage citizens to drive
more and affect air quality.
Councilmember Roy asked for a brief description of the proposed zoning districts. Waido stated
there are similarities between an industrial zone and an employment zone. The difference is the
industrial zone permits heavier industry with heavy manufacturing, does not permit residential uses
while an employment zone contains lighter manufacturing in a campus setting and more office space,
and does permit limited residential uses. The commercial zone is for retail development. Urban
estate zoning is a residential -only district that permits a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per
acre. LMN zoning is low -density mixed use neighborhood zone and is the predominant zone of
vacant property.
Councilmember Roy asked if the Prospect/1-25 interchange was structurally sound. Mark Jackson,
Transportation Group Director, stated the interchange is structurally sufficient but functionally
obsolete which means it is not designed to handle the demand of traffic it is currently experiencing.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the subject property was large enough to support a regional
shopping center. Waido stated in the I-25 Subarea Plan, the northeast comer of Mulberry is listed
as a possible site for a regional retail center. However, the northeast comer of Mulberry is only large
enough to support a regional retailer, a single, large retail establishment with associated pads. The
site is not large enough to support two major retailers in a center -type of configuration. The
northeast corner of Prospect and I-25 contains approximately developable 76 acres and is large
enough for a regional retail center
The property could not be developed
247
as a mall -type of
April 1, 2008
configuration as the C-Commercial zoning requires development as a series of 10-acre block
standards that contain pedestrian/road connections so that it mirrors the downtown area.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if reducing the amount of land that is zoned Industrial by rezoning
this property to commercial would inhibit future industrial growth in Fort Collins. Waido stated
removing 86 acres from industrial zoning from the total amount of land zoned industrial would not
be detrimental as 143 acres of employment zoning was added last year to the southwest quadrant of
the Prospect/I-25 interchange. This rezoning does not take away from land uses already listed in City
Plan, but does shift the zoning to different areas.
Councilmember Manvel stated much land south and west of the Prospect/1-25 interchange is natural
area. He asked why a regional retail center would be built in an area that was not close to residential
areas. Waido stated there are some existing residential areas near the site and many more residential
areas are planned to the east as a result of the land use changes approved by Timnath.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if it was appropriate to discuss the viability of development at this time.
City Attorney Roy stated only the rezoning request is quasi-judicial. The approval of a future
development plan on the site would be a separate quasi-judicial proceeding. Any future particular
project that may come to Council on appeal should not be discussed at this time. Mike Freeman,
Chief Financial Officer, stated currently there is no specific development proposal for this property.
This zoning change will ultimately give the City more flexibility at the interchange than currently
exists. The property does not seem to be in a prime location for industrial development. The
employment zoning matches many development proposals received by the City. The rezoning that
is proposed for this property is more responsive to the proposals from the market now and in the
future. There is a different vision of use for each I-25 interchange as they are all different and only
two of the interchanges will allow more regional retail uses. The Prospect/ I-25 interchange is well
situated for this use. This site would contain a very different type of development from the
downtown area and would not be in competition with downtown. Different areas of the community
have different trade areas and different purposes in terms of the audience each serves. Any
development at this site would draw shopping from outside the community and should not compete
greatly with Fort Collins businesses.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if big box retail development had been envisioned for this
interchange. Waido stated during the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan a series of optional land
use patterns were analyzed and staff recommended a larger commercial area at the Prospect
interchange than the Mulberry interchange. As the Plan emerged, a different recommendation was
developed to make a smaller commercial site at this interchange with the focus for regional use at
the Mulberry interchange. Staff did see the potential of Prospect having a larger commercial area,
but that was not accepted by the policy makers during the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan.
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated the zoning at the interchange does contain commercial
zoning on all corners so it has always been envisioned that there would be commercial development
at this interchange such as hotels, some big box and other retail. Changes have taken place in the
retail market in this region and the perspective of where commercial uses should be placed has
changed, as well. The I-25 corridor has become a preferred market for many retailers.
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated development at Prospect and I-25 would be competing for some
retailers that would only develop one location in this area. Some retailers that might go into
Foothills Mall could decide to go to this new development instead, which would be a direct
competition with the Mall. Frank stated certain large format retailers would not go into Foothills
Fashion Mall and so would not be in competition with the Mall. Other retailers may add a second
or third store at the Prospect/I-25 location, in addition to other store currently in Fort Collins.
Freeman stated the tenants desired for the Foothills Mall are not the same tenants who would locate
at this interchange. The type of development at the Prospect/I-25 interchange is not the type of
development potential tenants at the Mall are looking for.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Harmony/I-25 interchange could develop into a regional
shopping center or if the Prospect/I-25 interchange and the I-25/SH392 interchange were the only
potential locations for a regional shopping center. Frank stated the standards and guidelines for the
Harmony Corridor are designed to allow it to develop as a mix of land uses. Using the commercial
zoning designation for the Prospect site will provide the opportunity for regional shopping. The
commercial zoning does not guarantee the site will have a regional shopping center. Many other
uses are possible with commercial zoning. The site will become a well -designed commercial
development. This is the kind of site that regional retailers who want to come into the region are
looking for. There are not any good locations inside Fort Collins for regional retailers to develop.
Councilmember Ohlson stated allowing a regional shopping center at this interchange seems
contradictory to the principles of compact urban development and City Plan. Frank stated this
rezoning is continuing the tradition of Fort Collins as a regional retail center for Northern Colorado
but the center is on I-25, not on College Avenue. This rezoning would provide for the need for this
kind of center that would not otherwise be accommodated in Fort Collins. Waido stated land use
is changing outside of the Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. Timnath has changed its land
use plan to allow high density residential in this area. There will be greater traffic from this growth
in residential and transit needs to be part of the planning process. Frank stated the Mason Corridor,
the downtown area and redevelopment of North and South College will see much growth in the next
25 years. This rezoning is a plan to capture some of the commercial uses that will not go into those
areas. Jackson stated if the site were developed with the current zoning, more traffic trips would
occur at this intersection. Development that occurs as a result of a rezoning will not create
significantly more trips. A regional retail center would draw customers from all of Northern
Colorado, not just from Fort Collins.
Councilmember Roy stated each I-25 interchange will cost $20-30 million to improve and the cost
has been shifted to local citizens. Fort Collins residents will be asked to pay a high cost for these
improvements. He asked if development at this interchange would be in competition for the same
businesses that might locate at the I-25/SH392 interchange. Freeman stated the developments
proposed for the Windsor side of the I-25/SH392 interchange would be a direct competition with the
redevelopment of Foothills Fashion Mall. Those retailers are a different market from what is
envisioned or being proposed for the Prospect/I-25 interchange. There currently is no development
proposal for the Prospect/I-25 interchange so addressing any possible competition is not possible.
249
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Roy asked what the effect of development of regional retail center at the Wellington
interchange would be on this site. Freeman did not believe such development would occur. Some
regional retailers that Fort Collins would like to see in its market perceive Prospect to be as far north
as they would go.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this rezoning request is good planning as it is consistent with City Plan
principles and the overview. The proposed zoning is consistent with the type of land uses previously
planned for the interchange area and will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment. It will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development. He has met with
Colorado Department of Transportation Director, District 4, Bob Garcia, who stated at the very
earliest, the first funding for interchange improvements might possibly occur in 2013 to 2015. It
would be unlikely the interchanges would be a priority for these funds.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if Prospect would remain a 2-lane road, despite all the development
of surrounding communities. Jackson stated Prospect will not remain a 2-lane road but should be
a 4-lane road now. The Prospect Corridor is designed to be a different type of gateway into Fort
Collins than Harmony. It does not resemble an urban corridor but has natural and protected areas.
City Manager Atteberry asked about the difference between developing the site with its industrial
zoning or with commercial rezoning. Frank stated industrial uses generally have fewer employees
and do outside storage and outside activities. The employment zoning would have indoor activities
such as research offices and light manufacturing.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the owners were willing to accept a delay in Council making its
decision. Rick White, subject property owner, stated the rezoning request has been in process for
14 months and requested Council make its decision in two weeks.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 2008-028, Resolution 2008-029 and First Reading of Ordinance No.
032, 2008 to April 15, 2008.
Councilmember Troxell stated this rezoning request meets all land use, transportation, environmental
and economic criteria. It recognizes the changing market patterns and provides a path for Fort
Collins to move into the future. He did not support postponement of consideration of the item.
Councilmember Brown stated sufficient information had been provided for Council to make its
decision and he did not agree that postponement was necessary.
Councilmember Manvel stated he and others on Council still had questions to be answered about the
rezoning request. The property owner has stated a two week delay is acceptable and he supported
the postponement.
Councilmember Ohlson stated postponement is a wise decision for Council so that all questions are
answered and the best possible outcome is achieved.
250
April 1, 2008
Councilmember Poppaw stated this was an important issue and time was needed to gather all
information possible and allow Council to make the most informed decision it can.
Mayor Hutchinson stated gathering the additional information that has been requested and taking
more time to make this decision is a prudent move.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy.
Nays: Brown, Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn the
meeting to Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. to consider adjourning into a possible Executive
Session.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
251