HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/04/2008 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER EAST PROSPE ITEM NUMBER: 26 A-C
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 4, 2008
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waldo
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Northeast Corner East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolutions.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the
requested rezonings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-028 Amending the City Plan Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the
Northeast Corner of the Prospect Road and 1-25 Interchange.
B. Resolution 2008-029 Amending the 1-25 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 Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning.
This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map,and rezone
105 acres located at the northeast corner of 1-25 and East Prospect Road.
The current Structure Plan map and 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres is the
Employment District;the designation for remaining 19 of the 105 acres is the Urban Estate District.
The applicant proposes amendments to the Structure Plan map and 1-25 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 1-25 Subarea Plan. In order for
Council to approve the rezonings, amendments to the existing plans will be necessary.
APPLICANT AND OWNER:
Land Acquisition and Management, LLC
7200 S. Alton Way Suite B 150
Centennial, CO 800012
March 4, 2008 -2= Item No. 26 A-C
BACKGROUND
In June 2007,the City received two rezoning requests for properties adjacent to the Prospect Road/1-
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 1-25 Subarea Plan.
The rezoning request at the Southwest comer of the interchange for 143 acres of Employment
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 of Employment 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 of Employment 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
City plans to develop adjacent to the interchange. For example, instead of 25 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 of Employment 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
City plans. Since neither rezoning request was consistent with adopted City plans, staff decided to
recommend approval of the changes to the 1-25 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 1-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan
map and approved the rezoning requests for the Southwest corner of the Prospect/1-25 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 1-25 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 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
March 4, 2008 -3- Item No. 26 A-C
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 Prospect/I-25 Interchange
Existing Zoning Acres Proposed Zonin Acres
Commercial 30 Commercial 96
Industrial 86 Industrial 0
Employment 0 Employment 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 Existing Acres After Rezoning
Commercial 422 488
Industrial 724 638
Employment 853 892
Urban Estate 2,254 2 235
'Be review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchanged is based on:
I. 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/1-25 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
Open Lands District. At the time of purchase,the eastern portion of the RRF was 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
March 4, 2008 -4- Item No. 26 A-C
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 1-25
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 Prospect/1-25 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 278 Total 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
comers of the Prospect/I-25 interchange, i.e., the existing supply and the supply if the Northeast
rezoning were to be approved.
Buildable Lands Inventory After Approval of the Southwest and Northeast Rezonings
Zoning District Existing Acres After Rezoning
Commercial 447 488
Industrial 724 638
Employment 710 892
Urban Estate 2,254 2,235
March 4, 2008 -5- Item No. 26 A-C
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 of the 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 of sites within the GMA boundary
suitable for the development of community/regional retail uses. Such sites are necessary for 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 of 2 units/acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (1 unit/2.29
acres) outside the GMA.
0 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.
• The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA will have impacts(largely unknown at this
time)on the City of Fort Collins' land uses,economy,infrastructure,and public services and
facilities.
0 The City's plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context of what
is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, and
regionally, along the I25 corridor.
March 4, 2008 -6- Item No. 26 A-C
• The Prospect/I-25 interchange was previously identified in the I-25 Subarea Plan as an
"activity center."
• The rezoning includes changing 19 acres from 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 from 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 from 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 of
land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. Portions of the property
currently zoned C, Commercial will be "lost" to floodplain 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 of commercial
zoning in the Northeast corner.
o 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 ability for 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 of a community/regional retail center in the Northeast quadrant of the Prospect
Road/I-25 interchange?
o The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an
expanded role in the City's economic development strategies.
Economic Development
Fundamental economic development issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for 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
March 4, 2008 -7- Item No. 26 A-C
ease of access, the I-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.
o 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.
o 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 larger format regional retail centers,
because they are largely built out. With such a limited supply of sites 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 of approximately 1.5 million feet of regional retail space is anticipated. If the
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.
o It was previously not anticipated that the responsibility for 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 of private and local funding sources.
o A regional/community retail center the Northeast quadrant could help contribute tax
revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/1-25 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.
March 4, 2008 -8- Item No. 26 A-C
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, Fanning, 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, IP, 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 of the
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 of IP, 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
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 need for additional planning in the
I-25 corridor and designated the area as the"1-25 Special Study Corridor." In addition, City Plan's
chapter on Principles and Policies contained the following:
PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption
of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's citywide
perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
March 4, 2008 -9- Item No. 26 A-C
Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as
priority for future subarea planning:
• I-25 Corridor
Concurrent with the development of the 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 of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the 1-25 corridor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan
studied the area from 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 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from 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 of the 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 I-25 are to be designed in a manner as to
maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
• 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 1/4 mile of I-25.
• Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within 1/2 mile of Mulberry
Street.
• The balance of areas planned for residential development are to be urban estate
developments.
• The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
March 4, 2008 -10- Item No. 26 A-C
• 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 the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of
land 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
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 of the interchange
indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTLY experiencing a failing 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.
March 4, 2008 -11- Item No. 26 A-C
• 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:
a 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).
o 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.If the 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 1-25 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
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 of funding 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 is 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:
March 4, 2008 -12- Item No. 26 A-C
BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE
• Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a
group of private property owners.
• Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado Water
Conservation Board) who EQUALLY funded 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,
o Selected the engineering consultant,
o Provided ongoing direction to/coordination with the selected consultant
a 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,
0 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,
■ Developed Funding/Implementation Strategy for final Master Plan,
■ Coordinated with TAC in developing a recommended alternative.
• Prepared list of property owners in vicinity of I-25/Prospect(400 names)for public notices.
• Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues.
• Coordinated with Alliance members including: Larimer 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.
NORTH 1-25 EIS
• Attended North 1-25 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 of 1-25/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 1-25 EIS project.
• With City Transportation staff and other property owners,influenced the proposed alignment
and details of the Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of City.
March 4, 2008 -13- Item No. 26 A-C
• 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.
PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
• 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 of I-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,
o Prospect/County Road 5 intersection issues,
o Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect(the Grand Canal).
o With Town of Timnath,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.
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 of soil making the total depth of their pipeline excavation and backfill 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 I-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,Boxelder Alliance,City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater 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 I-25 crossing as well as other mutual issues.
• Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GMA 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.
March 4, 2008 -14- Item No. 26 A-C
Amendments to the Structure Plan map and the 1-25 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 I-25 corridor. For the Northeast corner,the maps in these existing plans 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 of the Prospect Road/I-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 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 1 contains the statements,policies,and maps which need to be amended within the 1-25
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 Road/I-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 of a Commercial District(96 acres)
March 4, 2008 -15- Item No. 26 A-C
than an Employment District(39 acres). And,second,the I-25 Subarea Plan identified the northeast
quadrant of the Mulberry and I-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. City plans 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 approved plan 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 of the
Prospect Road/I-25 interchange.
It is becoming more apparent that 1-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The
importance of the I-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 of I-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 staff's 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 1-25 Corridor.
The plan talks about being proactive regarding economic issues. The City has been proactive in
March 4, 2008 -16- Item No. 26 A-C
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
framework for addressing job creation objectives balanced with pursuing the rebuilding of the City's
sales tax base. The work that has been done in evaluating the economic impact of the Mason
Corridor project, analysis of the plan amendment request at Prospect Road and 1-25 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 1-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003,it was assumed that the necessary improvements
to the Prospect Road/1-25 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 responsibility for 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
of areas east of I-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 of the 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 GMA boundary. 1-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to
decrease in intensity from 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.
March 4, 2008 -17- Item No. 26 A-C
In addition to the above,Section 2.9.4[H][3]provides factors that maybe 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
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
I-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
floodplains.
(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 s perspective 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 Creek floodplain.
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The Prospect Road/I-25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community gateway,
combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such
an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available for the development of a 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 I-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:
I. 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.
March 4, 2008 -18- Item No. 26 A-C
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.
5. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the 1-25 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 of
E, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment. to create
a 39 acre E zoned 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 to 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 development plans 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 authority provided in Section 2.9.4(I)and Section 2.2.9 of the Land
Use Code,the rezoning as described in Section 1 (legal description of the property)
is conditioned upon the requirement that all of the 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 their regular monthly meeting on September 20,2007,voted 7-0
to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings.
March 4, 2008 -19- Item No. 26 A-C
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan.
2. Recommended Changes to the City Structure Plan map.
3. Minutes from the September 20, 2007, Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
4. Northeast Corner Rezoning map.
5. Summary of Work Session of February 12, 2008.
6. Power Point presentation.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommended Changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan.
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletions Additions for the Change
Page vi The undeveloped land in the
NE quadrant of the I-25 and
Executive Summary: Mulberry Street interchange
initially planned for the
Two activity centers are Two activity centers are potential location of a
identified for the subarea, identified€ef in the subarea community/regional retail
one at the I-25/Mulberry for the potential location of center is approximately 50
Street interchange and the regional/community acres in size. Adding 66
other at the 1-25/Prospect shopping centers, one at the acres of commercial zoned
Road interchange. The I-25/Mulberry Street land to the existing 30 acres
northeast quadrant of the I- interchange and the other at at the NE quadrant of the
25/Mulberry Street the I-25/Prospect Road Prospect Road and I-25
interchange is also planned interchange. The netfkeast interchange would make a
for the potential location of the 1 96 acre parcel large enough
a regional/community 25AI aerry Street for a regional or community
shopping center. intemhange is also plafme shopping center. However,
for the potential ',.e tion ar all 96 acres are not totally
developable due to 20 acres
shopping eexter. of site constraints, including
the Boxelder Creek
floodplain. Therefore, the
total developable size of the
commercial area would be
76 acres, or about the size
of the Foothills Mall
property.
The need for additional
undeveloped commercial
land in the City is critical
for the community to
provide alternative locations
for retail development in
Northern Colorado.
Interstate interchanges are a
logical location for
regionally serving retail
development.
1
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiefts Additions for the Change
Page 21 With the rezoning of 25
acres of commercial zoning
5.2 Land Use Plan to employment zoning in
Objectives the SW quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I-25
Designation of Activity Designation of Activity interchange and the relative
Centers. This plan Centers. This plan lack of commercial zoning
designates activity centers designates activity centers in the community as a
along I-25 at the Prospect along I-25 at the Prospect whole, it is important to
Road and Mulberry Street Road and Mulberry Street maintain a significant
interchanges. These centers interchanges. These centers amount of commercial
are intended to evolve into are intended to evolve into zoning at the Prospect/I-25
concentrated areas of concentrated areas of interchange. Basically,
mixed-use development mixed-use development transferring 25 acres of
with high visibility, with high visibility, Commercial zoning from
increased levels of activity, increased levels of activity, the SW quadrant to the 30
and more integrated and more integrated acres of Commercial zoning
appearances. In addition, appearances. r. n, in the NE quadrant is a
the northeast quadrant of the neFtheast quadf aw e start. However, due to
the I-25/Mulberry the T " T development constraints in
interchange is planned as a interehange is planned as the NE quadrant, such as
potential location for a and also the potential land needed to
regional/community locations fora accommodate the Boxelder
shopping center. regional/community floodway, etc., which
shopping centers. requires about 20 acres,
additional land is necessary
to be designated for
commercial development
above the simple addition of
25 acres from the SW
quadrant. A total of 96
acres of commercial zoning
is requested and should be
sufficiently large enough
for a regional/community
shopping center.
2
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletions Additions for the Change
Page 26 The map amendments will
graphically depict the
Fort Collins I-25 Subarea wording changes being
Plan—Land Use Plan made in the I-25 Subarea
Plan.
Existing map. The map will be amended
to delete 86 acres of
Industrial designated land
and 19 acres of Urban
Estate land in the NE
quadrant and to show about
66 acres of additional
Commercial land and 20
acres of Employment land
in the NE quadrant of the
Prospect/I-25 interchange.
Also, the Activity Centers
boundary around the
Commercial Corridor
designated land in the NE
quadrant will be expanded
to cover all 96 acres of
commercial designated
land.
Page 26 The map amendments will
also graphically depict the
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea proposed zoning changes to
Plan—Zoning Plan show 96 total acres of the
C, Commercial District and
Existing map. The map will be amended 39 acres of the E,
to delete 86 acres of I, Employment District in the
Industrial zoning and 19 NE.
acres of Urban Estate
zoning to show about 66
additional acres of C,
Commercial zoning and 20
acres of E, Employment
zoning the NE quadrant of
the Prospect/I-25
interchange adjacent to the
highway.
3
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 2
Recommended Changes to the City Structure Plan map.
Justification
Existing Map Amendment for the Change
Existing map (see attached The map will also be The map amendments will
map). amended to delete 86 acres graphically depict the map's
of Industrial District land consistency to the
and 19 acres of Urban amendments being made in
Estate land to show about the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
96 acres of Commercial
Corridor land and 39 acres
of Employment District
land located in the NE
quadrant of the Prospect/I-
25 interchange adjacent to
the highway.
4
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning &Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 4
Meeting to continue oast 11 p.m
Member Wetzler made a motion to continue the meeting until all time-sensitive agenda Items
were completed. Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
The following two projects were considered together
Project: Southwest Corner of East Prospect and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments, #4-04A
Project Description: SW—This Is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map, and rezone property located at the southwest corner of
East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning
will change commercial and open space lands to an employment district
designation.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C)and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands(POL)to Employment(E).
Project: Northeast Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments,#16-07
Project Description: This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map, and rezone property located at the northeast corner of East Prospect
Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning will change
industrial and urban estate space lands to commercial and employment district
designations.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 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 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from
UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer
between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres)and residential
areas to the north and east.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 5
Hearina Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ken Waido reported staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the
City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143.34 acres located in the southwest comer of
East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the E, Employment District.
In the northeast corner, staff is recommending approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan
and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of 1, Industrial to 66 acres of C,
Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E,
Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area(a total of 96
acres)and residential areas to the north and east.
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchanged is based on:
1. City Council direction 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
SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange. Staff has concluded that rezoning a
substantial 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.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the NE
quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of
I, Industrial.
Staff decided to review the land uses around the interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from
the City and the private property owner 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. If the
amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to
the plan amendments.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the southwest rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zonings changed to covert an area currently preserved as open space to an area
that will permit the development of employment land uses in the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-
25 interchange?
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in this northeast rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale
shopping center in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange? A regional1community
shopping center in the NE quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect
Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the high infrastructure cost to
development from all four quadrants around the interchange, this property will need to contribute
funding to improve the interchange.
The rezoning needs to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect interchange 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)at the interchange and the physical
improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction,
Planning &Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 6
all development must either build the improvement or have funding appropriated that will cover
improvement costs.
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 the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map
involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty(640)acres of land 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 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.
Interstate 25 Subarea Plan
Concurrent with the development of the 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 of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the 1-25 corridor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthod, while the subarea plan studied
the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32(Carpenter Road). The most significant difference
between the two plans is that the subarea plan (adopted in November 2001)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 landstnatural areas policies.
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 1-25 from 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 NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 7
was planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. The
NE 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.
• Secondary uses (retail and highway-oriented commercial uses)typically permitted in
employmentfindustrial districts will be required to be set back at least''% mile from 1-25
to avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within % mile of 1-25.
• Low density, mixed-use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within YA mile of
Mulberry Street.
• The balance of areas planned for residential development were to be urban estate
developments.
• The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
• The subarea eventually would be served with multi-modal transportation options. A
supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus,
diminishing the need to utilize 1-25 for short trips.
• Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development.
Regulations contained in the Land Use Code both applicable to the 1-25 corridor and more generally
throughout the community are intended to have employment/industrial districts designed in a manner
to maintain openness through the use of: setback requirements, maximum building frontage
allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of floodplains. Minimum building
setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of 1-25. Maximum building frontage allowance
is 50% at the 80 foot minimum setback from the property line, which can be expanded to 60% at an
increased setback of 120 feet. Building heights are restricted to 40 feet within 600 feet from the
property line adjoining 1-25.
The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic
development and open space preservation. It is logical the interchange maximize the ability for the
development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. Changes in the surrounding
neighborhood warrant consideration. Land use plans by other jurisdictions are changing the character
of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low-density residential, areas to more intense urban uses.
Interchanges are desirable sites for regional serving retail uses. Competition for sales tax dollars is
different in 2007.
The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place
to assure an orderly development pattern. Prospect interchange will not be funded by CDOT or
FHWA. Local revenue sources must be found for interchange improvements.
Staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and
the following rezoning:
• 143.34 acres located in the southwest comer of East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the
E, Employment District.
• In the northeast of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 E,
Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to
create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres)
and residential areas to the north and east.
Chair Lingle asked Natural Resources Director John Stokes to outline the natural resource value of
that land. Member Schmidt also asked if there would be enough buffering of the Boxelder Creek.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 8
Stokes provided the following background information. The Natural Resources Department's Natural
Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF)as a scenic and open
lands buffer in 2003. At the time of purchase, the eastern portion of the RRF was 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 staff concludes 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 They are
retaining a buffer around Boxelder Creek.
The rezoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same
time, it would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves aesthetically pleasing
views from 1-25 as well as protects adjoining areas with high natural values (namely Box Elder Creek
and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning excludes Boxelder Creek, it will remain zoned
POL.
Wendi Birchler of Norris Design, representing the property owners(Rick& Dave White)reported they
have been very involved is a series of planning related studies/projects for the interchange, the
surrounding area, and along the 1-25 corridor.
Listed below is a summary of their involvement:
• Boxeider Creek Regional Storm water Alliance. They've served from the inception of the
Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners
including landowners, the City, Town of Wellington, Larimer County, and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, who equally funded the storm water master plan.
• The Whites attended North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Advisory Committee
meetings. They've organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of 1-25/Prospect and
advised them of interchange issues. They met regularly with City Transportation staff as well
as CDOT and consultants on the North 1-25 EIS project. With City Transportation staff and
other property owners, they've influenced the proposed alignment and details of the
Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of the City. They facilitated meetings between
North 1-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Storm water Alliance to resolve mutual issues. They
researched and resolved historic preservation issues with the North 1-25 EIS team.
• Prospect Road Improvements. The Smiths organized a group of local property owners
concerned about issues pertaining to future Prospect Road improvements. They coordinated
regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff. They facilitated series of
public/private meetings with the City, Town of Timnath Engineer, and local property owners to
address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems. These issues
included : Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of 1-25, Greeley Water Extension &
Transmission Project(GWET)crossing of Prospect, Boxelder Sanitation District sewer
crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, Relocation of the Timnath Inlet canal to allow future
widening of Prospect, Prospect/County Road 5 intersection issues, Boxelder Creek
stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect(the Grand Canal). With the Town of Timnath,
Planning &Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 9
former City Engineer Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley
School District and a local developer, they developed a cross section profile of future Prospect
ROW which is in use today.
Greeley Water Extension &Transmission Project(GWET)
GWET is a 60" diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant NW 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"of soil making the total
depth of their pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet. The 2007 segment of this
project included a crossing of Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of 1-25 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, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the
Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected
landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. They worked closely with Poudre
Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's
and White's properties.
Public Input
None
Member Schmidt noted on the SW side employment zoning is proposed rather than commercial
because of the buffering needed for the Boxelder Ditch. On the other side of the interchange it
appears there would be more commercial. Staffmember Waido replied yes, with the loss of
commercial on the west side, they looked to the east for increased commercial zoning. That came
after working with stakeholders who agreed that commercial with employment buffering would be
preferred.
Member Schmidt asked it this would not continue to be an activity center? Waido responded we
would also amend our activity center boundary to coincide with the outside periphery of the
commercial zone. There would need to be a commercial mass to produce the revenue needed to
improve the infrastructure(including funding for the interchange.)
Member Schmidt said she is in support of the changes, the main reason being the changes driven by
the Town of Timnath. With the increase in the intensity of use, it would be an appropriate thing to
provide services in the interchange area—connect the whole region with good land use patterns.
Southwest Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages B-12 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
southwest corner of East Prospect and 1.25. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Planning &Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 10
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands(POL)to Employment(E) on the southwest corner of East
Prospect and 1-25,#04-04A. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt asked if staff was comfortable with the reduction of I-Industrial land inventory.
Staffmember Waido responded yes.
No Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages 13-16 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
northeast comer of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Rollins seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt wanted to thank the applicant for taking the time to meet with the neighbors to
consider their concerns and for working with affected interests on the water issues and creek
mitigation.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of the northeast corner of East Prospect
and 1.25 as listed on page 19 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Ca ron Gloss, Director avid Lingle, hair
it/0
r� r �
•� ��//% 'a- � � _ - v/jam/�/:%/�`�
y
ME
i
._ - . .
e - .� r_._
ATTACHMENT 5
°City Planning and Community
Development
P.O.Box 580
281 N.College Ave.
City of Fort ColUns Fort Collins,CO 80524
970-221-6376
970-224-6111 Fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 15, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers� l
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager 1J /
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Scheick, Executive Director, Planning Development and Transportation
Joe Frank, Director, City Planning and Community Development
FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner
RE: February 12, 2008, Work Session Summary— I-25 Corridor
ATTENDANCE
The Mayor and all Council members were in attendance.
Staff members presenting included Darin Atteberry, City Manager; Mike Freeman, Chief
Financial Officer; Joe Frank, Director, City Planning and Community Development; Ken
Waido, Chief Planner; and Mark Jackson, Interim Transportation Director. Josh Birks,
Economic and Planning Systems, and Bob Garcia, Colorado Department of Transportation
also addressed the Council.
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The work session covered the I-25 Corridor, including: the current City Plan vision and
policies related to the development of community/regional retail centers; environmental
influences; the review of three pending applications in the I-25 Corridor; changes and
trends in the retail market and regional conditions; the need for, and financing of, I-25
interchange transportation improvements; and direction from the Council granting
permission for the further processing of the pending applications.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Council requested that staff prepare additional information to respond to the following
questions as the pending applications are brought forward:
where renewal is a way of life
• Do any of the pending applications conflict with existing City Plan policies, and if
they do, how do they differ?
• What changes in the amounts of undeveloped land within the various use categories
are affected by the rezoning requests?
• How would the rezonings change the retail square footage absorption capacities of
vacant properties within the GMA?
• Is there a "preference study" that indicates where people would like to shop, or
indicates why they shop at certain locations?
• What are the impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) of the rezonings?
• Can a summary of commuting patterns into and from the city for employment and
shopping purposes be produced?
• Can the economic impacts be calculated of that portion of the trips through the
interchanges that are for doing business and shopping in Fort Collins?
NEXT STEPS
Staff obtained Council approval for the further processing the three pending applications as
follows:
March 4, 2008, Regular Council Meeting
• SH-392 Interchange Improvement Plan
• NE I-25/Prospect Road— City Plan amendments and rezoning request.
March 25, 2008, Council Work Session
• Harmony Interchange—City Plan amendments, development standards, and
annexation/initial zoning request.
March 4 , 2008
City Council Meeting
NE Prospect/ 1 =25
Interchange Rezonings
1
Prospect Interchange Rezonings
- Q �eLs ox
xereigcx gx
�w 1 IN.
sp
q e rs.p St
'il`fiy i —
xR __ _._ __
w C camm w
ed —
3
s 4
y v
1 �
#4.04A SW Comer of N ` 016-07 NE Comer of N
1.25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A 1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A
Stan P.oyoxad zoning . �.NON IN*
1
SW Corner Rezoning
Approved by the City Council 10/ 16/2007
.WELCERNL W ,
YORLOEROIi N
• W n
1g YV6f� &ICNVE S!
r
r�6 SRE
11L1M1O1{NW � M]Nf NW
i or 1
S � r
c�r r
90
#4.04A SW Corner of 9 N #4.04A SW Comer of N
1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A 1.25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A
! ..i V1]�Alt I/NaJbv9 MY�r1VR
NE Corner Rezoning
Existing and Proposed�l Zoning
'JUL 61 UN ¢ OULSI OR
yy / IA
4MMq[LOOP SSS
I
1
SITE
I
N
#16,07 NE Comer of N 016-07 NE Comer of N
1.25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A 1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A
minoor wvnm 51.n v.000..e:oR1Ru ...a�cor
2
NE Corner Rezoning
• From : 86 acres of I , Industrial
• To : 66 acres of C , Commercial and 20 acres
of E , Employment , and
• From : 19 acres of UE , Urban Estate
• To : 19 acres of E , Employment
• Result :
— 96 acres of C , Commercial , and
— 39 acres of E , Employment 5
Fundamental Policy Issue
• NE Corner Rezoning
— Should City plans be amended and zoning
changed to allow for the development of a
community/ regional retail center and
employment land uses ?
6
3
Land Use Code
Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi =Judicial ( < 640 acres ) Rezonings
- ( a ) consistent with City Plan, the City' s
Comprehensive Plan ;
and / or
- ( b) warranted by changed conditions
within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
2004 Structure Plan
® CITY OF FORT COLT MS STRUCTURE PLA ' .
• The City Plan =
Structure Plan map
and the policies of
City Plan form the
basis for judging
Al
rezoning requests . t
n
L iL
1 f- I.V
4
1 =25 Subarea Plan
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan
• The 1 =25 Subarea Plan Structure Palo
is an element of City
Plan and contains
more specific land use
policies and provides
development decision
making guidance for
the areas along the 1 =25 �--
corridor.
1 A
1 =25 Subarea Plan
Major Policies
• No change to the GMA boundary .
• Two activity centers : Mulberry and Prospect
interchanges . NE quadrant of Mulberry planned
for the potential location of a regional /community
shopping center.
• Employment districts adjacent to I -25 to be
designed to maintain a perception of openness
through the corridor.
• The Resource Recovery Farm to be preserved as
open space . 10
5
Prospect Road / 1 =25 Interchange
• The 1 =25 Subarea Plan
shows the interchange
as a commercial ( red )
activity center (dotted
line ) with employment
( purple) and industrial
( pink) areas , urban
residential ( bright
yellow) and rural
residential ( light yellow)
with natural areas and f: •
stream corridors (green ) .
Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi =Judicial Rezonings .
• (a) consistent with City
Plan , the City' s
Comprehensive Plan , T
• To support the requested
rezonings , amendments to existing plans are } :
necessary .
• Neither the SW nor the
NE rezoning requests are
consistent with exiting
adopted plans . 12
6
Recommendation for NE Corner
Change the Land Use Plans and
Zoning Designations as Requested
QUIP ON
S f ,
wmmnoon
nE
u
3
#1647 NE Coma of N M1647 NE Corner of `"�`
1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A 1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning N 13
1ri7001 ewr.mr YIL y sun Prvpo sd&nmq
Prospect/ I -25 Activity Center
• The Prospect/ 1 =25 interchange was
previously identified in the I -25 Subarea Plan
as an " activity center. "
• The rezoning request increases the size of
the community/ regional retail parcel within
the activity center (from 30 to 96 acres ) and
adds to its importance in the community ' s
economic development strategies .
14
7
Prospect Interchange Rezonings
• Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi =Judicial Rezonings .
— ( b ) warranted by changed conditions
within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property .
15
( b ) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property .
• Competition for sales tax dollars is different
in 2008 than it was earlier in the decade .
• Interstate interchanges are desirable sites
for regional serving retail uses .
• There are limited opportunities within the
GMA for new regional serving retail uses .
16
8
Limited Opportunities
• Mountain Vista
- 72 acres $„
• NE Mulberry/I -25 „
C GE
- 47 acresN
• NE Prospect/1 =25 PRo .En
- 96 acres (with rezoning)
• SW Carpenter/ 1 =25 . NA
- 109 acres R
• Foothills Mall/Square
- 130 acres
( redevelopment) »
17
Limited Opportunities
With such a limited supply of sites
suitable for the development of
regional serving retail uses ,
interstate interchanges need to be
raised in importance in order for the
City to maintain a leading role as an
important economic center for
Northern Colorado .
18
9
( b) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property .
• Land use plans by other jurisdictions
are changing the character of areas
east of I -25 from the rural , low density
residential areas , as envisioned in City
plans , to more intense urban uses .
19
2004 City Structure Plan
o The Structure Plan map east of
the Fort Collins GMA shows
Rural Land Use ( brown ) to make
a clear distinction between urban
uses inside the GMA and rural '
uses outside the GMA
o Land uses east of 1 -25 depicted a
transition from high intensity -
urban uses (commercial and
employment) adjacent to 1 -25 , to
urban estate residential * ,
( maximum of 2 units/acre) inside 5
the GMA, to rural residential ,
qWJPPr
uses ( 1 unit/2 .29 acres) outside __ _ '
the GMA.
r Tare
10
Timnath Land Use Plan Comparison
Showing Significant Change of Character for
Areas East of the GMA
I lour slumiluW lr lb•
- 1 WIUxk
i_�- I MRwyxf�WNIYn
2007 Timnath Land Use Plan
• In 2007 Timnath w..• . , •, - - -
amended its Land use
Plan changing the B
character of areas east
of the GMA : U
_ M SE
LAND USE P PLAN
— added urban commercial
and employment uses • - - =-='=
— increased residential
densities
— extended urban uses
north to County Road 52 _
— eliminated the Fort r
Collins/Timnath r _
community separator
11
Structure Plan / Timnath Plan
Fort Collins/Timnath
• Compilation map Land Use /
showing Structure
Plan land uses within
cF ,z
the GMA and Timnath
Land Use Plan uses
outside the GMA . E
J
• East of GMA shows
employment ( purple) , ,_
commercial ( red ) and
non -rural residential
densities ( gold ) . -
Implications of Other Plans
• Recognition that 1 =25 is no longer an eastern
urban edge of the community as previously
contained in the City Plan vision .
• City plans need to be reconsidered to
address the new regional context of what is
happening beyond the City ' s GMA
boundary , and regionally along the 1 =25
corridor .
24
12
( b ) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property .
• Prospect interchange will not likely be
funded by CDOT or FHWA .
• Local revenue sources must be found
for interchange improvements .
25
Additional Considerations for
Quasi =Judicial Rezonings .
• ( a ) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land , and is the appropriate zone district for the
land ;
• ( b ) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment ;
• ( c ) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
pattern . 26
13
(a) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land , and is the appropriate zone district for
the land ;
• Areas to the N , S , and W are designated for
a mix of commercial and employment uses .
• The E District will provide a transition from
the C District to the residential properties to
the N and E .
27
( a) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land , and is the appropriate zone district for
the land ;
• Regulations in the LUC are intended to have
employment districts along the 1 =25 corridor
designed to maintain openness through .
. Increased setback requirements ,
. maximum building frontage allowances ,
. restricting building heights , and
. proper management of floodplains .
28
14
( b) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment ;
• Development in the C and E Districts would
have no adverse impacts on the natural
environment .
• Development applications will be subject to
the City ' s development standards relative
to :
. natural habitat ,
. energy conservation ,
. stormwater, and
. landscape design . 29
( b) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment ;
• Part of the reason for enlarging the C
zoning in the NE was to devote land
(about 20 acres ) to the proper
management of the Boxelder Creek
floodplain .
30
15
( c ) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
pattern .
• 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 ability for the development of a mix of
commercial and employment uses .
31
( c) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
pattern .
• The City ' s development standards will
require adequate public utilities and
infrastructure to be in place to assure
an orderly development pattern .
32
16
Comparison of Existing Zoning
and Proposed Zoning
Existing Proposed
Zoning Acres Acres
Commercial 30 96
Industrial 86 0
Employment 0 39
Urban Estate 19 0
Total 135 135
Be
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning ( + & -)
1 724 - 86 ( NE )
638 Total
34
17
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning ( + & -)
+ 143 ( SW)
E 710
+ 39 ( NE )
892 Total
35
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning ( + & -)
.25 (SW)
447
+ 66 ( NE )
488 Total
36
18
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning ( + & -)
UE 21254 - 19 ( NE )
2 , 235 Total
37
Staff and P &Z Board
Recommend Approval
euw ox 4 ..gym ox
uw .x
wmnaoon
i
SITE
I
N
#16,07 NE Comer of N 016-07 NE Comer of N
1.25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A 1-25 & Prospect Road Rezoning A
Li LRWI WYNO) Stan Pr osxd lomny n.x—rur
19
RESOLUTION 2008-028
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
PERTAINING TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROSPECT ROAD AND I-25
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located at the
northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate Highway 25, hereafter referred to as the
"Northeast Comer of East Prospect and I-25 Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning application requests that the subject property be rezoned as
follows: Parcel A would be rezoned from the Industrial("I")Zone District to the Commercial("C")
Zone District; Parcel B would be rezoned from the Urban Estate ("UE") Zone District to the
Employment ("B") Zone District; and Parcel C would be rezoned from the Industrial ("I") Zone
District to the Employment ("E") Zone District; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that, while the proposed Northeast Comer of East Prospect
and I-25 Rezoning does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's
Structure Plan Map for that location, it complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City's Structure Plan; and
WHEREAS,accordingly,the Council has determined that the proposed Northeast Corner of
East Prospect and I-25 Rezoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, so that the proposed rezoning will comport
with the City's Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, including the City's Structure Plan Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is
in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Northeast Corner of East Prospect and
I-25 Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 4th day of March,
A. D. 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Cit
Fort Collins STRUCTURE PLAN 'v'�'•
Wellin ton
/---- -- - - - - - - - - 'I - - - - - - - C-R•58 ---
�. . — Windsor r"
87 aesenar lY
Fort Collins -
--- � - - —�— Wellington 5 .
- Separator
x
1 Lake
D4wglas eke
Bellvu La Porte
- - -, e
tern
CR 54G - --- \Li:iiiiiiiiiiii C-R.53
Long
Pond
r --Country-Club-.
>
1 ti
Willox 1 _ - denme�ei
_ Lake Mountain-Vista
Foothills -"T" �-"'go Vine-.
Campus
LIJ�[ Ill
t \ ��
Expansion � —_4 \ \..� -.-..-._.-._-.
Area
E
j �- Mulbeirq— -SH-14
J
Lory -
State CSU
Park
r-} - - - - Prospect
1 Ld
_ -
CSU = a m >,
tadiu _
d
H (�/] U E �O�•
...� ' r-Drake- -� - - ~ � U -_� /
rmnam ,
Fort C Ilins - Rese,vnn �-�'
.III Tim ath
Horsetooth Saps ator
Mountain - _�-Horsetooth
Park
nt
I �
- - d
� nath
I- cd7
- k-, Harmony ��
117
- - - - - r� o
i
Fort ollins - 4
Ti nath
L j j Windsor 'fJ,
Separator
Wildflowe
Trilby - I
10rea ' ..� ice_
` t
I - �
.._-_..__.._.._____.. Caroenter , � SH 392 -
I.
I Fort Collins -
87 Loveland
Separator
Windsor
_ CRxH
Lov1and
D 0.5 1
Boundaries Districts 0 ITTIiiiiii Miles
,,�ppeepp
Fort Collins GMA Downtown District dF Industrial District Edaes Corridors
1�2J
� Community Separator N Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit)
r�rJ Potential GMA Expansion Community Commercial District Neighborhoods
'"444YYY � Foothills � Poudre River Corridor
Other City GMA If Commercial Corridor District Urban Estate
"`444YYY � Rural Lands Poudre River
461aPlanning Area dF Neighborhood Commercial Center Low Density Mixed-Use If Open Lands, Parks,
Stream Corridors
Adjacent Planning Areas 4F Campus District Medium Density Adopted
Mixed-Use
March 4, 2008
^/ City Limits dF Employment District
RESOLUTION 2008-029
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN PERTAINING TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROSPECT ROAD AND I-25
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located at the
northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate Highway 25 (hereafter referred to as the
"Northeast Corner of East Prospect and I-25 rezoning"); and
WHEREAS, this rezoning application would result in zoning changes to the lands located
therein which necessitate not only the amendment of the City's Structure Plan Map but also the
amendment of the I-25 Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS,Council has,this same date,adopted Resolution 2008-028 amending the City's
Structure Plan Map,so that the proposed rezoning would now comply with the land uses as set forth
on said Map; and
WHEREAS, the Council has also determined that the proposed rezoning is in the best
interests of the citizens of the City and that the I-25 Subarea Plan should be amended to correspond
with the amendment to the City's Structure Plan Map so that,with respect to the northeast quadrant
of Prospect Road and I-25,the Commercial and Employment Districts will be consistent with both
the Structure Plan Map and the I-25 Subarea Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the I-25 Subarea Plan is in need of the
amendment requested by the applicant for the Northeast Comer of East Prospect and I-25 rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the I-25 Subarea
Plan will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and
policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the I-25 Subarea Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit"A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th
day of March, A.D. 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
Recommended Changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiexs Additions for the Change
Page vi The undeveloped land in the
NE quadrant of the I-25 and
Executive Summary: Mulberry Street interchange
initially planned for the
Two activity centers are Two activity centers are potential location of a
identified for the subarea, identified€er in the subarea community/regional retail
one at the I-25/Mulberry for the potential location of center is approximately 50
Street interchange and the regional/community acres in size. Adding 66
other at the I-25/Prospect shopping centers, one at the acres of commercial zoned
Road interchange. The I-25/Mulber y Street land to the existing 30 acres
northeast quadrant of the I- interchange and the other at at the NE quadrant of the
25/Mulberry Street the I-25/Prospect Road Prospect Road and I-25
interchange is also planned interchange. The xetffieast interchange would make a
for the potential location of quadfant I 96 acre parcel large enough
a regional/community 25 efi y Street for a regional or community
shopping center. intefehange is also planned shopping center. However,
all 96 acres are not totally
developable due to 20 acres
shopping eenteF. of site constraints, including
the Boxelder Creek
floodplain. Therefore, the
total developable size of the
commercial area would be
76 acres, or about the size
of the Foothills Mall
property.
The need for additional
undeveloped commercial
land in the City is critical
for the community to
provide alternative locations
for retail development in
Northern Colorado.
Interstate interchanges are a
logical location for
regionally serving retail
development.
1
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiens Additions for the Change
Page 21 With the rezoning of 25
acres of commercial zoning
5.2 Land Use Plan to employment zoning in
Objectives the SW quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I-25
Designation of Activity Designation of Activity interchange and the relative
Centers. This plan Centers. This plan lack of commercial zoning
designates activity centers designates activity centers in the community as a
along I-25 at the Prospect along I-25 at the Prospect whole, it is important to
Road and Mulberry Street Road and Mulberry Street maintain a significant
interchanges. These centers interchanges. These centers amount of commercial
are intended to evolve into are intended to evolve into zoning at the Prospect/I-25
concentrated areas of concentrated areas of interchange. Basically,
mixed-use development mixed-use development transferring 25 acres of
with high visibility, with high visibility, Commercial zoning from
increased levels of activity, increased levels of activity, the SW quadrant to the 30
and more integrated and more integrated acres of Commercial zoning
appearances. In addition, appearances addition, in the NE quadrant is a
the northeast quadrant of the neAheast quadrant Fi start. However, due to
the I-25/Mulberry the 1 '"�� development constraints in
interchange is planned as a the NE quadrant, such as
potential location for a and also the potential land needed to
regional/community locations for-a accommodate the Boxelder
shopping center. regional/community floodway, etc., which
shopping centers. requires about 20 acres,
additional land is necessary
to be designated for
commercial development
above the simple addition of
25 acres from the SW
quadrant. A total of 96
acres of commercial zoning
is requested and should be
sufficiently large enough
for a regionaUcommunity
shopping center.
2
Existing Amendments Justilication
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiens Additions for the Change
Page 26 The map amendments will
graphically depict the
Fort Collins I-25 Subarea wording changes being
Plan —Land Use Plan made in the I-25 Subarea
Plan.
Existing map. The map will be amended
to delete 86 acres of
Industrial designated land
and 19 acres of Urban
Estate land in the NE
quadrant and to show about
66 acres of additional
Commercial land and 20
acres of Employment land
in the NE quadrant of the
Prospect/I-25 interchange.
Also, the Activity Centers
boundary around the
Commercial Corridor
designated land in the NE
quadrant will be expanded
to cover all 96 acres of
commercial designated
land.
Page 26 The map amendments will
also graphically depict the
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea proposed zoning changes to
Plan —Zoning Plan show 96 total acres of the
C, Commercial District and
Existing map. The map will be amended 39 acres of the E,
to delete 86 acres of I, Employment District in the
Industrial zoning and 19 NE.
acres of Urban Estate
zoning to show about 66
additional acres of C,
Commercial zoning and 20
acres of E, Employment
zoning the NE quadrant of
the Prospect/I-25
interchange adjacent to the
highway.
3
ORDINANCE NO. 032, 2008
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PROSPECT ROAD AND I-25 REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that said property should be
rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that, upon consideration of the criteria
established in Section 2.9.4(11)(3)(c), the rezoning hereafter described should include a condition
that all lands rezoned under this ordinance be developed under a single overall development plan,
in order to ensure a logical and orderly development pattern; and
WHEREAS,to the extent applicable,the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations set forth in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the zoning classification of Parcel A from Industrial ("I")Zone District, to
Commercial ("C") Zone District, Parcel B from Urban Estates ("UE") Zone District, to ("E")
Employment Zone District, and Parcel C from Industrial ("I")Zone District to Employment("E")
Zone District for the following described property in the City known as the Northeast Corner of East
Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning:
Parcel "A"
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST, 6TH P.M., COUNTY
OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING:THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SEl/4)OF
SECTION 15 ASSUMING TO BEAR NORTH 89056'23"WEST WITH ALL
OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 15 IS A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED"LS5028". THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER IS
A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 28295".
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION CONTAINS AREAS THAT ARE OWNED
BY GROUPS OTHER THAN LAAM., SPECIFICALLY THE PROSPECT ROW
AND THE INLET CANAL ROW.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 15 NORTH
89056'38" WEST 635.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89056'38"
WEST, 466.90 FEET;
THENCE LEAV ING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 07°00'10"EAST, 191.80
FEET;
THENCE NORTH 03030-59" EAST, 120.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 13012-43" EAST, 84.97 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 04034'18" EAST, 117.51 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 30023'25" EAST, 95.23 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 03035'32" WEST, 112.92 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 39054'34" WEST, 66.61 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 76016'30" WEST, 150.63 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 84056'30" WEST, 552.56 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 67049'30" WEST, 101.38 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 54049'03" WEST, 895.34 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14023'52" WEST, 78.64 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00014'26" EAST, 1151.18 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 09023'57"WEST,59.72 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 15;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89-35-57" EAST, 858.54
FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00003'22" WEST, 800.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89035'57" EAST, 1100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00003'22" WEST, 1867.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 2840637 SQ. FT. (65.212
ACRES) MORE OR LESS.
Parcel `B"
ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING:THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE1/4)OF
-2-
SECTION 15 ASSUMING TO BEAR NORTH 89056'23" WEST WITH ALL
OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 15 IS A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS5028". THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER IS
A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 28295".
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 15 NORTH
89056'38" WEST 635.26 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00003'22" EAST, 1334.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 00003'22" EAST, 1333.36 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89035'57" EAST, 639.66 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00008'25" WEST, 1331.29 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89047'03" WEST, 637.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 850922 SQ. FT. (19.534
ACRES) MORE OR LESS.
Parcel "C"
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST, 6TH P.M., COUNTY
OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING:THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE1/4)OF
SECTION 15 ASSUMING TO BEAR NORTH 89056'23" WEST WITH ALL
OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 15 IS A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED"LS5028". THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER IS
A FOUND REBAR WITH A 2.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 28295".
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 15 NORTH
89056'38" WEST 635.26 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00003'22" EAST, 1867.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89035'57" WEST, 1100.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00003'22" EAST, 800.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89035'57" EAST, 1100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00003-22" WEST, 800.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 879984 SQ. FT. (20.202
ACRES) MORE OR LESS.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
-3-
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described
property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That,under the authority provided in Section 2.9.4(I)and Section 2.2.9 of the
Land Use Code,the rezoning as described in Section 1 is conditioned upon the requirement that all
of the 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 logical and orderly development pattern.
Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
March, A.D. 2008, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2008.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-4-