HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/25/2008 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN RE DATE: March 25, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Clark Mapes Joe Frank FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Amendment of the Harmony Corridor Plan regarding the I-25 Gateway Area,and related
items.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is a staff-proposed amendment to the 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan (Plan). The item
involves the west side of I-25,including properties on the north and south sides of Harmony Road.
The Plan identifies this area as a special "Gateway Area." The area has special significance as a
major interchange entrance to Fort Collins,with significance due to the major interchange entrance
to Fort Collins, combined with the setting of the Cache La Poudre River valley.
The Plan currently describes "Alternative Concepts" for the area, but does not specify or further
define a preferred concept or vision, calling for "additional work to develop a strategy for this
important segment of the community." The proposed amendment would represent completion of
the original Plan's"transitional"effort,by providing a strategy in the form of a stated vision, along
with updated goals and policies.
The proposed vision would represent a shift in general direction away from low-intensity,non-retail
employment uses, to more complete, mixed-use, multi-story pedestrian district oriented to transit,
in developed portions of the area. Also,the proposal would expand the Gateway Area designation
to the south by 1/2 mile, with the addition of 125 acres which were outside the City's growth area
in 1991.
Development would occur in conjunction with reshaped gravel mine lands, and would be threaded
with trails, naturalistic landscape areas, and a waterway that runs like a ribbon through the area
along a floodway channel.
The proposed amendment is intended to highlight the role of the area as a community gateway—
with a distinct and unique image, in a place that expresses local values and goals.
In this case, the proposed vision calls for an approach to development different from other
commercial highway exits. It combines a place where people live,work,shop,play,visit,learn,and
participate in the community,with Natural Areas on two sides, linked by new waterways and river
valley landscaping.
March 25, 2008 Page 2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Based on the information presented and discussed, is Council ready to consider a Plan
amendment at a regular Council meeting?
2. Is there any additional information that is needed prior to, or along with, agenda materials
that would be presented at the time an amendment is considered by City Council?
BACKGROUND
Criteria for Plan Amendments
City Plan's Appendix C (Attachment 7) provides criteria for reviewing the proposed Plan
amendments as follows:
1. the existing Plan is in need of the proposed amendment; and
2. the proposed amendment would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the
vision, goals,principles, and policies of City Plan.
These criteria apply to both the Harmony Corridor Plan, which is a related element of City Plan,
and the City Structure Plan map.
Annexation
Much of the subject area is currently in unincorporated Latimer County and within the City's
Growth Management Area boundary. An annexation petition for a significant area is being
processed separately, but is related to the Plan amendment. An annexation request is expected to
be an immediate follow-up item to the Plan amendment.
Why Amend the Plan?
The existing 1991 Plan stated the need for additional work to set a strategy for the"Gateway Area."
The proposed Plan amendment would:
• reflect fifteen-plus years of additional work,changed conditions,and new information since
the original plan;
• reflect City Plan in terms of compact, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development
responsive to the unique local conditions; and
• respond to a request by an ownership and development team to annex property and work
with the City on a plan for an attractive gateway into Fort Collins that is characterized by a
highly developed urban district in a river valley setting on completely reshaped gravel mine
land.
March 25, 2008 Page 3
Existing 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan
The existing Plan is available on the web at: fcgov.com/citypianning/pdf/harmony-corridor-doc.pdf.
Chapter 5 of the Plan addresses the"Gateway Area."
Following is a summary of relevant aspects of the Plan:
• It includes the subject area within its land use designation of`Basic Industrial Non-Retail
Employment,"along with much of the overall corridor extending to College Avenue. The
designation emphasizes light industrial and employment development, and also allows for
some limited supporting commercial, residential and services.
• It also contains a special chapter that highlights this "Gateway Area" differently from the
rest of the Harmony Corridor. In effect,the Gateway chapter suggests that special tailoring
of the basic land use designation is needed; however, it does not state a preferred vision.
Instead, it describes alternative concepts ranging from typical highway exit commercial
development to public purchase for open lands purposes. It concludes that"additional work
is required to develop a strategy for this important segment of the community."
• The Plan recommends the starting point for additional work to be a naturalistic, landscape-
oriented approach to gravel mine reclamation and future land use, emphasizing the river
valley floodplain setting.
• The general idea was to explore possibilities for a city edge tapering down in terms of
development intensity, with the Poudre River floodplain corridor helping to preserve the
separate identities of Fort Collins and Timnath, while providing scenic, recreational,
educational, habitat, and water management functions.
• On the south side of Harmony Road, the Plan currently applies to lands within 1/2 mile to
the south of Harmony Road, which corresponds to the City's growth boundary at the time
of the Plan in 1991. The subject area of the proposed amendment extends an additional 1/2
mile to the south to Kechter Road. The extension is well within the City's Growth
Management Area, which has expanded southward since 1991.
• The portion proposed to be added to the south is designated "Rural Lands" on the City
Structure Plan, which allows for rural residential development.
Changed Conditions Since Existing Plan Was Adopted
Over the last 4 to 5 years, the general ideas about a green edge to the city at this location, in
cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions, have been placed in a new light. Annexations and
development have been happening more and more aggressively outside Fort Collins. I-25 is quickly
becoming a major commercial corridor in Northern Colorado,with other uses filling in the corridor
as well. In the important area of the interchange itself and extending a mile south from Harmony
Road, the context that led to the original plan ideas has changed markedly.
March 25, 2008 Page 4
Following are some specific changes and new information since 1991:
• City Natural Area purchase. Lands and ponds on the north side of Harmony Road were
purchased as a City Natural Area.
• City Natural Area purchase declined south of Harmony Road. "Gateway Area"land south
of Harmony Road was offered and considered for purchase by the City Natural Areas
program multiple times, but was declined due to costs and difficulties of gravel mine
closeout and restoration. The purchase was considered mainly for Community Separator and
viewshed purposes, rather than high-quality habitat.
• Transportation Transfer Center(TTC, or Park-and-Ride)Facility built. The Natural Areas
Program sold land on the north side of Harmony for this public use. The long range plan is
to connect Transfort (and the Mason Corridor) to this facility with high frequency bus
service; with potential for connection to a region-wide bus system along I-25.
• Two Community Separator Studies done. Reports done in 1999 and 2003 described
potential opportunities for preserving buffers between Fort Collins, Timnath,and Windsor,
to retain distinct identity of the towns. These studies provided an unprecedented forum for
discussion of cooperative land use planning among jurisdictions and property owners.
One specific Separator opportunity was the Poudre River floodplain corridor which forms
a broad swath around the I-25/Harmony interchange, between Fort Collins and Timnath.
This corresponds to a green corridor shown on the City Structure Plan.
The Separator studies generally described possible implementation actions, which would
require increasing cooperation and avoiding competition among regional cities and towns
at their edges along I-25. That working assumption has changed as the function and focus
of I-25 has changed. The competitive development market and sales tax environment of
Northern Colorado remains competitive and the Town of Timnath has rethought its future.
• Retail Industry evolution. "Big box"superstores,power centers, lifestyle shopping centers,
and mixed use "town center" developments in edge locations, all emerged after the 1991
Plan, creating increasingly regional market characteristics and development pressure on
regional highway locations.
• East side of I-25 planned for Regional Commercial Development. The area previously
described as a potential Community Separator around the I-25/Harmony interchange,
directly east from the subject property extending one mile southward from the interchange,
was later designated for large regional commercial uses requiring highway visibility and
access in a Timnath Comprehensive Plan update.
• Northeast Quadrant Floodplainfilled,Big Box Retail Center approved. ASuperWal-Mart
shopping center is approved on land that has been removed from the floodplain directly
against the northeast corner of the interchange.
City Plan designation of Harmony Road as an Enhanced Transportation Corridor.
Harmony Road is one of four transportation corridors planned to link the whole city with
March 25, 2008 Page 5
high frequency transit service. The Mason Corridor,Timberline Road,and a northern route
in the ConiferNine area comprise the other three corridors.
• Draftl-25Environmentallmpact Statement highlights Harmony Road. Alternative solutions
for long term north-south mobility between the Denver Metro area and North Front Range
highlight Harmony Road as a key corridor and hub for Bus Rapid Transit or as a key feeder
route to commuter rail tied to the Mason Transportation Corridor.
• Solutions explored with property owners. Staffhas had continual conversations with several
owners over the years, exploring possible outcomes for the property to blend public and
private goals for reclamation of the gravel pits and use of the land and water, based on
interpretation of the existing Plan's intent. Owners have attempted to formulate
development plans but none have proceeded past the initial discussion stage.
• Ownership/Development Team ready to annex. Within the last year, the City has been
approached by an ownership and development team with a proposal for the subject area,
primarily involving the south side of Harmony. They want to annex and work with the City
on a special development plan for a mixed-use pedestrian district with a strong relationship
to future transit,centered around newly created waterways and bridges on reclaimed gravel
mine land.
• Taller buildings emerging along I-25 in Northern Colorado. An 8-story hotel is being built
near the Larimer County Fairgrounds complex, with additional 6-story buildings planned,
and several 4-and 5-story buildings have recently been built.
Proposed Harmony Gateway Area Vision
The proposed vision would move the Plan to completion from its current discussion of Gateway
Area alternatives to a clear, stated vision.
While the original Plan was inconclusive and transitional, the proposed vision would still reflect a
shift in thinking in some ways. This Gateway Area has been generally considered for its City Edge
and Community Separator potential, but regional changes have led to reconsideration of those
concepts and created pressure to recast it to include an activity center and transit hub.
Under the proposed amendment, urban development would create a unique mixed use destination
in the region and state as well as a distinctive city gateway. The overall concepts are for a pedestrian
district oriented to transit, set between two Natural Areas and linked to them with trails,naturalistic
landscape areas,and ponds. This vision would be in keeping with the numerous aspects of City Plan
regarding integration of efficient land use, the environment, transportation choices and economic
health.
Listed below are key points of the proposed Vision as the basis of a Plan amendment.
South Side of Harmony Road (290 acres):
• The gravel pit floodplain landscape would be completely reshaped to create new waterways,
canals, and bridges as centerpieces for a unique city district.
March 25, 2008 Page 6
• Waterways would provide naturalistic landscaped edges with appropriate plantings,
providing a basic level of urban habitat for aquatic species and birds, as well as an image
reflecting the river valley setting.
• Development would create a pedestrian district for working, living, shopping,and visiting.
Multi-story urban development would offer a complete range ofbusinesses and employment,
services, health uses, churches and other civic uses, education, recreation, condo and loft-
style housing, and amenities for pedestrians.
• While retail would be included,and a degree of visibilityto traffic is important,the proposed
vision does not include typical shopping center or"big box"retail formats oriented to the
highway. Retail uses would be well-integrated into the pedestrian district. Some of the
retailers that would work and fit best as part of the vision would be smaller and local
businesses which could include local retailers that are going to open a second location with
an I-25 presence. In other words, the proposed district would provide a place for this to
occur.
• The complete mix of uses envisioned would include affordable housing in the residential
part of the mix.
• The district would form a distinctive architectural and landscape image with buildings and
outdoor spaces set around the water. Public art, landscape, street, and bridge design would
help create a rich gateway image and environment.
• Generous landscape setback areas along 1-25 and Harmony would be designed and
developed to reflect the river valley setting, e.g., using groves, belts, and thickets of
cottonwood, willow, and other native and adapted plants along with meadow grasses.
Overall landform shaping will reinforce the image of the restored landscape and help frame
desirable views into the area.
• Beyond the visual image,development would reflect numerous community goals regarding
efficient, sustainable development. The combination of image and other qualities would
define it as a gateway to the city as well as a destination in itself.
• A primary orientation to pedestrians within the District would mutually support public
transit and allow the District to become less dependent on car traffic over time. Harmony
is one of four "Enhanced Travel Corridors" on the City Structure Plan that will link the
whole city with high frequency transit over time. Also, CDOT's draft EIS for transportation
improvements in the region shows Bus Rapid Transit on 1-25 connecting to Harmony. A
special shuttle system could connect across Harmony as part of the development. The
pedestrian district would mutually support evolution ofpublic transit and the Transportation
Transfer Center as a transit hub.
• Trails would connect the Poudre River and Fossil Creek trails to the north and south
respectively.
Building heights up to 6 stories would be allowed in general, as they are throughout the
Harmony Corridor.
March 25, 2008 Page 7
• Buildings and development would use environmentally sensitive design and construction,
expressing the forward-looking approach of Fort Collins toward responsible development.
• The Vision would encourage redevelopment of the existing large, visually intrusive cell
tower along with the existing gas station and landscape business on the south side of
Harmony to complement the gateway concept.
North Side of Harmony Road (250 acres):
• The vision includes the existing TTC and commercial building and accessory supply yard,
which comprise 15 acres together. The concept is to redevelop the commercial property and
further enhance the TTC as a mixed-use transit hub.
Harmony Gateway District Standards and Guidelines
The Harmony Corridor Plan is accompanied by a companion Standards and Guidelines document.
This document supplements the already high standards found in the Land Use Code to specifically
implement the Plan as development occurs over time.
A new section would be added to the document,in conjunction with the Plan amendment,to address
the defining aspects of development including: Land and Water (reshaping the gravel mined
landscape, ponds, and pits), Mixed Land Uses, Pedestrian District Design, Buildings, Parking (to
support the pedestrian district layout),Transportation System(to support the pedestrian district and
transit), and Trails.
Relationship to Natural Areas
Lands to the north and south of the subject property, across Harmony Road and Kechter Road
respectively, have been purchased by the City Natural Areas Program. The subject property has
been offered and considered for Natural Areas purchase, but declined as noted previously. The
property was considered mainly for its visual value, and not for its habitat value, which is low to
moderate due to the gravel mine disturbance.
Development of the subject area appears to offer an opportunity for mutually beneficial landscape
enhancements in the Eagle View Natural Area to the south. The Natural Areas Program desires to
reshape the Eagle View land and a ditch channel that runs through it, to restore a more naturalistic
landscape. The reshaping of the land would involve significant removal of soil,which is needed for
development of the subject property.
Similarly, an opportunity for a mutually beneficial partnership may exist on the north side of
Harmony Road. Currently, a floodway overtops Harmony Road with flood flows moving from
north to south. A possible physical solution is to lower the flood elevation north of Harmony,in the
Arapaho Bend Natural Area, by reshaping the land and ponds, so that the flow passes underneath
Harmony. Such a joint effort among Natural Areas, Transportation and Stormwater would also
create an opportunity for a trail connection underneath Harmony Road linking the TTC with
Gateway District development on the south side, and linking the Fossil Creek and Poudre Trails,
while mitigating potential flooding that could close Harmony Road.
March 25, 2008 Page 8
These opportunities would involve partnerships with a developer working on an actual development
application, and not the Harmony Corridor Plan amendment per se, but they may be relevant to
consideration of the proposed amendment because the costs and efforts of landscape reshaping
depend partly on the development potential of the subject property.
Public Outreach
Public outreach conducted by staff includes discussion with City Boards from October 2007 through
January 2008 and a public Open House held November 14. (see Attachment 7)
City Council Consideration
The Council's consideration of the amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan is scheduled for May
6, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map of Subject Area.
2. PowerPoint presentation.
3. Comparison of existing and proposed Plan content.
4. Existing Harmony Corridor Plan Map 10 (Land Use Plan).
5. Proposed Harmony Corridor Plan Map 10 (Land Use Plan) Changes.
6. Log of public discussion.
7. City Plan Appendix C— Criteria for Plan Amendments.
L 'l 14"liniiii--- 11111,1
X'�'
fffcllL' 11yy!•!pilr 11HIt-11 1
in iisi7 i—m
nnmajini.indmIIHIM
"=111111!"Ild�MINIl...Il II ' IIF
����■ ■■1 'naiinIII.—�■1
��J :• •y■irWi111�IXL'�■ �1
L nnn■ol� ■ � -
■ ' a la
Vie ' �r ■
Subject �
Area
1 H1
CAN■� ' � I-
�� � I�� 4 ^ �I ■ . 25�
� ryj --
a • •
�J �1rrr � Jr � � Jrr ;� � Jl r ' - i �\ .rrjerjrJfnef r
�1rrrjJrjy � �lre ,� �� �Iy r� re �l �
E� r J �� �/ �J �� rrr» r � � , �J �l � r =� � d
MV
� � '� ' ��'� 4 ` ORSETOOTN RESERVOIR � �
OLD TOWN
' '� COIORADO STAT(
(• '�- y - - ` ^l COI LEG( AVENUE / UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS
�' . � �� -- � �� • • . ^. �� uA Cnu crocrr rnoDlnnD .
i
Aw
TO LOVELAND, BERTAOUD, __- - '` F fit• . X' ` y,,r yr1l�" " -'-
� IONGMONT, BOU , DER �
•far . � ' t'; • _ — ltrs�:_ a � : y - r3T4pJOAO
.00 i0. -t ,KFIIARMONY,� �� • _ � _
_ T (CHN010GY PARK • }
f . J • I L%
EVE
FOSSIL RIDGE
R , ) HIGH SCHOOL 4:
4
4 ROAL O }
MORNINGS'UE
IILAGI
EAGLE VIEW POW
NATURAL AREA �a
. - qrw -✓ � - _ �
OSSI CREE
AT RA RE
�;7 r
4
a_ ( TA1E 25 , Rc cotif t .
� �yjERS
�_ ✓' �� AL-MART
NYE ; j
�J � r � ~ J �J � r = ' Jam
ri in r : r � J !Jri J
11 =. �. rJr1 J E
� , r Zrm � r � qlai=� r = r1 rJ J rJ - r � rJrJ J
rjJr = Jun j j :ftwmoirj • .
r . . rrr � rrj rlr 'i
I Wellington
— — —. I-- -- - - - --- - - - -
1
i
if I
Fort Collins -
- --' . Wellington
1 _ Separator
La Porte xugla
Bellvue
Niou
� C
- :'Hilo.•. � ntal' vrsta o
m � U
osmosis, so, so,
CSU J
Fo..andh —
QVIIIµK
Gr.IC
E. pell'.iou _ _ . . . . .. . . . j
Cleo � I
L J.PC 2f '
� 1
Jta!e /t�
CSV L W
Park U • Li �� l — r
�� ��
csU
J w
ca
Fort Collins - �-•�
``1 TYnnath
Horsetooth , �{, ,yl` Separator
Mountain R •_ .
Park
— ` ROW Timnath
- - I
• J� ._1 P - ed FortCollins -
r,� J _t Tirnmth -
AML Windsor '
Separator
WWdlbwe �'T b
Wi _ . . .�...J�r r.aor
\ t
1
- Fossil Ciotti CPS
•� GYdA Expansion Area
H r.
Fort Collins -
287S Loveland
Separator Windsor
Loveland
Special Urban Design
Potential Regional Potential Neighborhood Service Center Opportunity - Gateway
Shopping Center or or Community Shopping Center Development with orientation u
Community Shopping Center S
to natural character
Potential Neighborhood Potential Lifestyle '•�•'•'•
Service Center Shopping Center044. '• '.' •
t • ♦ - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • •
y. . • . . . . . . .• " . • .
• • •
. • . . . • . • . . �. • . • . • . .
. . .• . • .• • .• . . . �. . . . .
�- • � ••w • • • • • , • • • : •• • • • •. . . . . . • -
. . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . .
• . i . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� , 1Oil
qt - Potential Neighborhood
Secondary_ - 1 Service Center
Uses Without
Business Park —
Special Urban Design Opportunity -
With emphasis on
Existing Regional Historical Heritage of Harmony Road
Shopping Center
Harmony Activity Centers Potential Shopping Center Locations Outside of Activity Center
Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Activity Center
Mixed Use Activity Center Neighborhood Convenience Center
-%
GATEVWY ) ` 1
STUDY AREA \ /
BOUNDARY ` �...� 0 1 '1
TIMNATH
C . crrY L1MfI'S
MUDRE /
'ALLEY VIMLL /
Harmony Rd '
FT. COLLINS, _
CITY LIMM
1 = FT. COLLINS
UGA
pp I
Vie est
-%
GATEVWY ) ` 1
STUDY AREA \ /
BOUNDARY ` �...� 0 1 '1
TIMNATH
C . crrY L1MfI'S
It � �
MUDRE /
'ALLEY
c1l on
Rd -� • •
FT. COLLINS,
CITY LIMM
1 - FT. COLLINS
UGA
Drake l
r _s Timnath
-Fort Ills - Res rvoir
9 Timnath
Separator
C: I
H rset - El
;t -
� . ' Timna h
7J,
Harmony Rd r - ��-
Harmon . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subjec
Ar
t {
PL
"} Fort Collins
-. � ,.._.._.� Tim nath -
�� Windsor
Exi st i ng
� r
z) Separator
I r - f rl City Structure P an
i
i i..t._.._..i subjectdetail
i.
Trilby - — _.., ..
E HORSETOOTH RD
c
z
z
n L
Q
Harmony
E COUNTY ROAD 38
Rd s
O
-, Gy
T
� `�o
� 9
"n Cache La Poucft r
0
a
O
fzrr�! w
K TER RO 1-
r Z
O
U
AN
0
Legend y Cache L a Poudre Ri
Rivers & Lakes ® City High Risk Floodway
City Limits - FEMA Floodway
City GMA ® City Floodplain Ntt
Latimer County FEMA Floodplain /'1
r
' . :y f3= _ �~ _ - . tom.•
�)` Y ys f.•.•.L 1 '" Y.2vS �.+C�4&�'n'�Lia,- J ,r +'n2 �' r�y
_,may,_ _ _ � < : '� 'K•�(a{i, y ti ham'` - �1 t _ -��, J,.__ Y . � ' "', _
- �4�� 1t� .+ Jti _ Y _.lT ' sty �✓. �� -
' f
t f '
—
`{
rOr
I �` 1 — r -
L Nord r NE
0 41 , h
w NO NO raNO
' i, 4 'v F . , J1 { ' •''F - i _ , Ti
`* f', 4 NO
3 *Y r f
I {!S r V` ,OR
er
r r
4 , r ,44
r ON
Rim or
Tom
*`
r
Ak a
IN j
1
1 . LM
r.-
t_
AN. iNO
Seps map , fly in Ti mnath ?
jorjorj
GATEMMY
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARY ` �._�, ITIMNATH
1
CITY LIMTTS
rl
o J -
RE al r Ely
'�
VALLEY a..0 / Ln
, , 1 rE ) a ,
Rd
' �
FT. COLLINS,
CITY LIMBS , Jsin
- FT. COLLINS
UOA
�D• T t
PM
• ♦ I
I ' . . ... . . . •. 00�%..
_ , i 1
Mot
- - - onditio
way*�►ar � _
Town of Tininath
.z 4 g
- _,._•,..,.ram��� �:,,.tr ....n I 1 �
y
I
Show bad . . . don ' t worry this is not . . .
Jl
Al
J rJ • ' J rJ JlJ " / lJ � ` rJrll =EM rJ J ! J
• • r r J ail - - lJ Jr � `JJr1S � `JJ rlj - r ,
• - - • J � rJ = lJ ;> � .r..J � J rrJ = lJ e r
J cansit FMJ !JU
Land Use Assessment Map
Harmony/ 1 - 25 - West Quadrant
NON
dd
I r 1
cAlp
.`' ,
F f .� '� " � r �l r J JT ]
o _ di
fAd fie
� �s , NO
IMBERWpCD0Rl4� A - � ' •� , -q . . 1 ''�- . " �' r
z
i" " LE FEVER OR w
- � � r1
Lli
z
P;iZ�ClSJON DR
RnOK CREEK DR T iy • J J J J J J ✓, J J
CALlLEO OF: _Pr
SABE m z C�
� C . LITTLEOV . -41 _ r l l
'9TO/p II FULL MOON QR 1 ' A ,1,
mayYOS, LN. fn= J .
RD l _
KEOH' 1 l
OIv� 1P .
M kw o<
•` w CRF I ' I
-i��
w. eDR 1- , -.
C , ,
r AWIMEW DR I
Ok
Legend
oIna - - ,.- -_ •. '
MOUN AIN VISTA D
a
N W a p N
a
� J W
J Z O
W J Z J K
0 r
WE VI R
z
H � p
= F O
LAPO TE AVE m z z
�N
O`
W MULBERRY ST �0 Nq sG E MULB ST
4� N
� w
OA N
W PROSPECT RD E PR PE T D W �
W z a
a
z
W � �
W DR KE RD ,� E DR hKE RD p
u
O N
l
p
> O
W HORSE OOTH RD a E HORSEY OTH RD W
LLJ
c�
J W y
J
V~1 O O Z
Vl C.1 Ir Q
G H ~ c
NLi
w E HAR N RD E COUNTY ROAD 38
H
W W
V1 Q N p
a
> !A \ 0
iWJKE HTER RD
O A U
d 0 y
D
J �
� v
W W
W TRI BY RD a E TRI BY RD N c
LL
Q N O
C
W Q y
y H z
C 0
CARPENTER - E COUNTY ROAD v
a TO
K
z
z
7
uO E COON ROAD 30
H
> MOUN AIN VISTA D
>
N w a _
9 CCC 5�11� �1 111 11■� o
W_ Z J K
= w E VI E DR Vl =
U
LAPO TEAVE
2 CO4y
W MULBERRY ST �0 q E MULBFJ ST
N
W PROSPECT RD E PR PE T D. w h
F a
}
= W
W DRAKE RD J
ED KERD o u
O
C
_C >.
7
O G�
W HORSE OOTH RD� E HORSET OTH RD O
�4
� s
1A
Z
_ ^ W ■■
w �Cte{�{{ J E HAR N E COUNTY ROAD 38
N
H Q N Q
W
yy KE HTER RD j
A U
O y
, W O
J
� v
W W �
W TRI BY RD a E TRI BY RD N c
QL O
C
y H z
� � O
CARPENTER D ECOUNTY ROAD O
a
O
fr
z
Z
7
O E COUN IrY ROAD 30
u
H
> MOUN AIN VISTA D
ul ¢ p
9 111�111j OIIININIIIIIIN o
W_ J Z
= v w E VINE DR =
V7
tll f
i = ~ V
LAPO TE AVE '1 �� z z
Ft/H \
O
N
W MULBERRY ST 2�Rs'O C R SG E MULBE Y ST
N
,. W
W PROSPECT RD E PR yyPE T D W in
Q �
F � �
W �
W DR WE RD J E D KE RD p U
i K 11 y
r z
Z
0 4
W HORSE OOTH RD E HORSET OTH RD o `1
y
N � � Z
wr r r r W E HAR , N
y Q
IA n
f W
J
IA KEC HTERRD
W �
J
V
W W
W TRI BY RD a E TRI BY RD N ILA p
Q
r Q 00
[~ W }
J H
Vi Z
_ 0
� O
CARPENTER D 'ram. E COUNTY ROAD 3 V
Q -
� I
z
z H
rti
0 E COON ROAD 30 R
> MOUN AIN VISTA D
> Q
tl1 W Q _
9 CCC 5�11� �1 111 11■� o
W_ Z J K
= w E VI E DR Vl =
N � 7
LAPO TEAVE
O4y
W MULBERRY ST �O q E MULBFJ ST
uj
W PROSPECT RD E PR PPE T D. w rn
�i Z O
F Q
}
= W z
W DRAKE RD J
ED KERD o u
O
C
_C >.
f-
7
0 'err
W HORSE 00TH 10
RD E HORSEY OTH RD
sr
� rrr
F-
un � � � Z
J 1 W
j E HAR N E COUNTY ROAD 38
H Q tJC L N Q
Z'
Y
• J Z
y KE HTER RD
�._ 70 V
J > N
W TRI LBY RD - a E TRI BY RD N c
Q C
W
� J
0
�'�� .. E COUNTY ROAD O O CARPENTER D v
QO T
z X
0 r�
O E COON ROAD 30
� u
-�` � A, MOUN IN VISTA D
> - Q
Q \ p h
N W Q G
J IN
W WEB fills millilin o
W_ J ZCIE
z
= i W E VINE DR =
Vl
to O
S H V
LAPO TEAVE _ Z
W MUL ERRY ST `�4�P SG E MULBE Y ST
N
W PROSPECT RD ROSPE T RD w N
W
qWDR WE RD J E D KE RD p O
V
r z
Z
O
W HORSE OOTH RD E HORSEY OTH RD
ch
H
N p Z
p m
w_ J E HARi
ffV N
LU
� Q m
J J
y KEC HTER RD
V i
W W 4
W TRI D a E TRI BY RD p
Q C l
W
� J
0
� O
C CARPENTER *UNTY ROAD O
O
Z
V E COUN Y ROAD 3� R
I
MOUN AIN VISTA D
N W ¢ ❑ n
O � O
111�/1111� IIIIIwIN111p111 0
J
W Z }
N Wu E VINE UR
mN Z
y 1 _ — 0
LAPO TEAVE L — ••� � _
W MUL ERRY ST 4 / sG E MULBERRY
N
W PROSPECT RD ROSPE T D IY in
- r W = Q
Q O
DR KE RD H E D KE RD ❑ V
y
e >
z
- Z
❑
CL O
W HORSE OOTH RD E HORSEY OTH RD Wdd
is
J
F Uri,
fil y
y �
y �
N m
w O RMONY E TY ROAD 38
y _ _
Q
'J KEQHTER RD am O
O
l ` J v �N
W �
W TRI E TRILBY RD N p
} Q
�
` o
O r,� '
W Y
I �
■ J H
y + _
E 0
RPENTER RD COUNTY R D 3 u
— Q
K r �
MEN n
C = n
O E COON rY ROAD 30 _ w
Vl
�11 > MOUN AIN VISTA D
ll Q Q
p N
W Q K p
�' � 11� IIIIINIIIIIIIIIN 0
uj J
Z
= w E VINE DR
Vl Z
V1 �
LAPO TE AVE _
O
W MUL ERRY ST CNgVF SG E MULBERRY
L N
N
J w
U
W PROSPECT RD R PE T IIkD w vs
I ► W Z_ Q
Q
W m
W DR WE RD y E D KE RD c u
t
z
o
Z
o
W HORSE OOTH RD E HORSEY OTH RD w u
WWI
44
F uj ~
N
N M2
RNIONY
� I NTY ROAD 38
y t ttttt
Q p
ui
� K
J KEgHTER RD H
0
�i
� C � U
= �L. . -_W
J 1 �i
- 2
W TR LBY RD '�j' E TRILBY RD N p
> Q
K
O a o
W N
= y • Z
0
� O
RPENTER IRD y COUNTY R D 3 U
� Q
O
y0: rti
Z
7
O
i� v E COUN Y ROAD 30
H
■
T � l AU
• - r r
IIO k51 IO:: ' I kl S14V01 +,
OLD TOWN
COLCRADO STATE
COLLEGE AVENUE/ �. � Ivh ?SI - y FORT COLLINS
MASON STREET CORRIDOR \ I
TO LOVELAND. BERTHOUD, - lsyYOk
_ - _ "r�"YY'+•'�"•-✓ •y,-'... -
�- LONGMONT, BOULDER .-����,� _
Jp
• -
+x- . . HARMONY A
TECHNOLOGY PAO� — •,t• - �,
psi . 7'a. f ( t Z c -c- i� I ER-
-
FOSSIL RIDGE
HIGH SCHOOI �
ZIEGLER ROAD�,I/.
IDE �ARAPAHOE BEND
MORNINGS .
VILLAG - NATURAL AREA
-
�� - PRESIDIO mvia'imp
TO CHEYEN ' ll
- EAGLE VIEW o RVTORr •
NATURAL AREA � A � Vl-
CR.
ATURAL AREA � '`� >.� - ° �� •- �� �' -- coMMERaaE - -
T. � .
���r INTERS coMMLRCIA� _
IF
OWLrf -. - - �
T _ i0 UENVER - }- -
_ 1 , N
GREENWAY -
L - . u �z-� Z �rf-111`'�� ' - i • is � '� 4 1
-" ' � - - • • J of w �. ..1r� ��
. 'I A
- ` r
kk
-Sol 0 , lop
And a mixe pedestrian district
' 7
- r �• _� . . : as �.
• ommercicM. exits ' ' -No [like other r
0041 . � ;
10
' ♦ . � -
I -4 .1 saki
AV
.
Inv I;J!yb4!-
i S r
P -
Pedestrian . District a A
vision sketch
� 01
_ _ . '
- :
� . �
, � . � � $ ` q. �
, � / � �� # �� - ' � �� � . Z > � � . ■ ■
oil z _\ �
! f . , , ■
� ` � � � �J 2 �� , � �_�� ■ . � %
ki . . - • ' , ■ r
■ , I . � � � � �� ` �� � � }� � � � �� � \ ��� �$ �� �� � ` � � �
- �
1 . d ,
� � l��
1p
Pedestrian District
vision example '
.1
w I `
. ' �_; _
wmrl TII
F
/r" J r ;4Z
f {
,
IR
r �
1 rl
J �r LI r 'r i - V I TA o
t.
LLr
—rC_ 7CC=CCCLCC =7CC= ��Y
n
B RRY o
• j i r _. ._
PE T o -
z
Uin =001 H
n R
Li H
• - w
n � n
J
J n h tARM NY
u
— O It X _LC LCL CLLLLL]CL.f�CCLCG=CLLC CL]CL.LLCLL X
� V u
r
• • n
R Proposed Regional ETC
Legend BRT
M...-..r' GMA J
— r— Interstate 25
♦ �i
— Arterial Network
111111 Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC)
• . . Proposed Regional ETC
Proposed Regional ETC (BRT) w fi Commuter Rail 1.LL
OTargeted Interchange k
r
• J Nairn 6 F • air
n R"
NtRnd �
lifts
• � /� k+�rcutl Ih7y+ s .
4
• � Y
�rt•T R�
J Ark r . fijr44�
N — J.{wYfr L, b
* Cµ'
LO At
31 4r
4+
r L
4 —,x Jtl
1 ^mm
mot_
North Metro
I
nn-f�-- SON
no
AR
rA
14
' . p ..• _ • - ` ito
H a a � RIr
,� . �J .�i�. •. ) fl
-
To
Sim—
ow 11
. ,a • . Add. III, _ ,, ._ ; I. ..
Pedestrian District
vision examples
v Q
FY
I GYM
v60eoo'C la� _uW/ Il1�y
4�t OF
dS 1 i 7
�%✓ 1kr
I .We 401wP
-
I �' w
In
Mk
,•,anal �. '�j. . Y ._ i ��
>• aIF, 4
IFI
IF IF
IF
IF
at
IF
� � ti �� � �� F!i• .ram � � _ _ ^ ,."•�
w
a ; '' ti, �4, ■ ■.r : _ . '�,, . Pedestrian District
r
s. its
vision examples
��
4 �
a
t
r
me pit
Ij
IP
� ' ,- � Tom.. _• - • ' �,
�,: .� w• , � _ . Scale of Bui lding
vision examples
M
t i
. : � .
.r
Water Edges .. '
vision examples , ,
i
f ,
Y • J I I �
r
{� z r 4 �
i i f f. JW
rq
h
4
f-y
16
-
fgo
+41
Ire"
r
S
' • ?
x �'
It 4T, It
pT
i 1 �41
- :, 1 ^` l
i } t 1
It
l It
IV
1
• ', F , 1 �
-jr VI IJ ' SJ ��4� fY
C..:71 ; i rli Illy, vLI : ! i'U: 4A leyA II RT C.- I !� 5
+o UwFLP..SI -
♦ ki
TO LOVELAND, BEMMio LI, . . 's _ L FT
ii
�=a4�G+�QNT:��41?L6FP��
f` — rm
rt ' r� t i ♦ ,
A J
ke
$r QGL A aft qk E LMOLOG.y A
wilh
t_
F �QGL�-
r
- lb
Wild
•.. • k - h YSli CLL, F
Is a In a
RAL ' r
a i i !" Ti _ �. . ..
i y 4 P.RS i qY ° 116
'1. My;ry+rk+ twWA
•�raiaaa • syi► - • : -
4'
�r, q
i
{ e y t
fir o �! a y 1 L � r" - '.� . •• � �- n .. r� r�
WAP
IF
- _�
Wr
Oar
�11,in
; r! :< IS
IS
T I '
Im
. f f
146
f
rWL
: : • :l�
• COO
Ar
40
AL
- , � , ; �. (�;ht I � �� l' +i i i li - _ - AIM a:•. ` •�i
!
ate!
- � I
� r �
' Logistics • ?
Pro ;� � � rI ' - ridrr
Special Urban Design
Potential Regional Potential Neighborhood Service Center Opportunity - Gateway
Shopping Center or or Community Shopping Center Development with orientation
Community Shopping Center
to natural character
Potential Neighboncc . : Potential Lifestyle •• •'•••
Service Center Shopping Center Q •• '.'•
X.
MIME • r
i •• r •• • F • • . • • • ,• •• • • • • •• •• • . • . • • • ••••• •• • . .•. • • • • �-
• • i• , • ,•, • • • • • , • . • • • • • • • • •:••••••:• fit
00
f• �a� ? Potential Neighborhood
Secondary I - -----_—---------__j Service Center
Uses Without
Business Park
Special Urban Design Opportunity -
With emphasis on
Existing Regional Historical Heritage of Harmony Road
Shopping Center
Harmony Activity Centers Existing - • Use / •
® Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Activity Center
Mixed Use Activity Center
Logistics A
mN nts
will
'�-'� J v :._:epl;�jS a is aa: rV•. •.�7 "� n � �i
+ ■IIIIIIIIIII�,+ -- - I
_ .. ...1 .
_1�
� ■L . :4G V.
�' 3�s Ff wy ail C __ - __ • s � dl _■ � wl�--::- ■■N ■NI
r :mil � � ■_ -
INIII did.,414116
ilia
NN'T moll
FIT
a"Imm
Le FI
I. Ills
liedx:
• _ .IGdu 1 ii ::iln
�' I nNiii
Idis C' - - .
M� • • u
mailI we
� � . 11111 �•�'Y
nu:n0d �
Basic I ndustriala1 N o - - = Act � Proposed Land Use Map
Soecial Urban Design
Opportunity - Gateway
Development with orientationWi LI
to natural character
PP•• •••• • T' Pobntal 61fitIj1e
• • • Sh pping Center,
• •
I Nil
� �` •� •••• •
• •c • •is
0000*
• • - • NN • • ��• 1 lill
n �
• • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • • • • • N r M
• • • • • • • • • • • •"•—•` • • • • • • • • y
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • it
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ti• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • `^ Maim Onl
• • • • • • • • • • • • III
. • • • • • • • • •. • • • • employment Also. . . . . . • . . . . N . . . area
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • - ;pedal Uroan
• • • • • • • • • • • Pobntal [•sign 1vorUnitj for
. . _ . • - - - - - :, . . . m ixed
- -1:�rT9' • • i' • • • • • • • • ,'y • • • • • • • -- — Ilelgllbonto0tl Cltj Ge! 'a' ay Will
Servlc• pnbr ] Bnpnotis on
k � use Plwrvalley seting
NOMA
C / :CRiRo• I KCCIITER N(j ti?{
J _
NY
f' f� • # ..li r •
� r � ;� � � � � � � r � �.lrr � � ri �
. . . - . - . dment
mi t
.r f, ncmil HGaring May 6
�J � r � ~ J �J � r = ' Jam
ri in r : r � J !Jri J
11 =. �. rJr1 J E
� , r Zrm � r � qlai=� r = r1 rJ J rJ - r � rJrJ J
rjJr = Jun j j :ftwmoirj • .
r . . rrr � rrj rlr 'i
ORT COLLINS - TIMNATH - WINDSOR SEPARATOR STUDY
Map 3
Fort Collins Community
,..• Separators
Legend
y .............................. .. . . . . .... . .. . . .... ... .
' • Fg(Cdlma - TmnaO •
Separator
Tinmath Reservon Fql Cdlire Tmnati
Winds& sapxalq
ohq open Larasl
PToWed Areaa
•, Fql ColAnsGMA
y Timnst) GMA
gyp' ••,.: Windsor GMA
City Limits
nath FglCdl°�
rot Collins Timnath
Wmdw
•
_. - . . . - -
Fossil Creek Reservoir
-
ss ` UE - - - - � _-- .. UE `� - - - - �
RC I — `�. RC I N
......_....._ .........n I ......... ._..... ............
00
! ! U
f HARMDIIV RD _ E COUIIIV�D.3i E NARMDIIY RD _ � C E CDUII P:. ROAD 38_
1 . .Z,I�. C
O
E I� E E co
Proposed E
d)
Amendment
ea
LMN ,U RUL LMN U
R CRWRRD ! „ ` — RE WR RD
1 ECWNIY ROADM -- �� ECWNiY ROAD I{
PUL K POL Tirnnath..__._._._._ .t RUL Mixed
Use
!alA Mp_Lal¢a lane ua IMR. Low Den�n7iRa-u: Heipnwmnoaa • • • •
�K latlm,e _ c- Gmmatlal Wnna r DiAnu RUL. Rua I na:
Dwn ft a s E Dry10y nt DSM _ POL- open Ianes.PaNsand %mamcummrs
M- uaan E M _ RC- Pnwm Rr . • • •
0 375 750 1 ,500 Feet
1
rl�% r , 1,
PhlII
ISM L
mou,
ro-spri It
44
NIC
Ic
- ' Harmon , Road + : �
Harmony ,
Attachment 3
• Quick Comparison: Existing and Proposed Plan Content
Current Plan Proposed Amendment
Vision None: Alternative Concepts for Stated Vision for a combination of a transit
"Gateway Area"; but"additional work oriented pedestrian district and open river
required to develop a strategy..." valley landscape areas
Land Use `Basic Industrial Non-Retail Employment' `Mixed Use' on Harmony Corridor Plan
Designation on Harmony Corridor Plan Land Use Map; Land Use Map, with special Gateway Area
modified by explanation of"...additional section in Plan
work required"
Land Use Light industrial, office, and similar business Would allow a complete range of retail,
Explanation park-type employment uses are `Primary'. restaurants, employment,residential,
Other supporting uses including small scale services, and entertainment. Includes all
convenience retail,restaurants, dwellings, Primary and Secondary Uses permitted
day care, and a few others, are `Secondary' currently, but without percentage limits
and limited to 25%of a development plan
Size of 415 acres 540 acres
Subject (125-acre parcel added to south, expands
Area southward by 1/2 mile)
Southern 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road;reflects 1 mile south of Harmony road at Kechter
Boundary 1991 City growth boundary Road;reflects extent of gravel mine; well
within current GMA
Pedestrian Per City-wide development standards Additional, enhanced focus of transit-
Network oriented development of a pedestrian
district
Transit Not a major consideration in land use A determining factor in Plan vision for
concepts mixed use pedestrian district
Community A complementary implementation strategy Superceded by Regional Commercial
Separators designations abutting GMA boundary
Building Unclear guidance due to combination of: 6 stories
Height Harmony Corridor Plan's conclusion of
Limit "...additional work required';
City Structure Plan's interpretation of
Harmony Corridor Plan; and unincorporated
status which allows for special conditions of
annexation. Harmony Corridor Zone
District, the presumptive zoning upon
annexation, generally allows for 6 stories.
•
a�
c
m
U
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
ems . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ._. ._. . . .
• J `. . . O C -• • • • • •• . • • • • L
O
•••• ••• ••I'••••••••.•••• O
♦ • i
Igo
N m
d R w tl • • • •- • • • • • • • • O J
OR • • • JL • • • • • • • • • • Yr O
C r R • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M• 16,
a+ • • • • • • • • • • • • r L
QC L • • • • • • • • • • • • P R O
T • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 L
l„ !� CD lVdQ0 'CC7 lC ••••• . •• •• • • •C •
Ogoo ••••••••••y�•
O •
�O
. • •
O • •y • CUQ 9 C ' OO
a • . • • • QTC
U.d=Q.O _ ,, aL U
.00LO,
`
••••.• '. • I•. �I Fill I I
Cl)d '•�•'• • �•` .y C d
moo
`• • • • • 0000
• • • • • N
m • • • • • • • • R N CI
000
CL
11,
G C J .•••I II•••••.•••.••0,
L CL a • • • • • f Y'] .O
(D gee
tf4 t ? fn � 2 a 4 ,
"
Z ., ,4.
E . ,.
Gus
a `o }
iF
r
. •j ' U
. . ., . . • . .�..: . m Z
o at • • o c ;�
to '" •• • • a�i U U
• i Q
oco
� . • c
•y C �I Y.^li�.�- . •• •• • in p N
Z \� ' I•••• •O••-ca IV i i W fq N
o m
a
c y On Q° r U a
m e tLA In X
a IIIV*
'�
a W ti ZL a OE ••••
N W o
fA =) Q1
_ •
0
a �
§ � .
)\ 2 �� I In\ I
. ._ .
�m I= ::i �#
,11 Off a .
� z
, ■ -
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
•
Log of Public Discussion
October 10, 2007 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Discussion w/owner team
October 11, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Discussion
November 14, 2007 Public Open House Letter, Ad, Discussion
November 16, 2007 Chamber of Commerce LLAC Discussion
November 28, 2007 Transportation Board Discussion
November 30, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Discussion
December 19, 2007 Natural Resources Advisory Board Discussion
•
•
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussions with LAND CONSERVATION&STEWARDSHIP BOARD,excerpt from minutes of
Regular Meeting on October 10, 2007
I-25 and Highway 392 Interchange
• Wray: I would like to talk about the Natural Areas and buffers associated with the
engineering project. The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The purpose of this IGA includes the need to
develop a comprehensive Plan for design and funding interchange improvements. Fort
Collins and Windsor have joined together to lead this study. We partnered with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)who partially helped us fund the cost for
developing the plan over this past year. We've also worked with Colorado Department
of Transportation(CDOT), area property owners, City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County staff. As part of this process we are looking at funding strategies for coming up
with the needed revenues to pay for the complete reconstruction of the interchange,
which is estimated to be 22 million,bonded over a twenty year time frame.
These are some of the key points we were looking at while developing the plan.
o Plan Purpose-Key Objectives
o Plan process
• Wray: In addition to the plan participants all ready mentioned, our staff has worked with
representatives of the Division of Wildlife, to look at the critical resource area
particularly on the West side of the interchange and around Fossil Creek reservoir area.
• o Existing Conditions
• Interchange currently operating at a falling level of service
• Area largely undeveloped
• Falling interchange reduces development potential
• Regionally important natural resources and open space close by
• Area serves as gateway to Windsor, southern Fort Collins
■ Expected to be a regional transit hub
■ The Corridor Activity Center(CAC) is the area immediately surrounding
the interchange and where the project will have the greatest impact.
(Wray pointed this area out on a map)
o North I-25 Environment Impact Statement
• A key document considered was the North 1-25 Draft EIS. Current Draft
Alternative under consideration shows a tight diamond interchange and a
potential Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) station at the interchange (in one of the
two alternatives). The final EIS is currently projected to be completed in
2009.
o Natural resources
■ Recommended Buffers:
- 100 to 300 foot buffer of the edge of the natural features
- A 50 foot buffer is recommended for wetlands not adjacent to
Fossil creek Reservoir
- A buffer of 1,320 feet is proposed to protect bald eagles winter
• roosting areas as defined by Colorado Department of Wildlife
(CDOW).
o Framework Plan-map of plan was handed out to the Board
Attachment 6 - Page 2 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Highlights include:
- Bus Rapid Transit accessible from both sides of the interstate with
pedestrian overpass
- Gateway bridge
- Substantial retail and mixed use development
- Open space and trails to connect natural systems
• Theobald: (In reference to the SW Frontage Road alternatives map) these alternatives that
you refer to, A, B, C, you refer C coming from CDOT, has A and B also came from
there?
• Wray: A and B came from this process as an alternative to what CDOT is showing on
their EIS.
• Stanley: Why would you choose those over the CDOT plan?
• Wray: We're looking at several things 1) our City structure plan map has recognized this
area as an activity center for many years 2) we need to look at appropriate land use and
potential future development to help fund the interchange. We are looking at separate
actions, separate from the CDOT process and EIS. We're looking at providing more land
within that area and the activity center and also looking at different buffer set-backs for
the Natural Areas.
• Leavitt: The third thing is, moving it further West allows extended stacking for
transportation requirements.
• Stanley: Lets suppose you give Frontage Road to CDOT, how close would you build to
• those wetlands as compared to those roads?
• Wray: If Council picks one of these Frontage Road alignments as their recommendation
the question would be, if C were chosen, would development be only on the East side of
Frontage Road, and not have any development on the West side? With a larger site to
work with you would have more flexibility for size and type of project to work with. The
second question is, is a road an appropriate separation between a buffer set-back or
developments,parking lots, intense human activity, and buildings? The difference
between these alternatives is about a 130 feet.
• Stanley: That seems like it could be a significant difference, and Dave I'd like your
opinion on buffers.
• Theobald: I wonder over all how much impervious surface and how much activity are
going on. The distance buffers are more related to wildlife activity.
• Wray: From Windsor's perspective, they're going with the state land report and want to
get this project done. Most of the issues are on our side of I-25. Our challenge is looking
at the direction and support for good partnership and coming up with a joint partnership
to fund the interchange reconstruction and looking at the amount of available land use
and fish and wildlife to help contribute to that. The other side of that is that we have
critical resources areas on the West side.
Wray pointed out on a map the regional part of the property.
• Theobald: From what I understand from a wildlife perspective, the set back is important
but also what are important are the uses that will be allowed on that peninsula. If there is
a residential area there, you need to consider what kind of access is allowed and you want
• to strike a balance.
• Leavitt: I've been asked by the County to work out what is going to happen there because
if it gets annexed then it's our program that gets overlaid on. I'm sure when we are done
it will not get pushed against the 1,300 foot radius for housing development.
Attachment 6 - Page 3 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• • Theobald: I'm wondering if a discussion is in the mix regarding the potential for people
who may live in the area to trespass, and eventually create a social trail through the
peninsula.
• Leavitt: One of the reports from ERO talks about what kind of protection there would be
so there wouldn't be too much intrusion through the buffer zone. This is one of the
things we will work on in this review process.
• Wray: Just as we are looking at different funding options for Council to look at, we
anticipate those to be further negotiated as we continue the implementation over the next
couple of years. As far as alignments, we also anticipate that there will be farther
discussion and coordination over the next couple of years either as a result or a response
to development in this area. In the interim projects before the overall interchange is
completed, it is very likely that an interchange alignment will be coordinated sooner than
the final full project will be completed.
• Boyd: Is there Prairie Dog towns in the flat field?
• Wray: There are Prairie Dogs in this field, and also across the wetlands as you get into
the regional park area.
• Stanley: The 50 foot buffer seems very minimal compared to when we talk about the 300
foot buffer at the river. Please comment on the normal City regulations on that and why
the difference in the buffer footage.
• Leavitt: The City has buffers for wetlands that range from 50 feet to over 100 feet and
then there are shore land buffers because of the wildlife that lives there. If an area comes
• for development review, we have strict standards under the land use code for Natural
Areas and habitats. Currently these are lines on paper, once the development proposal
comes in then this map is evaluated to an ecological territorialization study, and then we
look at the value of the wetland and the value of the open space buffer, and what kind of
activity is happening there. We also look at what true buffers should be there and what
kind of enhancement to bring that buffer up to more of a wildlife corridor,because that's
truly what these buffers are successful at. We rely on a letter from Gerry Craig that states
that roadways can be used as a buffer, and that wildlife will move along that. I agree that
traffic counts have to be taken into account.
Leavitt showed different buffer areas on a slide map.
• Wray: What hasn't been mentioned yet is that 392 will be widened from a two lane to a
four lane highway. There will be impacts with the widening of this road.
• Stanley: Will this interchanged be included on the 2008 ballot for transportation
funding?
• Wray: It could be depending where we are at in our time frame.
• Stanley: I assume that CDOT will take care of this or does it not happen that way?
• Wray: CDOT and the MPO have a priority list of projects in Northern Colorado. CDOT
is contributing a small amount and have made it very clear that they do not have the
funding for this project.
• Stanley: If it were on the 2008 ballot as part of that package would it no longer be which
one do we want A or B, but because we had proposed C, is that what would be built?
• Wray: If they had funding they would be mandated to move forward with their EIS
• package and alternative C is part of their type item configuration, that is what they would
build if they had affordable funding. We anticipate that we are going to see development
come forward sooner than CDOT will be ready to build this interchange. From a City's
Attachment 6 - Page 4 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• perspective we're going to coordinate and respond to development and look at these other
alternatives as potentially a separate action from the EIS process.
• Theobald: Options A and B are there because you won't be able to get more money
because of commercial land?
• Wray: We're trying to look at the development potential of the activity center. We
looking to come up with the appropriate land use support for funding this project on both
sides.
• Theobald: Will this project pay its own way or will we be behind?
• Wray: We are looking at a local partnership to come up with a solution for this
interchange, because CDOT does not have the funds. We are looking to partner with the
MPO, CDOT, Windsor(we are not sure about Larimer County),private land owners and
their representatives and developers to come up with a funding package that is fair for the
associated benefits in and around this area.
• Haines: What is Windsor's part of that 22 million?
• Wray: We are looking roughly at 2 million from CDOT. In the next couple of years we
will request funds from the MPO, and at this point Windsor has identified 1 million
dollars and the same from Fort Collins.
• Haines: Windsor has caused the heavy use.
• McLane: The MPO has a model that can show us where people using this interchange
come from. Of the traffic at the interchange, in 2005, 37 percent has a trip end in Fort
Collins, 15 percent has a trip end in Loveland, 29 percent has a trip end in Windsor and 3
• percent has a trip end in Greeley. In 2025 the estimate is 31 percent with a trip end in
Fort Collins, 27 percent with a trip end in Loveland, 26 percent with a trip end in
Windsor and less than one percent with a trip end in Greeley. It's the usual cross regional
traffic situation with people living, working, and shopping in different parts of the region.
• Stanley: What is the best buffer? I have respect for Gerry Craig,but I'm not sure that he
is doing the most current research because he is retired from the Division of Wildlife. I
would like to see what is the best buffer from someone who is currently studying this
type of work.
Stokes pointed out on a map, what the ownership of the Natural Areas is.
• Wray: It's up to you whether you want to do a full recommendation to Council or we can
include the minutes from this meeting as part of our Council packet. We're going to
recommendation hearings on October 17` in Windsor and our Plan and Zoning Board on
October 18`11. Our Council is scheduled for November 6t'to accept the plan.
Stanley: Personally I like it when we give a recommendation to Council. What I can do is take
the minutes and write something up regarding the concerns and then send it on to the Board for
review, and then send it to Council.
•
Attachment 6 - Page 5 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussions with the PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD,October 11, 2007 Work Session:
Clark Mapes, City Planner, introduced the main ideas being considered in a proposed Plan
amendment, including background of the existing plan, and changed conditions.
Main ideas include a dense, multi story, transit oriented pedestrian district centered on a
waterway and bridges in a reshaped gravel mine landscape as a gateway district at the entryway
to the city.
Board comments and questions in informal discussion:
Is this the way to go? How does it fit with City Plan?
Always liked the idea of the gateway emphasizing Fort Collins as a low key, open city.
Concerned about intensity at this location.
Concerned about community buy-in—how do we get it?
Regarding public process, I think folks are not aware that development requires a Plan
amendment. They're more interested in the actual place that gets developed.
How specific can we/should we get in evaluating specific impacts?
• It seems to swing in an opposite direction from existing plans.
Does this take a change in the goals of the Harmony Corridor Plan?
It looks like a good proposal.
Change has been coming—we do need to respond, and this looks like it makes sense.
•
Attachment 6 - Page 6 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussions from PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE on November 14,2007 at Fossil Ridge High School:
Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment
Listening Log- Open House
November 14, 2007 Fossil Ridge High School
Naturally auto-oriented site. Noise from 70,000 cars a day. Better for big box to boost sales tax
base.
Will increase traffic—what's the%increase due to this? Will need 8 lanes of traffic.
Better for Employment.
Regional Retail will come up in a couple years. Be honest about likelihood of switch to Power
Center, so face the reality now.
Should be regional retail. Won't be community. Poor connectivity to community street system.
Get mixed use further in city, on a street network
Will Horsetooth/Ziegler roundabout trigger paving CR7? Or will roundabout lead to a dirt road?
If Big Box power center users won't be prohibited, then show how they would fit in.
What happens when say"Costco" comes knocking? Looks like the Bayer thing(i.e. will change
under marketpressure.)
• Limits on other retail locations are due to City rules.
Wk do this? Like the City the way it is.
Noise—is there a market for residential—it's a constant hum for %a mile.
Wildlife—There's lots of it, where will it o? eagles, hawks, foxes, owls, rabbits, etc.
Great project.
Attachment 6 - Page 7 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussions with the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee, excerpts from Meeting on November 16, 2007:
I. Harmony Gate Way Plan
a. Clark Mapes provided an overview of the Harmony Corridor Plan
Amendments that are being considered by City Council. The Harmony
Corridor Plan was designed in 1991 and the gateway into the City was treated
different from the rest of the corridor in the original plan, with a more
naturalistic focus with limited development. Since the plan was released there
has been constant conversation about what land owners can do with the
property in the area. Additionally, changing conditions along the corridor,
including heavily developed areas planned by Timnath along the corridor,
have caused the City to revisit the original plan. The plan amendments would
allow for a Harmony Gateway District on the southwest side of the
Harmony/I-25 interchange with waterways, a transit hub, shopping,
employment, retail and housing focused on an urban level pedestrian district
b. Questions asked by the LLAC included how much housing was proposed for the area,
whether or not big boxes would be allowed, whether or not prospective drawings were available,
what impact these changes would make the travel patterns and flow on Harmony, where we will
have employment land in 20 years, what impact the water table has on the area, what
environmental concerns come with the area and what impact water law has on the current storage
• ponds and the ability to change those.
•
Attachment 6 - Page 8 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussions with TRANSPORTATION BOARD,excerpt from minutes of Meeting on
November 28, 2007:
b. Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment: Harmony Gateway District at I25/Harmony,
Westside, Clark Mapes
The plan was written in 1991 and identified the Gateway area at Harmony and I-25 as a
community entry/gateway. The plan doesn't state a preferred vision,but explains possible
outcomes ranging from a traditional highway business area to natural areas. It concluded that
more work is necessary. An intensive urban district is being looked at in the area.
Developer/Ownership team has approached the City wanting to work on an urban district on
the south side of Harmony. It will be a true Transit Oriented Development pedestrian district
oriented toward Transit (TOD =Transit Oriented Development), with multi-story buildings.
The river valley/low ground is planned as a centerpiece including canals and ponds. I would
like to bring it back to this Board in January for a recommendation to Council. We are taking
it to Council on February 5, 2008.
Robert: Will this require a change in the structure plan of the City?
Mapes: Yes. It is currently an employment district. With Timnath's announcement about
their plan to develop along I-25, it will require a change.
Robert: Will Stoner be required to build a new interchange at I-25 and Kechter?
Bracke: No. CDOT looked at it to see if it provided relief for Harmony, and it doesn't.
Jackson: It is also a spacing issue.
• Grigg: You said something about a canal. Where exactly would that be?
Mapes: It would be down the center of a half-mile area.
Grigg: How do they keep the water clean?
Mapes: It is ground water that circulates.
Frazier: Is it either/or or and...regarding the two concepts you mentioned.
Mapes: It is an AND. Both concepts. It is like a small downtown at I-25.
Thomas: When you come back in January, will you bring some of Marlys' people to
comment on Transit?
Jackson: We need to bring Transfort people and Kathleen, who has been working on it.
Miller: Where do we see information on this?
Mapes: I will get information to you prior to the January meeting.
Edmondson: We need to know numbers of people that Transit would move.
Mapes: They are proposing four 15-story residential buildings. It is 250 acres—comparable
to a new downtown.
Miller: Is this to prevent Timnath from developing out there?
Mapes: No, but it is definitely a reaction to Timnath's announcement that they want to
develop near there.
Miller: So that is what part of the incentive is.
Mapes: It is a hanging aspect. There is no legal way to prevent Timnath's development from
happening.
• Thomas: Can you send us the PowerPoint on this?
Robert: Or post it on the City website.
Mapes: I will put it on the City website.
Attachment 6 - Page 9 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussion with PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD,WORK SESSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 30,
2007
Clark Mapes, City Planner, reminded the Board of a Plan amendment being prepared by staff,
and invited the Board to continue discussion from the previous worksession in preparation for an
upcoming hearing item on a Recommendation to City Council. One specific topic that did not
get enough time for discussion previously was the idea of a few taller buildings being discussed
—up to about 15 stories or more.
Board comments and questions in informal discussion:
This plan seems like a huge swing in an opposite direction from the existing plan. Makes you
wonder why do a plan, when it just gets changed?
Question whether it can be a TOD. Transit oriented development. Having the park and ride
across Harmony doesn't make it a TOD. TOD is happening around the country and its more
about rail stations you can walk to in the middle of really dense areas. Really question the use of
the term in this case. A park and ride is very different—you drop your car off, go to Denver, and
you come back, get in your car and leave.
Don't see how the gateway idea is important. It's more of a big development. Could just drop
• the gateway part of it and just talk about the development.
Don't think the height is a good idea. This seems like the wrong place. Have a hard time
evaluating the impacts. Not sure how we would do that.
•
Attachment 6 - Page 10 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Discussion with NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD, excerpt from minutes of Regular
Meeting on December 19, 2007
Update on I-25 and Harmony Activities and Harmony Corridor
City planner, Clark Mapes made a presentation regarding the proposed Harmony Corridor
Plan Amendment of the 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan, (Harmony Road from College to I-25.)
■ This amendment involves the"Gateway Area" at the I-25 interchange on the west side. It
would change the land use designation in the subject area from "Basic Industrial Non-
Retail Employment"to "Mixed Use Retail Activity Center", and add 105 acres to the
designation south of Harmony.
■ The amendment area is primarily 250 acres located on the southwest corner of Harmony
Rd & I-25, plus a 20-acre area on the north side, some of which is currently gravel pits,
ponds and river valley.
• Why amend the harmony corridor plan?
o The current plan does not state a conclusion about an outcome or a vision for this
area and designated it for"more work"to set a strategy for the area.
■ The plan generally calls for the city's edge to taper down in terms of
development intensity, with the river valley floodplain corridor helping to
• preserve the separate identities of Fort Collins and Timnath, and to
provide scenic, recreational, educational, habitat and water management
functions.
o Some conditions have changed since 1991 that staff feels has negated the original
plan and has caused staff to bring an amendment of the plan to council at this
time.
• Arapahoe Bend, north of Harmony Road, was purchased by the city as a
Natural Area and will maintain a natural status.
• In the past, land south of Harmony was offered to the city for community
separator purposes, but was declined due to costs and difficulties of the
extensive gravel mine closeout and restoration. However, the city may
revisit purchasing it.
■ The park and ride facility was constructed on the north side of Harmony,
with a long range plan to connect TransFort and the Mason Corridor and
possibly a region-wide I-25 bus system.
• Larger buildings and retail complexes have been built at Centerra and the
event center, including an 8 story hotel near the fairgrounds.
■ The ownership/development team of J. Stoner has proposed to annex and
work with the city on a large mixed use, urban pedestrian district and
transit center at Harmony and I-25.
• They are proposing to reshape the entire landscape of the gravel pit
so that the floodway would be confined into a waterway by raising
• the land out of the floodplain, resulting in an amenity to
development
Attachment 6 - Page 11 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• Clark Mapes shared some issues he thought would be of particular interest to Natural
Resources:
o Two separator studies were conducted in 1999 and 2003 that identified land
between Fort Collins, Timnath and Windsor that could be cooperatively used
without purchase. However, a competitive development market and sales tax
environment has grown instead in northern Colorado, and as a result, the separator
plan will probably never happen.
o Two years ago Timnath amended their comprehensive plan to include regional
commercial development east of I-25, including a Super Wal Mart shopping
center is currently planned on the NE corner of I-25.
o Timnath, Larimer County and the ownership team met and the ownership team
approached Fort Collins to collaborate on an urban mixed-used development
south of Harmony which would include multi-story buildings,pedestrian walks,
shared parking lots, waterways, canals, bridges, parking structures, served by
transit, regional and CDOT shuttles.
■ Their vision is to create something like the San Antonio water district with
canals, walkways, commercial and high rise residential, from 6 to 15
stories high. They plan to offer a type of urban living that doesn't
currently exist in Ft. Collins.
■ Clark pointed out that the magnitude of development here would be
similar to the Denver Tech Center south of Denver.
■ Clark pointed out the development would also redo the cell tower, gas
• station and nursery and, once Wal Mart is finished, the floodplain will be
filled and gravel pit restored. The scenic views of the mountains as a
projection of Ft. Collins civic values would be gone.
o Clark voiced his concern that if Fort Collins does not collaborate on this project,
the ownership company will approach Timnath and build it anyway on the east
side of I-25.
• The group discussed if the development was in Timnath, would the
standards be lower than if Fort Collins collaborated in the development.
o Clark Mapes related the Ft. Collins planning staff is concerned how to handle the
edge along I-25.
• The group discussed the fact that the current plan has '/4 - '/2 mile green
area next to the highway, CDOT's plans to expand I-25 and the impact
this would have on the Poudre school district.
o City council will discuss this on January 22, as part of a larger discussion
regarding I-25 development.
• The decision for city council is to keep the current plan or respond the
changes proposed.
• The ownership group has filled out the petition for annexation of the land
but are waiting for the council's decision because they prefer to be in Fort
Collins. They have even hired the world's leading wetlands restoration
company to be on their team.
• Clark then described the Fort Collins Harmony Gateway District Vision as it would be
affected by this amendment, since changing conditions have put pressure to recast it as a
regional center and transit hub.
Attachment 6 - Page 12 of 13
Attachment 6
Log of Public Discussion
• o Under the proposed amendment, urban development would create a unique
shopping/employment/living destination in the region and state.
o The primary goals are to emphasize and capitalize on the opportunities of
reclaiming the existing gravel mine landscape, to create a high quality gateway, to
create a focused node of business activity and to create a pedestrian district with
mutually supportive mixed uses and a district sense of place. The district would
in turn mutually support evolution of public transit on the two corridors and at the
Transportation Transfer Center as a future transit hub.
• The gravel pit would be reshaped to create waterways, canals and bridges
as centerpieces for development.
■ The Gateway District would be a pedestrian district with multi-story urban
development, diverse businesses,urban styles of housing and amenities
for pedestrians and would support public transit and connection to I-25
rapid transit.
■ Building heights up to 6 stories would be allowed, with a possibility of a
few taller towers up to 15 stories.
■ The large cell tower, existing gas station and landscape business would be
redeveloped to compliment the Gateway concept.
• Redevelop the Transportation Transfer Center on the north side of
Harmony as a future transit hub.
• Clark mentioned the three main aspects of the amendment would hit all the goals.
• An open landscape separator south of Harmony involving natural areas.
• ■ Fill to restore the gravel pit could come from Eagle View Natural Area
and a waterway from Arapahoe Bend to Eagle View would be created for
the benefit of wildlife and to maintain heavily landscaped area and a
possible trail under Harmony Rd.
■ The sustainability of an urban transit hub for mixed-used multi-story
buildings.
• The group discussed the lack of infrastructure in Timnath as a basis of being a blighted
area of urban renewal, the desire of Ft. Collins not to have such development in or near it
and the impact of the view of the mountains that higher buildings would have on the
landscape.
The group discussed whether it is best to have input on the project or directly oppose it, the
impact this would have on the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area, the desire to increase wildlife
habitat at Eagle View Natural Area and the real possibility of 3 miles of solid development along
the I-25 corridor. Glen Colton stressed that regional cooperation would be important here and
that the city council needs to strongly address issues facing the city such as uranium mines,
taking water from the river and the issue at hand of urban construction along I-25.
Clark Mapes pointed out tonight's presentation was for discussion only and to inform the Natural
Resources Advisory Board of what was going to be presented to Ft. Collins City Council on
January 22 as part of a work session about the city's whole paradigm of the I-25 corridor. If the
NRAB wants to make a recommendation, and the amendment proceeds to hearings with City
• Council, Clark will return to the NRAB meeting in February or March to talk to them.
Attachment 6 - Page 13 of 13
Attachment 7
City Plan Appendix C Regarding Plan Amendments
Emphasis added relative to Harmony Corridor Plan amendment
Appendix C:
Process and Procedures for
City Plan Revisions and
Comprehensive Plan Elements
Thereof
Introduction
City Plan, and the adopted plan elements which comprise the City ' s Comprehensive
Plan, are policy documents used to guide decision-making within Fort Collins and the
surrounding area. For the City ' s Comprehensive Plan to function over time, it must be
able to be reviewed, revised, and updated on an as needed basis .
Revisions to City Plan will be conducted according to two distinct and different
procedures : Comprehensive Updates and Minor Amendments . A Comprehensive
Update will occur every five years . The purpose of the update is to thoroughly reevaluate
the vision, goals, principles and policies contained within the Plan, noting
those that should be changed and those that should be removed, and develop new
policies if necessary, to make sure that the Plan is heading in the right direction, and is
being effective . A Comprehensive Update also ensures that the decision makers are
aware of the directives contained within it.
A separate process has been established for minor amendments to City Plan and related
elements . Minor amendments may include revisions to one or a few sections of City
Plan as a result of adoption of subarea plans or a specific issue/policy plan or directive
from City Council. Minor amendments may include changes to the City Structure Plan.
Other minor amendments may be as small as correcting text or map errors .
The purpose of this section is to outline a process and procedure for revisions to City
Plan and related Comprehensive Plan elements thereof (See Appendix A —
Comprehensive Plan Elements) . The process and procedure for making these are
described below.
Comprehensive Update of City Plan
Procedures
A Comprehensive Update of City Plan will take place every five (5 ) years unless
otherwise directed by City Council . In making a determination of when a
Comprehensive Update should be initiated, a prime consideration should include what
changes have occurred since the Plan was last updated. These changes may be in the
economy or the environment, housing affordability, traffic congestion, local priorities or
issues, projected growth, other unforeseen opportunities, etc . The results from the
biennial City Plan monitoring report will provide a good indication of these changes .
A Comprehensive Update will include a thorough re-evaluation of the vision, goals,
principles and policies contained within the Plan, noting those that should be changed
and those that should be removed, and develop new policies if necessary, to make sure
that the Plan is heading in the right direction, and is being effective . A Comprehensive
Update will also include a thorough review of the validity of all information contained
with City Plan. A Comprehensive Update of City Plan will be led by the Advance
Planning Department and will include extensive opportunities for involvement by the
public, boards and commissions, City Council, City Staff and other affected interests .
The City Council will then approve, approve with conditions, or deny the update based
on its consideration of the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board, City
staff, boards and commissions, and evidence from public hearings .
Minor Amendment Procedures
Minor Amendments will be considered by the City Council, after recommendation by
the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, and any boards and commissions that may
have a legitimate interest in the proposed amendment, provided that such board or
commission is duly authorized pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code to function in
such advisory capacity. Notice of such Council action will be given as required for
resolutions pursuant to the City Charter. The City Council will then approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the amendment based on its consideration of the
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, boards and
commissions, and evidence from the public hearings . Approval of the amendments will
be by resolution.
Citizen requests for a Plan Amendment will be considered by the City Council no more
frequently than twice per calendar year unless directed by City Council upon receipt of
a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board, as stated in Policy GM- 11 .4
Decision-making. Plan amendment requests based on proposed development projects
that involve re-zonings may also be processed concurrently with rezoning applications .
Plan amendments initiated by City Council, City staff, boards and commissions, and
annexations and initial zoning, may be processed at any time (Policy GM- 11 . 1 ) .
Requests will be submitted to the City ' s Advance Planning Department at least 60 days
prior to the hearing date for the Planning and Zoning Board. The 60-day submittal
requirement is necessary in order to permit adequate public notice to be given and to
allow adequate time to complete the background work for considering a plan
amendment. A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific
findings that:
• The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the
proposed
• amendment; and
• The proposed 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.
If adopted by the City Council, City Plan will be revised to include the changes
resulting from the amendment. A letter of notification will be forwarded to the
appropriate boards and commissions when the revision(s) have been finalized.