Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/06/2005 - RESOLUTION 2005-098 AMENDING THE ''FRAMEWORK OVERL
ITEM NUMBER: 23 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: September6, 2005 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT Resolution 2005-098 Amending the "Framework Overlay Plan" which is a Part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff does NOT recommend adoption of the Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) was adopted September 17, 2002. The Plan shows two scenarios for the Downtown Airpark. One assumes continuing operations as an airport while the other indicates redevelopment. The redevelopment scenario is referred to in the EMCP as the "Framework Overlay Plan" and calls for a combination of Industrial (60%) and Employment (40%) zoning to be placed on the Airpark property. An application has been received to amend the Framework Overlay Plan so that the entire Downtown Airpark would be placed in the Employment zone, thus eliminating the Industrial zone. On May 19, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5 to 0 to annex the property but denied the request to convert the entire 148 acres to Employment zoning. On July 21, 2005, after additional information was presented to the P & Z Board, the Board voted 6—0 to deny the applicant's request for 100% Employment zoning and retain the original mix of Industrial and Employment zoning as called for in the EMCP and shown on the Framework Overlay Plan. BACKGROUND The applicant has entered into a purchase contract for the Downtown Airpark. Along with two abutting properties, the applicant is requesting a consolidated annexation of 148 acres into the City. Annexation is not an issue. The applicant is requesting an amendment that would, upon annexation, place the entire 148 acres into the Employment zone. By recommending denial of the applicant's request, the Planning and Zoning Board preserves the adopted Framework Overlay Plan which calls for a mix of Industrial (60% - northwest portion) and Employment (40% - southeast portion) zoning. September 6, 2005 -2- Item No. 23 Summary of the Planning and Board's Recommendations In matters pertaining to annexation, zoning and amendments to adopted sub-area plans, the Planning and Zoning Board is authorized only to make recommendations to City Council. Final zoning authority rests with Council. The Board took the following actions: A. May 19, 2005: Voted 5 — 0 to recommend annexation of the subject parcel. Voted 4— 1 to recommend the parcel be zoned Industrial. B. July 21, 2005: At the request of the applicant, the Board considered additional information and voted 6 — 0 to recommend the parcel be zoned Industrial (60%) and Employment (40%) in accordance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Overlay Plan. Compatibility—Helicopter Operations Vis-a-vis Employment Land Uses The central issue is compatibility between existing and future land uses. There are more opportunities for a variety of residential uses under Employment versus Industrial zoning. The applicant testified that mixed-use dwelling units located above or adjacent to non-residential land uses, could possibly be placed at the northwest end of the property whereas the commercial and industrial uses would be placed closer to the Mulberry Street and Timberline Road intersection. The P & Z Board considered the testimony from two existing businesses associated with helicopter aviation. These businesses do not rely on the Downtown Airpark for aviation operations. While these two businesses have enjoyed the open air space provided by the Downtown Airpark, they do not depend upon it. Rather, they are capable of take-off and landing from their own heliports on their individual private property. (Private heliports are governed by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, Poudre Valley Hospital has a heliport on the east side of its property.) Consequently, the two businesses are keenly interested in the potential land uses on the re- developed Airpark property. According to these businesses, the most troubling potential land use is residential, particularly mid-rise structures which could possibly impede operations. In addition, the close proximity of residential to helicopter operations could lead to noise complaints from future residents. Timing of When to Address the Compatibility Issue The P & Z Board indicated that the best time to address the compatibility issue is now at the time of annexation and zoning of the property. Since each zone district includes a specific list of September 6, 2005 -3- Item No. 23 permitted uses, the zoning of the property is the key step in setting the stage for compatibility between existing and future land uses. In contrast, the applicant contends the best time to tackle compatibility issues would be at the time of Overall Development Plan and Project Development Plan. Since compatibility issues can be influenced by such design attributes as site planning, layout of the streets and building setbacks, it would be presumptuous to assume that compatibility issues cannot be resolved through a logical and orderly design process that involves citizen participation, review by Staff and consideration by the Hearing Officer or Planning or Zoning Board. Mix of Residential Land Uses Allowed In the Industrial and Employment Zones There is a difference in the extent of allowable residential development between the Industrial and Employment zones. Industrial Zone: Employment Zone: Mixed-Use D.U.* Mixed-Use D.U.* Boarding & Rooming Houses Single Family Detached Two-Family Multi-Family Mobile Home Parks Group Homes Boarding & Rooming Houses * A"Mixed-Use Dwelling Unit' is defined as: "Dwelling, mixed-use shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a nonresidential land use." The Industrial zone does not distinguish between a primary use and a secondary use. The Employment zone, however, takes all the permitted land uses and divides them between primary and secondary categories. Among all the permitted residential dwelling units in the Employment zone, mixed-use dwelling unit is the only one designated as a primary use. All others are secondary. • Under both I and E zones, mixed-use dwelling units are permitted, and in the E zone they are granted primary status. • The Employment zone allows a greater diversity of allowable residential uses. • While the E zone allows a greater diversity, all dwelling units, with the exception of mixed-use, are considered secondary. Secondary uses in the E zone are not permitted to occupy more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. September 6, 2005 -4- Item No. 23 • For the applicant, the logical conclusion is that mixed-use dwelling units are permitted in both zones. Therefore, the desired Employment zoning would be roughly equivalent to Industrial zoning. • For the businesses associated with helicopter operations, there is no guarantee, at this stage in the process, that mixed-use dwelling units will be the only housing type associated with the project. Employment zoning clearly permits a diversity of housing types including multi-family which could result in three-story buildings. Therefore, Employment zoning represents a risk that could lead to operational and compatibility issues. Planning and Zoning Board Deliberation The P & Z Board debated the merits of maximizing protection for the helicopter businesses (Industrial zoning) versus maximizing flexibility for the applicant (Employment zoning). The Board indicated that at this stage in the process, zoning is the only issue at hand. The Board cannot, at this stage, address issues that are more related to site specific design and other attributes that could contribute to mitigation of impacts associated with development. Zoning is not the appropriate tool to reach such a level of refinement as to satisfy the parties. The applicant offered such mitigation measures as granting avigational easements for take-offs and landings, and requiring residential purchasers to sign a disclosure statement acknowledging the presence of helicopter operations. Further, evidence was submitted regarding relative decibel levels associated with helicopter operations. Finally, the applicant indicated that building placement, height restrictions and strategic placement of parking lots and stormwater detention ponds could all contribute to achieving compatibility. The Board considered all the testimony and decided in favor of retaining the Framework Overlay Plan that calls for Industrial zoning on 60% of the northwest portion of the parcel and Employment zoning on 40% of the southeast portion of the parcel. This preserves the EMCP as written and builds in, at this time, a cautious approach to land use that favors industrial-related activities. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends upholding the Planning and Board decision to retain the mix of Industrial and Employment zoning as indicated on the EMCP Framework Overlay Plan. Staff originally recommended approval of the applicant's request for overall Employment zoning at both the May 19th and July 21 st Planning and Zoning Board hearings. Upon considering the public testimony and weighing the Board's deliberations at both hearings, Staff now concludes that the proposed plan amendment may create compatibility issues with the surrounding property owners. The cautious approach would be to install some level of compatibility through zoning at this time. September 6, 2005 -5- Item No. 23 Throughout the formulation of the EMCP and subsequent discussions since adoption, Staff assumed the helicopter operators were directly associated with the Downtown Airpark. Staff also assumed that with the purchase option and potential re-development of the Airpark property, these businesses would relocate along with all other aircraft-related users. With the recent realization that the existing helicopter businesses intend to remain in their present locations, Staff's recommendation is consistent with the P & Z Board's concern regarding issues of compatibility. All parties recognize that placement into a zone district is but one tool in determining the development of the subject 148 acres. In particular, the Board asked if there was a process by which there could be a blending of the Industrial and Employment land uses subject to meeting certain compatibility requirements. In response, Staff replied that such a process would be a combination of both zoning and master planning and these processes cannot be achieved at the same time. Only upon submittal of a future Overall Development Plan and Project Development Plan can there be a thorough discussion and refinement of compatibility issues. ATTACHMENTS Materials Submitted by Staff 1. Vicinity Map 2. Memo to P & Z for July 21 st Hearing with Attachments 3. Staff Report to P & Z for May 19th Hearing with Attachments 4. Minutes to Board Hearings 5. Framework Overlay Map Materials Submitted by Applicant 6. Information Packet Prepared for September 6th City Council Meeting Commu.__cy Planning and Environmental ,. rvices ATTACHMENT 2 !AC Current Planning 12 (M =ftM1 7/21/OS Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner RE: Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning DATE: July 8, 2005 1. Background: On May 19, 2005, the P & Z Board voted to approve the annexation of the Airpark Village but with a recommendation of Industrial zoning versus the applicant's preference for Employment zoning. The applicant has re-submitted a request for Employment zoning which requires an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Overlay Framework Plan. Additional materials have been provided for the Board's consideration. 2. New Information: The applicant has provided information on the three existing helicopter operations in the vicinity as well as data on noise and safety. Further information is provided on a safe rate of ascent and descent for a typical helicopter. In addition, the applicant has provided information on the planned potential uses that would be a component of a development in the Employment zone. The key piece of new information is that the type of multi-family envisioned for the project is related to mixed-use dwelling units, not typical multi-family apartment buildings or condominiums. 3. Comoatibility Issues: One of the concerns expressed by the Board is the potential for existing helicopter operations to become incompatible with future multi-family residential. The materials submitted by the applicant indicate that there is potential for compatibility to be achieved. Testimony from both the applicant and the 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 helicopter operators may provide more insight on this issue. For example, the predominance of mixed-use dwelling units versus multi-family apartments or condos may be an important factor in evaluating a future P.D.P. While compatibility among various existing and future land uses remains an important issue, Staff is concerned the issue of compatibility, at this point in the process, is too hypothetical to introduce into a discussion about an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Instead, the discussion should focus on the broader policy of placing an Employment zone district next to an existing County light industrial area. Staff concerns are as follows: A. City Plan —All Zones Are Mixed-Use The City's Employment zone district is, by design, a mixed-use zone. Under City Plan, there are no single-use zone districts. The existing airpark area, in contrast, was developed in the County under a single-use land use pattern. The City's Employment zone requires 75% of the land area to be devoted to primary uses. Both the City and County zones allow light industrial land uses. Although County Industrial zoning is the prevailing land use pattern in the immediate area, this pattern was established in the 1960's on an individually platted lot basis. The Airpark Village proposal, however, represents a mixed-use master planned project that allows all 147 acres to be evaluated and reviewed on a comprehensive basis. B. Compatibility is a General Development Standard The issue of compatibility requires the applicant to provide a level of planning detail that is more pertinent to a P.D.P. versus a comprehensive plan amendment. Under the old L.D.G.S. system, a land use was not permitted until compatibility issues were resolved and a Preliminary P.U.D. was granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. Since most of the land area in the City was eligible for a P.U.D., this system was viewed as being unpredictable for surrounding land owners. Under City Plan, however, sub area plans and the Structure Plan Map determine the locations of the various zone districts. Each zone then contains a list of permitted uses are allowed. All the uses listed are considered appropriate for that zone. Once a zone is decided upon, we cannot pick and choose which of the permitted uses are favored over another. Compatibility is then evaluated on a per P.D.P. basis by compliance with specific General Development and Zone District standards and only at the time of a speck development. 2 C. Section 3.8.26 — "Residential Buffering" Existing industrial development, whether City or County, is protected from future residential development by the provision of Section 3.8.26 of the Land Use Code. This section is titled "Residential Buffering" and places the burden of achieving compatibility on the new residential development, not the existing industrial area. For example, an existing helicopter operation would require a subsequent residential developer to provide the minimum buffer yard with a minimum amount of plant material. These are General Development Standards that would be applied on a city-wide basis and not restricted to any one particular zone district. D. Give Compatibility a Chance Since the policy discussion is on a comprehensive planning level, it is premature to assume that the details of compatibility cannot be achieved. There have been several compelling ideas offered such as an avigational easement in conjunction with a buffer zone that could include parking areas but no buildings. Other ideas include specifying building setbacks and building height limitations in certain areas. These measures are not meant to be exhaustive but represent examples that indicate potential for achieving compatibility between an urban mixed-use development and existing industrial development. As the process moves forward, and land use planning becomes more defined, there is little doubt that other creative ideas will be forthcoming. E. East Mulberry Corridor Plan The impetus of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was to provide a vision and catalyst to northern gateway into the City. The Plan recognizes that there are significant design challenges given the extent of existing development. The Plan states: "In the face of continued growth and change, impacts are changing the area's quality of fife. Concerned citizens have shared their view about these impacts. Traffic congestion is increasing. Streets are in disrepair. In many areas, curb and gutter is lacking. Due to three existing floodplains within this study area, storm drainage is a major concern. Safety is a particular issue for anyone traveling —whether by vehicle, bike, bus or on foot. Larimer County does not have the financial capacity to provide the full range of urban services needd for the study area. The bottom line is this area's infrastructure will continue to decline. Ultimately, existing property owners will be assessed to fund their infrastructure improvements. Depending in which jurisdiction the home or business resides, these improvements will need to be coordinated with either the City and/or County. With continued inaction, quality of the East Mulberry Corridor area could mean: 3 • more deterioration of streets and other facilities • missed opportunities for redevelopment • lack of certain facilities and services • inadequate funding for needed infrastructure improvements • lack of partnerships for publictprivate development • a piecemeal, rather than "whole picture" approach to future solutions • lost chances for enhancing the corridor as a key entryway into Fort Collins. Allowing the subject 147 acres to be zoned Employment provides greater opportunities for mixed-use development and continues to implement the larger vision of re-developing the Corridor. F. Buildable Lands Inventory At the May hearing, a concern about the opportunity cost of giving up Industrial land in favor of Employment land was raised. Staff is comfortable that a sufficient amount of land area is set aside for the Industrial zone district in both the city limits and Growth Management Area particularly given today's absorption rates. Most modem-day industrial uses qualify as "light industrial"which is a permitted land use in both the Employment and Industrial zone districts. G. E.M.C.P. — Overlay Framework Plan The E.M.C.P. indicates that in the event of the redevelopment of the Airpark, approximately 40% of the area would be appropriate for the Employment zone. A blend of uses is anticipated that includes the mix offered by the Employment zone and the character of uses offered by the Industrial zone. Staff contends that this mix is not jeopardized by conversion of land to Employment. Rather, it is the mix of uses offered by the Employment zone that provides viability for redevelopment and a catalyst for fulfilling the vision of the E.M.C.P. In conclusion, Staff is concerned that a detailed discussion about compatibility is best reserved for a P.D.P., not a comprehensive plan amendment. The Buildable Lands Inventory indicates that sufficient land area remains for pure industrial type uses. The Overlay Framework Plan indicates that Employment uses are an appropriate inclusion into the redevelopment of the Airpark and will contribute to a mix of potential land uses. Allowing the Employment zone over 4 the entire Airpark enhances the land use mix and does not preclude industrial development. From the perspective of evaluating an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, Staff finds that the placement of the Employment zone, as described on the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning request, satisfies the criteria by which to amend City Plan. 4. Recommendation: Staff continues to recommend approval of the Airpark Village Annexation and Amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan that would allow placement into the Employment zone district. 5 Helicopters Local Issues Existing Helicopter Businesses next to the Fort Collins Downtown Airport The Downtown Fort Collins Airport is adjacent to three businesses that have active heliports. Mikal Torgerson and Troy Jones of M. Torgerson Architects met with Robert Dean of Front Range Helicopters, and Larry Hansen of Century Helicopters, on May 25, 2005,and met with Bill Browder, Geo Seis Helicopters on May 26, 2005. Based on Mikal and Troy's understanding, as learned in the meetings with these business owners, here is a summary of their businesses,then a summary of their issues related to the eventual development of Airpark Village: Front Range Helicopters (404 N. Link Lane) is a helicopter pilot school primarily. They also do tourist flights around the Fort Collins area. Their hours of flights are somewhat irregular. Some days they have 4 to 6 flights, other days they don't have any. The rotor diameter of his helicopters is 36 feet. At least half the students who train at his flight school are business owners who are planning to buy their own business helicopter. His take offs and landings occur on a heliport. He described a heliport as an approximately 100' by 100' square. Getting to and from the heliport,the helicopters hover slightly off the ground at slow speeds, similar to the way an airplane taxies. He explained that a normal take off is typically at about 10 degrees, but can vary between 5 and 15 degrees. He sketched out a concept called a height velocity curve, which is what the helicopter pilots use to calculate a safe accent and decent angle. Currently,much of their flight training is done by hovering a few feet off the ground for hours at a time. Century Helicopters (2001 Airway Avenue)is a primarily a helicopter maintenance shop, and they also develop components for helicopters and some airplanes. They average 30 flights in and out a week,typically between 7 am and 5pm. There's typically aren't any flights on evenings and weekends. He gave us a tour of his shop while we were there. He had approximately 10 or 12 helicopters in the shop having various repairs preformed at the time we were there. They are one of the factory authorized technicians for several of the main brands of helicopters, so they do a lot of business not only within Colorado, but many of their repairs are from out-of-state. They do between$6Million and $1 Million of business per year. The flights typically go straight north out of the heliport,which is across Airway Avenue and a vacant lot(owned by Century Helicopters) from the Anpark property. The flights typically cross the runway, and go north across the Stoddard property, but it really depends on the prevailing winds of any given day. They can,and frequently do hover over the adjacent streets. Geo-Seis Helicopters(116 Racquette Drive)raps 2 huge military-type helicopters in and out of his hanger which abuts tract D of the airport. These are typically contracted out for heavy lifting and for firefighting. These helicopters land out on the runway of the airport and taxi on their wheels to his building. He said there's no way he could land next to his building, or near any building for that matter,because the helicopters produce 130 m.p.h. winds during take-offs and landings. He said that the steel building hangers and 1 neighboring parked aircraft would be damaged or destroyed with such wind force. The said that at 200 feet away from the helicopter,the winds are about 80mph. Issues: 1. Safety. Physically, both Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters could co-exist with Airpark Village rather easily with the following accommodations: • They need a minimally used area of land(that has no buildings) that can be used to accent and decent during the take-offs and landings, or in other words a"helicopter clear zone." • They prefer a non-developed open space area for this helicopter clear zone, but parking lots, a street, or an alley can be within this zone, as long as there's not too much traffic or other obstacles that would prevent a safe landing in the event of engine failure during take-off or landing. The FAA allows helicopters to fly over streets if they"could make a safe landing." The FAA is pretty vague in this point they say. • It would most likely not work to integrate this helicopter clear zone over the extension of Airpark Drive to the roundabout. There would be too many obstacles,and probably too much traffic. • A helicopter clear zone along where the Airport's tract D currently exists could work for this, but would need to extend southwest in order for Century Helicopters to be able to use it. • An 85 feet wide helicopter clear zone could work minimally, wider is safer, and therefore better. • Buildings shouldn't be right up against this helicopter clear zone. 2. Noise. Both Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters are concerned about residential being integrated too close to their operations. They are worried about complaints from residents about noise. The developers of Airpark Village are willing to enter into an avigation easement which is an easement document that is signed at closing for every residential purchaser, where the purchaser acknowledges that they are aware of are helicopters operating in the vicinity,that helicopters are noisy, and that they give up the right to complain about the noise. Such an avigation easement would certainly help in their view(Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters), and they would certainly want that, but they see it as more of a band-aid solution to a larger problem of incompatibility. They say their noise will blanket the whole area,and residential expectations will expect the helicopters to refrain from the noise. The more we group the residential at a distance from them, the less they are going to be concerned. I Expanding Helicopter Uses. We floated the idea by them(Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters). What if we marketed the development on either side of the helicopter clear zone to cater to new helicopter hangers with new helicopter related uses, and perhaps a new heliport. That way, if either of them wanted to expand, there would be a place within the development to expand. They both sounded at least mildly positive toward the idea. Robert Dean said that 2 much of his flight training is for business owners who are going to buy a business helicopter. He said he runs across students of his all the time that would be in the market for a place to locate their business that would accommodate the ability to utilize a helicopter from the business. 4. Large Helicopters. The Geo-Seis Helicopter business simply will not be compatible with the development,or any new development for that matter. The winds created during take off and landings are so severe that the only scenario that would allow the business to stay in operation would be if the airport remained open as an airport. 3 Helicopters Noise Background Information Decibel What is a Decibel...Practically Speaking The human ear is capable of identifying a wide range of sounds. The level of sound the ear first begins to recognize(threshold of hearing) has been determined to be .0002 microbars.A microbar is a measurement of sound pressure similar to the inch being a measurement of length. The small amount of pressure causes the ear membrane to move less than the diameter of a single atom! A sound loud enough to begin to create a sensation of pain (threshold of pain) represents a sound pressure that is 3,162,300 times more than the threshold of hearingt These are the limits in our range of hearing. Of course, if we used the microbar to describe sounds, the numbers would be very cumbersome. in addition, it would be difficult to comprehend any comparisons. Early acousticians came up with a simple method of comparing two sounds.A sound that was perceived to be twice as loud as another was said to be one Bel greater in sound level. The Bel was used as a unit of comparison. It is not a unit of measure. Its namesake, Alexander Grahm Bell, was a pioneer in the science of audiology(the study of human hearing). It soon became apparent this unit of comparison was not very useful in describing the difference between similar sounds. A small unit of comparison, the decibel,was established. One decibel (1 dB) is one-tenth of a Bel. Since a decibel is one-tenth of a Bel,then 10 decibels (10 dB)would equal one Bel. In other words, a sound that is twice as loud as another sound could be described as being 10 decibels(10 dB) louder. By definition, one decibel(1 dB)represents the smallest change in volume a human ear can perceive. The average ear, however, can only detect a 3 dB change. (above info from - http://www.soundinstitute.com/article—detail.cfm/ID/95) Decibel(dB) Measurement:One tenth of a bel, a unit used to compare the ratio of two quantities(such as sound pressure, power, or intensity), or to express the ratio of one such quantity to an appropriate reference. The chart below shows decibel ratings along with common examples of sounds of that level. Decibel Decibel Level 0 dB Threshold of hearing 10 dB Breathing 85 dB Average Factory Hearing testing booth Electric razor 20 dB Isolated broadcast studio 90 dB Busy urban street Rustling leaves Diesel truck 25 dB Whispering Food blender 30 d13 Library Lawn mower On sidewalk by passing heavy truck Soft whisper or bus Quiet rural area at night Passing motorcycle 40 dB Quiet suburban area at night Roar of crowd at sporting event Refrigerator Screaming child 50 dB Average home Convertible ride on freeway Light traffic 100 dB Boiler shop Normal conversation Diesel truck 55 dB Quiet suburban area in daytime Garbage truck 60 dB Clothes dryer, Jackhammer Conversation in restaurant Jet takeoff(300 Meters) Busy office Outboard motor Background music Farm tractor Typical urban area On platform by passing subway train 65 d6 Dishwasher Power tools Washing Machine Woodworking shop 70 dB Car 102 dB Leaf blower Electric sewing machine 105 dB Helicopter Mixer 110 dB Inboard motorboat Noisy restaurant Sandblasting On sidewalk by passing automobiles Snowmobile drvrs seat Vacuum cleaner Steel mill 75 dB Busy traffic Riveting 80 dB Alarm clock Auto hom Blow dryer Stereo headset Garbage disposal 115 dB Subway train screech Freight train 120 dB Auto horn Mini-bike Propeller aircraft Office Tabulator Rock concert Outboard motor Thunderclap Passing Snowmobile Chain Saw (above info from - http://support radioshack conVsu000rt tutorials/-Qlossary/olossary-d.htm Audio Measurement Examples measured in decibels in Carlsbad Ca., USA Audio Measurement Technique The data was taken on 6/20/02-7/8/02 by a degreed Electronics Engineer using a Radio Shack Digital Sound Level Meter#33-2055,with meter specs:+-2 db at 126 decibels. Time averaging was used for sound tests:approx. 10 seconds where possible. Note that blanks in the below chart means no data was taken. ITEM APPROX DISTANCE MIN AVG MAX PALOMAR AIRPORT NOISE ,higher-louder mate Jet Takina Off n Airport,at closest public point 100 > 100 eI Plane on runway n Ai rt at closest ublic point 79 83 90 ro Plane near runwayn Airport,at closest public point 74 83 90 ro Plane taxi n Airport,at closest public point 73 78 80 ro Bi-plane takingoff n Airport,at closest public point 72 77 89 ro Plane in overhead n Airport,at closest public point 75 77 81 elico r in air,measurement 02 In Airport,at closest public point 63 76 72 et Engine, low Idle in Hangar ds away 62 73 80 et Engine, low Idle in Hangar yda away 64 72 80 49111copter In air rnAO I at closest ublic int 66 72 77 mbient Noise no takeoffsest parking lot 63 67 71 TRAFFIC NOISE [aomar mar&Melrose Truck 92 luringtraffic,from comer sidewalk 85 98 > 100 an acceleratingext lane to our vehicle g8 Tums, Palomar onto Melrose urin traffic from comer sidewalk 95 Movin in Traffic 55m h naide car a foot from n window 94 99 mar&Melrose Truck#3 urin traffic from comer sidewalk 90 94 98 mar&Melrose,Truck#1 urin traffic,from comer sidewalk 85 90 94 mar&Melrose UPS Truck urin traffic from comer sidewalk 81 88 >90 Movin in Traffic 30m h naide car a foot from o nwindow 87 97 es Traffic#1 m sidewalk 87 91 se sin le Moto cle m sidewalk 84 88 &Melrose 5:30 m#1 urin traffic from comer sidewalk <80 82 93 mar&Melrose 5:30 m#2 urin traffic from comer sidewalk <80 82 85 Traffic Source not moving c comer in Encinitas 80 ancho Carillo Melrose direction houses from Melrose Drive 60 88 80 ar shut off,windows down hnside, no accessories on 50 HOUSEHOLD NOISE [elli',ghbors IS AC at airport 15 feet away85 cho Carrillo Outside Ambient of#6 Estates front <50 58 65 Air Conditionin Unit 5 feet awa 51 57 65 et tv in Rancho Carrillo House nside windows dosed <50et Rancho Carillo House nside windows closed 50 note: Rancho Carrillo is a neighborhood residential area,normally considered a quiet place note: Palomar and Melrose are large streets within Carlsbad California note: Palomar airport is a local Carlsbad airport actually having the most take offs and landings in San Diego County. However,the planes there are mostly single engine or dual engine prop plans plus some "for-hire"small jets. No large jet airplanes are at this airport. Some conclusions 1. The jet taking off nearby and the trucks were tied for"most annoying";the Mustang next 2. Except for the jet taking off,many traffic sounds were louder(more decibels)than the airport sounds 3. In Palomar Airport parking lot,most noise was heard coming from Palomar Airport Road 4.After a while,our ears were trained and told the same story as the sound meter-whirr was-it was often hard to listen for the planes,even on Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Dr.over the traffic 5.The airport being quieter is expected likely due to the smaller planes in use there,which are of course, mostly further away than traffic. If larger jets were in use ,a different result is likely. 6.Some noises can be more disturbing that others.Seemingly random noise,called Gaussian or white noise,such as wind or ocean surf is often ignored by us. For example,noise outside our house was up to 15 db higher-enormously higher than inside-. But it was mostly wind,which the ears ignore. Trucks,jets, motorcycles, prop planes, people voices, and many cars,are of course noticeable. (above info from-http:/Awww.rpsoft2000.00m/decibels.htm) Helicopters Safety Background Information The following pages (numbered 13 through 18) are excerpts from the following document: Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject:HELIPORT DESIGN Date: 1/20/94 Initiated by:AAS-I10 AC No: 150/5390-2A 1/20/94 AC 150/5390-2A CHAPTER 2.PRIVATE USE HELIPORTS 13. GENERAL. Helicopters are routinely used for The FATO and the safety area should be free of objects public services such as news gathering, traffic reports, such as other helicopters, buildings, fences, parapets, and law enforcement. Numerous firms transport oil etc.,which could be struck by the main or tail rotor,or field workers from then on-shore heliports to offshore be hit by the skids of a helicopter while landing or oil platforms saving hours of transit time over ship- taking-off. based transportation systems. Companies have found the helicopter to be an efficient and effective way to 16. TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA transport people and products between headquarters (TLOF).When the entire FATO is not load bearing,a offices and suburban manufacturing plants, to remote paved or an aggregate-turf TLOF is recommended. or inaccessible field/mine sites,as well as a convenient shuttle to/from the local airport. To save time and a. Location. When a TLOF is provided, it is avoid the congestion on streets and highways, an normally centered within the FATO. For irregularly increasing numbers of helicopter owners are finding shaped or oversized FATOs,the center of the paved or the helicopter to be a convenient way of commuting aggregate-turf TLOF should be located at least 3/4 of between their homes and their places of business. the design helicopter's overall length in from the With this diverse usage, private use heliports can vary FATO boundaries. Figure 2-3 illustrates the considerably in both size and complexity. This chapter recommended FATO/TLOF relationship. To the contains recommendations for designing a heliport extent practical,the TLOF of a roof top heliport should intended to be used as a private use facility. Figure 2-1 be elevated above the level of any obstacle in the identifies the essential features of a private use heliport FATO. while figure 2-2 depicts an extremely large private use heliport. b. Size. The least dimension of a TLOF should be a minimum of 1.5 times the length or width of the 14. FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA undercarriage of the design helicopter, whichever is (FATO). A private use heliport should have an greater. identifiable, object free area (FATO) available for helicopter landings and takeoffs. c. Surface Characteristics. If a surface more durable than aggregate-turf is needed,Portland Cement a. Location. A FATO may be at ground or water Concrete (PCC) pavement is suggested. An asphaltic level,or at pier or roof top level. Objects or structures surface is "less desirable" for heliports as it may rut should be outside the FATO to permit at least one clear under the wheels or skids of a parked helicopter, a approachttakeoff path aligned with the prevailing possible factor in some roll-over incidents. Pavements winds. Figure 2-1 illustrates this recommendation. should have a broomed or other roughened finish that Heliports located on raised platforms, piers and docks, provides a skid resistant surface for helicopters and or buildings may have outer portions of the FATO non-slippery footing for persons. Pavements should be extend beyond the platform, pier, dock, or building designed to support 1.5 times the maximum takeoff edge as illustrated in figure 24. weight of the design helicopter. Roof top heliport TLOFs may be constructed of wood,metal,or concrete. b. Size. A FATO may have any shape provided that its least dimension, i.e., length, width, or d. Elevated TLOFs. Roof top heliport TLOFs diameter, is not less than 1.5 times the overall length may be constructed of wood, metal, or concrete. of the design helicopter. Elevator penthouses, cooling towers, exhaust/fresh air vents, and other raised features impact roof top c. Gradients. When a TLOF is not provided, the helicopter operations. To the extent practical, the FATO should be graded to provide a smooth surface. TLOF of a roof top heliport should be elevated above To assure drainage, a 0.5 to 2 percent gradient is the level of any obstacle in the FATO. Other objects or suggested for any part of a FATO surface on which a structures should be outside the FATO to permit at helicopter is expected to land. least one clear approach/takeoff path aligned with the prevailing winds. Figure 2-4 illustrates this 15. SAFETY AREA. A safety area surrounds the recommendation. Elevated platforms should be FATO. Its recommended width is 1/3 rotor diameter designed to support 1.5 times the maximum takeoff of the design helicopter,but not less than 10 feet(3 m). weight of the design helicopter. When the TLOF is on a platform elevated more than 30 inches 13 AC 150/5390-2A 1/20/94 (75 cm) above its surroundings, a 5 foot(1.5 m)wide that will not catch helicopter skids or create barriers to safety net or shelf should be provided. The safety net helicopter maneuvering. If raised markers are used, or shelf should have a load carrying capability of 25 they should be located at the outer edge of the safety pounds per square foot(122 Kg per sq.m). The net or area and no more than 8 inches (20 cm) in height. shelf, as illustrated in figure 2-4, should not project Markers are placed at the comers,and as needed along more than 2 inches (5 cm) above the level of the the edges of the FATO. Figure 2-6 illustrates different TLOF. A report, Structural Design Guidelines for types of in-ground and raised markers. Heliports, (Report Number AD-A148967) is available from the National Technical Information Service, (2) Paved Surfaces. A 12 inch (30 cm) wide Springfield,VA 22161. dashed line, as illustrated in figures 2-5 and 2-7, defines the limits of the FATO when the entire surface e. Gradients. To assure drainage,TLOF gradients is paved. A 12 inch(30 cm)wide solid line is used to should range between 0.5 to 2.0 percent. define the limits of a TLOF. While white is the color most commonly used, any color which provides good 17. APPROACH/TAKEOFF SURFACE. contrast to the background,may be used. a. Approach/Takeoff Path. A private use heliport b. Identification Marking. A distinctive must have at least one approach/takeoff path. This marking, such as the company logo, serves to identify path,to the extent practical,should be aligned with the the facility as a private use heliport. The identification dominate winds. Additional approach/takeoff paths marling should be placed at the preferred touchdown are recommended. Approach/takeoff paths may curve location, be as large as practical and be oriented to be to avoid objects and/or noise sensitive areas and utilize legible from the preferred direction of approach. The the airspace above public lands, e.g., freeways, rivers, marking should be at least 10 feet(3 m)in height. The etc. capital H illustrated in Appendix 2 may be used in lieu of a logo. b. Approach/Takeoff Surface. An approach/ takeoff surface is centered on each approach/takeoff C. Weight Limitations. Surfaces which are path and should conform to the dimensions of the FAR limited in weight-carrying ability should be marked Part 77 heliport approach surface. Figure 1-6 with a number, in thousands of pounds. The marking illustrates the FAR Part 77 approach surface which should be large enough to be legible from the should be free of object penetrations. approaching helicopter. The number is located to the right and below the heliport symbol as viewed from the 18. HELICOPTER PARKING. A separate preferred directions of approach. helicopter parking area is not required unless the heliport must accommodate more than one helicopter d. Closed Heliport. All markings on a at a time. Parked helicopters should not penetrate an permanently closed heliport should be obliterated. approach/takeoff surface or be parked within the safety When obliteration is impractical, a yellow X should be area. While parking areas need not be paved,figure 2- placed over the markings. The X marking, as 2 depicts a large private use heliport with a number of illustrated in figure 2-8, must be large enough to paved parking pads. Figure 2-5 illustrates a simple ensure pilot recognition from 1/4 mile(400 m). parking apron with details of recessed eyes/loops permitting helicopters to be tied down. e. Parking Apron. If a parking apron is provided, it is recommended that it be designed and marked 19. HELIPORT MARKERS AND MARKINGS. utilizing the guidance in paragraphs 30 and 31. Markers and/or surface markings are suggested to identify the facility as a heliport, the perimeters of the 20. HELIPORT LIGHTING. When night FATO and/or TLOF, and, if needed, the operational operations are intended and ambient lighting is limitations on weight. Lines used as surface markings inadequate,it is recommended that the perimeter of the may be paint or preformed material. FATO or TLOF (but not both) be defined with yellow lights. Alternatively, floodlights may be used to a. Perimeter Markings. In-ground or surface illuminate the heliporfs FATO or TLOF surfaces. markings may be used to define either, or both, the Figures 2-9 and 2-10 illustrate the recommended FATO and TLOF. perimeter lighting systems. (1) Unpaved Surfaces. The perimeter of a turf FATO should be identified with in-ground markers 14 1/20/94 AC 150/5390-2A a. Perimeter Lights. At least 3 uniformly spaced 21. WIND DIRECTION INDICATOR A private lights are recommended per side of a square or use heliport must have at least one wind indicator. A rectangular FATO or TLOF with a light located at wind sock is the preferred indicator as it shows both each comer. A minimum of eight lights are needed to the direction and magnitude of the wind. The wind define a circular FATO or TLOF. The interval sock should be placed where it provides a true between lights should not exceed 25 feet(7.5 m). indication of surface wind and is clear of the safety area and any approach/takeoff surface. The wind sock (1) FATOs. Flush lights may be located on,or may be internally or externally lighted for night within 1 foot(30 cm)of,the FATO edge. Raised light operations, or, alternatively be located in an fixtures,modified to be no more than 8 inches(20 cm) illuminated area. in height, should be located 10 feet(3 m)out from the edge of the FATO. 22. HELIPORT SAFETY AND SECURITY. (2) TLOFs. Flush lights may be located on, or a. Safety. Provisions should be made to prevent within 1 foot(30 cm)of,the TLOF edge. Raised light any spilled fuel from collecting in a confined location fixtures,modified to be no more than 8 inches(20 cm) and/or contaminating a waterway. National Fire in height, may be located 10 feet (3 m) out from the Protection Association pamphlets provide guidance on TLOF edge and should not penetrate a horizontal plane fuel handling and storage. at the TLOF's elevation by more than 2 inches(5 cm). b. Security. The operational areas of a heliport (3) Raised TLOFs. Flush lights should be need to be kept free of people, animals, and vehicles. within i foot (30 cm) of the edge of a raised TLOF. The method to be used to control access depends upon Raised fixtures should be within 1 foot (30 cm) of the the heliport location and type of potential intruder. In TLOF edge and should not project more than 2 inches urban areas, a curb will normally keep vehicles from (5 cm) above the TOLF as illustration in figure 2-10. entering while in rural areas cattle guards or fences In snow areas, it is suggested that the lights be placed will prevent the entry of animals. Generally, people along the outer edge of the safety net or shelf will not enter a fenced area. In all cases where a fence is used, it should be as low as possible and at the b. Floodlights. When floodlighting is used, care greatest possible distance from the safety area and not should be taken to place floodlights clear of the safety penetrate any approach/takeoff surface. A visible area and the approach/takeoff surface(s). Floodlights reminder such as a sign, a low trimmed hedge, or should be aimed down so as not to interfere with pilot flower bed may suffice to alert people to the heliport vision and provide a minimum of 3 foot candles presence where access to the heliport owners property (32 lux) of illumination over the FATO or TLOF is already controlled. surfaces. To eliminate the need for tall poles, floodlights may be mounted on adjacent buildings. Floodlights which might interfere with pilot vision during takeoff and landings must be capable of being turned off during landings and takeoffs. 15 AC 150/5390-2A 1/20/94 Igo , ,at dIP `� � z � T I I I aw rl t_ �Jl I Fit= Ll. FAIMLll fames of a priwu use hellparr 16 1/20/94 AC 150/5390-2A �l PPPP � • � t, � II i 1 ' 1 u � n IV. , � f ! 4 F*m 2-2. A Lamp privau use hel iport 17 AC 150/5390-2A 1/20/94 r 1 � I I � � r z I o x Ik c z DI ps s A g96 i �E z i " Aq o x x � 06 o � A i fs I .7 a O Z K M rzUgLa G < 04 E zgL p8 �INA I a Figure 2-3. FASO,TWF mlerionship 18 ITEM NO. 8 MEETING DATE 5/19/05 ft' STAFF TP`7 Chanarrl City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub- Area Plan Amendment #16-05 APPLICANTS: Community Airpark Association, Inc. Mr. W. Doyer Kincaid c/o M.T.A. 223 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNERS: Community Airpark Association, Inc. c/o Mr. Loren Maxey 2200 Airway Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Mr. W. Doyer Kincaid Mr. Don Parsons 296 N. Burritt Avenue 1631 Lakeshore Drive Buffalo, WY 82834 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone a 147.83 acre parcel. The annexation includes three separately owned parcels, one of which is an existing privately owned airport. The site is located north of East Lincoln Avenue, south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east property line abuts the Dry Creek Subdivision. The requested zoning is Employment. This request requires an Amendment to the Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the annexation. Approval of the amendment to the Structure Plan Map and East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Approval of placement into the Employment zone district. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The recommended zoning of Employment requires an amendment to both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Structure Plan Map. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Initiating Resolution was considered by City Council on April 19, 2005 and approved. The item is scheduled for first reading by City Council on June 7, 2005. COMMENTS: 1. Background: According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, contained in the amended (November 21, 2000) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS — GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA ([.G.A.), the City will agree to consider for annexation property in the G.M.A. when such property is eligible for annexation according to State law. According to the I.G.A., as amended,: "It is the City's intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 8(B), the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to the provisions of Title 31, Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes." The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I — Industrial (County); Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and switching yard S: I — Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (For Collins Community Airpark Subdivision) E: L-M-N; Existing Dry Creek Mobile Home Park E: I — Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (Industrial Business Park International P.U.D.) W: I — Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (Fort Collins Business Center, Fort Collins Industrial Park, Fort Collins Community Airpark Subdivision) The parcel gains the necessary one-sixth contiguity along portions of the east, north and west property lines. Of the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 25.53% Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 3 contiguity with the City limits. This exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one- sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the requirements of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT— GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA and is eligible for annexation. One of the stated intents of the AGREEMENT is to have urban development occur within the City in order that the provision of urban level services by the County would be minimized. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel is not an enclave. On February 15, 2005, City Council passed a Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and established that the petition is in compliance with State statutes. 2. Compliance with State Law: As mentioned, the annexation has 25.53% of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing City limits which exceeds the required one-sixth as mandated by State law. Further, the parcel is found to have a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected to urbanize shortly. 3. Zoning: The proposed zoning for the Airpark Village Annexation is E, Employment. As stated in the Land Use Code: (A) Purpose. The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 4 4. Amendment to the Structure Plan Map and East Mulberry Corridor Plan: Placing this parcel entirely into the Employment zone requires official action on the City's Structure Plan Map and the sub area plan that governs this specific geographic area. This map and sub area plan are components of City Plan. In order to simplify the Board's discussion, amending these two maps shall be referred to as the Plan Amendment. Please note that one cannot occur without the other so they cannot be separated and must be treated in tandem. 5. Plan Amendment Review Criteria: City Plan allows for amendments through a Minor Amendment process as outlined in Appendix C (see attached). The two review criteria are: A. The City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and B. 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. 6. Summary of Applicants' Case for Employment Zoning: The applicants have provided an attachment titled "Statement of Principles and Policies and Consistency with the City Structure Plan." Briefly, the main points are summarized as follows: A. Between July of 2004 and February 2005, the applicants have conducted a planning analysis for this particular parcel that exceeded the detail of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. This involved an evaluation of land use, street network design and determining the mass and scale of buildings. In addition, several neighborhood meetings were held with affected property owners. Summaries of these meetings are attached. B. Employment zoning allows for eight different types of residential land uses whereas the Industrial zone allows for only two types. The applicants' contend that providing a balance between jobs and housing is a key factor in developing this area. The Employment zone offers the opportunity to create such a balance whereas the Industrial zone does not. Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 5 C. , Since light industrial is allowed in both the E and I zones, the Plan Amendment does not come with the opportunity cost that the City is losing industrial ground out of the buildable lands inventory. Sufficient land area remains in the Growth Management Area for heavy industrial, the land use that would not be allowed in the Employment zone. D. With the Plan Amendment, vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan remain intact. 7. Staff Recommendation for Employment Zoning: Staff is recommending approval of the Plan Amendment. This recommendation is based on the following points: A. As mentioned, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) includes a Framework Plan Overlay Map that was intended to be implemented at such time as the existing Fort Collins Downtown Airport redevelops. This Overlay Map describes an extension of Employment land use designation on the southerly portion of the airport property, along with future street connections consistent with the Master Street Plan. The Plan Amendment would extend the Employment zone over the entire Airpark Village, not just the southern portion. This is a logical and rational land use pattern that will result in richer mix of land uses than under Industrial zoning. B. The Plan Amendment provides the opportunity to integrate residential land uses within an employment area. Unlike current development patterns, where there is strict separation of land uses, residential can be blended with non-residential land uses rather than being placed in isolated pockets. C. Staff agrees that the Plan Amendment represents a "down-zoning" but that the loss of industrial land is marginal. Recent heavy industrial site selections (Owens Illinois and two methanol plants) have bypassed urban areas for large undeveloped semi-rural parcels. According to the Land Use Code, the definition of light industrial is very broad and captures the most likely land uses that would be attracted to the East Mulberry Corridor. For a compare and contrast analysis, the definitions of light industrial and heavy industrial are provided as an attachment. Staff finds that with the level of interest and private sector planning analysis for Airpark Village that exceeds the attention paid to this parcel by the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 6 that the Plan is in need of the proposed amendment. Staff also finds that 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. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the proposed Plan Amendment. 8. Neighborhood Information Meetings: Staff did not facilitate the neighborhood information meetings that occurred between July of 2004 and February of 2005. These meetings were set up and facilitated by the contract purchaser and his consulting team. Such meetings exceed that which would have been conducted by City Staff and are considered sufficient to act in lieu of City sponsored meetings. The summaries indicate that there is a general level of acceptance by those attending for the proposed Plan Amendment. As mentioned, summaries of these meetings are attached. 9. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, as contained in the amended INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT — GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. B. The parcel meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexation by the City of Fort Collins. C. The requested zone district, Employment, is not in conformance with two elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan). These elements are the Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. D. The request for the Plan Amendment meets the criteria of Minor Amendment Procedures as outlined in Appendix C of City Plan. D. Since the applicant has partially justified the request for Employment zoning on the basis that such zoning would provide opportunities for a range of residential uses, Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan/Sub-Area Plan Amendment #16-05 May 19, 2005 P & Z Meeting Page 7 E. On February 15, 2005, City Council passed a Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition is in compliance with State law. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Annexation of the parcel into the City of Fort Collins. Further, Staff recommends approval of the Plan Amendment and placement into the Employment zone district. Finally, Staff recommends placement within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Statement of Principles and Policies & Consistency with the City Structure Plan for the Airpark Village Annexation Summary of Request As part of the Airpark Village Annexation,we request to change the land use designation of the property being annexed from Industrial District to Employment District. The applicable land use designation has been established in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan's "Framework Overlay Plan,"which is translated into the City Structure Plan. This request is to amend the land use designation on both the East Mulberry Plan's"Framework Overlay Plan,"and the City Structure Plan. Criteria to Amend the Framework Overlay Plan and the City Structure Plan (Appendix C of City Plan) 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. Justification to Amend the Framework Overlay Plan and the City Structure Plan 1. The EMCP is in need of being amended for the following reasons: a. From July 2004 through February 2005,the developer conducted a series of neighborhood meetings which involved the neighboring property owners in deciding appropriate uses, intensities, street configurations,and massing& scale of buildings for the redevelopment. Through this process,the development team, together with input from the neighboring property owners,did a much more comprehensive analysis of future development scenarios of the airport site (and adjacent properties)than was done as part of the EMCP process. Summaries of 1 these public meetings can be found on the project's website at httv://www.airparkvillage.com. 2. The proposed amendments to the EMCP plan will promote the public welfare. a. The public welfare is served by providing jobs and housing in balance with one another, especially when provided in close proximity to one anther in the same neighborhood. A balance of jobs and housing within a development provides housing opportunities for new workers generated by the new jobs. When these are provided within the same neighborhood,the opportunity for workers to live in close proximity to their place of employment is enhanced. 3. The proposed amendments to the EMCP plan will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the EMCP. a. Principle EMC.LU-1 Future residential neighborhoods will be integrated with existing residential subdivisions, and be within close proximity to shopping, recreation and employment destinations. b. Principle EMC.LU-2 The East Mulberry Corridor study area will support quality employment districts for a variety of primary workplaces and supporting uses. c. Policy EMC.LU-3.1 Employment districts will include the development of planned office and business parks that promote quality design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces,transportation facilities and streetscapes. They should encompass the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services and should continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. d. Policy EMC.LU-3.2 The Employment District's primary uses will include offices and institutions, fight industrial uses and research and development activities. e. Principle EMC.LU-4. The East Mulberry Corridor study area supports the retention of existing industrial and agricultural business uses and their future expansion. f. Policy EMC.LU-4.L Existing and future industrial uses will be supported and focused along I-25 frontage and around the Fort Collins Downtown Airport area. We are proposing changing the land use designation on the"Overlay Framework Plan" within the EMCP from Industrial to Employment. There's enough of an overlap between the industrial type uses allowed in both Employment and Industrial zoning 2 districts,that, by changing the designation,the above Principles and Policies continue to be promoted. Industrial uses permitted in each zone are as follows: Employment Zone Industrial Zone Permuted Industrial Was: Permitted Industrial flees: • Light industrial uses, • tight industrial uses, • Research laboratories, • Heavy industrial uses, • Warehouses, • Recycling facilities, Composting facilities, • Research laboratories, • Warehouse and distribution facility, • Warehouses, • Dry-cleaning plants. Composting facilities, • Workshops and custom small • Warehouse and distribution facility, industries • Dry-cleaning plants, • Workshops and custom small industries, • Recreational vehicle,boat and truck storage, • Outdoor storage facility, • Resource extraction,processes and sales establishments, • Junk Yards, • Airports and airstrips, • Transport terminals(truck terminals,public works yards,container storage), • Farm implement and heavy equipment sales. 3 IMPLEMENTATION 10 � sl 11 r& k,i it NilII T CIS x I <r L � d i 1^l = lJULF r, f, Hill dg F I East Mulberry Corridor Plan 159 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 rezonings 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 anytime (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 60day 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. Appendix C Process and Procedures for Revisions C-4 May 4, 2004' P1440,14V M The Structure Plan is a map that sets forth a basic framework, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. It is intended to serve as a blueprint towards the desired future described in the Community Vision &Goals element of City Plan. As such, the map is only intended to serve as a general guide for future land use decisions. It not a zoning map. Many of the boundaries on the map are generalized for illustrative purposes, and in actuality may vary somewhat when applied "on the ground" as a result of natural and man-made features or as a result of varying conditions or circumstances. City Structure Plan How to Use City Structure Plan Ma May 4, 2004 77 The City Structure Plan is a map that sets forth a basic framework to show how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. This plan illustrates a future city made up of four basic kinds of places: • Neighborhoods • Districts • Corridors • Edges The key principles of the City Structure Plan include a compact development pattern, an interconnected transit system, new activity centers, a system of interconnected open lands, a growth management area boundary, and multiple means of travel-including driving, walking, bicycling, and transit. Together, these principles reinforce the desired future described in the Community Vision and Goals element of City Plan, and establish a blueprint for future growth. 9 Structure Plan Summazy May 4, 2004 79 Airpark Village Public Meeting 2 Conducted 9/15/2004 at the Ramada Inn Introductions • Local Facilitators, Mikal Torgerson and Troy Jones (of M. Torgerson Architects, 223 North College Ave. Fort Collins) • Developer, Lloyd Goff • Engineer, Richard Husmann Purpose of This Series of Meetings • We're establishing the development concept and design by involving nearby property owners in the decision making process. • This is our way to involve affected neighbors as we prepare our eventual development submittal for the project, to eventually go through the public hearing process for development approval. • The more you tell us during this process, the more input you end up having in the outcome of the project. Web Site Intro • Homepage, • Various pages, • Polling (14 to 6), Flood Channel (Refresher of Last Meeting's Topic) • While airport is in operation, the FAA requires channel to be at least 250 feet off runway, • Preferred Alternative (temporary and permanent channel) Questions regarding Flood Channel Q: Is the western alignment of the channel shown to be on some the adjacent neighbors property? How will that edge along the airport edge and the neighbors property be A: The diagram is general. Once the alignment is further refined, the channel will roughly follow the boundary of the airport. The plan is to keep the road along the edge of the airport intact. There are two options for how that edge would work. Q: Once the temporary channel is constructed, will the flood channel and creekbed still exist? A: Yes, it must be maintained. Q: What will the new flood channel design look like aesthetically? A: It will have a flat bottom with cattails, and sloped walls. It will be owned with common ownership and maintained by the property owner's association. We will be discussing options for the structure of an owner `s association as well as options for creating an improvement district at our February meeting. Q: Will the new channel take the nearby properties out of the FEMA floodplain? A: It is anticipated that the new channel, together with the City/County improvements scheduled for the upstream areas of the Dry Creek, will take most of the impacted properties out of the floodplain. Final FEMA mapping once the projects are in place will determine the new FEMA floodplain. Road Network—2 options (This Meetin¢'s Topic) • Alternative A is in accordance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (more of a loop road concept), • Alternative B will be more of a spine road eventually connecting Timberline to Lincoln through the airpark. Connecting to Lemay may have some difficulties. • The audience was asked to vote on their preferred street alignment between now and next month's meeting (October 13`h) Questions regarding Road Alignment Q: Do the 2 alternatives assume the ditch is on the east or the west? A: As of the time of the meeting, the votes from the polling is 14 in favor of the east alignment (airport side), and 6 in favor of the west (other side of the runway from the airport). Based on the results, the preliminary design for the 2 alternative street designs assume the ditch is on the east alignment (airport side). Q: How big a factor are land uses in determining the appropriate street alignment? A: We think the street network can serve a variety of land uses, however participants can always change their vote on the on-line polling for the street alternatives after the land uses are established. Q: It seems that perhaps there should be street access into the adjacent neighborhoods. A: We'll get into this in the next meeting. Comment: A property owner commented that he appreciates this type of public involvement, and thinks we are going about this process in the right way. Land Use Market (Next Meeting's Topic) • We'll bring in a market expert to speak about which land uses are likely do develop sooner than other land uses. Questions regarding the upcoming Land Use Market topic Q: How big a factor are land uses in determining the appropriate street alignment? A: We think the street network can serve a variety of land uses, however participants can always change their vote on the on-line polling for the street alternatives after the land uses are established. Airpark Village Public Meeting 3 Conducted 10/13/2004 at the Ramada Inn Introductions • Local Facilitators, Mikal Torgerson and Troy Jones (of M. Torgerson Architects, 223 North College Ave. Fort Collins) • Developer, Lloyd Goff • Engineer, Richard Husmann Web Site Discussion • www.aiEparkvilla eg com • As we collect more information, and as we progress through the process, the website is updated continuously. • The website is our library for the project. It includes a very thorough description of all the issues we have discovered and analyzed to date. Polls on the Issues • Each neighboring property owner gets to vote on the monthly issue. Anonymous votes cannot be counted. Only voters who let us know who they are will have their vote counted. We keep specific logs of who voted for each choice on every issue. Property owners can change their vote as time goes on. • Each month we need neighboring property owners to vote on the issue of the month. The first two month's issues open to a vote were: 1) flood channel alignment; and 2) roads and access. The next issue open to a vote is land uses. • The status of the flood channel poll at the time of the meeting was: 36 in favor of the western alignment, and 21 in favor of the eastern alignment. • The status of the roads and access poll at the time on the meeting was: 23 in favor of the parkway configuration, 6 in favor of the loop configuration. • The website will be opening the polls for the land use choices within a couple weeks. This Month's Main Discussion—Connections To Surrounding Neighborhoods The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP), adopted in 2002 by the City and the County, identified a street network of connections between the airport redevelopment and the surrounding area. One of the main factors to consider is that the EMCP envisions a new arterial street connecting Timberline to Lemay going through the airpark development. The EMCP identified this new arterial as being and extension of International Boulevard on the east, and eventually tying into the Lemay/Lincoln intersection on the west. Also the EMCP envisions the intersection of Timberline/Lincoln to be reconfigured further to the north from its current location. The meeting was then directed to discussing each of the connections between the Airpark Village and the surrounding neighborhood. Each connection was discussed individually as follows: Southeast Connection to Airway Avenue • No Objections. • No issues raised by neighbors. Extension of Aimark Drive across Airpark Village to Connect to International • No Objections. • One concern raised was that currently there are a lot of accidents at Airpark Drive and Lincoln Ave. This should be addressed. • Another concern was that this may make access into and out of the businesses northeast of the airpark more difficult because the additional traffic on International. Connection to Dry Creek Mobile Home Park • No Objections. • One concern raised was that a bridge should probably be avoided crossing the natural area just west of the mobile home park. The feasibility of this connection should be analyzed in more detail. Connection to the West (Buckingham Alignment vs. Lincoln Alignment) • No one objected to connecting to the Buckingham Alignment. • 4 people objected to the Lincoln Alignment. • One concern raised was that there's already too much traffic on Lincoln. • The participants were asked their preference regarding the traffic on Lincoln. 5 participants responded that they'd prefer that the traffic on Lincoln be reduced from it's current levels, and 2 participants responded that they'd prefer the traffic on Lincoln to stay the same or increase. Connection to Vine Drive to the North • One neighbor suggested that Airpark Village provide a connection across the railroad tracks and connect to Vine Drive. It was discussed that this would be unlikely given the Public Utility Commission's policy to not grant any new at-grade crossings of railroad tracks. Connection to Timberline to the East • No one objected to the connection to Timberline as shown. • One option would be to create a new intersection either in line with or south of Donella Court where the main new spine road would connect to Timberline. Lincoln would merge into the spine road west of it's intersection with Timberline. Introduction of Land Use Topic The next poll will be on land uses. We will ask the participants to choose what the appropriate combinations of land uses should be. We will also explore whether or not it makes sense to introduce residential into the mix. We will be looking at national market trends, and conducting a local market analysis to help determine what uses are viable in Airpark Village. We anticipate that industrial uses won't be a major component of the project. As we think through the land uses, it is important to keep in mind that Airpark Village is the same size as the 16"' Street Mall in Denver, including the blocks flanking it on either side. The appropriate mix and diversity of land uses along this linear development is the thing we need to determine. Proposed East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) Amendments As a result of this series of neighborhood participation meetings, we are discovering that the conclusions of the EMCP were rather general in nature. Once we've dived into the specific issues one by one in greater detail, it has become apparent that we need to treat the EMCP as a living document that adapts to changed conditions and that is subject to refinement. We propose to take our proposed changes of the EMCP to the City and County for approval hearings in March and April. After the EMCP has been amended, we will proceed, as required by the intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County, with annexation of the development site. Questions and Answers Q: Will there be a traffic signal at International and Mexico? A: Most likely. Q: Could there be a new street introduced parallel to and just west of Lemay running from Buckingham to Lincoln, in order to allow the main flow of traffic between Airpark Village and Downtown to utilize Lincoln? A: Quite possibly. Q: Is the City still exploring both the underpass and the flyover option of the realigned Vine Drive crossing of the railroad tracks? Isn't an underpass impossible given the flooding issues in the area? A: The City is still exploring both options. The flyover is the most likely option. It is, however, and unfunded project, so the timing of implementation is uncertain. Q: Airpark Village Public Meeting 5 Conducted 12/15/2004 at the Ramada Inn Introductions • Local Facilitators, Mikal Torgerson and Troy Jones (of M. Torgerson Architects, 223 North College Ave. Fort Collins) • Developer, Lloyd Goff • Engineer, Richard Husmann Previous Topics • September—The Dry Creek Channel will be located on the northeast side of the site, assuming the City's channel improvement project moves forward as planned. • October—The street network will be configured with a Parkway(a 4-lane boulevard with parallel parking) down the middle of the development. This will create another east-west connection between Timberline and Lemay. • November—Land Use configuration a"main street" configuration will be used with a mixture of land uses having: 50% commercial/employment (includes retail, offices, medical, research & development parks, business services); 40% residential (includes condos in upper stories of mixed use buildings, senior housing, apartment buildings, town-homes); 10% industrial uses (including light manufacturing, workshops, warehousing, etc.) This Month's Main Discussion —Land Uses • Photograph of site from above with street network superimposed: 1) Shows the super blocks approximately 660 feet in length; 2) Shows the channel alignment; 3) Shows the context of the development. • Proposed land use changes to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan: 1) The southeast end. Keep the employment designation as shown on the EMCP at the southeast end of the Airpark Village property. 2) The central portion. Re-designate the center portion of the Airpark Village property to a land use designation that allows mixed-use buildings including office, retail, medical, professional services, mixed-use residential (only north of the parkway). 3) The northwest end. Re-designate the northwest end of the Airpark Village property to a land use designation that allows commercial/employment together with limited residential (mixed-use residential and multifamily residential) uses; • Three cross sections through the site were illustrated as follows: 1) The southeast end. Four-story employment type buildings would be pulled up to face and open directly onto the street along both sides of the Parkway. Parking lots and landscaped areas would be in the rear portions of the lots, providing a buffer between the 4-story buildings and the adjacent existing developments to the northeast and southwest. 2) The central portion. Two Story mixed-use buildings would be pulled up to face and open directly onto the street along both sides of the parkway. A parking lot and landscaping would buffer the development from the adjacent property to the northeast. The portion of Airpark Drive that currently runs parallel to the runway is an existing street that would be improved to standards, and a two-story building would face and open directly onto it. 3) The northwest end. Four-story mixed-use buildings would be pulled up to face and open directly onto both sides of the parkway. A parking lot and landscaping would buffer the development from the adjacent property to the southwest. No residential units would have direct view to the southwest, to reduce any potential conflicts in uses between residential and the existing industrial uses. Along the north end, residential buildings could face and open directly to the north, facing the channel. • Floor Area Ratio's 1) A diagram was shown of 1.0 FAR with 4 scenarios: (1) a one story building on the entire site, (2) a two story building on half the site, (3) a three story building on a third of the site, or(4) a four story building on a quarter of the site. The point was made that the same FAR can have various numbers of stories, depending on the size of the footprint of the building. 2) 3 diagrams were shown superimposed onto a 600 foot long block: (1) a"suburban"building mass at 0.5 FAR; (2) an "urban"building mass at 1.0 FAR; and (3) a"core" building mass at 1.5 FAR. The polls indicate the preference is an"urban" intensity of 1.0 FAR. • An example diagram of a 130,000 sq. ft, 4-story, mixed-use building along a 600 foot block, at 1.0 FAR, with the following uses included in the building: 1) 50% commercial/employment (30,000 sq. ft. medical, 110,000 sq. ft. office, 30,000 sq. ft retail) 2) 40% residential (108 units on 2"d through 4ch floors), 3) 10% industrial (30,900 sq. ft.) Questions and Answers Q: How long are the "superblocks." A: Approximately 600 to 660 feet. Comment/Suggestion: Those blocks seem quite long,perhaps one or two more cul-de- sacs can be inserted along the parkway to make the block lengths around 500 feet long. Suggestion: In the portion of Airpark Drive that runs parallel to the runway, there was mention of new buildings fronting onto Airpark Drive. Perhaps careful consideration should be given to these uses fronting onto Airpark Drive to ensure that the new buildings will be compatible with the existing uses across the street. This would be a good place for workshops, warehouses or business service shops. Suggestion: Extending to the northwest of the portion of Airpark Drive that runs parallel to the runway, it may be an appropriate separation between the existing business uses and the back of the new development to locate a commercial alley along Q: It sounds like the development will be putting new water and sewer improvements in as part of the development. Will the existing property owners be able to tap into the new utility lines? A: Yes. Schedule • We're going to skip a month this time, and have our final meeting in February 2005. The topic will be on development policies and potential options for an improvement district. e � � yTY 2 ± Z p ks } yyyy h Ai rat rTi p,,,Auu Or Sys, � ,•.�'�' •�'b f�,k u L CC 'S� ��.GGi to 44 lit 16 p �uu . fs p. p �{ toll to Wt'll mcaor ment cenW, ,,M cus around yt >. lb attract such companies to the develop:- maxtt, Goff� � rail btaaed traydt pe ant :. relail4ae netvl3d ort the leany p was tree s ;Rnd A� e. frAnf iA " emlpyeee is sco"jj�t f.:the obed . trnaftfi�#i�d�h , p1aR—wuh bggFd aaemher Afakal Totger- copter ",*b C `$ the son abstam, S dye tp a confltd of intetiest othetindttsttiaFfirma, Peai tthksa With Te reco"tpmpndaho x+ J pow go to the aad rcnuea aon� trkfecls Port Cotilns C ity£odhc SaY a to . the Akpa )ilJp$a tl g t jghttgp This hitEhirg dsoilld�¢� on Ate d , thcp9t t 'toa W,t If the wunbiil' act" the plaai>attg consi4ial plop V�- boatd'a recontm idm�Noafor usolist tioas," - aohuag, Goff's prekaniry mum c�iWn laets h�snn't orrt plans for dte4ev lopnext wilt,need the ed iit e fig tf<ttti '. 1 changed. ne;wostern Portion oftbedevel- the opment was where he envisioned having area wr'red)v,* a '" nwltl�Nse rpaidcnpal ly as�naQy as the aWilisgbislipses tin t;*jW lit in several stR ies abttvp",offge these'opui ns;have tbvsn'' nJ* ands fo*the pi ands ddeci In t{tg hid'ustrial zoI these of sion reflects the concern tk4gl: viyltle residettttal unif§are not DllovticcT In `iR bupisses oaurl lte pu& t. is th +}ti�ts That ttlteR�dden so nett 1 � t BetvNkllt tbie`rttn3e ca�npTadtitts arm polCet c�;ty co u,� '" tifil relitizats And the fsstie of!i or aefCCj+ 7evatg mg sisuteoA'sai�fiend,w con�tuiue�o ut- tlrtte and f©ur storr h sue i$` 6E ttt a[td tkek fl ��ng. flight path,bile itssorried thaula- HansE 'abdFitazi"s Hf c}+wHTbtrttd' bilitgof his compautys' "`, . , to,continue to present theh'[teals e s dt LL' Regardless of the zoning,Goff will con- Hansen added that it is early in the tmue with the development Aside from teas and asserts that other ae bons of k ' t � e N1u F 1 Y f I ley 'A i `z 'Ord HaniMe Coloradc" :,lb � +Wti95 waded for a land rad into commercial, resideiiial B industrial use. Save the Aiips sam Wor* �tlld al*ll" I$ a ment of the says the economic impact iF that happelts is bigger than the city realize rr ' . Irmean .closure, redve + men� Airports' `tt etas impact Fort contoarq Air portevoke aevaralfee in Economic im- Gerald Gates:iTatdc fear and act of several betrayal are among them. P Gates, one� of, about 75 ` airports in North em Colorado:93 o'wl?eI&>��-x p1f�aas and aircra8 owners tryinp to save the airport Fort Collins ow..nb Tha.' Mot Center, a ` Downtown Air- %ght-trainiogschooi that{gas P� A ght upwar"1,000 peo- III Employees: 240 plc to fly since if opened in ■Payroll:$4 tri M' "', million ■Economic In a pact$10.7millic 7 tnal'• Fort Collins tlesArgie located=atlJl eeeut " Loveland Airport a it suurviw�ai depend on ul 1 r, > " " 61911 Empbyees: 'If the airport closes in , ' ■Payroll:$14.: three years as platnf4 Gates ■Economic In isntaure whatvirill to 1 d airport opened In landlocked and in the path of an emerging re- pact$37.1 m71ic l histriesaesor, iiftd fas:dosure in 2008.The airport is development corridor on Mulberry Street. of lead ho o Greeley-Weld ,I =Taric portunity for development about $4 million a year, County Airport *off �� Afitoitnk on about i35 because of the rapid growth cording to a 2003 survey on ■Employees: Gates f t ofland on the east hpl- along the Mulberry corridor. the economic impact of Col- ]436 cartidof,is bwned'by a But Gates and other mein- orado airports by the Col- in Payroll: tF p of about 35 itmestgrs. bets of the Save the Airport orado Department of Trans $29.84 million owner *'a group say the economic loss portation Aeronautics Divi- ■Economic Irr A. didu�4 ni to Lorimer County is greater stun. _ pact:$73.1 millic air 1ptazye ttas g than most city officials and Over the course of a year; �f 'o03copthe airport residents realize. the Fort Collins Downtown source:coipre rL`h `eh$6ft de- McMillen was t to The airport and nearby Airport has as economic im-- Devartme velopatettt that" would in- sell the:airport because i isn't businesses employ about 240 pact of$10.7 million,based of Transportath elude a research and devel- profitable,and he as*atl op- people who collectively earn Sea AIRPORT/Page E2 Aeronautics Divisi u Y _ 8 K p - - T i f t 4 Sh s a M 46 x wn ntt� r �6 r✓ t Wit 4 rt e per', ATTACHMENT 4 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 lo y Page 9 Project: Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Project Description: On May 19, 2005, The Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve the annexation of the Airpark Village but with a recommendation of Industrial zoning versus the applicant's preference for Employment zoning. The applicant has re-submitted a request for Employment zoning which requires an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Overlay Framework Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave a staff presentation. He stated that this was a reconsideration of the Structure Plan Amendment request and subsequent recommendation to City Council for the zoning. It is not a continuation of the annexation and that is not an issue. That was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to indeed be annexed. No one is contesting the annexation, what is up for consideration is the Structure Plan Amendment which would lead to the applicant's request that the entire site be placed into the Employment Zone versus the Industrial zone, which is what was recommended back in May. Chairperson Lingle asked if the annexation is proceeding, it has to have a zoning attached to it, so would it be I, Industrial. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it has to be zoned 90 days following the annexation. Unless the Structure Plan is amended, it would have to be zoned in accordance with the Structure Plan. Troy Jones, MTA Architects gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that they were here tonight to present an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Last time they were in front of the Board they did not dive into a lot of detail because they had the annexation and zoning on the table at the time, as well as the Plan amendment. They tried not to show too much design that would be down the line in the development type of detail at the time of annexation and zoning. They thought that it would be important to clarify some things that they did not present last time the Board heard this project that is very relevant to why they feel it should be re-designated employment rather than industrial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Jones showed on a map the portion of their property that they would like to zone Employment rather than Industrial. He stated that in 2002 the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was adopted and in that Plan a Framework Plan was adopted. There were two scenarios; the first being the Framework Plan that assumed that the airport would stay in operation. The second plan acknowledged that if the airport were to stop operation, that the area should be treated as employment and not industrial. Mr. Jones showed the Framework Overlay Plan which showed in the event that the airpark would close and redevelop the area that would be appropriate for employment. He stated that their request was to piggyback onto that; the East Mulberry Corridor Plan already established that down by the intersection of Mulberry and Timberline that it would be appropriate for employment. What they wanted to do is include the 80 acres on the north part of their property that they would like to be employment rather than industrial. If the 80 acres were to be designated employment and not industrial, the ability to do some uses will be lost as a result of this change; heavy industrial, recycling facilities, recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage, outdoor storage, resource extraction processes and sales, junkyards, airport and airstrips, transport terminals and farm implement and heavy equipment sales. By making the change there are new uses that were not permitted in the industrial zone. Out of those he made a list that they would intend to do; private and public schools, convention and conference centers, lodging establishments and personal and business service shops as part of the ultimate development that you could not do in industrial. He also noted that there were more residential uses allowed in employment zone than in the industrial zone. They were only intending on doing mixed use dwellings units. There were several uses that are overlapped in what they intend to do that you could do in either one of the zones; mixed use residential units are allowed in both industrial and in employment. That is the only residential type that they are planning to use. He would be getting into the difference of how you can use them in each zone and that is part of the main reason why they want employment rather than industrial. It is also worth mentioning the last item on the list and that is heliports and helipads that are available in both zones. A lot of conversation previously was about whether it was appropriate to put employment to helipads and the impact that would have on the development. It was lost site of that you could put a new helipad in employment that is permitted and it was not really a zoning issue so much as a site planning issue of how do you buffer against that. Why do they want employment versus industrial? It boils down to two basic reasons. The first is that as part of the development, they would like to include a hotel and convention center and that is not allowed in industrial and it is allowed in employment. The second is that the mixed use dwellings are treated differently between the two zones. Mixed Use dwelling units in industrial; you can do them but you have to have Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 11 fifty percent of your building or more be the non-residential use. The mixed-use dwelling unit has to be above the non-residential use on the ground floor. Basically you have a two-story building that has the first story non-residential, the second story residential. In employment it works differently and it works a lot better for what they intend to do. Residential is a secondary use in the employment zone. However, mixed use residential depends on how it is done to determine whether it is a primary or secondary use. If the mixed-use residential unit is above a primary use such as an office, that residential above it is counted as a primary use. If the residential use is above a secondary use, such as a restaurant or retail store or a convenience shopping center, then that residential counts as a secondary use. It is an equation that needs to be closely followed as the development goes through as to how much of that has qualified as primary and how much is secondary. The way that the intend to do it is quite a bit of their residential will be over primary uses, they were basically limited to all of the secondary uses that qualify as such can be no more than 25% of the development plan. Mr. Jones explained that the Board received a copy of all their meeting minutes and all the stuff that the public sent in, the sign in sheets and everything of the multi-meeting process that they had. They rented a public room at the Ramada Inn and hosted meetings that they really tried to engage the public. They sent out mailings to 250 business owners in the vicinity and had a web site they encouraged people to go to and had a topic every month that they tried to engage the neighbors in to try and help shape the input of what was wanted next to them as they moved forward with this development. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan was an excellent effort as well, but it was more of a broad brush for a larger area. In their plan they are only talking about 150 acres out of the plan so they dived into a finer level of public participation, specific to a lot smaller area and that is why they feel they are not disregarding the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and there if much more information now because they have engaged the neighbors to the degree they have. They would like to call it a refinement of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan rather than saying that it was wrong in the first place. Mr. Jones talked about the amount of industrial land in the GMA and it totaled 1,901 acres. There is the airpark area, the New Belgium area; there is some off of North College, Riverside and quite a bit out by 1-25, some of which is Anheuser Busch property. Out of the 1900 acres, they are asking that 80 acres be taken out of Industrial and that represents about 4.2% of the Industrial designated land. Advanced Planning provided the information that 928 acres out of the 1900 acres are vacant right now, and their 80 acres represents about 8.7% of what is vacant. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Jones spoke about the intensity of jobs. Industrial type jobs seem to be less concentrated than what you can do in employment. Their intent is to have mixed use buildings with some of them having residential on the upper floors and some of them having employment type uses on the ground floor. By going to employment allows them more efficient use of the land, more urban type of environment. The other thing is housing and jobs balance; ultimately with their development they want to have a research and development park as the primary anchor for this development, but at the same time they want to have a lot of mixed use residential units. Within the project they want to have this housing and job balance; having housing close to jobs is doing their part in reducing vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Jones stated that the last time they were before the Board there was quite a bit of discussion about helicopters and it ended up being a surprise what the issues related to helicopters were. Prior to that meeting, they had gone and talked to some of the helicopter neighbors and started to figure out what are their needs and what are our needs. It did not occur to them that it was going to be as big of an issue with regards to changing to employment from industrial. They were not prepared to talk about helicopter issues last time and that is one of the main reasons they wanted to come back before the Board to follow up on what they have done since then to try and figure out how they can co-exist with the helicopter operators and what is the best solution for that. Obviously they are not going to make them 100% happy because they are used to being next to an airport, which is ideal if you are a helicopter operator. If there is any sort of development next to it, there is going to be some growing pains. They are gong to try and minimize that. Mr. Jones discussed the plan and stated that they were looking at right along the edge that is adjacent to the existing business and industrial park. They have analyzed where the three heliports currently out there are, two to the south and one to the north. They interviewed all three operators and tried to figure out what would make it easier for them to operate and co-exist with them. They came up with the idea of a safety zone where they don't put any buildings in and they don't put any big canopy trees in and they minimize the things that would conflict with helicopters taking off and landing. They do that along the areas where the helicopter pads would have access to. They want to work out a win win and they think that there is a workable solution, but because employment zone and industrial zone both allow heliports and helipads, they think it is more of a project development plan issue, or even an Overall Development Plan issue of how do you mitigate between the two. They feel that it is not a zoning issue at all since it is allowed in both zones and they wanted to represent that they are making all the efforts they can to come up with a win win. Alan Krcmarik, for the applicant testified that the proposed use could be a very viable economic generator for the community. The economy is going through a rough patch Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 13 and for the past several years the city has been studying the ideas of economic vitality and sustainability. They took a look at the report put out by the EVSAG and this project as proposed ties right into that. They are looking at a research and development use relatively high density, a lot of jobs fit into this site. It could also fit into the concept of being a business cluster as outlined in the EVSAG report. The idea is to be a hub of transportation oriented research. He was also asked to develop financing tools, but that would be further down the road, they did include in the packet an appendix that summarizes potential economic activity. Mr. Krcmarik reviewed the appendix for the Board. Suzanne Durkin, representing the applicant stated that what they were talking about tonight is the first steps in the process and the questions before the board whether or not to amend the Framework Overlay Plan and City Structure Plan; is the amendment necessary and will it promote the public welfare, consistency with the Visions and Goals, Principles and Policies of City Plan. Is it necessary, and they have gone through the list of changes that would happen. There is an airport that is not longer going to be feasible after 40 years of operation. Heavy industrial is very unlikely on this site because of proximity to neighborhoods. This would allow a residential use that we see in other areas. Why do we need additional residential; look at Rigden Farms, they needed that residential in order to gain the momentum and the dollars it needed to put in the rest of it, it is no different here. We are talking impact to Airpark Village, what is it going to do for us if these amendments go through. We will be able to expand uses to include more residential, compatibility with the neighborhoods and uses that are essential to this new economic generator that we really need. It also permits uses that support the expansion of the city's central core, the downtown. This is a mixed use revitalization and economic growth project in a transitional area. It promotes public welfare by creating jobs and housing in balance with each other. It integrates with existing residential and it places new residential in proximity to shopping, recreation and employment. Does it meet the needs of the community; when they did the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, these are the things people talked about, better overall appearance in the area, more employers, and avoidance of big box developments, storage yards and industrial uses. New development that looks good based on sound design, principles and lots of landscaping. This is not a development that is looking to the city for handouts, they are going to be refining the site design and continue outreach to primary stake holders and they have a track record of going above and beyond that. The development will also include a financing plan in working in concert with other business owners along Mulberry to come up with ways to create that Mulberry Corridor that we have all dreamed about for so many years. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 14 PUBLIC INPUT Robert Dean, owns Front Range Helicopters spoke to the Board. He stated that there were many points about this and the first is the East Mulberry Corridor Plan assumed with the airport leaving that there would be no air traffic. That is not true and there will be a considerable amount of air traffic remaining. The employment zone allows schools, lodging and a considerable amount of residential with the plan that they are promoting. The other aspect is the intent is not the issue here; it is the zoning of the parcel. What they say may not come to pass, but it will be zoned employment with all these uses available. The consideration is how this air traffic is going to relate to the residential and other public intensive uses. They mentioned residential stacked so that would mean several floors up. If the Board saw the pictures of the industrial park they are one story buildings, maybe two. If start stacking building up it becomes more of an obstruction issue and certainly a noise issue. That will be an enhanced annoyance to anyone who lives there. He believes that someone on the Board made the comment that residential units cost more than they contribute through fees. If that is true then these residential units may not pay their own way. The reason they are down there at the airpark is because it was for aviation use. They are also down there because it is relatively inexpensive land and that is why many of the businesses are down there. The fact that it is industrial is not negative, it is positive in terms of attracting many businesses that serve the community. It is very difficult to get a new heliport. It may allow it, but if you try and run a heliport through the planning process, you will find out how many people want one next to them and it is not very many. The fact that they have heliports in existence means that they will continue to operate from them because the cost of relocating and the difficulty is considerable. He believes the city is charged with protecting their rights to operate their businesses. He thought they can continue to operate no matter how it is zoned, it is a matter of obstructions, egress and ingress, whether it is industrial or employment they can address those issues at the time of planning. He thought the issue with employment is protecting their rights to operate in terms of complaints that they are going to receive and protecting people who will move in there from the noise effect. Larry Hansen, founder and CEO of Century Helicopters stated that he came here in 1970 and brought the helicopter industry. They located at that time at the airport because it was an airport. All along he has never had many concerns about if the runway would go away that they would still have the ability to operate helicopters. With what they see now with the decisions that may be made by what is going to be placed next to them, it could create some problems and could put them out of business. They currently operate a multi-million dollar business and they employ 30 or more people at their facility. What is being proposed is "we think we can do this and we think we can Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 15 do that'. We know what we can do, we are there and we are doing it. There are others there that are the same way. All they are asking that what ever decision that is going to be made, that they be accounted for and that some provision be made that will allow them to continue to operate without being hassled by their neighbors and forced out of business. In the last two weeks they have received multiple calls from the low income housing on the north side of the airport complaining about the helicopters. They have received calls over the years from a hotel located on Highway 14 owned by one of the principles of the airport for the helicopters making noise and bothering the people staying there. If you are going to try and put a hotel next to them, it probably will not work. Loren Maxey, Vice President of Community Airpark Corporation and the owner of the airpark. This is a privately owned facility and it was started in 1966 by a group of local aviators and has fortunately has been able to stay around for 40 years. For the last several years it has been declining and now has a negative cash flow and now has an opportunity to sell the airport to a developer. There are many factors for the negative cash flow. The opportunity with the developer has arisen and the stock holders have chosen to accept their offer for the facility. Michael Hansen, General Manager of Century Helicopters and Avian Technologies, which is the manufacturer of aircraft accessories located at the airport as well. He stated that this was discussed at a previous meeting that the noise is a big complaint of theirs and that will continue as they build and expand their business. They have expanded the employment of their companies by 20% in the last month. Two years ago they doubled the size of their building and they hope to double the size of their building again. That will continue to add more helicopter traffic. The aviation industry is stronger than ever particularly since the terrorist attacks on 9/11. People no longer want to go to the airport and stand in line and go through security searches. Those people who can afford it start buying helicopters and airplanes. Avian Technologies is the number one leading supplies for infra red surveillance integration equipment with an aircraft. Their supplies include the FBI, Boarder Patrol and those types of entities. They fly their helicopters in from all over the United States to be worked on again increasing the amount of air traffic that they will have coming in and out of their facility as well as increasing the noise. As they expand their business he hoped the Board would recognize the fact that they are there and they are continuing to grow and this is not something that is just going to go away and they want to mitigate the noise complaints that they have already seen over the years. AJ Glaser, property owner at 200 Rome Court which is to the northeast of the airport. He was there to talk about process, he did not ultimately care that much about what was being proposed here, but he also really did not care that much about helicopters. What Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 16 he did care about is his property. Over the 10 years he has been an owner out there, he has gotten a lot of post cards in the mail from the city saying that stuff is going on. He has gone to almost everyone of those meetings and some of the worst have been the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and also Dry Creek. What happened at those meetings is that you show up and they show you a plan and they say "oh this is the deal and if you want to complain we will listen to a couple of things" and the rest is a done deal. What was unique about this process what that he got his card and he thought "oh great here we go again", showed up and basically it was a blank piece of paper. There were forty or fifty people in the room and the developer says "what would you like us to do?" That started the process and from there the process developed for six months and over the course of time there seemed to be no agenda other than you as the neighbors saying what they would like to see this be. It was, in his opinion, a phenomenal process and is something that should be the rule for everyone to do. It bothered him to see this tonight which is almost negating everything that he thought they did. He went to everyone of those meetings because he thought what they were doing as the neighbors giving input and participating meant something. He was not sure what is going on here. He did not see many people here tonight, but there were a whole bunch of people who showed up at those meetings. He thought what was presented here was the culmination of what they as a group said what they wanted as neighbors. He thought that the Board's job would be to say that the people spoke. PUBLIC INPUT Member Lingle asked the Helicopter owners that based on the applicants presentation of some ideas on how to allow for continued helicopter access with the safety zone and are they uncomfortable with that process. Mr. Hansen replied that they were still uncomfortable with the ideas. They show up at their doorstep at 3:30 this afternoon with this proposal and this is what we think we are going to do. That was three hours before this meeting. He found that to be a knee jerk reaction. Also, in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan there was a lot of foresight and a lot of effort and a lot of study put into the fact that this should be zoned industrial. The city of Fort Collins spent a lot of money doing this. They spent a lot of time and blood, sweat and tears trying to make this plan work. We need industrial, there was a plan put forth and there was a lot of effort put into it and we should stick to that plan. With industrial they feel they can operate within what the city has already put down what they would like to see this developed as. Member Carpenter asked if it was at all possible to have an employment district here and the kind of development we are talking about and still allow a way for them to operate, or to him, the two are completely incompatible. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 17 Mr. Hansen replied without being an expert at the employment zoning, he thought that the thing that concerns them about the employment zoning is the residential capacity that is being proposed, 1600 units. That is 1600 telephone calls he could get everyday and that is 1600 phone calls the city is going to get everyday. Their issue is the residential portion of the employment zoning. That is why the industrial zoning was put there because it is the most compatible with the neighboring land uses that already exist. The city foresaw that and that is why it is part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Schmidt commented that she thought the plan has some innovative ideas and she thought that the concept is creative and part of that is good — if the helicopters and the other industrial were not there, if there were just employment adjacent to it something might work out very well, it just makes her nervous about where it is right now. Member Schmidt asked if their R and D plan that they have described mostly fit into the employment that is already there in the overlay plan. It looks like the R and D was going to be the first portion and the residential was going to be in the back. It sounds like the R and D is going to be the main economic driver. Mr. Jones replied that the R and D is intended to be on that end where it shows emptoyment. R and D could go into Industrial to some degree but you could not put the hotel and convention center which needs to be a big component of that in Industrial. It is different but the same concept as Rigden Farm. You could not build the King Soopers first and expect the residential to come in. You need the critical mass of the other part of the development to get your anchor later. They need the employment all the way because they need the north end of their development to create the momentum to bring along the south end of their development. It can't happen in Industrial on the north end to get that momentum going. Member Craig asked Mr. Jones that without the residential rooftops, the R and D Center will never come to fruition. Mr. Jones replied no, he thought they needed momentum. The momentum will happen in both the north end and the south end. So some degree yes, but to some degree he thought that was over simplification to say without the north end it will not happen. Ms. Durkin added that the market study that was done for this project indicates that right now there is no market. In order for them to get at least started to at least create this new R and D Center, is to start with some type of residential on the end that they are asking to be rezoned. From there they can build up the momentum and they are hoping that the majority will be the type of research and development that provides new jobs, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 18 the additional employment and the economic generator that we so desperately need right now in this community. Member Craig said so the market needs residential, so we fill the area with residential so people are already are there and then we create jobs for people who aren't there that need residential. To her this is backwards; to her you create the jobs first and then the area around that develops with houses, so the people can then have a place to live. Ms. Durkin replied that it is a balancing act right now. What they are looking to do is create the vision and the opportunity for people to understand that this is the type of development where you can work and live at the same time. It is hard to describe until we get down to the ODP as to where they are going to put that kind of emphasis. Mr. Jones added that they need this momentum early because they have all this infrastructure to pay for. They intend to establish a metro district or some sort of way to pay for this parkway, but they need to start to sell property in order for that equation to keep rolling along. The north end of the property is the thing that is going to help that infrastructure take off and be able to be put in so when the national marking they are doing for the R and D park; they can come out and kick the tires and say they have the infrastructure in place. The north end of the development is proceeding nicely and it needs to happen in the chronology according to their calculations in order to make it work. Member Craig stated that there is a lot of vacant land around there that they could be involved in getting residential without them having to rezone this particular area. Have they looked at that at all? Mr. Jones replied they don't own any land there. They need to get this critical momentum going to pay for the infrastructure to get to draw their R and D park and they need the development itself to be diverse and have the initial sales of the north part of the development to pay for the infrastructure to put in the south part. Member Craig asked about the overlay employment and why could they not start putting residential in that to pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Jones replied that they asked the neighbors a lot of questions and one of the questions was residential appropriate. They got mixed answers and they got a lot of some residential was appropriate. They asked the neighbors what percentage of residential would be appropriate. They got some answers that some residential would be fine and some answers that said not residential. The majority said about 40% residential. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 19 Member Carpenter asked Mr. Jones to point out where the heliports were located. Mr. Jones responded by showing a slide of the heliport locations. Member Carpenter commented that there are some exciting things here but when you start marketing residential with the kind of helicopter traffic, she believed there would be a problem there. Member Lingle stated that with the intent to maximize the number of residential units that you can get on the site because they become primary uses instead of secondary uses smacks against the whole compatibility issue to the point where it does become a zoning issue not necessarily an ODP issue. He stated that it would be in the best interest of the city to have a mixed of residential and commercial uses would be ideal if this was not adjacent to county industrial development that already has the kind of uses it already has there and that is where the compatibility issue becomes much more important. Member Schmidt to not recommend approval of the annexation with the amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. They recommend that the annexation should stay with the present zoning. Planner Shepard added that the Board needed to define that they were referring to the Overlay Framework Plan which presumes the scenario that the airpark is closing which allows the southern 1/3 to go E and the northern 2/3 to remain in the I, Industrial. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig clarified the motion to be an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan to the proposed amendment under the quotes of the Overlay Framework Plan. We are allowing the employment there at the intersection of Highway 14 and Timberline and the other section being left as Industrial. Member Schmidt clarified that they were amending the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Structure Plan to what is in the Overlay Plan. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Fp % rc a 7¢ d W E i I 1 1 a>♦ _ i { r+•i••�Jii ea 9�S it !6�wS0'' S A w,Jii • I' ' S Or i •A•ii4 II' e o ♦ °�•iri•Ji° P II ♦•y44♦iiS•iA• •i°°Pe�e°y •i°S •••♦� II'' fr'i0yp0� • • �♦i• Vi♦ ♦ •♦,••ar s• • li i •w••w°rA••i•Jii°. • •ii•�••iii♦• •e•P•+ P e l♦0 • • ♦ ♦ ••♦ •4A s� .. r ♦PC• I. II ... � .' OAA•'i'yP ieS♦S°a,♦•Aea,�'•P••PA r,P ,°i♦'*`e'_`. I r s SP<eA •i4•P•i •i riiO•i•• •i� • + �• I �� yi t il� !P••i'P,ri♦i•iiee•e•♦PiirJ�A� ♦rJA•A>•J• ws i•P •iA•i°i°i`•p i••riS•riii•Sii•••ir•°>°•°+••A•• as I . ei♦P•A•i•J •ii�,0•i•Wi• ♦° ri0•i�+° I- sO°,°O,°JOJ erii•4 erii• rAS♦♦s0°yibi ♦♦ I. r••iWP•PiiNiAP,°,° P�Aii•♦• AAAY', >ro ♦• I ♦i'iiS.�wYAA•♦O..A♦SP,.,P.O.°,+o.°� Ji•Ps.e ^ ,, I „ _�rrJP♦A iii•Piii••,J�i�:SP,♦•prs re riri• ' ° e° $ s Qom •S•♦♦••♦s•♦•• •s •• •♦•• s , I'' �� � ro ;i` §Vii�ii�s�sS•••iii� ♦°i •ia ib4'+iie�• .i ♦♦•P♦•• i••r �'E♦�O��jJA�ApP,Sir° �•�� ,o ,0+0�,�,�,��,�•+ '. e � r^ i n u •iii♦ti •i•,♦♦i ♦• •♦•,y�i♦s♦ •sA • • ♦�> I ••ee •♦• •S ♦•r6�r • . ♦A♦ e •♦ii♦•♦♦A A♦A,}A♦�•6�y yi e♦ A ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦• • � r•• ♦ 6 � ocr•iioa•iD r ri ire�•p•, ••i e a s S ♦. •♦, s ♦,A14, ❖.�P,•Ay6,.��•�i•,MA•,.,e. ,,♦ •• ♦P ywsri'. > o a o w r i9 0 A•♦4 • , pAi�P ,r,•• +Pie�♦`i•� ,.�Aj.9• AAA, •�P •, ♦ '�� > r r 11 � I , A Is Hiz, 1, 111 � o 1 L M. 1• t f>T I- v � tt— x, ATTACHMENT Airpark Village Proposed Amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan 1 '�,�• /�a_�3d' {+may r� 1{b„`rt f \ rAr. '. � '. Y 9S ...-..�- �-�-_ T—Y �� :'K���./�'�'�'"'? � � `���a •ice... i rs._-°-�' ,> ., ' s 1i� ._S:-9vGie= �!.•ryt-1�i.:E�..�'� .n't�7.� •ILL'-l�.I!�to�i _ :=.s,i� City Council September 6, 2005 Airpark Village Request to Amend the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Summary of Request We request to change the land use designation for a portion of the upcoming Airpark Village Annexation from Industrial District to Employment District. The applicable land use designation has been established in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan's"Framework Overlay Plan,"which we propose to amend as illustrated below. _ We propose a land use mix that incorporates a centrally located "parkway" street with a"Main Street"type configuration of buildings in two distinct districts. One district is intended to be a Research and Development (R&D)Park where the primary We Request Change 80 core employment and technical jobs Acres from 'T to'E" would be located in proximity to a • Designation hotel and conference center. The +z other district is intended to be a mixed-use area including supplementary offices,restaurants, shops, services,and residences on upper floors of mixed-use buildings. We could configure the districts within the development in one of two ways,either locate the mixed-use(including upper floor residential)portion of the project toward the north end of the development or the south end. ! I F I �`S�� F� �i,yt+ � l� E4� �II� •,111Cr As Proposed In Accordance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan We feel it is better planning to locate the mixed use portion of the project(which includes residential on upper floors)on the north end of the development because there is already a • residential context directly to the east and to the west of the site. Additionally we feel it is better 1 • planning to locate the R&D park on the south end of the development because there will be better integration with the surrounding businesses and better access to Highway 14 and Interstate 25. Proposed Quantities of Land Use Types Airpark Village is anticipated to generate 5 Million square feet of ultimate developed building square footage,at build-out,with the following mix of uses: 75 Percent of the developed building square footage will be primary uses such as: Research laboratories; Light Industrial uses; Offices; Financial services; Clinics; Transit facilities; Adult day/respite care center; Long term care facilities; Warehouses; Warehouse&distribution facility; Possible public/private schools; Possible heliportas and helipads. Mixed-use dwelling units(on upper floors over primary uses); 25 Percent of the developed building square footage will be secondary uses such as: Restaurants; Personal and business service shops; Lodges establishments; Convention and conference center; Convenience shopping centers; Bars,Taverns; Mixed-use dwelling units(not over primary uses); Workshops and custom small industry. Within this mix, it is anticipated that 600/a of the building square footage will be devoted to non- residential uses(R&D center,offices,hotel&convention center,and supporting retail& restaurants)and 40%to mixed-use residential(both over primary uses and not over primary uses). Configurations for Mixed-Use Residential Dwellings (in Employment Zone vs. Industrial Zone) Within the development plan of the proposed Airpark Village, it is intended that 40%of the total building square footage for the development will consist of residential in the form of mixed-use dwelling units. This mix could be accomplished in either the Employment Zone or the Industrial Zone as follows: Employment Zone. Mixed-Use Dwellings count as a primary use when they are stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor. Primary uses are not limited in the quantity of the use that is permitted in any given development plan.Mixed-Use Dwellings count as a secondary use when they are not stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor. All secondary uses together cannot occupy more than 25 percent of the total gross area of the development plan[LUC 4.22(Dx2)(d)]. Industrial Zone. Mixed-Use Dwellings are permitted in the Industrial Zone only if they are constructed above nonresidential uses and onl_y i the aggregate floor area of all mixed-use dwelling units does not exceed the aggregate floor area of all nonresidential uses in the building[LUC 4.23(Bx2)(a)(i)]. • 2 • Airpark Village Summary of Neighborhood Outreach As soon as we secured the option to purchase the Fort Collins Downtown Airpark,we realized that the redevelopment plan will have such a huge potential to affect a large number of neighboring properties,we decided to be proactive,and engage the neighbors by conducting a series of neighborhood information meetings,which were held on: August 18,2004(53 attendees) -November 17,2004(11 attendees) September 15,2004(21 attendees) -December 15, 2004(13 attendees) October 13, 2004(19 attendees) -February 15,2005 (21 attendees) Throughout the neighborhood outreach process,we asked the neighboring property owners to participate in several polls to evaluate their preferences on several key issues that were fundamental to the initial layout our concept.The results were as follows: Poll Issue#1 The Dry Creek flood plain goes through the site. The City of Fort Collins is planning a floodway improvement that will channelize most to the Dry Creek flood waters. Early in the process,we decided to ask the neighboring properties their preference for whether to locate this channel on the east side or the west side of our redevelopment plan .Results: Eastern Floodway Alignment 22/Western Floodway Alignment 38. • Poll Issue#2 We contemplated two potential scenarios of street connectivity,a loop road around the edges of the development,or a central boulevard down the middle. We presented the pros and cons of either scenario. Results: Loop Road 11 /Parkway 40. Poll Issue#3 We wanted to make sure that the development of Airpark Village was compatible with the surrounding properties,but also wanted to provide the opportunity for a new enhanced character. We presented photographic examples as well as detailed descriptions of several diverse land use scenarios. Results: Main Street 26/Campus 10/Village 15/No Residential 9; Poll Issue#4 Finally,we wanted to be sure that the intensity of development was appropriate with the surrounding developed areas. We presented photographs,drawings and descriptions of several scenarios of varying intensities of development ranging from suburban in character to the very urban scenario of the core area of a city. Results: Suburban 21 /Urban 22/Core 3. Conclusion As a result of our neighborhood outreach,we now have well balanced,documented input from key stakeholders for a specific small area within the larger East Mulberry Corridor planning area, indicating that it would be entirely appropriate to refine the adopted East Mulberry Corridor plan, as proposed. The East Mulberry Corridor didn't have the same scope as our outreach,ours was more refined for a smaller area. We encourage Council to support what the majority of our neighbors told us,and allow the East Mulberry Corridor Plan to be amended to incorporate these • refinements. • Helicopter Issues "Helipads and heliports" are permitted uses in both the Employment and Industrial Zone Districts. The helicopter business operators testified at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing that they don't want the property zoned Employment,but would rather it be zoned Industrial. We contend that since both zone districts allow heliports and helipads,the question of compatibility between our proposed development and the existing helicopter business is not a zoning issue, but rather will need to be addressed during the development review process. We continue to have ongoing discussions with the owners of the helicopter businesses in an attempt to work out a win-win design solution that will allow Airpark Village and the helicopters to co-exist harmoniously. The uses can be designed to be compatible,but the solutions need to be applied at the Overall Development Plan(ODP)and the Project Development Plan(PDP)stages of the development approval process,rather than at the time of zoning. The Downtown Fort Collins Airport is adjacent to three businesses that have active heliports: • Front Range Helicopters(404 N. Link Lane)is a helicopter pilot school primarily. They also do tourist flights around the Fort Collins area. Their hours of flights are somewhat irregular. Some days they have 4 to 6 flights,other days they don't have any. The take offs and landings occur on a heliport,which is an approximately 100' by 100' square. Getting to and from the heliport,the helicopters hover slightly off the ground at slow speeds,similar to the way an airplane taxies. He explained that a normal take off is typically at about 10 degrees, but can vary between 5 and 15 degrees. • Century Helicopters(2001 Airway Avenue)is a primarily a helicopter maintenance shop,and they also develop components for helicopters and some airplanes. They average 30 flights in and out a week,typically between 7 am and 5pm. There's typically aren't any flights on evenings and weekends. The flights typically go straight north out of the heliport,which is across Airway • Avenue and a vacant lot(owned by Century Helicopters)from the Airpark property, cross the runway,and go north across the vacant property between Dry Creek Mobile Home Park and Collins Air Moble Home Park. The flight path can also depend on the prevailing winds of any given day. • Geo-Seis Helicopters(116 Racquette Drive)runs 2 huge military-type helicopters in and out of his hanger which abuts the airport. These are typically contracted out for heavy lifting and for firefighting. These helicopters land out on the runway of the airport and taxi on their wheels to his building. This size of helicopter can't near any buildings,because the helicopters produce 130 m.p.h.winds during take-offs and landings. This business is in the same situation as any of the other airport dependent businesses in that when the airport closes,the business can no longer operate in it's current location. The primary compatibility concerns of the helicopter operators revolve around safety and noise: • Safe . Physically,both Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters could co-exist with Airpark Village rather easily with the integration of a"helicopter clear zone"accessible to both businesses,that has no buildings,which can be used to accent and decent during the take-offs and landings. The business owners prefer a non-developed open space area for this helicopter clear zone(such as the Dry Creek flood channel),however parking lots, a street, or an alley can be within this zone, as long as there's not too much traffic or other obstacles that would prevent a safe landing in the event of engine failure during take-off or landing. The FAA allows helicopters to fly over streets if they"could make a safe landing." • Noise.Both Front Range Helicopters and Century Helicopters are concerned about residential being integrated too close to their operations. They are worried about complaints from residents about noise. We propose to enter into an avigation covenant which is an easement document that is signed at closing for every residential purchaser,where the purchaser acknowledges that they are aware of are helicopters operating in the vicinity,that helicopters are noisy, and that they give up the right to complain about the noise. Additionally,there are noise mitigation components that • are intended to be integrated into the construction of buildings. 1 AIRPARIG VILL4CIE A Public/Private Partnership For an Economic Generator And First Stage Business Cluster Development i T � w . .• � _ mAv o- S i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Mission 3 Development Team 3 Executive Summary 3 Redevelopment Concept 4 Economic Impact 6 • Startup 7 Research & Development Center 8 Financing Plan 9 Appendix A Economic Impact Calculations 10 Appendix B Engineering Estimates 11 & 12 2 AIRPAR_K VILLAGE Proiect Mission The Atyparle v6ttage Project has a two-fold mission: to incubate a research and development park dedicated to the advancement of alternative fuel, propulsion, and transport technologies within a working model transit-oriented development and to create primary and supporting jobs that promote sustainability and economic vitality. The innovations developed here will enable communities to avoid the economic disasters that will occur when the global supply of oil is reduced thus causing the price of refined gasoline and petroleum products to reach unaffordable levels. A secondary result is the generation 4,000 jobs on-site and 8,000— 12,000 jobs in supporting businesses. Development Team Smartskyways, Inc. is a consortium of engineers and administrators practiced in real estate development and worldwide transit research projects. The President, Lloyd Goff, has 37 years of experience in the formation and promotion of real estate ventures. Other team members are engineers who developed Disney's transport systems, the MGM Las Vegas Monorail, the Portland light rail, Durango& Silverton RR,and many other humanly scaled transportation projects. Consultants to the project are: Kirkpatrick Pettis, Investment Bankers; Martin and Martin, Civil Engineers; M. Torgerson Architects, PC, Architecture and Planning; Alan J. Krcmarik and Susanne Durkin-Schindler, Special District Financing and Stakeholder Relations; and Grimshaw and Harring, Special District attorneys Executive Summary At rparl2 village is an innovative project backed by a consortium of experienced professionals who understand the market potential and the financing packages needed for successful development. Thus urban project is unique in that it offers infrastructure for testing and improvement of products as well as transit-oriented housing. This will be the only Research & Development Park of its type in the United States. The project exemplifies the concepts of sustainability and economic vitality that Fort Collins believes are fundamentals for any private/public partnership that will bear positive returns for the community. Funding for the first phase of construction is solely from private investors. At the point of build-out,the annual property tax generated by the development will be about $4,500,000. Employment opportunities are projected to be 4,000 new on-site jobs at capacity with numerous spin-off industries that could grow the total jobs for the community to 12,000 in twenty-five years (3 per each site job). Sales tax is estimated to add roughly $11.9 million annually to the economy bringing total annual revenue of$16.4 million distributed through the region. • 3 • Redevelopment Concept At Yparl2 vULage requires the redevelopment of a large tract of land within the urban growth area boundary of Fort Collins. Like any urban redevelopment project, it presents significant challenges as well as opportunities for creativity and innovation. The renewal of the 153-acre Fort Collins Downtown Community Airport neighborhood is such a project. It is challenging because the site is over a mile in length and very narrow. Redevelopment also necessitates infrastructure enhancements to provide more access and greater utilities capacity. Innovative planning is needed to prepare this property for the best project. Market analysis and recent City experience shows that a traditional commercial or industrial development has limited potential. AiLrparie vULage is anticipated to generate 5 million square feet of developed building square footage, at build-out, with the following mix of uses: 75 Percent of the developed building square footage will be primary uses such as: ➢ Research laboratories; ➢ Light Industrial uses; ➢ Offices; ➢ Financial services; ➢ Clinics; ➢ Adult day/respite care center; ➢ Transit facilities; • ➢ Long term care facilities; ➢ Mixed-use dwelling units (on upper floors over primary uses ➢ Warehouses; ➢ Warehouse&distribution facility; ➢ Possible public/private schools; ➢ Possible heliports and helipads. 25 Percent of the developed building square footage will be secondary uses such as: ➢ Restaurants; ➢ Personal and business service shops; ➢ Lodges establishments; ➢ Convention and conference center; ➢ Convenience shopping centers; ➢ Bars, Taverns; ➢ Mixed-use dwelling units(not over primary uses); ➢ Workshops and custom small industry. • 4 • The Development Team is asking that the City support our new strategic mixed-use economic model of a Research & Development Center that focuses on next generation infrastructure and technologies for a Community of Tomorrow that uses these strategies for sustainability: ➢ Water Treatment and Recycling ➢ Maximum use of Alternative Energy ➢ Automated Guideway Transport across the site ➢ Interior transport stations ➢ Broadband Telecom At rpa rip village will grow an intellectual and creative economy that generates a ripple of support services from all over the City of Fort Collins for professional services,technical experts, financial services, and materials. Target markets for the housing component are the retiring "baby boomers," work-at-home occupations, and those supporting sustainable living. "Baby boomers" possess the largest savings accounts, are in transition to smaller housing arrangements, and can be attracted to Adrparl2 village from national markets because of the opportunity for a continued productive and interactive life within a transit-oriented and sustainable development. Retired teachers, scientist, professional and artists would find a creative lifestyle working part time with the R&D Center. This site will support an inventive mix of land uses that serve the residential, medical,commercial,recreational,retail,entertainment, and conference needs of its community. An illustration of station opportunities - not a land use plan Retirement Campus r•r ork at home Assisted Living i Banker :: , , Bungalos R&D Center �k6 (Mixed Use) G e a �commer Ic r � Resida • etaT All s Me — „' 5 Economic Impact The City's Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action „- • Group's (EVSAG) final report defined themes, strategies oil and tactics for the City to consider to meet the economic Q�` - challenges and opportunities facing the community. We believe that the ,Atrparia vtttage project manifests the EVSAG vision to enhance the "Sustainability" and "Economic Vitality" of Fort Collins as defined in the report: y Example of an mixed use R&D Building Station "Sustainabilhy"...Quality human scale urban design, energy-efficient building practices, economic health, diversity of housing, public safety, environmental protection, and mobility will all make Fort Collins a sustainable community. (P.5) "Economic Vitality" is defined as a community's capacity to be economically competitive, resilient and attractive to public and private enterprise. ...They also embrace change and seize opportunities. (P.5) The types of products produced by research and development companies anticipated to be attracted to this R&D Center are major revenue generators. ➢ Propulsion Systems ➢ Automation Systems ➢ Commuter Stations • ➢ Guideway Components ➢ Alternative Energy ➢ Power Distribution Components The types of jobs associated with these companies are likely to be in the higher paying scientific and engineering fields. A Census 2000 Special Report entitled "Evidence from Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women"lists median annual 1999 wages: ➢ Engineering Managers- $80,000 ➢ Mathematicians- $75,000 ➢ Economists- $72,000 ➢ Aerospace Engineers- $70,000 ➢ Electronics Engineers- $70,000 ➢ Mechanical Engineers- $50,000 Atrrarie vttage is also a first stage project for community Business Cluster. Business Clusters revive a community by creating: "...Unusual competitive success in these ways: first,by increasing the productivity of companies based in the area; second, by driving the direction and pace of innovation; and, third, by stimulating the formation of new business activity." (EVSAG p.19) Atrpari2 vtuage will generate about $23 million in one-time use tax, permits and fees for the City of Fort Collins. Over time spin-off companies will bring new products to the surrounding R&D community that could grow to a 12,000 or so population over 25 years. Annual revenue from property and sales tax at build-out and full employment is estimated to be$16.4 million . distributed through the region. (See Appendix A for calculation assumptions and details.)At arle vMage embodies the EVSAG vision for Fort Collins' sustainability and economic vitality. 6 Startup - $20 Million Infrastructure Funding • Construction starts with the installation of $20 million of infrastructure and the adaptive reuse of hangars and the terminal. Main 5,000 sf of Hangar 3,600 sf Terminal 3 Hangars at 15,000 sf ea The main hangar will be converted into a lab and demonstration area. Sales and administration will have offices in the terminal. Three smaller hangars will be the first research shops Skyways Docking main line at stations y�� Rampi crovinp Slrtv9s Medi `' walk AA tre • This funding will build a one mile Urban Transport Corridor (below) that advances the "State of the Art" in automated guideway transportation. It will attract companies in the business of researching and developing all components of fixed guideway transportation systems. Companies will want to experiment on our infrastructure with next generation propulsion engines, alternative energy, automation, robotics, water treatment and recycling, security and wideband Telecom. • Infrastructure development in place first 7 Research and Development Center The R&D Center first phase consists of. ➢ Construction of temporary facilities in the converted hangars and terminal ➢ Development of the Smart Skyways infrastructure for R&D ➢ Invitation to companies to open field offices, shops, and labs in the temp facilities and in the existing south industrial park ➢ Request for venture capital companies and investment bankers to open office condos and sponsor events ➢ Marketing of a hotel conference site to a developer ➢ Marketing of a technology mall site Second phase is the construction of housing designed for low-maintenance, sustainable living. "nXll@ ,ugnNl Mn �. ,.a This is a strong market that will provide the resources for the development of the rest of the 101�Ir research and development center. In fact, the FOP°° expansion of this housing concept would be the "safety net" for the project. Market projections demonstrate that At rpcirlo VULage could be successful if developed as a community of affordable residential units on a site that would • include varying levels of assisted living to its residents. Third phase is the middle of the site. Here, This project will have two types of units: approximately 100 Banker and Venture Capitalists small"A"units and large"B"units. office/residences are envisioned. These will be sold to Investment Companies that want to sponsor on site conferences, seminars and meetings with local R&D vendors to learn their technology and financial needs. They will be marketed as highly stylized 2 t level office condos built around gardens with attached garages accessible from the outside of each building. The gardens will have pools, lounges and room services for entertaining. Each unit will include conferencing, admin and kitchens on first level and lodging accommodations on the second level for investment companies to rotate their employees thru the R& D Center for short or long stays. In short,they are branch offices. 8 Financing Plan A Joint Venture Capital Group is being formed to provide the startup $30 million for land acquisition, renovation, and construction. The first $10 million in equity will be available in the first twelve months for land acquisition, water and engineering. The next $20 million will be acquired within 2 years. The improvements constructed with the start up funding will provide the collateral for special district financing in the form of bonds to build key improvements that ready individual sites for sale. Special District Boundary i Airpark Village is not asking the City for —�I�- money. It is proposing that the City use __ - ._=�.A.IJ li P existing economic development tools l� L a -- that provide business incentives to out- - OWW of-town companies and local _ entrepreneurs to locate within special ,- zones like Enterprise, Free Trade, and Urban Renewal Zones. c The funding mechanism would work as follows. A Special District will fund the on-site improvements of parkway, • (�' sidewalks, utilities, streetlights and a E BI fixed guide way for transport. It is this ' I next generation infrastructure that will attract a mix of branch offices, labs, shops and capital for R&D to stimulate economic growth. An Urban Renewal District would issue bonds supported by the millions of new tax base to finance off-site improvements. At the point of build-out, the annual property tax generated by the development will be about$4,500,000. Employment opportunities are projected to be 4,000 new on-site jobs at capacity with numerous spin-off industries that could grow the total jobs for the community to 12,000 in twenty-five years (3 per each site job). Sales tax is estimated to add roughly $11.9 million annually to the economy that brings total annual revenue of$16.4 million distributed through the region. • 9 APPENDIX A • Preliminary Estimates of Revenues from Proposed Airpark Village Researchanduatrigl CQuangWal Uses Use Tax on Construction Materials S 850,000 received once during construction Other City fees,permits $ 5,600,000 received once during construction S 6 One-time Construction related revenue Residential Uses (1660 units) Use Tax on Constnwtioa Materials-Residential S 1,826,000 received once during construction Other City fees,permits•Residential $ 14,691,000 received once during construction S 1 17 g00 One-time Construction related revenue Commercial Property Tax at Full Build out(in 2005 dollars) $ 2,568,000 total for all taxing jurisdictions,per year S 293,500 total for Fort Collins only Property Tax at Full Build out(in 2005 dollars)-Residential $ 1,920,620 total for all taxing jurisdictions,per year $ 215,800 total for Fort coning only Sales Tax at Full Build out (300,000 Sqft'225•.00286) S 1,930,500 total for Fort Collins only New sales tax from spending from 4,000 new jobs $ 2,850,000 total each year,will be distributed through the region Multiplier Factor-Assuming 2.5 as the multiplier S 7.125,000 trial each year,will be distributed through the region S 16 120 Annual revenue generated by a completed project Total does not include revenue from a metro district(CRS Title 32). Property tax from Metro District at fug Build Out L_jA16489 Annual properly tax fry 38 mills for metro district Just from the 150 acres in Ainiark V' Project consultants reviewed recent proposals to the City of Fort Collins(most notably,the Harmony Road Lifestyle Center), studies done for the City by various consultants,and sales tax estimates for mixed use retail. • As this project is still in the early stages of planning and development,the figures presented have been conservatively forecast. As more information is obtained about tenents and design,the figures will be updated. BottomBne:The proposed project could be a substantial economic and revenue generator for the City - 10 APPENDIX B MARTIN /MARTIN - ao NauLTINO aNO1Na["■ Engineers Estimates of Probable Costs project AIR PARK Date:4/28 Location: Fort Collins Job No.:17,489 subject Estimated Probable Cost Prep. By:J. White client Lloyd Goff Ckd. By:J. Moore NOTE:Any opinions of price,probable project costs or construction costs rendered by MARTDUMARTIN represent its best judgment and are famished for general guidance. MARTAUMARMN makes no warranty of gummtee,either expressed or implied as to the accuracy of such ovinions as computed to bid or actual cost Item Description Units Quant Unit Price Item cost PRE-CONSTRUCTION Mobilization ea. 1 2,000 2,00 Clearing and Grubbm- Acre 150 450 67,50 Topsoil - (Removal 6", Stock Pile cu. yd. 36850 2 64,48 SEDIMENT CONTROL Sediment Containment System ea. 1 1,500 1,50 Standard BMP's silt fence,washout,VTC .S. 1 10,500 10,50 • EARTHWORK Earthwork-Overlot Grading cu. d. 503,200 2 754,800 DRY CREEK CHANNEL Twin 5ft by 10ft Box Culvert L.S. 1 265,00 265,00 ROADWAY SECTION ON-SITE Sanitary Sewer I if. 6000 5 300,00 Storm Sewer t if. 6000 75 450,00 Water Main if. 6000 5 300,0 Sub grade Prep s . yd. 45200 2A 67,80 Curb and Gutter If. 22300 11 245,30 12" Full Depth Asphalt Section Tn. 24650 42 1,035,3 6' Sidewalk(both sides if. 12000 15 180,00 Landscape Center Median s . yd. 11700 21 315,9 Landscape adjacent to ROW Sy.yd. 13300 27 359,10 Si ization--2 L.S. 11 240,00 240,00 Cost orItems: 4,659,18 15% Contin enc 698,78 Subtotal: 5,357,91 • Engineering 15% /Observation: 803,695 TOTAL $691619665 11 • Estimate of Costs for S a s Infrastructure Guideway 135 Conc guideway Girders 6000 feet 1 000 000 Steel Roadbed track 6000 500,00 135 columns/footings 8800 each 1,188,00 135 Crossbeams 4300 each 581,0 Shipping and erection 293 000 Switches 12 180,000 Ramps 4 x400 feet 1600 feet 160,000 Stations 3 each 2000000 Fueldepot 300,000 Power Distribution 700,000 Control system 1,500,000 Vehicles assume four 100,000each 400,000 Maintenance Hangars 1,100,000 Kiosks 40,00 Construction Contingency at 10% 994,200 Engineering and Supervision 15% 1,640 430 • Administration 5% 628 832 Total S a s Costs $13,205 462 Total Infrastructure Costs $20009,000 • 12 Proposal Public Private Partnership With the City of Fort Collins For an Economic Generator Airpark Village, LLC (Airpark Village) proposes an economic partnership with the City of Fort Collins (City) to create a job-producing Research & Development (R & D) Park on the 153 acres currently operated as the Fort Collins Airpark. Airpark Village would be a mixed-use development that includes residential units for the population working at the Research & Development Park. In addition to office and retail space, we envision a mixed housing retirement campus attracting the creative community of retired teachers, scientists, professionals, and artists who want to participate in the R&D center's innovative lifestyle. Airpark Village will also spin off a healthy mix of supporting land uses serving the medical, commercial, recreational, retail, entertainment, conferencing and civic needs of its community. Airpark Village is not asking the City for money. It is proposing that the City use existing economic development tools that provide business incentives to out-of- town companies and local entrepreneurs to locate within special zones like Enterprise, Free Trade, and Urban Renewal Zones. • This partnership for an economic generator would be triggered when the private sector secures up to $20 million in start-up funding. Once this funding is in place on the private side, the City would then create a special district (Title 32) for on- site improvements of next generation infrastructure such as water treatment and recycling facilities, alternative energy systems, automated guideway transport, transit stations, and broadband WiFi. Airpark Village asks that the City consider this partnership using our economic model of an R&D Center generating funding thru a combination of a Special District (landowners) with $20 million in private start up funds and an Urban Renewal District (City) contributing a portion of the new tax increment to build off-site improvements like flood control, International Bvld extensions, Mulberry Street landscaping, and traffic signals. This mix of funding could also pay for upgrading the streetscape between Lemay and Timberline to form a gateway to the R& D Center and the downtown City center. The funding mechanism would work as follows. The Special District will fund the on-site improvements of parkway, sidewalks, utilities, streetlights and a fixed guide way for transport. It is this next generation infrastructure that will attract a mix of branch offices, labs, shops and capital for R&D to stimulate economic growth. An Urban Renewal District would issue bonds supported by the millions • of new tax base to finance off-site improvements. • Such a partnership fits the model of an economic generator envisioned by the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group (EVSAG). The economic generator will bring national attention to Fort Collins that could blossom into a private sector "Los Alamos". The village created by this economic generator will be an intellectual and creative economy that generates a ripple of support services from all over the City like professional services, construction, financial institutions, and materials. ff creating 4,000 higher pang iobs over 15 to 25 years is our goal, the ripple effect could be between 2 and 3 supporting iobs citywide. Early revenue estimates total over $16 million generated each year from this project's build out. (See attached Appendix A.) Airpark Village is excited to bring this partnership concept to your attention. We look forward to further discussion with City Representatives in the future. BY Lloyd Goff, for Airpark Village, LLC. • • c N W (0 C � E U c R= CU c O � T i .L O ca •� O E 0. i M u) E a) O a) O E U N O � c W L cu .O a) a 4-0 m C N — O a) c O Li ) O E C p L .�. . O O G U C_ O 'O `~ a)' X a) a) X -C N 70 : FO— � p Cn H co E li O 'C C -C cn (� (D a) a) ca a ca X Q C O� U ca U) CO O >+ L X X to X m co -0 c6 �— ca U F— H p c 'C Cl) C ca cu N -0 O ._ 0 Q U) U) z Q a O L co � LO O CO to LO 40 C C/) O 4-0 O t5 U }, }, Co cn .i o o N co O X cn to Ma 4-0 U co U L O o c� U a) CL c > C O O 0 0 O O ` lam CL L N N E •CU O U O � ,> cn 4-0 (u •� ?� O O CO C L a) CUV N cu i •' L C.) I N N CD - U co U 0 •c ->% O p •O O � O M N O .D O O c Lo CN O cu O � U CU C4 0 - U I-- +� m • o o � 0 0 0 coTOM N 0) % co co r' n ON TOMMV i 69. T. o .coO o E U � 4-a i = C U) C o E o c� Vl L VVJ W C V -0 � O d N MMOMM a.., (u U V N oC ofEMMONS C to a--0 to 0 1 L _ p Own L = (1) O +� ma Jc cm mo O E C cn O i .� 4— AMA 4-0 E C c Q N ca c6 C > a) � O Ucn LM Co L i C: N E O N Q O C 4--r C O N � � p Co a� U d- a) L- U) N N O T- _ • • • 0 N L (D O >% Co Ocu -� O C. '0) .§ ca C 1 N U 'O m N Ca N cn .0 • '^ LL � •S (a ca +�+ L! 70 cu •1 G> > � ca CL L p ca p U N L L (a �0 c � Q a' O L a) U 0 L. (� O 4O y:r C CL i 'L O O cc ca a)Eco Ln L E '� 'n? c`w co '� c o QU • • • • L a) a) U .>1 •O C/) > O O S a) .� ' 0 U Cl) �+ Cl) .. = L = a) 'L � '� � •— Q � O '(C3 L :3 LL a) O X Q .— 0 � � cu � cu a) .� O o L Qom x O L O Q •— C ~ O c6 ( 0 U) n O CD � cuc Q CL L a) E to co E O OO C.) � � moo -0 am • 0 0 • cu O C N V -� N O M O O� (D U) � 1--a cn cu L a N N p O N AMA CU CN • y- O O O cu 4— E O � Q O L N � p ` E L. }, pCl) p � N cr ID cod cu =3 a) N O4-0 CU N � N cn 'co a- c O cn � (U e. L O � o � O m cTOM c C/) 60.1. m Cl) CO > o cn Li o Z i N O O O N O N .0 p Q N .N E O C � U O a)/^ O v, w � .� o 00LO N N O (u p C a�F a o o �w VV' O W VT C Cl) E 0 o CU N co CUCO N Q N (0 I— Z 0 • L O -4-0 4-- co U Co O > -F-a C: 0 N OV -= E ._ E O Q a)0 O 0 RS O to O C Q +, O E G� ca C: CL _ _ a) co O �+ me a)m > > N E CL OMN E — ._ N L L •E -0 }, 4O U c O E � E � co ._ � •L � � c� O co N u) c oo am • • 0 • E � L L L L L .— .— O O CL Q. O. 0. C y C C = = .O •O O .O .O .O .O ,O O ,O y c 1` N C) LO Cn 00 O� . a N O N 44 V- N 1` T. I` T" 6n. to N 6NA. 6o). 619 601� to)- t4 64 L) R t5 a) o Lm • � .O x x Q o ` > N O 'o U 4) — O N 9 N cn Z '0 o O O cn ` � E U a) d x _o _o o Co o >+ I- x x x + C 40) U0 -� � � HD 0 o n. 0 0 0 }, o }, W RESOLUTION 2005-098 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE "FRAMEWORK OVERLAY PLAN" WHICH IS A PART OF THE EAST MULBERRY CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, on September 17, 2002,the City Council adopted the East Mulberry Corridor Plan(the"Plan")to show two scenarios for the downtown airpark,one being the continued operation of the airpark and the other being the redevelopment of the airpark; and WHEREAS, under the redevelopment scenario, the "Framework Overlay Plan" which is a part of the Plan calls for the combination of industrial and employment zoning (respectively in the amount of 60% and 40%) to be placed upon the airpark property; and WHEREAS,the City has received an application to amend the "Framework Overlay Plan" so that the entire downtown airpark would be placed in the"E"Employment Zone,thus eliminating the Industrial Zone from the downtown airpark property; and WHEREAS,after due deliberation on May 19,2005,and on July 21,2005,the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended that the City Council deny the applicant's request and retain the original mix of industrial and employment zoning as called for in the "Framework Overlay Plan"; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Council has determined that compatibility issues which may arise as a result of the change of zoning of the airpark site to 100% "E" Employment can be addressed at the time of project development plan approval, and that the "Framework Overlay Plan" of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan should be amended to place the entire downtown airpark site in the "E" Employment zone district. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Council finds that the East Mulberry Corridor Plan "Framework Overlay Plan" is in need of amendment and that the proposed amendment will promote public welfare and will be consistent with the vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, and that, accordingly, the "Framework Overlay Plan" of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan 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 6th day of September, A.D. 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk .:r ..gym.. ... m z ... �O gu w _ f . S r I I I f I � err••♦ ♦ - II � i•i• eke i p e I c�h' i•°J♦���y� r. I a ri dih�io♦O�i i°eds r••�•z; � ii�. S -� q� i°i"Oic •e AS♦e°i0s•+a Gea°• c-- I J S ♦♦ • •♦ •e♦• s I� eS°md�4•iS • • °idd •ii S •'•i•A a as a / ♦ee••aa ♦roe ♦♦♦♦ h♦ e R.ae. „ II - e'e'e-i�J Se- ••id aA •Ji�ii�•♦�••♦• ♦rev _ I! r. ,♦i•e Js�wAia•♦c WhaR Ash♦ ♦ ♦-0t Y " ♦pa a h •ii ♦h•Oi••iiii c j� f' ♦69I0.4 ar �•Shas ••ae•♦ ♦Ndddi••iN•ii�+ I , �� -, a. ♦a ♦♦. �e d Sea Ste"� saesSS+ .' I �y " wA S•i•Ai d' �hdi°♦dam•" dA•♦S+z:, i♦ a fdiii••iSSSMs•eSv ♦♦♦♦�•ii♦♦ S♦♦e♦ a♦♦♦d•• S•i•• ♦°Jdi•«Sea`•iOhdi♦h♦ ei4°i•'-J•dii v:d I `�`'' hi•♦.yhii•S•Sdhd♦•A♦Sh•J ♦•♦OAOa ♦S•00-d ... I %AOfiiSSe♦d�i♦♦S°♦o�♦OSh• •�♦i• •♦♦a Odas•SJ e .i tv, : O•iidih�♦♦ ♦id♦•♦c JJi• e♦�♦•hh•4 a�• d�• dh♦♦♦♦AA♦ ♦hi ♦♦ e ♦ •♦So s �i j!• �Osiiidih4�iO��ih•�♦♦♦♦i a♦•%�•♦♦di 1�•e�° ♦•- .r Qom � sa♦♦S♦♦ ♦ dA�♦• • ♦ ••h• ••d d.. -S•id••iiS♦• A a ,♦iii••iee°•i♦S a♦e. a• ♦�A c •i'%iNi•6•i•� fin! ♦J• ♦•�Aaa♦�O•♦i fii♦•i°ii••i•' °O♦Sia°daSS ya ••', LS• ♦♦ fii'di•O•dhi♦i di••iidii•QrS S•i di a• • •h fff I w •♦m♦� e • :vOv�•S°a♦w!•A • d _,w• Q.r JOOe J•ii•♦d J ♦rrd--SahpQJ ♦� I 3 � b ,°Ailed �d SAp•e6aiV4-- ` �•' � r ii ♦♦ii�•i�0ii•diS♦S a • •♦•` •� d J•y �.. c �#c e.ew0••♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •dih• J A•ie a � ai• 4.ri ` I � s �i dS ♦�i•♦♦i�iid ♦♦h•-00 •..♦O •i� cieh�J' r o a o Iv aVh4 dhp♦d♦OJ A ! d'' ° ♦�•h♦,a . : ' I 1'! I� t•Ai:•JiSdi•♦i6•�AY q•Sa 'y • ..Ili i. ... •J♦O•i. •Sg••d: •�♦-a•J • re S�Jhi4 ♦Ai♦ • •. ` Illy alrpp h � t �� a.Ji♦♦SOe •:�•�� � _ aJ♦`Ji•�d�•�iaisz a``%•i•Wic ,\ d\ l r '�' i Aaie♦ddr ea i4•i• � III �d ••%•i�•�♦��- A � ICI -' ♦ee ♦a♦il�i•♦�r♦ d•:•. :Ili ♦♦• •♦♦•�♦�♦•.•♦ •Q� a ^♦ a sdii1' Ili. i•i ♦♦♦•�•♦JdiiiiiS :ay. ' o w _ jlz eiJi ♦•iihOi4•iiyii••8? .� y a � I+ Ji•i•�•iS•Odiidi•a' III •♦J.-y�♦i d�iiyi♦ "d• •hi z ili� 'hhY O��S•�•� %�i �% p', o III f!♦i�c♦Oi,�y.•♦�i�♦�♦��•di O f.! �• RIM Uli Ri♦diQWINNER — Q. Jai ♦�.4 • ¢ Ili �•♦.�•Jdid♦±i• di� i to rim ili �iiiS♦•�pii°♦�-•iidi •e I Jf.•♦O.•O.4 :. I \ •iS4•�i�0.' I 1�♦♦S•i�•ii t I �♦d•�diiid I Y' ••A:•4 i ••ii• V �a I I - r a w r X r Y� 7 f ,