HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/18/2007 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE EAST SKYWAY REZONING ITEM NUMBER: 29 A-B
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December 18, 2007
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Pete Wray
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the East Skyway Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading.
On October 18, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (5-0) to recommend Council not
approve the East Skyway Rezoning, with an added comment to consider this request as part of
the South College Corridor Plan effort.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2007-107 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map Pertaining to Land along
Skyway Drive East of College Avenue.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property
Known as the East Skyway Rezoning.
This area was annexed into the City as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in
April, 2007, under a Structure Plan designation of Urban Estate (U-E). The original intent of
designating U-E for these properties was to acknowledge the existing large-lot County parcels
zoned Farming in the County; U-E is the City's zoning that is most similar to the County's
zoning.
Staff has since considered the situation along this part of East Skyway in much more detail, in
extensive discussions with owners, neighbors, and the County. These discussions have been
prompted by issues related to an existing business at 209 East Skyway and by the recent
annexation process in 2007. Staff finds that the properties along Skyway do not reflect the
character of the Farming or Urban Estate designations, but bear closer resemblance to both the
commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood (which is more dense than
Urban Estate) to the north and east.
As a result of the long history of discussions centering on 209 East Skyway, staff is
recommending Council consider these changes now, rather than delay a decision further and
include this item as part of the South College Corridor Plan process (Planning and Zoning Board
recommendation), anticipated to be completed at the end of 2008.
December 18, 2007 -2- Item No. 29 A-B
BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map amendment will change the existing Structure Plan
designation for two properties located at 209 and 225 on East Skyway Drive, Claire Court, one
property on Clair Court, and a City owned parcel. The first property (209 East Skyway) is a
proposed/recommended change from Urban Estate to a combination of Commercial and Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The second property (225 East Skyway) will change from
Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Claire Court, a cul-de-sac which
extends south off of Skyway Drive, will change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood. The City owned parcel east of Claire Court will change from Urban Estate to
Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridor designation.
The corresponding proposed/recommended rezoning changes are as follows:
(1) The first property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is
Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of Commercial on the
west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of
the property.
(2) The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property
on the east, with existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is
a combination of Low Density Residential on the northern 1/3 of the
property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of
the property. No such zoning amendment is needed for Claire Court, with
an existing zoning of Low Density Residential.
(3) The third property is adjacent and east of Claire Court and is City-owned
(part of Prairie Dog Meadow) with an existing zoning of Low Density
Residential. The proposed zoning is Public Open Lands, representing a
housekeeping action.
Site Description
The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire
Court with its 9 fronting houses. The two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and
zoned Urban Estate to match the County's zoning in April 2007 in Phase I of Southwest
Annexation. Claire Court was already in City Limits. The first property at 209 East Skyway
Drive, is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached home with a home occupation business
and separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The existing business is a small engine
repair operation.
The second property located at 225 East Skyway Drive, is 4.8 acres and includes an existing
private Montessori School with a horse pasture extending behind the school.
Claire Court includes 9 parcels. The City-owned property east of Claire Court is a vacant parcel
of 1.5 acres.
December 18, 2007 -3- Item No. 29 A-B
The surrounding land uses/zoning are as follows:
N: R-L; Existing single-family detached residential (Lynn Acres Subdivision)
S: U-E; Existing vacant lots
E: P-O-L; City Natural Area(Prairie Dog Meadow)
W: C; Existing commercial businesses (South College Ave corridor)
Structure Plan Amendment
The City Structure Plan, a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), is a map that sets
forth a basic framework which shows how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. City Plan allows for amendments through a Minor Amendment process as outlined in
Appendix C. 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.
This area was annexed into the City as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in
April, 2007, under a Structure Plan designation of Urban Estate (U-E). The original intent of
designating U-E for these properties was to acknowledge and match as closely as possible the
existing large-lot County parcels zoned Farming in the County; U-E being similar to the
County's zoning.
Staff has since considered the situation along this part of East Skyway in much more detail, in
extensive discussions with owners, neighbors, and the County over several years. These
discussions have been prompted by issues related to an existing business at 209 East Skyway,
and also by the recent annexation process in 2007. Staff finds that the properties along Skyway
do not reflect the character of the Farming or Urban Estate designations, but are more in
character with both the commercial uses in the area, and the existing residential neighborhood to
the north and east. At 209 East Skyway, staff is recommending a Commercial designation on the
west 2/3 of the property, with a designation of Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the
property to provide a transition to the neighborhood (Attachments 1 and 2).
This proposed Commercial designation is the substantive aspect of the proposed changes. It
reflects the transitional, mixed character of the area: a U-haul truck facility in the Kelmar Strip
commercial corridor is abutting to the west; the sides of single family homes are across Skyway;
a Montessori school is abutting to the east; and two vacant 3-acre lots abut the property to the
south. These two vacant lots appear to be candidates for future rezoning, but will be considered
as part of the upcoming South College Corridor Plan process because the issues have not been
considered as thoroughly as at 209 and 225 East Skyway. South and southeast of the two vacant
lots, land uses include a permanent City Natural Area, Humane Society headquarters, City bus
facility, and a range of"city-edge"residential lots ranging from about 1/4 acre to over an acre in
the Lynn Acres County subdivision, all well within view of the subject property.
The existing small business on the subject property and any future new commercial uses on the
subject property can form a transition from existing U-Haul and other commercial uses adjacent
December 18, 2007 -4- Item No. 29 A-B
to the west, now and in the future. Further commercial changes to the subject property appear
likely and would both trigger improvements (e.g., landscaping, sidewalk, and changes to the
existing 6-foot chain link fence) to meet Land Use Code development standards, and would
improve the street frontage and appearance on East Skyway.
The changes involving Low Density Residential are much less substantive. The Low Density
Residential designation for the remaining eastern portion of 209 and northern portion of 225 East
Skyway is more appropriate than the current Urban Estate based on existing development and
density of houses and the school. It also provides a more logical land use pattern with a
transition in intensity from College Avenue eastward.
A cul-de-sac of houses called Claire Court, abutting 225 East Skyway, is also included in the
recommended Low Density Residential designation because it simply fits that designation rather
than its current UE designation (which allows a maximum of two dwelling units per acre). Staff
considers the Low Density Residential portion of the proposed changes to be minor editing of
the Structure Plan map, to create a more logical and orderly land use pattern along Skyway and
fitting existing development to the right designation.
A final proposed amendment includes the property adjacent to and east of Claire Court, a City
owned parcel which is part of a larger open lands acquisition in 2003 (Prairie Dog Meadow).
The existing land use designation is Urban Estate and the proposed designation is Open P p Lands
g P ,
Parks and Stream Corridors.
Request for C and R-L Zoning—Section 2.9.4(H)
Staff is recommending that the Plan Amendment be approved and Commercial (C), Low Density
Residential (R-L), and Public Open Lands (POL) zoning be implemented as a related action.
The request to rezone the two parcels from U-E to C and R-L, and one parcel from U-E to POL
(Attachments 3 and 4). This change is considered quasi-judicial (versus legislative) since the
parcels are less than 640 acres. There are five standards that may be used in evaluating a request
for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies, are summarized
below:
1. Mandatory requirements:
A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the
proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan:
The request for the C, R-L, and POL zoning districts is consistent with the City Structure
Plan as amended in the proposed prior action. The Commercial zoning change would be
compatible with the existing commercial to the west along the Kelmar Strip and the other
mixed-uses in the area, provide a transition between the College Avenue commercial and
residential use to the east, and provide a transition between the College Avenue Kelmar
Strip commercial and residential use to the east.
The change from Urban Estate to Low Density Residential is more compatible with the
existing residential neighborhood to the north and east. The change from Low Density
Residential to Public Open Lands is compatible with the existing residential
neighborhood to the west and north and existing open lands owned by the City.
December 18, 2007 -5- Item No. 29 A-B
B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the
proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
Changed conditions in the area are largely a result of what has developed on and around
these two parcels since the time of County Zoning of FA- Farming in the early 1960's.
The area now reflects a more "mixed urban fringe" character than farming or rural
residential character. Staff finds that a change to Commercial zoning on part of 209 East
Skyway is warranted given the situation on the 3.6-acre property and the mix of uses in
the area. The proposed Low Density Residential is appropriate to reflect the residential
and school development which has occurred along East Skyway.
The City-owned property purchased in 2003 warranted a map change then, but was
missed at the time. This rezoning represents a house keeping action to update the zoning
map based on previous decisions.
2. Additional, Optional Considerations:
C. nether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate
zone district for the land.
As stated above, staff has determined that the current Urban Estate is not the most
appropriate zoning in between existing commercial and low density residential uses.
Staff finds the proposed amendment for 209 East Skyway to be compatible with the
existing commercial area to the west, the existing residential to the north, and the various
uses that make up a mixed character to the south and east. The change to 225 East
Skyway would better reflect the existing residential character across the street to the
north and east.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited
to, water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and
the natural functioning of the environment.
Staff finds no adverse environmental impacts.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical
and orderly development pattern.
The proposed amendment results in a logical and orderly development pattern by
allowing a modest, transitional amount of additional commercial use on a portion of 209
East Skyway adjacent to existing commercial use to the west and north of the property.
The change from U-E to R-L simply reflects the existing residential development on and
around the subject properties. This is essentially a "house keeping" change to create a
more logical and orderly pattern than the current pattern, which includes U-E on
properties, that better fit the R-L designation. The R-L clearly fits the existing residential
uses and any potential future residential development that could occur on the east part of
December 18, 2007 -6- Item No. 29 A-B
209 East Skyway. The initial zoning of U-E as part of the South College enclave
annexation and zoning was close to reflecting the existing uses, but based on further
review by staff, a recommendation to change to Low Density Residential zoning provides
a more logical and orderly development pattern and transition to surrounding uses in the
area.
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30, 2007. A more detailed summary is attached.
The number of property owners in attendance was six. The following main points are as
follows:
• Of the six property owners in attendance, five supported the proposed plan
amendment and rezoning. A general response included support for the
existing small engine repair business and other planned commercial uses
requested by the owner of 209 East Skyway and changes to 225 East
Skyway.
• One owner did not support the proposed plan amendment and rezoning.
The comments focused on history of previous County decisions,
compatibility concerns, and a general opposition to commercial zoning for
this location.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
In evaluating the request for a Structure Plan Amendment and rezoning, staff makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Appendix C of City Plan through
a Minor Amendment process including a need for the change and promoting the public
welfare, and will be consistent with the vision, goals,principles and policies of City Plan.
B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with City Plan and more specifically the City
Structure Plan Map, since the two actions are being done as a unified package.
C. The proposed rezoning amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses
surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land.
D. The proposed rezoning amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment.
E. The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
On October 18, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (5-0) to recommend Council not
approve the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning, with an added comment to consider
December 18, 2007 -7- Item No. 29 A-B
this request as part of the South College Corridor Plan effort. The rationale for this
recommendation is based on looking at the larger context of adjoining properties and if there is
any other changes warranted with additional analysis as part of the corridor planning process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Structure Plan Amendment—Existing Structure Plan
2. Structure Plan Amendment—Proposed Structure Plan Map
3. East Skyway Rezoning—Existing Zoning Map
4. East Skyway Rezoning—Proposed Zoning Map
5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary of Comments
6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, October 18, 2007
7. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
RN DR E SATURN DR
r--
4�
T4q(F T
m
I ' 2
o
----- 0
sr
DR
U
W
225 K
------ 209 E.Skyway g City of
E.Skyway Dr. Dr. U Fort Collin
UE
UE
East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment N
Existing Structure Plan A
CFsaeed
Q Amendment Area SvucNre aian Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
— Parcels it Commercial Corridor District Open Lands,Parks and Stream Corridors 0 150 300 600
Urban Estate Feet
Attachment 2
RN DR E SATURN DR
r
TRq�EE T
m
i
� 2
LIMN ------ MN MN 2CT t3
o �
F_ g m�
U
DR
F —
I, � U
W
209 225
E. Skyway Dr. E.Skyway g Cily of
Dr. U Fort Collins
UE
UE
UE
East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment N
Proposed Structure Plan A
Legend
[= Parcels Structure Plan Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
Q Amendment Area l Commercial Corridor District � Open Lands,Parks and Stream Corridors 0 150 300 600
Urban Estate Feet
Attachment 3
SATURN DR
�q<EE T
RL
E SKYWAY DR
209 225 M
E.Skyway Dr. E.SkYW2y City Of
Dr. Fort Collins
DIE
UE
Legend
EastSkyway Dr. Rezoning City Zoning L.Density Residerbal
Commercial Urban Estate
Existing Zoning Public Open lands O Parcels
Rezone Area
0 150 300 600
mmmmmmE===�Feet
Attachment 4
E SATURN DR
rRq�E T
m
A
Zy r
or i
o �
RL 0
sr o
r
-`' E SKYWAY DR
r
i U
w
20 225 City Df
Skywa Dr. E.SkkywayDr. U FD Ilin
UE
i _—
I
l
w UE'
Legend
EastSkyway Dr. Rezoning City Zoning Low Density Residential
_ Commercial Urban Estate N
ProposedZoning Pablic Open-ands O Parcels A
Rezone Area N\
0 150 300 600
Feet
Attachment No. 5
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning — File # 19-07
Summary of Neighborhood Meeting Held on August 30th, 2007
A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30`h, 2007 for the East Skyway Plan
Amendment and Rezoning item. The meeting was held at the Montessori School located
at 225 East Skyway Drive beginning at 7:00 p.m. hi addition to two City staff, 6 property
owners attended the meeting. The following comments were recorded:
• The two long-term existing businesses located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive
are good neighbors and I have no objections to the proposed amendments. I
would like to see them continue in business and support whatever they want.
• We don't need any more additional hoops and City requirements to regulate
existing businesses out of town.
• Why not focus on Kelmar Strip commercial businesses?
• What is the rezoning going to improve in the area?
• Is the City initiating the amendment and rezoning?
• What do we want the alley for? What happens with the garages on that alley?
• The existing businesses do not need City intervention—leave them alone.
• Is the small engine repair business legal as operated today? Is outdoor storage
allowed with existing zoning?
Why do we need commercial east of Aran Street?
• For 209 Skyway, any change of use would trigger a development application.
• Why not address vacant properties to south?
P &Z Board and Council should get history of 209 Skyway actions
• I have a fear of addressing these individual properties w/o comprehensive plan—
appears patchwork
• Does this rezoning set a precedent?
• Are the existing buildings on 209 Skyway compliant w/commercial use
standards?
• Supports change as proposed
• In support of change
The following comments were forwarded the next day by one of the property owners who
attended the meeting:
• My concern is the migration of commercial zoning to the east. Existing structure
plan zoning seems appropriate to me. If we are going to allow commercial east of
Kelmar Strip, then all properties on the east side of the future Aran street should
have the same opportunity to be commercial.
• I am very troubled by code compliance. It always slips its way into the discussion
when staff states the business can continue. It is the use by right of home
occupation as defined by the Larimer County Land Use Code that continues, not
the current zoning violations on the property. Staff cannot simply say the
business use can continue.
• Need a code compliance expert at P&Z and Council.
• The Whitman's want to be developers and it is not about their small business.
Developers must pay their own way.
• I believe it is inappropriate for staff to process this zoning change. It is not in the
best interest of the City. The property owners should be doing it.
• Staff talks about a better transition alongSkyway. What is wrong with what is
there,which is exactly what was planned(except for the zoning violations).
• Why is 225 E Skyway included??? Its use is legal and conforming, so why
include it?
• Why are properties to the south not included???
• The proposal is a patchwork of zoning, inconsistent with the structure plan.
• Will proposed zoning changes create a change in condition that allows other
zoning changes?
• Why do this now? Why not wait for the South College Corridor Plan?
Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 2
August 30, 2007
• Not only inconsistent with structure plan, it is inconsistent with the history of the
properties. Need to furnish history to P&Z and Council. The history of the
properties which is clearly a rejection of commercial use consistently and over
time, and much of it could have been controlled by the City.
• What happens if approved?? What uses are allowed without review and meeting
city standards?
• Existing residence should be included in RL.
Are building codes compliant for commercial use?
Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 3
August 30, 2007
• • Attachment 6
Planning • Zoning Board Minutes
October
• 1
Council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W)223-1820
Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: W 491-2579
Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Wetzl
Excused Absences: Campania, Stockover
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, J on, eavitt, and S z-Sprague
Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Conse ' nd Discus ion Agendas. I note—
staff has requested Item #2a20 E. Olive Street-Modi i of St rds#27-07 be led and an
additional condition added (it will be read into the record I re were two erro n Item #3,the
Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins—the adoption date = the Timnath Comprehensive Plan
was June 2007 and the Loveland Comprelssive Plan was 20 m #4, East Skyway Rezoning &
Structure Plan Amendment was continued September 2 eting. Item #6, 1225
Redwood Street Minor Amendment would n in administra r ew by staff but because
of its potential compatibility issues with the ne bo as been ned to the Board.
Citizen participation:
None
Chair Lingle ask me RofNtheance and or th card if they wanted to pull any items off the
consent agenda. No ad ,gttaI item , ere moved fro a Consent Agenda.
Consent Age r;
1. Mi tem Q 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
3. e-Mile Plan City"�.ort Collins
Dis ems:
2. 22 ive Street— ification of Standards, #27-07
4. East Rezoning d Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07
5. Interstat late Hi ay 392 Interchange Improvement Plan
6. 1225 Redw tree Minor Amendment, #30-02B
Member Schmidt mo d for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from
the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Three Mile Plan for the City of
Fort Collins. Member Wetzler seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5:0.
Planning &Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 2
Project: 220 East Olive Street— Modification of Standards, #27-07
Project Description: This is a request for six stand-alone Modifications of Standard in conjunction
with a pending multi-family redevelopment Project located at 220 East Olive
Street. All six Modifications relate to density, lot coverage and height standards
'in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-GB zone district. The parcel is
located at the northwest comer of East Olive Street Mathews Street.
Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions--one conditi lating to preserving the
integrity of underground utilities and at the ti bmittal for P.D.P., the
architectural elevations for the west eleva ' she onstrate compliance
with Section 3.5.1(G)— Building Height e w and n 3.5.1(H)—Land
Use Transition.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Othe once
Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is for six ne Modifications in conjunction
with a pending Project Development Plan located at 220 Eas Street. All six Modifications relate
to development standards in the Neighbo Conservation B -GB zone district.
The pending P.D.P. would be a request for a rec - all me 10ject at the northwest
comer of Olive and Mathews Streets across fr Li The ewwss ing structure would be razed.
The proposal consists of constructing a new fo to i ding of 14 dwelling units with
parking below-grade. The f ory would be d back he first three stories except along
a portion of the north fa t floor units uld offer a ption for live-work potential. Access
to the underground pa would om the alley ong the west property line. This west property
line is also the boun betwe he Downtown n and the N-GB zone. The lot measures 90'
x 140' for a total of 12,60 re f
Staff has bee �ted by a in g pr ner to the west at 230 Remington Street. The
owner had in irate' has ms with the building achieving a height of four stores along a
portion the west eleva is "Theo was unable to attend the public hearing, is concerned
about eight and mass; west ion. While he supports the overall intent and design
concept project, his parc�lar co ms are as follows:
he height and ass of a building's west elevation could be mitigated increasing the
back of the., urth floor from the third floor.
2. The i ht and ass of the building's west elevation could be mitigated with further
archi ectun- em ellishment and detail.
Both the applicant and itectural consultant have discussed these issues with the adjoining owners
and all parties agree to continue to meet in order to resolve these design issues.
Jeff Fleischer of Vaught-Frye Architects presented slides that showed space and site plans,
elevations, and building cross sections that highlighted the reduced square footage on each of the
four building levels.
Member Wetzler asked if they'd had conversations with the adjoining property owner. Owner Jay
Stoner reported that he'd had an extended conversation with the owner who lives in Boulder. The
Planning & Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 3
concern, he believes, is he thinks the structure is too flat and too big. He believes that impression
comes from the review of the elevation drawings. He believes with.a better understanding of the
complexity of the elements of design, some of his concerns will be allayed. They want to be good
neighbors and will do their best meeting with their architects to reconfigure. It will be a challenge,
given the areas for which reductions might be considered are the bedrooms and bathrooms. His goal,
however, is to make the neighbor a fan and not an opponent of the project.
Public Input
None.
Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning &Zoning Board appiove the six modification of
standards for 220 E. Olive Street, #27-07, including the two co including the one being
the approval of all affected utilities at the time of the review die and at the time of
submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the s evatio II demonstrate
compliance with Section 3.5.1(G)—Building Height Rev niYSection ' H)—Land Use
Transition. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5:0.
Project: East Skyway Rezoning and Structur Amendment,
# 19-07
Project Description: This is a request to amen Plan Stru n Map, and to rezone two
properties on East Skywy Dn ed by Ci taff. The Plan amendment
will change the existing I d usa two properties from Urban
Estat mercial and 'o 'ens!ty 'e ential. The rezoning change is as
foil 4V
he firs arty is locateat 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing
ing is an Estate. Thar posed zoning includes a change to
erc n the west 2/3he property, and a change to Low Density
R f the property.
The d prop ted at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing
oning an Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density
identi he orth 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south
2% the pr as Urban Estate.
Recommen 'on: Approve
Hearing Testimony - ' ritten omments and Other Evidence
Senior City Planner Pete ray reported this is a City staff initiated action. The Plan amendment
would change the exist ng Structure Plan designation for the subject properties from Urban Estate to a
combination of Commercial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, along with partial retention of
Urban Estate. The corresponding rezoning changes are as follows: 1) the first property is located at
209 E. Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of
Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the
property. 2)The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property on the east, with
existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a combination of Low Density Residential on
Planning &Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 4
the northern 1/3 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of the
property.
The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire Court
with its 9 fronting houses. The-two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and zoned in
April 2007 in Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Claire Court was already within the city
limits. The first property at 209 E. Skyway Drive is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached
home with a home occupation, and a separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The
existing business is a small engine repair operation. The second property led at 225 E. Skyway
Drive is 4.8 acres and includes an existing private Montessori School an rk'Q9 lot, with a horse
pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existin , -de-sac with nine single
family detached houses.
This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a s ue of tw ons. The first action
is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amend to City Plan its criteria found in
Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the tw pe s along Sk be consistent
with the Structure Plan, underthe criteria of Section 2 )(2) and (3)of the Land de.
The changes are recommended because the properties Sk o not reflect t character of
Farming or Urban Estate designations—they are more in c with th commercial uses in the
area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north a t. They believe the Commercial
designation is a substantive aspect of prop ad changes and re the transitional, mixed-use
character of area including existing U-Haul eking business lmqr Strip to the west and
north, the existing single-family homes acros a Montesso of to the east, the two
vacant lots that abut to the south (which also ar as for fA rezoning,)and the
properties to the south/southeast: City natural a, aeie eadquarters, City Transfort
facility and large-lot residen ' n Acres su ision. Ad i ly, future commercial changes
appear likely and would ' ements to p erty such as landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and
meeting LUC develop standa New comm ial use and required improvements would
enhance the street f and ap ranee on Easy k , ay.
Staff also believe the Low D i ion is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map
and more ap�" al remrema easte of 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate
because of the exi`s �� ontesso ool located between residential, the existing homes on Claire
Court al it zoned R-. future p ent of residential will match the existing neighborhood
across&-street and the C 1Ae Court
Staff is reco ending this ite ove forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until
the South Col�fege;Corridor Plar completed in 18 months.
Deputy City Attorne ul Eckman noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a
panhandle extension of 'E,into the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the
Board's work session an 'would be corrected prior to City Council review.
Member Smith said Wray noted it was not appropriate to have LIE between Commercial and
Residential; would the same logic not apply between RL to POL? Wray responded that POL reflects
public ownership of that property and is appropriate for City acquired land. Smith said his concern is
the character of the property. Wray responded that the zoning designation is consistent with other
publicly owned land and reflects an assembly of City acquired property. When looking at Skyway,
they discovered the map did not reflect the particular POL parcel accurately. These recommended
changes reflect the correct configurations.
Planning &Zoning Board • •
October 18, 2007
Page 5
Chair Lingle asked, 'In the existing LIE, what is the status of 209 Skyway and the Montessori school—
are they considered legal non-conforming uses?" Wray responded that the property is legal as a
private residence with a home occupation small engine repair business and a detached warehouse for
personal use. The Montessori school is allowed in LIE and in Low Density Residential. The
recommendation for the zoning change was made given the commercial uses to the west and LMN
uses to the north.
Chair Lingle noted the line between the C and LR did not follow the parcel ' e; did the demarcation
come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared a eastern edge of the
commercial area. Wray reported the line was drawn 20 feet from the a ting home to allow for
setback. In the event the owners wanted to subdivide, it would be 'ble with other lot sizes in
the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skyw ou o the south as opposed
to the east.
Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Sk in but has rese s with the
proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN. a existin zoning is UE, w ,' hanging it to
RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her prefere Id be t ave as LIE unti mdor
Plan is completed.
Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff h a chance to further review the LIE
zoning (found in rural settings) and think it Id be more suita ng the edges. In the larger
context, given the mix of uses and what els kyway, LMN id 1 the transition more than
UE.
Public Input
Brian Schumm, 805 Molina hared his reservati out the tion of commercial zoning to the
east. There are reasons e�o and now the ty, should a pause to how the area is zoned.
The existing Structure n seems ropriate—th roposal is a patchwork of zoning—inconsistent
with the Structure Pla a are g g to allow co er 'al east of the Kalmar strip, then all
properties on the east sid > uld a the same opp nity to be commercial. Action now
predetermines what will be s i d'. n i ed ' e Corridor Plan study.
Randy W ' an, ay, d the previous speaker(Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by
zoning he area. His ss ha A en pproved in the County. The past few years, he's been
tryin with the Cou d them use of the IGA(intergovernmental agreement,)with the
City. Wh ff member Pe ray salts makes perfect sense—it is commercial south of them in the
Larimer Hu Society and sfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access
for commercia a nice tran n into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the
City Plan Structu n Map, d to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive.
Danielel Kanczes, 15 Spruce, asked if any homes will be tom down? Wray responded this
was a proposal to ame he Structure Plan map and rezoning—there would not be any demolition of
existing homes.
Andrea Phillipe, 209 E. Skyway, said the proposal has a lot to do with progress.. Over the past nine
years, they been trying to work first with the County and now the City to get the property rezoned.
They're happy that now it is only one entity with whom they will need to work. The property is ready to
be commercialized and would be an asset to Fort Collins.
End of Public Input
Planning &Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 6
Chair Lingle asked Staff member Wray if he had any responses to the issues raised in public input.
Wray responded that at neighborhood meetings (summarized and included in the agenda packet,)the
majority of neighbors are in support of the rezoning—only Mr. Schumm is opposed.
Member Schmidt asked for more information on Aran Street. Does it currently run north and south?
Wray responded Aran Street is a proposed future connection on the back side of the Kalmar strip
starting at the U-Hall property and extending to Trilby. It would separate th commercial and
residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exists. W onded no. it would
happen as projects come forward—the appropriate dedication would place then. Schmidt asked
if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, w be the party responsible
for the dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would de d o pecifics of the proposal.
Chair Lingle asked Wray what is the approximate street fro fo 209 Sk L. Wray
responded 60-80 feet. Lingle has a concern about that aimng LIE but fora gLent reason—it is
narrow. Because of the street configuration of Boyne urt to Colby Street, if ther Id an
allowable street coming from Skyway drive to the s 's likely development o ential
would be limited to one lot on Skyway and a second lot o sou :> ray agreed. T re's a
potential for two, maybe three lots there.
Lingle went further to state—the access be difficult. Wha = t tells him is there would be
pressure in the future to have that area rez nd push com development further east.
He'd rather see it included in the larger LIE p outh and us , a "some sort of cluster
development proposal where that narrow strip uld ted opera pace—which would provide
more protection from commercial to the residen I uni 1 is a guessing game but its a
walk through on the potenti velopment in ea.
Member Schmidt agr - She Ilk see the rezo ' g more connected to the LIE zone, part of the
Structure Plan, and tea . me flexi ity on how it c d e laid out for the future. She understands
why the commercial nee s. cleaed up now but d like some flexibility for the rest.
Member Rol' ray if e d consi a ea ng the large building on the west part of the
property onde did consider that and their findings were the small engine
repair mess (a large ) is a ofe home. Rather than split it they thought it would be
belt culate the setb om the . ge of the building. Rollins asked if the house, with the
small en pair business, all use in UE. Wray responded yes.
Member Sch ked if a se to use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded
that if another us ueste would trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at
the proposed use a et an enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as
sidewalk, curb, gutter, improvements, and right of way requirements might also be required
based on the scope of proposed development.
Chair Lingle said he thinks there are basically two questions. 1) Is the property basically residential or
commercial in nature? If commercial in nature and rezoned to C, would the Board be allowing an
appropriate amount of intensification that is detrimental or not? 2) If appropriate to go with
Commercial, is the 60-80 feet along LIE(or proposed RL)an adequate buffer to the existing
residential to prevent a further encroachment of commercial? I think that commercial should not go
any further east than the proposed line and having that strip east remain in LIE is probably more
appropriate right now. Then allow 225 E. Skyway to be RL and the POL piece POL.
Planning &Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 7
ti
Member Schmidt said she believes they are wrestling with spot zoning. What's happening now is
allowed in UE. We're not totally saying it's commercial so keep it that way—It could be either LIE or
commercial. The impression is rezoning is happening because the applicant would like to intensify
commercial uses. She keeps coming back to maybe we should wait for Structure Plan changes which
are anticipated in the next 18 months. That would allow us to look at the whole in more detail.
Member Rollins agreed. The South College Corridor Plan is going to happen—let's put off rezoning
questions until that work is done.
Member Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the motion la age is any versus not
recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the ighfforward.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning &Zoning and n rove the East
Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 1 ber Ro econded the
motion.
Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any rezonin�:asit of the�far er South Colle cture Plan
work.
Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he believes -`s ould be considered in the larger
context.
Motion was approved 5:0.
Project: Inte tate25&State Highly 392 Interghange Improvement Plan
Project Description;1FG1rs� request for a recomm d 'on to City Council for acceptance of the I-
25/s' 92 Interchange Improv nt Plan and related items, including
t .
amen ts! o ttt ( Qf Foot ollins Master Street Plan.
Recommendation ecommen on to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392
In - change Imprgverr ant Plan and related items, including amendments to the
" City rt Collins Master Street Plan.
Hearina Testimony.Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior City Planner Pe , ray reported the interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado
State Highway 392 serves as both the southeastern gateway to Fort Collins and the western gateway
to Windsor. The intercrange has failed to function at an acceptable Level Of Service ("C")for the past
several years. This being the case, numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials
and staffs of Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address this failing interchange.
The importance of this interchange from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to
existing and future development, and gateway into both jurisdictions is significant. Although the
Planning &Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 8
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area as a high priority project,
there is no Federal or State funding available for a new interchange. In other words, the need for the
interchange improvement is there, but the money is not. The existing interchange problem cannot be
fixed by implementing smaller interim improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp
widening. The bridge overpass along with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be
replaced to meet the long-term transportation needs for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to
replace the interchange is $ 22 million.
In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovemmenta reement(IGA)for the
purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at t ' qchange (see attached
IGA). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was for th o municipalities to work
cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconst f this interchange.
The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to imp e t impro nts to the
interchange. Key objectives included:
Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting I use
• Coordinate with CDOT on EIS Process on pre ed altern five
• Develop alternative funding mechanisms to proje go directly into design.
Identify supporting frontage road and local street rk
• Develop action strategies to implement improvemen
• Plan Process
Existing conditions are: "4
• Interchange currently operating at a fai in f service.
• Area largely undeveloped
• Failing interchange reduces developmen oten al
• Regionally importa esources an an space ose by.
Area serves as tewa indsor, sout east Fort Collins.
Expected to ional tr t hub.
The Corridor Asti enter AC) includes co "ercial, employment and residential.
Natural Resources-�
Recommenc!'euffe are:
. QQ to 300 foot�eerof the oft a natural features.
• 7 ,50 foot buffer is recommend etlands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir.
A buffer of 1,320 feeds propose o protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by
Colorado Department of"Wildlife (CDOW.)
Transportation )design incfudes:
• ""'tight e completely reconstructed.
I-25/SH 392 badge wilt
Layout will follF1e tight diamond' configuration per North 1-25 Draft EIS.
Construction will,,include: bridge replacement, ramps widening of SH 392 to fie in with new
frontage roads and acceleration/deceleration lanes on 1-25.
NW frontage road alternatives.
• SW frontage road alternatives.
Transit&Trails:
Transit service, in combination with highway capacity, improvements, including bike paths and
sidewalks will provide alternative transportation options.
Planning &Zoning Board • •
October 18, 2007
Page 9
• Future local bus services could act as feeder system to proposed Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT)/Park-and-Ride facility along 1-25.
• This Plan recommends that the BRT facility (if constructed)would be located in the median of
the highway, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Park-and-Ride facilities on both sides of
1-25.
• The BRT site could begin as a parking facility.
Funding
Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challeng, Yfiree funding scenarios
match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to rep sV:nticipated bonds over a
twenty-year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction f' Ierchange bridge, ramps,
frontage roads and landscaping is approximately$22 million. T nt' ost feasible strategy,
three combination-funding scenarios were identified:
Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and in - es a special assess and property tax
for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years, an 1 ct fee i osed on the"tra h(4" and a
Public Improvement Fee(PIF). No municipal or oth@ manta pport is ass
`for this
scenario.
Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes fin support from CDOT($2.0 million),
the NFRMPO ($1.2 million —future allocat nd the municipa f Windsor($1 million) and Fort
Collins ($1 million); a lower special assess of AC landowne a loped land only)that
sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property to n C�Cs downers.
Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the'I den ea and includes all municipal
funding from Scenario 2 an anded propet thx district a mill levy. There is also a small
special assessment on d CAC land at sunset i 0 years and a PIF.
In the future, additio fundi beyond existing assumptions) may become available through
sources such CDOT, NF an re Regional ransportation Authority. These public funds
could be used to supplemen ate sources, reducing the burden on private
u
citizens. Futu"S U1t' in'g source h as an ould still require a private match and therefore the
institutionaNramewo"rs ' ' ined a would still be required. While the Plan does not have a
speck funding recomme n, it i d that one or a combination of these funding scenarios
will beiWX4 to further nego6a a final g package to support the cost of the interchange
improveme, as implements o. conti es.
f�.
Critical Action S e s are:
• Accept thg�a
• Amend the 11 co nue partnership
• Request justifi on for separate action or utilize existing EIS
• Commit funding for 1601/EA process and other compliance activities
• Amend IGA to secure public and private funding commitments
• Assess APF Standards on future development at Interchange
• Form General Improvement District
• Preliminary/Final Engineering
• Begin construction in 2009—2010
The 12-month planning�rocess, initiated in the fall of 2006, is scheduled for acceptance by City
Council on November 6 and the Windsor Town Board November 12, 2007. Staff requests a
Planning & Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 10
recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement
Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan.
Member Schmidt asked when you're looking at funding strategies at the end, at which step do you
finalize whether you'll be using funding scenario 1, 2, or 3? Wray responded that while three funding
scenarios have been identified, it will take further negotiations. Using the basis already established in
scenario 2 (with financial support already identified for jurisdictions, MPO, CDOT;) it'll take more
discussions with all, including property owners and developers. He anticipates that can happen in the
next year or so.
Member Schmidt asked if on the west side the buffers meet the wetla tandards. Wray asked if it
was from roads. Schmidt said yes—road buffering from the wetlan moving the frontage roads
to the west. Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt responded it es 0 to 300 feet depending
on the wetlands. It's based on the size and value of the wetla d , suppo ildlife habitat. Until
an actual environmental ecological study is done we're just g n estima` f the value.
Because of development on the southeast side Of Sr
a th re's been a 1 disturbance in
that area so right now we're proposing a 100 foot buff om the oreline and the and .
Member Schmidt said it seems the roads meander thro a pa Will development drive their
placement or will the layout of the frontage roads determin developed. Wray responded final
alignment on the west side—the three frontage road option d be addressed as part of
development. Ideally they will coordinate ral property align on both the NW and SW side.
There may even be an interim improve en ' the final interc is f lly rebuilt.
Member Smith asked Wray to describe how thcom eti center me to be defined—
specifically interested in why the southeast bou ary i ,, o r to CR 5 and south to State
Highway 392 to pick up the i 1, family residen ray re s ed that they were primarily looking
for land uses (C & E)on Lxai�hsi q the inter ;he a that woul contribute to reconstruction costs.
On the west—there is dential a ountain RangShadows and south of the Growth Management
Area is residential rtheast uadrant(Windso side)there is vacant land that could potentially
be mixed use residential
Member Sc f ther uld be a prttient fees—residential properties assessed a
special di ee they a td be benefiting from the interchange improvements. Wray
respon in funding op an ex nested property tax district with a mill levy was being considered
all t to College on t st an mash of Windsor on the east side. It would involve a lot more
people a Itiple jurisd1 ti It wogl"d'also be a lot more controversial. Some would say that's a
more equita proach sinc a regional facility.
Chair Lingle ask ere the commendation is coming from for the bridge being 4 versus 6 lanes.
Where is that decisi mi rom, what is the data, how long is the life span? Interim
Transportation Direct o Jackson said the analysis for the 4 lane bridge is directly related to the
recently completed 1-25 vironmental Impact Study, local traffic impacts and forecasts both for the
Front Range and metropolitan Denver.
Lingle said he would like to be reassured that the decision is not totally being driven by cost. Jackson
said that he does not believe that's the case. He believes they're looking at a long range horizon—to
the year 2035 or roughly 25 years. Lingle wondered if planning for that time frame is standard
practice. Jackson responded yes. Lingle asked if there were any 6 lane bridges along the 1-25
corridor. Jackson responded no—in fact the Harmony Interchange is a 4 lane bridge. Jackson said
Planning &Zoning Board • •
October 18, 2007
Page 11
on the west, where there may be more intense development, there will be planning for the proper
amount of access for the level of intensity with an adopted access control plan.
Chair Lingle referred to page 44 of the 1-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan—it shows only
three thru lanes. He wondered if we were locking ourselves into something too narrow for CDOT's
ultimate plan for 1-25 as seen so far from their lane expansion from Dacono to Hwy 66. Jackson said
CDOT is evaluating two packages as a part of their EIS—one is through lanes with a transit element
(bus and/or train) and the other are 1-25 lanes with a transit system on the Burlington Northern tracks.
Lingle asked if we're moving on an accelerated schedule would we be c ' g ourselves to
something that wouldn't work later with CDOT's planning. Jackson s ' o—what the Board is
approving tonight is a recommendation to more forward. Either CD kage determination would
be addressed in the final design of the interchange. A recomme ion ve forward does not
preclude either COOT(Federal Highway Administration approve ption. ionally the 1601
would include a more fine grain analysis before design worn eted.
Member Schmidt wanted to commend the work of all those involved in developing an.
1''
Member Smith said it's a fairly complex project but very `#- ou pelt. It's a great p and he'll be
supporting it.
Chair Lingle said his concerns about bridg sign meeting the oxg term needs of the region had
been relieved.
Member Wetzler says is a long needed and e ' ing
Member Schmidt made anthat the Pla Zonin rd recommend approval of the
Interstate 25& State Higt► tjnterchanga proveme Ian. Member Smith seconded
the motion. The moti, 0.
Proje 1 ' ` dwood eet—Minor Amendment, #30-02B
Project iption: This is ferral o a Minor Amendment to convert the existing facility at 1225
Red wo treat into a supervised residential program specializing in voluntary
drug an cohol rehabilitation. The existing building contains 20,500 square
set. T arcel is 5.5 acres, located at the northwest comer of Conifer Street
ood Street and zoned Community Commercial — North College,
Recommendation: pproval
Hearin Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Shepard reported this is a request to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwood
Street into a supervised residential program specializing in drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The
project would be located at 1225 Redwood Street. The facility would house clients, admitted on a
Planning & Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 12
voluntary basis, who seek to recover from drug and alcohol addiction in a residential setting. The
facility will be professionally staffed on a 24-hour and seven-days-per-week basis. The staff will
implement a modified 12-step program. The treatment will consist of three basic components:
detoxification and withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling. A licensed physician will
supervise the admittance procedure and the facility will not admit clients in need of a medically
assisted withdrawal. Such clients will be referred to an appropriate facility.
The one-story building contains 20,500 square feet. Any building renovations would be to the interior
only. There will be no exterior building modifications or site work. All exist' parking will remain.
The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located at the northwest comer of Co eet and Redwood
Street. The property is zoned Community Commercial—North Colle
• The proposed land use, Intermediate Health Care Facili a in the C-C-N,
Community Commercial, North College zone district.
The P.D.P. as a whole complies with the applicableertea evelop tandards.
• The Land Use Code is silent on most of the operational characteristics o termediate
Health Care Facility. The applicant's pledge to eet on a c ular basis wit s tatives
from the neighborhood is found to be the mos'r ective an ; tematic metho hich to
collaborate on solving neighborhood compatibili sr�es�asj{arise.
Staff recommends approval.
-
Chair Lingle asked Shepard if from his revi eves it would intensification of its' existing
use. Shepard said that intensification is a to s associattraffic. Even comparing
intensification of use to a prior like facility(Win Sha icult. rng Shadow's program which
included a school and its use followed the scho ea ey had approximately 20 youth
in a group home. It is likely tiad more traffic g and g than what is expected with A Life
Worth Living. Lingle note "oc Ff?IT limits woul a goveme y building standards. Shepard
agreed. s�4 .
Member Schmidt asked, "W re is the closest neighb ood?" Shepard replied the closest
neighborhood is t the north ~v0, is ' Djjo7 h south and west is vacant land. To the east is
an electrica
Applica len Petcavag a representative of a group of Colorado businessmen whose goal is to
cre -profit residents g rehab=`�irogram. Statistics show that in Colorado one in ten people
have a d alcohol addict It is the intent of the owners to put a dent in the problem. 1225
Redwood fit purposes nr —very little needs to be done internally except to update the fire
suppression s
The history of the p e is:
1985 New Begi s Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center
• 1993 Jacob Ce r, a substance abuse program
• 1995 Diamond Crest Elder Board & Care Assisted Living Facity
2002 Wing Shadow program which provided a variety of services for troubled youth
The facility will deliver a modified 12-step program. The various steps include:
• Detoxtwithdrawal
Life Skills courses
• One-on-one counseling
Planning & Zoning Board • •
October 18, 2007
Page 13
The program is residentially based and requires clients to remain at the facility. The facility will have
24 hours a day/7 days a week staffing.
Member Rollins asked what will be the specific hours of operation. Petcavage responded 24/7. He
went further to say the traditional model was 28 days. In this case, they will stay as long as necessary
(average of 3.5 months) to complete all steps (detox/withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one
counseling.) There is a high staff to client ratio and clients do not leave for appointments without
being stringently supervised by staff.
Member Wetzler asked if they could slip away—take a break from the pr Petcavage noted the
program is completely voluntary and at a fairly significant cost to the If they want to leave the
program, arrangements are made with family members to pick the hey are taken to the airport
(for out-of-state clients.) If would be rare that they would slip aw nd back given the limited
access, the staff/client ratio, the program objectives. If they lea nd wa ome back to the
program, there would be an interview to see if the program a good fi ern or if their return
would be a problem for them or others. Wetzler asked h easy ould it be for to steal away
and get a drug fix. Petcavage responded it would not very easy for a number o on primarily
because their money is taken from them while there are two xit points that ar y
monitored, and they are drug tested at entry and d ring w tay.
Member Schmidt noted this is a private facility(not court orde ith clients investing time and
money in recovery. It's not a half-way house but rather a rehab A ' r. Petcavage agreed. If
neighbors have concerns he offered an open . olicy—let the w their concerns and given the
client's confidentiality and HIPPA constraints;. e k . rk with the torhood.
Member Schmidt asked how much traffic did the envision tgrs and family. Petcavage
expects 82 clients at capaci s will be strut , ed end arras ' a week in advance for Sundays
and holidays only. They ge traffic on any given Sunday to be 6 or 7 visitors. Family will
be involved more as t et rea eave the pr4ram.
Chair Lingle asked if the sis f e facili '
p
g ty going,. be local, regional or national. Petcavage
said they would be starting by and referrals grow they expect a national
mix.
�NVVd
Chair Lingle noted the ame�iiment i ; tly lated to a change of use. He asked for clarification
from wliafto this? Shepard` .Tonde revious minor amendment(from Wing Shadow to current
use (as dacare))was not referred to t Board. This amendment is changing it from its current use
to what's being, oposed.
Member Schmid{asked what 's the difference between a rehab program and a large group care
facility. Shepard salk ey are defined differently in the Land Use Code. Wing Shadow was a school,
a grouphome, and adrnlhsCrative offices; this use is defined as a long term care facility.
Public Input
Danielle Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, noted her daughter currently goes to day care at this site. She
attended the neighborhood meeting held a couple of weeks ago and she wanted to express her
concerns to the Board. She has concerns about the change to a rehab center—she doesn't believe
rehab is successful 99% of the time—in fact she knows people who can fool the system. Additionally,
she thinks it'll bring crime to the neighborhood—violence and vandalism. She'd rather see it keep its
current use.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 14
Yvonne Ruth-Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce is a neighbor to Danielle. There are a large number of
children in the area—she believes the rehab center will bring drugs and adversely affect the children in
the neighborhood. She asked for clarification of a letter she'd recently received relative to the facility
having medically assisted withdrawal. She has concerns about breach of contract—she believes the
day care had entered into a three year lease for the facility. How does change of use fit into the fact
there may be a breach of contract?
Jim Ringenberg, attorney for the Pruess Family Foundation, said he wante�,to clarify there is no
written lease. He does not think the foundation, who has given significantathe community, should
be placed in a category alluding to breach. He's also comfortable give., discussion so far that
reasonable minds can come together.
End of Public Input
Petcavage reported they have a physican on staff to do edlce review on in ta , -to assess the
addict's condition. There are some addictions that ar ry difficu t to withdraw frrM that's the
situation, they are referred to another facility. The have a dlcel program p Their
program is for addicts whose withdrawal does not requi !cal rt.
Chair Lingle asked them to address the misconception about out patient with people coming
and going. Petcavage said the patient co in to do the prog f they need to leave the facility
(e.g. an appointment,)they are escorted by til they comple ro ram. When they leave
the program arrangements are made for famit thern up or the scorted to the airport.
Member Schmidt asked what was an accurate prese o st etcavage responded the
program is$29,000 whether' s 3.5 or 6 months chmidt f ed him to comment on success
rates. He replied that ev ggles. The supports in�iovation. They want to improve the
outcome and reverse eadly se and the life`.problems it creates. Overall, it puts a demand
on the field to impro tcome,
Member Smith noted on pa re it talks about parking, it says minor
amendments mayie:authorize a Dir mply with the standards of the Land Use Code; is
the Board. D acingliigge director i case? Director Gloss responded yes.
Chair mgle asked Deputy it'Attorn man a general question...he understood the whether
there is a tease or not that is ie.purvie f another entity. He did, however, want to know if there
needs to be ome evidentiary resolution to the tenant's right to do what is being proposed. Eckman
said he believes the Code has Provision that allows the Applicant to act with authority of the owner.
Attorney for the owner',Jim Ringenberg, stated the owner gives permission to the application.
Further, Eckman wan Y '11,'11ustress that issues raised before the City(e.g. Homeowner covenants or
=,I
leases) are not the purview of the Boards—they are enforced in the courts. If there was a lease,
which he believes there is not, and there was a breach—that enforcement would be handled
somewhere else.
Member Schmidt asked for clarification—once a use has been approved...couldn't it just roll back to
the previously approved use? Staff member Shepard responded no—it's not cumulative.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 18, 2007
Page 15
Member Smith made a motion to approve 1225 Redwood Street- Minor Amendment, #30-02B
based on the Findings of Fact on page 6 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the
motion. Motion was appvoved 5:0.
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Cameron Gloss, Director David Chair
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
East Skyway Plan
Amendment and Rezoning
City Council Hearing
December 18 , 2007
East Skyway Plan Amendment
and Rezoning
The Planning & Zoning Board on October 18 , 2007
voted ( 5-0 ) to recommend Council not approve Item
19-07 , with an added comment to consider this
request as part of the South College Corridor Plan
process
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
East Skyway Plan Amendment
and Rezoning
Staff is prepared to bring this item forward for a
decision by City Council now , rather than wait until
the South College Plan is completed in 12 months .
Background
• Subject Property - 209 E . Skyway . In 1998 housed a
small engine repair business in garage , later added
attached home and detached warehouse
• This use was eventually allowed in County FA
Farming zoning as a home occupation use (with no
outside storage )
• Since 1999 ( County) owner has requested
commercial zoning and continued uses in violation of
County zoning including outside storage of vehicles
and RV trailers
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Background •
annexationStaff involved in numerous discussions with owner on
subject property regarding requests for commercial
and responding to zoning violations before and after
April 2007
The adjacent properties to the east including
amendments to change from UE to LIVIN and POL
and corresponding zoning are related but less
substantive in nature
I?ivtr )
- �1>•a �� �ol,fX,
• � \k. .� �i� off'
0 4 s �
. 4
l�� .
t. 1-1
00
I
at
I� ttmNE Elk
kC aM�V ii i
1�puv+AVLI, nrs �
J1 �tl� , f .n � w.r nn
•�� .:� MMI I/y Y .:
E�. \ ie�
N
P`
I Z V
IT
i.�-rE iRgpv qO ti. -
- City of Port Collins
#19-07 East Skyway Drive N
.� Larger She Contort A
3
III - _ L � _1 R � ~, . •!
^� • 4v �S
I 1
117FFF ••, �
1
y '
I.
1
Existing Commercial
to North and West
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings
w
I
mac_
209 E . Skyway Looking West
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings
209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings
F
209 E . Skyway Existing Buildings
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
225 E . Skyway -
Existing Montessori School
Existing Residential to North and East
.r
A 1 e Y 1
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Existing Residential to North and East
ter.
x f
Undeveloped Open Lands
Part of City Owned Property
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
40
tow Od
City of Fan Collinx
Examples
of Urban Estate
sell
INK # 41
vb
City of ran Cullinx
10
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
ExistingCity Structure Plan Amendments
Designation = Ur
Proposed Amendments
1 • Commercial ,
Low Density Mixed
( North. 225 E . Skyway • Density Mixed - Use
and retention of Urban Estate on lower portion )
. Claire Court Properties ( Low Density Mixed - Use )
. City owned property ( Open Lands , Parks and
Stream • • •
? i6l
- - ir
�: = w LOIN
Ltm ;
UE '0 1 7 We ^N rikwact wl POL
e s
" YLn
YWxA
' i[ '-0UtMII�Gt GNrtNSNI VO
Q
W
O
a Pa WRFFLD WAY
i raLLn, srLW
W LibMN[ OIe
S Z
r ' fSxOWFUH LIM
sL !r.r`AAl Fa
SITE wNiraLli Nr - r
< UE S
a ,.
Ctit
I
E crrgMr' n
INa
i UE .Fr O0
TRK n. Fn J N lra OY a( _-, t
'i g
r LM
.a � xurrnLo `N
. A.LN rvn
s«o.Ne • iw wrLxt. iN nAINt rR
wR
WscAr LN wn "nx ri
an
LxsnW 6L PCL wwr^cr - —U Lkr
#19- alv of r rt Collinso07 East Skyway Drive Structure Plan "
Lwg" SNe Context
1 t
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Atlxhment 1
„e .I
C
East Skyway Structure Plan Amendment
Existing Structure Plan
r•O.tirrWP City of Fan Collins
L ere IMI�
Attachment 2
ILryFM
c � s �
N. Iee 4�
r
G
P fans
W � 1
� e
N
Y
J
w �
East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment
Prrroposed Structure Plan
City of ron Collins
12
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
City Structure Plan Amendment
A. The City Plan and/or any related element thereof
is in need of the proposed amendment ;
• Intent of Urban Estate designation reflects existing
large -lot County parcels zoned Farming
• Properties along Skyway do not reflect character of
Farming or Urban Estate designations
• Properties more in character with both commercial
uses in area and the existing residential
neighborhood to the north and east
City Structure Plan Amendment — 209 E Skyway Dr
Commercial Designation — substantive aspect of
proposed changes :
• Reflects transitional , mixed -use character of area
including existing U - Haul and Trucking business on
Kelmar Strip to west and north
• Existing single -family homes across Skyway
• Montessori School to the east
• 2 vacant lots abut to south (also appear candidates
for future rezoning
• South/Southeast — City natural area , Humane Society
headquarters , City Transfort facility and large - lot
residential in Lynn Acres subdivision
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
c
Elfl(4E (f
4a I4
4 � C • � rt E.
R
�� •E.. -if•Mry _
It NNE
SAIIIIIII I,
ry
VII
�'R ExF MIE• 1 — '�"
((�,, EluNn • u
fw ti s ' r —
ci�m �n comNN
#19-07 East Skyway Drive N
Larger Site CrPnc.•rt A
AmendmentCity Structure Plan 0 • E Skyway Dr
Commercial Designation — substantive aspect of
proposed changes :
• Existing small engine repair business and large warehouse
buildings and any future new commercial uses can form a
transition from existing commercial to the west
* Future commercial changes appear likely and would trigger
improvements to property such as landscaping , sidewalk ,
and fencing to meet LUC development standards .
* New commercial use and required improvements would
enhance the street frontage and appearance on East
Skyway
1 a!yxf r re cowNr.e cowN9
14
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
City Structure Plan Amendment —
209 , 225 E Skyway Dr/Claire Ct
Low Density Residential Designation — Minor editing of
Structure Plan Map :
• Low Density Residential designation more appropriate
for remaining eastern portion of 209 and 225 E .
Skyway than Urban Estate .
• Existing Montessori School located between residential
• Existing homes on Claire Court already zoned RL
• Future development of residential will match existing
neighborhood across street and Claire Court area
City Structure Plan Amendment — City-Owned Property
15
Open Lands , Parks and Stream Corridors Designation
housekeeping edit to Structure Plan Map :
• Parcel purchased by City in 2003 as part of larger open
lands acquisition
• Originally designation Urban Estate and zoning of Low
Density Residential ( RL )
• With public ownership needs to be designated Open
Lands , Parks and Stream Corridor and rezoned to ( POL )
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
6
y �
East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment . East Skyway Dr. Structure Plan Amendment
Proposed Structure Plan �, Existing Structure Plan
Existinguim
Zoning = Urban
1 • Commercial , •
ResidentialDensity
North • Density Residential
• lower 2/3 retentionof • .
ary of r rt cow�9
NMI
16
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Zoning Comparison Between UE - RL
UE : Lot sizes shall be one RL : Density. All
half ( '/2 ) acre or larger for development in the Low
dwellings that are not Density Residential District
clustered in accordance shall have a minimum lot
with the standards set area the equivalent of
forth in this Division . three ( 3 ) times the total
floor area of the building
Overall average density but not less than six
shall not exceed two (2 ) thousand (6 , 000 ) square
dwelling units per net acre . feet .
17
Proposed Rezoning - City Owned
Property
Existing Zoning — Low Density Residential ( RL)
Proposed Rezoning - City Owned property : Public
Open Lands ( POL)
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
RL NTM
u Lt.T!
Y
LIT
s<
i dI o Z Ye .F rr4Wh m . P� i
►M I L 0br 4a RL
<R tl4 V4 .rx I
W. Cm
L Lt.TI
e 5 leF um" DR IT
Pa
00
OIL
c g
8 a f vxvW.r tlu - --- - -SITE
S U 7
of Nrrgyf4, �_. RL
POL
E.
-
<
Rl Lpm r S — LAW
¢ RL
Nu fP,aLN
^M SraNEY Nr SOYt NIr � v µUtla Ull
COR RI bllNl Rn„ I'I
pSCAr fN
L ,. I
Pa - KKor,%Cf 0 N:..UE ra'
# 19-07 East Skyway Drive Zoning Map rt
L.lryer Site Context L
_ Attactmowd J
B&OWURN DR _
N
♦,p rFfCi� 8 m&2It DERRt DR
rR u
W
u 0
City of Fan C
o
lli
n
"
W_
S
M. 'r YILY [�R
a
Y
CRLRYLCN Sl
It
East Skyway Dr. Rezoning N
Existing Zoning o �,
afyae ran cawa.
18
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
KSATURN DR
air
OL
East Skyway Dr. Rezoning N
Proposed Zoning
City of F�fl COIJIMI
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings
19
(A) Consistent with City Plan;
• Request for the C , RL and POL zoning districts is consistent
with Structure Plan as amended in proposed prior action
• Commercial zoning is compatible with existing commercial to
west/north along Kelmar Strip and other mixed uses in area
• This small extension of commercial will provide a transition
between College Ave Kelmar Strip commercial and residential
use to the north and east
• Change from Urban Estate to Low Density residential is more
compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to north
and east
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings
(B) Proposed amendment is warranted by changed
conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including subject property;
• Changed conditions largely result of development on and
around these two subject properties since FA-Farming in 1960s
• Area now reflects a more " mixed urban fringe" character than farming
or rural character
• A change to commercial on a portion of 209 Skyway is warranted
given its existing situation and mix of uses in area
• Proposed Low Density Residential is appropriate to reflect the
residential and school development existing along E . Skyway
• City purchased open lands triggers a change to Public Open Lands
kf
Additional , Optional Considerations
for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings
C . Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and
is the appropriate zone district for the land.
• As stated above , Urban Estate is not most appropriate zoning
between existing commercial and low density residential uses
• Proposed amendment for 209 Skyway is compatible with
existing commercial area to west , existing residential to north ,
and various uses that make up the mixed character to south and
east
20
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
Additional , Optional Considerations
21
for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings
( D ) Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment, including but
not limited to , water, air, noise , storm water
management, wildlife , vegetation , wetlands and the
natural functioning of the environment.
• Staff finds no adverse environmental impacts
Additional , Optional Considerations
for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
• Proposed amendment results in logical and orderly development
pattern by allowing a modest, transitional amount of commercial use
on a portion of 209 Skyway adjacent to existing commercial use to
west and north
• Change from UE to RL simply reflects the existing residential
development on and around the subject properties
• Change to RL is " Housekeeping" change to create more logical and
orderly pattern than current development pattern of UE
• Public ownership triggers POL zoning
i
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
AmendmentEast Skyway Plan • Rezoning
Recommendation :
Planning• Staff recommends adoption of the resolution and
ordinance on First Reading
& ZoningBoard o October11
• - • 1 to recommend Council notapprove
Item 19-07 , with an added comment to
consider this request as part of the South College
Co • • process
I?ivtv!)
I AMMMMW
I M3j
7 7 _
6
a�man
East Skyway Dr Rezoning — East Skyway Dr Rezoning _
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
rt Cullinn
22
East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning December 18 , 2007
East Skyway Plan
23
Amendment and Rezoning
City Council Hearing
December 18 , 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-107
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
PERTAINING TO LAND ALONG SKYWAY DRIVE EAST OF COLLEGE AVENUE
WHEREAS,the City has received an application to rezone certain properties located at 209
East Skyway Drive and 225 East Skyway Drive,hereafter referred to as the"East Skyway Rezoing";
and
WHEREAS, the rezoning application requests that the subject property be rezoned as
follows:
Parcel 1,from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the Commercial("C")Zone District
Parcel 2,from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the Low Density Residential("RL")
Zone District
Parcel 3,from the Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to the("RL") Low Density Residential
Zone District
Parcel 4, from Low Density Residential ("RL") Zone District to the Public Open Lands
("POL") Zone District; and
WHEREAS,the Council finds that,while the proposed Skyway Rezoning does not comply
with the present land use designation shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location, it
complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key
Principles of the City's Structure Plan; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Council has determined that the proposed Skyway Rezoning
is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and the City's Structure Plan Map should be
amended as shown on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, so that the proposed rezoning will comport with
the City's Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, including the City's Structure Plan Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is
in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Skyway Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December, A.D. 2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN `•�
Cityof Fort Collins •.•♦
1
ellin ton
�_._______..yi___ _� CR-5tg
�� 1 4NMsor M
/ 287 I Reservoir D_'
1 Fort Collins -
-_ J 1 elfin ton GR-56 --
,1 - i Separator
1 =
I rn
1
Cobb
D.puglas
lake
La orte + _--
Bellvue 17
.............
anlv -- - --
Lake ;
SR-54G CRa52
/ Long
Fo,w
Country-Clubs - —
WilloxT rda"mare'Lake Mountain-Vista � - o
— \ U
10
m �._._._.._.._.
~ E
, \ CSU
\l Footh lIs
Campus
Expansion 7 . �., 5 ,-_I .. _ s-
Area . .
__-- Mulberry SH-04
Lory
State
Park Csu
(- -� Prospect ---
Csu
z diu d-
can
1 1
_Drake
Timnath L_
} r'\ Fort Cc Ilins - Raservoir
Tim ath
Sepa ator
Horsetooth \
Mountain Horsetooth — —
Park
m
N \ Timnath
-- _ Harmony
Fort ollins
yJ Ti nath - a-
_
- Wi dsor �.
ti� " _.—..� Se arator
Wildflowe t
Ex � - —Trilby--- _.._._....
�--� rea
r�
- wsi creex�_i,
se-ao.
.— C-ar niter - - SH-392
Fort Collins -
Loveland
Separator , Winds r
1 C>R=38
Lov land
1
0 0.5 1
Boundaries Districts 0 ITT5iiiiiiiii Miles
�+p Industrial District Edaes Corridors
Fort Collins GMA � Downtown Distract
`��9 n If Community Separator N Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit)
fr rJ Potential GMA Expansion Community Commercial District Neighborhoods
",44¢d�!!�k � Foothills Poudre River Corritlor
rr Other City GMA Commercial Corridor District Urban Estate
'Rdl Rural Lands If
Poudre River
CrPlanning Area Neighborhood Commercial Center Low Density Mixed-Use Open Lands, Parks,
r it Stream Corridors
Y _ Adjacent Planning Areas � Campus District Medium Density
Mixed-Use Adopted
���JJJ
December 18, 2007
`/ City Limits dF Employment District
ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2007
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE EAST SKYWAY REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should be
rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the zoning classification of Parcel 1 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District,
to"C"Commercial Zone District,Parcel 2 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to Low Density
Residential("RL")Zone District,Parcel 3 from Urban Estate("UE")Zone District to Low Density
Residential ("RL")Zone District and Parcel 4 from Low Density Residential ("RL") Zone District
to Public Open Land("POL")Zone District for the following described property in the City known
as the East Skyway Rezoning:
Parcel 1
A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North,
Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,Larimer County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;
Lot 1,Block 1,excepting the East 120.00 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel
with the east line)thereof, of the Plat of Lynn Acres, a Plat of record with the Clerk
and Recorder of the said Larimer County. Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of
Skyway Drive adjoining the said portion of Lot 1, Block 1. Containing 2.849 acres
more or less.
Parcel 2
A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North,
Range 69 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian,City ofFort Collins,Larimer County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;
The East 120.00 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel with the east line)of Lot
1,Block 1 of the Plat of Lynn Acres, a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder of
the said Larimer County. Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of Skyway Drive
adjoining the said portion of Lot 1, Block 1. Containing 1.150 acres more or less.
Parcel 3
A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North,
Range 69 We f h ix g West o the Sixth Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,Larimer County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;
The North 377.40 feet(measured at right angle to and parallel with the north line)of
Lot 4,Block 1 of the Plat of Lynn Acres,a Plat of record with the Clerk and Recorder
of the said Larimer County.Together with the southerly 40.00 feet of Skyway Drive
adjoining the said portion of Lot 4, Block 1. Containing 1.917 acres more or less.
Parcel 4
A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North,
Range 69 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,Larimer County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;
Tract A of the Plat of Huntington Hills West Subdivision, a Plat of record with the
Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County, together with the westerly half of
Kent Avenue adjoining the said Tract A. Containing 1.80 acres more or less.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described
properties are included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January,A.D. 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-