HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/03/2009 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2009, AMENDING DATE: November 3, 2009 '
STAFF: Pete Wray • • •
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2009, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the
Zoning Classification for that Certain Real Property Known as the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance is a follow-up implementation action to the September 15,2009 City Council Hearing adopting the 2009
update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan(Plan). In conjunction with this proposed rezoning,the Neighborhood Sign
District map is being amended.
Concurrent with the adoption of the update to the Plan on September 15, an amendment to the City Structure Plan
was adopted to reflect the recommendations from the Plan. The proposed rezoning changes will be consistent with
the City Structure Plan. The rezoning involves six areas within the subarea. These involve adjustments to the size
and location of Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, and Transition Zone Districts.
The total combined proposed rezoning acreage within the subarea is less than 640 acres,which requires this quasi-
judicial hearing process as defined in the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
Land Use Code Requirements for Rezoning
The regulations covering rezoning in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code,
Section 2.9.4 (H), include the requirements excerpted below, with staff findings on that respective paragraph.
(2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezoning.Any amendment to the Zoning
Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less(a quasi-judicial rezoning)shall
be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council
only if the proposed amendment is:
a. Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed rezoning (Attachment 4)is a follow-up implementation action with adoption of the Plan. The proposed
rezoning will help implement the Plan vision. In addition, the rezoning justification matches the justification for the
recently adopted City Structure Plan changes (Attachment 2). Therefore, the justification for these rezoning is
consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan,an element of City Plan, and consistent with the City Structure Plan,
part of City Plan.
b. Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
The update to the Plan, as adopted on September 15,2009, is in response to changed conditions within the subarea,
including requested land use adjustments from area land owners and new market land demand analysis information.
The proposed 2009 rezoning is based on the recommendations from the update to the Plan,as a result of an extensive
public outreach process.
(3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezoning. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment,the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Council may consider the following additional factors:
November 3, 2009 -2- ITEM 19
(a) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land.
The proposed rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed land uses surrounding the subject areas,and consists
of appropriate zone districts for the area. The existing zoning within the subarea was adopted in 1999. The proposed
zoning is based on new market demand analysis incorporated into a complete planning process.
(b) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise,
storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the
environment.
Staff finds no direct adverse impacts on the natural environment as a result of this proposed rezoning, because the
rezoning would implement the Plan. All environmental issues were considered in a complete planning process as part
of the Plan update.
(c) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The existing development pattern established by existing zoning represents a logical development pattern and balance
of non-residential and residential land uses. The proposed 2009 rezoning consists of moderate adjustments to reflect
new market analysis information.
These adjustments involve six areas within the subarea. These zoning adjustment areas are shown as Areas A—F
in the attached rezoning reference map (Attachment 5). The following description of each rezoning adjustment is
summarized.
Area A: Industrial District(1)
The existing zoning map shows the Industrial classification of 326 acres in size (Attachment 3). The proposed
rezoning reflects an expansion of 138 acres, for a total of 464 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with the City
Structure Plan.
The existing Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery(ABI)establishes the core of future industrial use in the northeast. With
future expansion of the brewery and new industry locating adjacent to the brewery, this Industrial District is easily
accessed from the interstate, Mountain Vista Drive and the BNSF Railway's mainline and spur tracks. This large
industrial area has been established since the early 1980's.
Area 8: Employment District(E)
The existing zoning map shows the Employment classification of 483 acres in size. The proposed rezoning reflects
an expansion of 223 acres from the existing zoning, for a total of 706 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with
the City Structure Plan.
The future Employment District is primarily located within the Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive corridors,with
direct access to Mountain Vista Drive and 1-25. The Employment lands will provide both a buffer and transition
between the more intense ABI industrial operations and the existing and new residential neighborhoods to the west.
Area C: Community Commercial District(CC)
The existing zoning map shows the CC District classification of 81 acres in size. The proposed rezoning reflects a
decrease of 53 acres from the existing zoning, for a total of 28 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with the City
Structure Plan.
The existing CC District designation reflected a plan that anticipated providing both neighborhood and regional scale
retail. Based on new market analysis information, regional retail uses, including big-box stores, will likely not locate
within this District. As a result, the revised size of the CC District is approximately 28 acres. This is an adequate
amount of land for such a district to accommodate multiple neighborhood retail and office needs and purposes.
November 3, 2009 -3- ITEM 19
Area D: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods(LMN)
The existing zoning map shows the LMN District classification of 1,599 acres in size. The proposed rezoning reflects
a decrease of 214 acres from the existing zoning,for a total of 1164 acres.The rezoning would be consistent with the
City Structure Plan.
The justification for the reduction in the amount of LMN is based on the expansion of Industrial and Employment in
the subarea. A balance of residential to non-residential land within the subarea is maintained.
Area E: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN)
The existing zoning map shows the MMN District classification of 149 acres in size. The proposed rezoning reflects
a decrease of 26 acres from the existing zoning, for a total of 123 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with the
City Structure Plan.
The MMN District is distributed adjacent to the Community Commercial District,central to this subarea,and adjacent
to the Enhanced Travel Corridors. The MMN classification is intended to be a place for predominantly attached,multi-
family housing within easy walking distance of transit and,the Community Commercial District. The MMN Zoning will
form a transition and a link between the surrounding lower density neighborhoods and the Community Commercial
District with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks.
Area F: Transition (T)
The existing zoning map shows the T District classification of 73 acres in size. This zoning classification is located
on two separate properties; one parcel is 68 acres in size; and, the remaining property 5 acres in size. The proposed
rezoning reflects an adjustment to replace the existing 68 acre parcel from T with LMN. Staff received support from
the property owner to rezone this property. The rezoning would be consistent with the City Structure Plan.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion
In evaluating the proposed quasi-judicial rezoning, staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed rezoning is consistent with City Plan and more specifically the City Structure Plan Map and
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, as amended and adopted on September 15, 2009.
B. The proposed rezoning is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including
the subject property.
C. The proposed rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the
appropriate zone district for the land.
D. The proposed rezoning would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
E. The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map
In conjunction with this rezoning, the Residential Neighborhood Sign District map is being amended by the.following
two changes:
1. The Waterglen subdivision, located northwest of East Vine Drive and 1-25, was previously excluded from the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District map. Since this is an existing residential development, it will now be
placed into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District to be consistent with all other residential areas within the
Mountain Vista subarea.
2. The portion of the Anheuser-Busch Inbev(ABI) property within the Mountain Vista subarea which is currently in
the Residential Neighborhood Sign Districtwill now be excluded. This amendment will result in having the entire
ABI property not in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The amended Residential Neighborhood Sign
District map will be attached as an exhibit to the Ordinance.
November 3, 2009 -4- ITEM 19
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct financial impacts result from the proposed rezoning. The proposed rezoning represents a follow
up implementation action with the 2009 update to the Plan. However, as the subarea develops over time in
accordance with zoning, the City may participate in short and long-term public infrastructure improvements and
potential funding options described in the Plan.
SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sustainability considerations are addressed in the recently adopted update of the Plan. This rezoning is merely an
implementation action based on the land use recommendations from the Plan. As the subarea develops over time,
economic impacts will be complex. The Plan addresses many economic factors such asjobs,retail,and infrastructure.
The physical environment will not be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning of the subarea. The Land Use Code
determines appropriate land uses,along with design and development standards required for new development. New
development is required to comply with Environmental and Natural Area Protection Standards to address any potential
environmental impacts.
Likewise, the health, safety and well-being of our community and its citizens will not be directly impacted by the
proposed rezoning of the subarea. The proposed rezoning of the subarea represents only moderate adjustments to
the existing zoning in the area. These adjustments are consistentwith the recently amended City Structure Plan. They
reflect mixed-use zoning within each zone district and maintain a balance of jobs-to-housing citywide, and a balance
of residential and non-residential land within the subarea.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 20,2009 the Planning and Zoning Board voted(4-1)to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt
the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and related items including City Structure Plan amendment and this
proposed rezoning (see Attachment 1).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public outreach process for the update to the Mountain Vita Subarea Plan started in March, 2008 and extended
seventeen months, ending in August 2009. During this process the following meetings were held:
6 Meetings with area property owners
4 Public open houses
3 City Council work sections
7 Meetings with individual neighborhoods
9 Planning and Zoning Board updates
3 Transportation Board updates
November 3, 2009 -5- ITEM 19
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board, August 20, 2009 recommendation hearing
2. City Structure Plan map
3. Existing zoning map, Mountain Vista subarea
4. Proposed zoning map, Mountain Vista subarea
5. Zoning Area Context Map
6. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENTI
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 2
Discussion Items:
2. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Project: Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update .
Project Description: This is a request for recommendation to City Council for adoption of the update
to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related items, including:
A) Amendment to City Plan, City Structure Plan map.
B) Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan, an element of City Plan.
C) Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, an element of City Plan.
D) Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Zoning map.
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, an element of City Plan, is projected to
accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth with approximately
1,500 acres of vacant land. The update will refine the adopted vision,framework
plan map, policies, and implementation actions identified to achieve the Plan in the
future.
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, originally adopted on March 16, 1999, laid a
framework for a large, primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins. Over
the past ten years, staff has responded to numerous requests for changes to this
plan. The plan update process, started in March 2008, addresses identified issues
based on new information.
Recommendation: Approval of adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related
items.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported the proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been developed
by a team of City staff and consultants,with extensive public input. The 16-month planning process,
initiated in March of 2008, is expected to be completed in August 2009. City Council will consider
adoption of the update to the Plan on September 15, 2009. The primary elements of the Plan include
vision, policies, Framework Plan map, and implementation.
Based on Plan recommendations, amendments to the City Structure Plan map are needed to change the
land use designations within the subarea including Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial,
Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, and Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods.
The Plan recommends an amendment to the North College Corridor Plan, to change the location of the
future Enhanced Travel Corridor from existing Conifer Street, to the proposed realignment of East Vine
Drive.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 3
The Plan recommends an amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, to locate additional Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods land use designation between existing Lemay Avenue and the
realigned segment of Lemay Avenue.
The Plan recommends changes to the zoning map, providing consistency with the City Structure Plan
changes within the subarea size and location of the:
(1) Industrial District;
(2) Employment District;
(3) Community Commercial District; J
(4) Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors;
(5) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District; and
(6) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District.
Finally, the Plan recommends changes to the Master Street Plan map, providing consistency with the
City Structure Plan changes within the subarea alignments of future:
(1)four-lane arterial streets;
(2)two-lane minor arterial streets;
(3)two-Lane Collector streets.
(4) classification of the existing East Vine Drive.
Staff has asked the Transportation Board for their recommendation on these identified transportation
changes and they will be reviewing them and making their recommendation to City Council at their
August 19"'meeting.
In a staff memo from Wray dated August 10, the following three additional considerations were
requested:
1. A proposed rezoning of a 65 acre parcel, from the Transition (T)to Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (LMN) District, which was determined after the staff report was prepared.
2. An owner request for some adjustments to the proposed 2009 framework plan map and LMN
density standard.
3. A recommendation from staff to add language to the Plan document to allow a special provision
for certain non-residential uses within the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN)
Standards for an area north of Vine Drive and the existing railroad line. This proposed change
would be considered as a future Land Use Code change.
Moore Family Requests--as part of the Plan update process, staff has met with representatives of the
Moore family on a regular basis. Prior to developing a preferred framework plan map, staff developed six
map alternatives for review by area land owners and the public. During this process, representatives of
the Moore family created six additional map alternatives combined totaling 12 map alternatives, for staff
to consider for their property. The proposed 2009 framework plan map reflects several refinements to
the Moore property that staff supports. These adjustments include the size of the Community
Commercial and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designations, addition of Employment, size
of the Community Park on their property, and removing the Turnberry Road connection south of
Mountain Vista Drive. The Moore family has requested additional changes. Staff is not supporting these
additional requested changes to the Plan document, related maps, or Land Use Code amendments.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20; 2009
Page 4
CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP UPDATE
A number of adjustments to the Framework Plan map are proposed in a 2009 Framework Plan map. This
proposed Framework Plan map represents a refinement of the currently adopted 1999 Framework Plan.
Proposed adjustments include modest shifts in land use designations and an updated street network.
The adjustments result from comparing and analyzing numerous alternative ideas for the future pattern
of streets and land uses. Between the fall of 2008 and March 2009, six map alternatives were developed
to test various land use and transportation options. Certain components of the initial alternatives were.
combined into the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map. The updated Framework Plan map
recommendation is based on extensive public input. Boards and Commission feedback, City Council
direction, and consultant analysis throughout the update planning process. The recommendations from
the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map, establish the need to amend the City Structure Plan map.
Industrial/Em Io ment Districts
The existing Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) brewery establishes the core of future industrial use in
northeast Fort Collins. With future expansion of the brewery and new industry locating adjacent to the
Brewery,this Industrial District is situated to be easily accessed from the interstate, Mountain Vista Drive
and the Burlington Northern rail mainline and spur tracks. The 2009 Framework Plan shows about 457
acres of Industrial, an increase of 148 acres compared to the 1999 Plan.
The adopted 1999 Framework Plan established an approximate 1/2 mile separation between the ABI
industrial brewery and residential uses further to the west. As part of this update process,
representatives of ABI requested increasing this separation between uses by expanding the Employment
land use designation. This resulting increase will remove previous residential from ABI property and
extend the desired buffer to approximately one mile. The objective ofthis recommendation is to reduce
incompatible uses, strengthen the buffer and transition between uses, and provide a larger business
center in northeast Fort Collins.
The future Employment District is primarily located within the Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive
corridors,with direct access to Mountain Vista Drive and 1-25. The proposed 2009 Plan includes 661
acres of Employment, reflecting an increase of 131 acres from the 1999 Plan. The Employment land use
will provide a buffer and transition between the more intense ABI brewery industrial operation and
existing and new residential neighborhoods to the west. Combined, both the Employment and Industrial
Districts will provide 1,118 acres of future development, establishing a large future business center for
northeast Fort Collins.
Commercial Corridor District
The 1999 Framework Plan Map showed the Community Commercial District totaling 78 acres in size,
anticipated to provide both neighborhood and regional scale retail. Based on new market analysis
information as part of the 2009 Plan update, regional retail uses, including big-box stores, will more likely
locate along Interstate 25? As a result, the 2009 map shows the revised size of the Community
Commercial District size of about 30 acres. The Community Commercial District reflects a destination
serving primarily northeast Fort Collins, but possibly serving the whole community, to some degree. This
district will combine a mix of retail, services, and civic and residential uses. The district's development
will incorporate pedestrian-oriented design with a series of mixed-use blocks, designated "Main Street,"
transit station, and public spaces oriented along a network of streets aligned to take advantage of long-
distance views towards the mountains.
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) designation in the 2009 Plan represents the largest
land use in the Framework Plan (1,298 acres). This total represents a decrease of 182 acres, in
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 5
comparison to the original 1999 Plan. This adjustment is based on the previously mentioned increase of
both Industrial and Employment land uses. These neighborhoods will provide for the majority of future
residential growth in Fort Collins' northeast area. The character of these neighborhoods reflects a variety
of housing types, predominantly single-family, with supporting parks, trails, and open lands, with a
minimum average density of five dwelling units per acre. In addition, these future neighborhoods will
provide a transition from existing Larimer County development to the west, and higher density
neighborhoods, commercial, employment and industrial uses further to the east.
The proposed 2009 Plan shows the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN)designation
concentrated adjacent to the Community Commercial District(40 acres), central to the subarea, and
adjacent to the future Enhanced Travel Corridors (104 acres). While the amount of MMN in both the
original 1999 and 2009 Plans is about the same, the distribution and locations are different. This
neighborhood is intended to be a place for predominantly attached and multi-family housing within easy
walking distance of transit and the Community Commercial District. This neighborhood will form a
transition and a link between the surrounding lower density neighborhoods and the Community
Commercial District, with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, multi-use bike and
pedestrian trails, and outdoor spaces will be arranged to create an inviting and convenient living
environment.
Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors
The updated 2009 Framework Plan map shows a total of 211 acres of parks, water features, ditch
corridors and natural areas. The updated GIS mapping calculations reflects a difference of 128 less
acres compared to the original map. This new total acreage represents accurate boundary calculations
for all three categories of open lands that follow specific parcel lines and GIS mapping delineations.
As a result of these revised mapping calculations, the proposed 2009 map reflects no loss of existing
water features, ditch corridors or natural areas. The only proposed features that were removed were
those that did not fit within the identified categories. These land uses were simply mapped and
calculated more closely and accurately.
Table 1 —Framework Plan Com arison
1999 2009 Change
Land Use Framework Framework (Acres)
Plan Acres Plan (Acres
Community Commercial 78 30 -48
Employment 530 661 131
Industrial 309 457 148
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood IIA80 1,298 -182
Medium Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood 145 144 -1
Park 110 110 0
School 108 108 0
Water Features/Ditch
Corridors/Natural Areas 229 101 -128
Regional Detention Pond
inside MVSB 0 80 80
Total 2,989 2,989
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 6
Table 2—JobslHousing/Population
Comparison 1999 Plan 2009 Plan
Jobs 11,725 15,065
Mt.Vista Housing Units 7,374 5,735
Subarea Population 17,161 13,347
Jobs/Housing
Balance 1.69 2.63
Jobs 142,699 146,046 .
Fort Collins Housing Units 95 031 93,444
GMA Population 229,792 226,104
Jobs/Housing
Balance 1.50 1.56
Transportation Network
.The 2009 refinements maintain multi-modal connectivity, access, and capacity while responding to land
use and other proposed changes. The key changes shown in the proposed 2009 Plan is 1) an overall
refined street network; 2)the extension of the realigned Vine Drive arterial street between Lemay Avenue
and Timberline Road; and 3)the relocation of the Enhanced Travel Corridor from Conifer Street to the
realigned Vine Drive. Additional local streets, constructed at the time of development, are not included in
the travel demand model or Master Street Plan.
AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR PLAN
Wray said this is a recommendation to the City Council of proposed changes to the North College
Corridor Plan, involving a change to the Framework Plan map. The proposed change is based on the
recommendations from the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The proposed change
represents a minor relocation of the future Enhanced Travel Corridor, from the current Conifer Street, to
the proposed realigned East Vine Drive.
The proposed change is described below, corresponding to areas shown on the Proposed North College
Corridor Plan - Framework Plan map.
Transportation Network
Transportation needs in the subarea are vitally connected to city, county and regional transportation
systems. The transportation network and land uses in the subarea were planned in conjunction with
each other. This update process included travel demand modeling by LSA Associates, Inc.,
transportation planning review by City staff and Felsburg, Holt, and Ulevig, coordination with the
Colorado Motor Carriers Association, public input from city and county residents, business and
community groups, and review by various City boards and commissions and City Council.
The 2009 recommended improvements are consistent with the street classifications in the City's Master
Street Plan, and are projected to operate at the levels of service defined in the City's Multi-Modal Level of
Service Manual. The revised transportation network will reflect changes to the Master Street Plan
approved by City Council.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 7
As part of the update, the project team analyzed ways to refine the area's existing street network. This
included the location and overall number of arterial and collector-level streets. The 1999 plan included
an extensive street network, particularly collector-level streets. The alternatives analysis, including travel
demand modeling, indicated the projected traffic volumes can be accommodated on the proposed street
network. The refinements attempt to maintain multi-modal connectivity, access, and capacity while
responding to land use and other proposed changes. A key change shown in the proposed 2009 Plan is
the extension of the realigned Vine Drive arterial street between Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road.
Based on this change, staff is recommending that the current location of the Enhanced Travel Corridor
be relocated from Conifer Street to this new arterial street (Realigned East Vine Drive). Additional local
streets, constructed at the time of development, are not included in the travel demand model or Master
Street Plan.
Transportation Planner Matt Wempe noted that Council asked them to address Adequate Public
Facilities (APF)—looking at the capacity of the road network as it stands right now and in the future. APF
is a Land Use Code requirement that ensures we have the facilities available at the time of development
to mitigate any impacts. Conditions of particular interest are:
• Lemay Avenue/existing Vine Drive intersection
• Timberline Road/existing Vine Drive intersection
There will be a long-term APF issue until either:
• Grade-separated crossings are constructed ($82 Million)
a. Lemay/Existing Vine, estimated Costs= $35 Million
b. Timberline/Existing Vine, estimated Costs=$30 Million
c. Mountain Vista Drive, estimated Costs = $25 Million
• At-grade 4-lane arterial railroad crossings are constructed
Timing is the issue. There are several infrastructure projects that can alleviate APF issues in the short-
and medium-term:
1. Realigned Vine arterial (College to Lemay)Estimated Costs = $8 Million
2. Extension of realigned Vine arterial (Lemay to Timberline) Estimated Costs=$9.5 Million
3. Northeast College Corridor Outfall drainage project (east of Lemay) Estimated Costs = $4.5
Million
Defacto Truck Route Concerns --staff's analysis has evolved over time as they've heard more input from
the public, Boards & Commissions and City Council. They are looking at the elements that the trucking
industry may look at when they look at which would be a preferred route. Right now Mulberry, Riverside,
Jefferson and College are the designated truck route to State Highway 14 and US Highway 287. The
concern is the Mountain Vista, Timberline, and the realigned Vine Drive connection would start to act as
an alternative through truck route.
With industrial, employment and commercial uses there will be truck traffic using these arterial streets.
Wempe said the intention of having these arterial streets is to provide connections not only for residents
but jobs and business within the community. The plan document is going to include the following street
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 8
design and enforcement recommendations. He believes there's not enough benefit for truck traffic to
discontinue use of the designated truck route.
Street Design Options
• Travel Lane Width
o City Traffic Engineer accepting of 11-foot travel lane instead of standard 12-foot travel lane
• Intersection Controls
o City policy requires staff to examine all types of controls, including roundabouts
• Street Design Speed
• Local Street Traffic Calming
o Traffic calming measures.on local and collector streets encourage through traffic to use
arterial streets
• Signage
Enforcement Options
• Vehicle Weight Limit Restrictions
o City/state enforcement of existing 54,000 lb. local street weight limitations
o Coordination with public weigh station to confirm overweight vehicles
o City can revise local street weight limitations; currently based on Model Traffic Code and
CDOT standards
• Mobile Truck Weigh Stations
o Coordinate with Colorado State Highway Patrol to ensure vehicle weight limitation compliance
• Signage
o City and CDOT can post track route and weight limit signage
All these streets are at a conceptual planning level. When staff goes through the actual design and build
phase of all the improvements, that's a public process where boards and residents have a chance to give
input.
Enhanced Travel Corridor
Both City Plan and Transportation Master Plan identify four(4) Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETC) in Fort
Collins. These corridors include the Mason Transportation Corridor, Harmony Road, Timberline Road,
and North College/Conifer Street. The purpose of these corridors is to provide multi-modal connections
between key activity centers and access to high frequency transit service and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The alternatives analysis included an evaluation of the enhanced travel corridor route through
northeast Fort Collins.
The existing City Structure Plan map and the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Framework Plan map
located this future ETC along the North College/Conifer Street alignment. The extension of Conifer
Street is planned for a 2-lane arterial street. With the proposed realignment of East Vine Drive as a new
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 9
4-lane arterial street, this corridor is better suited than Conifer Street to incorporate this high-frequency
transit route between the Downtown and northeast Fort Collins.
AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN
This is a recommendation to the City Council of proposed changes to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan,
involving a change to the Framework Plan map. The proposed change is based on the
recommendations from the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The proposed change would
replace the same amount of existing approved Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designation, with
Medium Density Mixed=Use Neighborhoods shown on the Northside Neighborhoods Plan.
The proposed change is described below. The Northside Neighborhoods Plan (NNP) adopted in 2005
overlaps the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan boundary slightly for an area between the existing Lemay
Avenue and East Vine Drive, and realigned Lemay Avenue. Within this NNP area, the existing adopted
land use designation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods(LMN). This designation was intended
for vacant future residential development. As part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update, the
recommendation is to replace this original LMN designation with Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (MMN) land use designation adjacent to the proposed future intersection of realigned
Vine/Lemay. This change is based on the proposed relocation of the Enhanced Travel Corridor(ETC)
from Conifer Street to the realigned Vine Drive. The updated Market Analysis recommendation by the
consultants EPS, inc. supports higher density multi-family residential along this future high frequency
transit route. This change is also supported by City Plan policy to locate MMN adjacent to recognized
transit corridors.
The following section from the June 2009 Land Demand Report developed by Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. is included below.
The proposed town center forming the nucleus of the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
should include between 30 to 50 acres of medium density multifamily zoning. The remaining
medium density zoning, approximately 80 to 100 acres, should be located along the proposed
enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea.
The ideal location for multifamily will be adjacent to the Community Commercial core and along
any proposed enhanced travel corridors. Based on comparable analysis, this medium density
multifamily zone district should range between 30 to 50 acres. The district will create greater
synergy for the proposed adjacent Community Commercial zone district.
The remaining medium density multifamily residential zoning should occur along the proposed
enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea. These areas should be a
minimum of 10 to 15 acres for apartment projects that tend to range from 150 to 300 units and
require a minimum of 10 to 15 acres to develop. Apartment developers prefer to build near retail
amenities, such as those offered by the Community Commercial Core or near major intersections.
Similar to apartments, higher density multifamily development is typically compatible with retail
amenities. Lower density for-sale multifamily development is typically better integrated with
single family development.
The following City Plan policies support MMN along transit corridors:
Policy T-1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will implement land use patterns, parking policies, and
demand management plans that support effective transit, an efficient roadway system, and
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 10
alternative transportation modes. Appropriate residential densities and non-residential land uses
should be within walking distance of transit stops, permitting public transit to become a viable
alternative to the automobile.
PRINCIPLE HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the
urban area for all income levels.
Policy HSG-1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will encourage a variety of housing types and
densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and
close to employment centers, services, and amenities. In particular, the City will promote the
location of higher density housing near public transportation, shopping, and in designated
neighborhoods and districts.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING MAP
The vision for the Mountain Vista subarea reflects a vibrant business district, parks, schools, commercial
center, and residential neighborhoods, linked.by a transportation network supported by all modes of
travel. Changes to the zoning of six (6) areas would help to support that vision. These include:
(1) one property, size and location of Industrial;
(2) two properties, size and location of Employment;
(3)two properties, size and location of Community Commercial;
(4)four properties, size and location of Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods; and
(5)three properties, size and location of Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods.
(6) one property, replace existing Transition zoning with Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods.
The rezonings are based upon proposed changes to the City Structure Plan map, provided in Staff
Report 2A. The areas within the Mountain Vista subarea correspond to the proposed zoning categories.
1. Land Use Code Requirements for Rezoning
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land
Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) indicates the following:
(2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning)
shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City
Council only if the proposed amendment is:
(a) Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b)Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
(3)Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the
land.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 11
(b)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise,
stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the
environment.
(c)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
2. Background. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Area A- Industrial:
N: Outside City limits and GMA; County FA-1; vacant
E: Outside City limits and GMA; County Open; vacant
S: Employment; vacant
W: Employment; vacant
Area B- Employment:
N: Industrial; Anheuser-Bush InBev Brewery
E: Industrial; Brewery, vacant
S: Community Commercial (CC), Medium Density (MMN) and Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant and single-family residential
W: Community Commercial (CC), Medium Density (MMN) and Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant and single-family residential; vacant and auto-
dealer
Area C—Community Commercial:
N: Employment (E), Medium Density (MMN) and Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant
E: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods(LMN); Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (MMN); vacant
S: Low Density Residential (RL); single-family residential
W: Commercial (C); various commercial and industrial uses
Area D—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods:
N: Outside City limits and GMA; County FA-1; vacant
E: Employment(E), Community Commercial (CC), Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (MMN); vacant
S: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN), Outside City limits and GMA;
County FA-1; vacant
W: Outside City limits; County FA-1, existing residential
Area E -Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods:
N: Employment(E), Community Commercial (CC), Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant
E: Employment (E), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant
S: Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN); vacant
W: Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN); vacant
Area F—Transition
N: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN);vacant
E: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); Outside City limits, vacant
S: Industrial (1); existing BNSF Rail switching yard
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 12
W: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant
3. Request Justification
These rezoning requests are-being made in conjunction with the adoption hearings on the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan to help implement its vision, along with the related changes to the City Structure
Plan. The rezoning justification matches the justification for the Structure Plan changes. Therefore, the
justification for these rezonings is contained within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, specifically the
Framework Plan map which shows the subject areas and their new land use designations.
Staff Analysis
1. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan
As indicated above, any request to rezone less than 640 acres is considered a quasi-judicial rezoning
and the first"criteria"for approving the request is consistency with City Plan, the City's comprehensive
plan. The City Structure Plan map, an element of City Plan, sets the basic land use framework showing
how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. Its land use designations guide the
zoning of properties within the city. The Structure Plan is being amended as part of the Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan adoption process to be consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan - Framework Plan
map.
2. Findings of Fact
In evaluating the request for rezoning, staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. Area A: Industrial (I) + 148 acres
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as Industrial,
with a proposed expansion of 148 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with the City
Plan, the City's comprehensive plan.
Representatives of the owners (Anheuser-Bush InBev (ABI) were notified, as part of the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about the change in land use designation and have
offered support for the change. Staff has not received any negative comments from
owners on the change.
B. Area B: Employment(E) +131 acres
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as
Employment, with a proposed expansion of 131 acres. The rezoning would be consistent
with City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan.
Representatives of the owners (Anheuser-Bush InBev (ABI), were notified, as part of the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about the change in land use designation and have
offered support for the change. The other adjacent owner has expressed some concerns
for the size of the proposed change.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 13
C. Area C: Community Commercial (CC) —48 acres
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as
Community Commercial. The rezoning would be consistent with City Plan, the City's
comprehensive plan.
The two owners were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about
the change in land use designation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for the
change. The other owner has expressed some concerns over the size of the proposed
change.
D. Area D: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN)— 117 acres
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework Plan designate this site as Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The rezoning would be consistent with City Plan, the
City's comprehensive plan.
The three owners were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process,
about the change in land use designation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for
the change. The owner near the Lemay area has expressed support for this change. The
other owner adjacent to ABI property has expressed some concerns for the amount and
density of the proposed change.
E. Area E: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN)— 1 acre
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework Plan designate three areas as
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The rezoning would be consistent with City
Plan, the City's comprehensive plan.
The four owners were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about
the change in land use designation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for the
change. The owner near the Lemay area has expressed support for this change. The
owner adjacent to ABI property has expressed some concerns for the amount and density
of the proposed change. The fourth owner near Timberline Road has expressed support
for this change.
F. Area F: Transition (T) —65 acres
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The existing zoning is Transition. The proposed
zoning would remove the 65-acre (T) zone and replace this portion of property with Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District. The rezoning would be consistent with City
Plan, the City's comprehensive plan.
The owners were notified about the change in land use designation, and more recently
about this specific request for rezoning. They have expressed support for this change.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 14
I
Future Implementation Actions:
1-25/Mountain Vista Gateway Standards
Northern Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan
I
Infrastructure Project funding plan
Wray said at the work session the Board asked for examples of pre-City Plan subdivisions that the
Moore's are referencing as examples of larger lot/single family subdivisions. The Moores mentioned
Dakota Ridge and Sunstone off of Horsetooth near Ziegler. The developments are entirely single family
with a mix of lot sizes—7,000-9,000 square foot lots. Sunstone.Village (adjacent to Timberline and '/<
mile south of Horsetooth)was also cited as was Fairbrook(adjacent to West Prospect and a little west of
Taft Hill Road) near Bauder Elementary.
In response to new City Plan projects that showed some large lot portion within that development, Wray
cited Willowbrook/Observatory Village (southeast part of the City just east of Fossil Ridge High School)
and Rigden Farm. There are portions of those developments that have larger homes on between 6,000
and 8,000 square foot tots. To meet City Plan densities they had to have other housing types, lot sizes
and multi-family home to meet density standards.
Finally, Wray said staff would like to add language not included with the distribution of the Board's
packet, but which he thinks is a good idea and worthy of your consideration. The language to the plan
document would allow some non-residential uses near the railroad switching yards on East Vine Drive
and Timberline where there's medium density mixed use neighborhoods. We have an existing standard
in the Land Use Code and LMN zone that allows for a range of non-residential uses. By adding MMN
near Vine at Timberline; Wray believes we will accomplish the same standard.
Board Questions:
Member Lingle asked reference to the Framework Plan, is the increase in industrial of 148 acres all
owned by Anheuser-Busch (AB)? Wray said yes. Lingle noted in the previous plan, some of their land
was in other land use designations. Lingle asked is that just going to provide buffer for their own use—
not add 148 acres of industrial land inventory to the jobs/housing mix since they've been not inclined in
the past to see that land for development by other users.Wray said that expansion shown provides some
additional land—primarily on the west side of the brewery to allow room for future expansion needs of the
brewery and also an opportunity for AB to market industrial land with direct access to the railroad west of
the brewery_
Lingle asked if Wray thought AB's position has changed relative to their position on selling some of their
land. Wray said he believes so—over the past 2 to 3 years he's been encouraged that they are
considering marketing some of their holdings. There have been several inquiries by employers looking
at this area. Wempe said AB's secured the services of BHA Design and he thinks that's a positive step.
Wray said it is a realistic expectation that we'd have this as part of our inventory and available for future
development in our long term growth area.
Member Rollins asked relative to the table of jobs/housing, it appears that housing units have gone down
from 7,374 to 5,735. With what the Moore family is she correct in assuming (173 acres of Moore
property in the LMN zone) it would make it 173 less housing units? Wray said based on their proposed
lower density of 3.5-4 versus the current standard of 5'units; we would lose approximately 150-160
dwelling units. Wray said the jobs/housing balance had a slight change because of the expansion of the
industrial and employment and the resulting reduction of mixed used neighborhoods.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 15
The Moore request to further reduce the minimum density,Wray believes would not have a significant
change to the city-wide jobs/housing balance but it would have a further reduction in the number of
housing units in this area. Rollins noted it appears fairly small compared to the total number.
Member Carpenter asked for a frame of reference for the size of the shopping center. She said it
appears to have been reduced and the Moore family is asking for another reduction. She'd like to know
what mix of uses you can have going from 70 to 40 to 30 acres. Wray said this is the only Community
Commercial (CC) district within our growth management area on vacant land. Other examples.of
existing CC are Foothills Mall, Campus West and North College Avenue. To achieve City Plan vision
and policy direction for this area, it calls out for an integrated mixed-use district above and beyond what
we'd see in a typical grocery anchored site neighborhood commercial center(typically 15-20 acres). The
Moore request would be supported in a short term market. What the City is requesting relates to long
term projections (year 2030 and beyond). Wray said the mix of uses supported by the market analysis
are for supporting neighborhood services, an above ground office and residential mix, possibly a branch
library similar to Front Range Village on 30 acres. The plan allows for enough room for a mixed used
commercial destination that will be served by high frequency transit on Timberline and a newly realigned
Vine Drive connecting it to the downtown area.
Member Campana said if we were to recommend a reduction in density for LMN, what would that look
that? Would it be a new zoning designation? How would we track that? Wray said the current
standards call for community commercial, at least three different housing types to meet the minimum of 5
units per acre. Wray thinks there's a lot of flexibility within our current standards and they can
accomplish most of their objectives by meeting current standards or seeking a modification. The Moore
preference is for predominately single family detached housing on larger lots and a lot less multi-family
residential. We don't have a zoning district that reflects the minimum densities they are requesting.
Wray said it is"above" the Urban Estate (UE) and similar to our RL (Low density residential) but the RL
zoning is for existing development. A change would require an adjustment to Article 4 standards in the
Land Use Code specific to this property.
Chair Schmidt asked with the lower density, would you presume that also includes not having the three
housing types. Wray said in the Moore letter they state they are not completely against other housing
types they'd like to reduce.the amount of multi-family in the LMN.
Chair Schmidt thanked staff for the effort they've put into the details of this comprehensive subarea plan
such as the air quality and noise analysis. Will this set the standard for future subarea reviews? Wray
said this is a pretty significant subarea—it's identified as our long-term future growth area with.the largest
inventory of undeveloped property.. He said we don't envision any new subarea plans but they will be
looking at potential updates (like East Mulberry).
Chair Schmidt asked if the triangular piece north of Richard's Lake Road was included in the
calculations. Wray said yes.
Chair Schmidt asked if the line is "outside the ditch" so when we're talking about funding for ditch
improvements, etc.;will the ditch be included. Wray said yes.
Chair Schmidt said future implementation actions and discussion about gateway standards was a great
idea. She noted there's a pretty extensive ditch that runs through the subarea. Will there be a further
study group that looks at how the development is going to impact this ditch and where we could plan on
getting agreements for crossings from the ditch company? Chair Schmidt said her concerns are when
you come at things piecemeal, ditch companies don't seem to want to provide crossings over their
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 16
ditches (similar to the development at College and Willox). Schmidt says it's just a suggestion staff look
at all the places and how that's going to work. Wray said the#8 Ditch, as far as improvements to the
ditch, is a part of Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan recommendations. Wray said in the plan they do
identify the potential for improving that ditch between development and that could include a bridge
crossing to the trails. Wray said there's an opportunity to look at additional landscaping, ditch slope, and
embankment improvements—it's a pretty significant liability (it's a deep ditch with a lot of rip-rap) and
with the school and park there; there's a great opportunity for those two future facilities to provide some
additional enhancements to that ditch to create an amenity versus a liability.
Chair Schmidt said the °line"for the trail near the community park comes straight down Timberline. How
will people in the MMN easily get to the park? Wempe said that's something they've looked at and the
trail alignments will come from the Parks & Recreation Policy Plan. He said as such, they are
recommendations. He's interpreted it as showing there needs to be trail access to/within this park—
whether it goes straight down the#8 Ditch or whether it comes over where there's some sort of
pedestrian underpass over to the CC and MMN districts is yet to be determined. They'll have those
discussions when planning for a development. An example is the Winn Subdivision in Maple Hill, there's
a trail underpass constructed near Richard's Lake Road.
Chair Schmidt asked with the park and the Mountain Vista Road being realigned, is future development
is going to pay for that. Wempe said Parks actually pays for their share of road impact fees when they
do park development. Having arterial level access is something they've expressed they want to provide
to users.
Chair Schmidt asked if we were thinking with Community Commercial (CC) the arterial will be improved
all at one time. Wempe said that typically what you see is improvements as development occurs.
Wempe said a good example is Eastridge (on Timberline south of the railroad tracks). What they're
doing as a part of their road improvement is adding turn lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks for their
development. Street Oversizing Manager Matt Baker said an example of the biggest realignment has
been the realignment of Harmony Road with County Road 38E. That was done in two phases. As the
subdivision came in they built the arterial road on the interior of their subdivision and used it as a local
access road until such time as that connection was needed. Later ties to the arterial were made and
traffic diverted.
Chair Schmidt asked if the park was going in when the school goes in. Wray said what they've heard
from the school district is they purchased that property for long term holdings and Its development is
based on the residential population in the northeast all the way to Wellington. More than likely the
elementary and middle schools would be built before a high school. They are looking roughly 10-15
years out. Wray said the same applies to the community park and the commercial center. Until there's "
enough residential in this northeast area they will not be built. Staff is looking at full build out of this north
east area between the years 2028-2030 or beyond.
Chair Schmidt noted to get to the high school; you could come down Giddings and go across Richard's
Lake to Timberline. Wempe said Giddings to Richard's Lake or Country Club. You could also come
south on 1-25 from Wellington. The school district is planning multiple access points to their property.
Member Rollins asked when an arterial is being realigned are the developers responsible for paying for
the whole thing or do we take into account it serves a regional need. Baker said the program tries to
take advantage of the existing county rights-of-way for most section lines for the arterial roadways.
Where the roadway diverts off the section line (in this case due to a realignment), then the developer
picks up the same burden he would as if the street was on the section line. He dedicates his 25 %feet
and the City s street over sizing reimburses him for the right-of-way acquisition for that realigned road.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 17
Chair Schmidt said as a member of CAG (Urban Renewal Authority Citizen Advisory Group) she's heard
about the proposed realigned Vine. She's never heard of it being identified as an enhanced travel
corridor. Is it still the plan that it will be an enhanced travel corridor all the way from College?
Wempe said that's a new component of this plan so right now it's designated as Conifer but it would still
basically go from the Downtown Transit Center up North College to the realigned Vine near Chipper
Lanes. That connection will go over Timberline to jobs in the northeast part of the city. Wempe said the
Transit Strategic Plan adopted by City Council on August 181"is based onthe realigned Vine.
Chair Schmidt asked if the old Vine.still be available for people in the Watergien Subdivision. Wempe
said the realigned Vine east of Timberline would turn from a 4 lane to a 2 lane.arterial. It'll connect back
in having closer to a 90 degree crossing (safer than what is currently there) and go east to 1-25 and
Timnath. Wray said the existing Vine from Timberline back to Lemay would be reclassified to a collector
street.
Chair Schmidt asked wwhat is a 54,000 pound truck?' Wempe said it is most likely a semi-truck. Wempe
said we want to allow a 54,000 pound truck on arterials for access and deliveries to businesses. Chair
Schmidt said if weight was the only"bat" we had to enforce a trucker using an arterial as a defacto truck
route what would you say the average truck weight is that goes up North College. Wempe said it varies.
CDOT has a station that monitors truck traffic but lately their weight component has been broken so we
haven't been able to get any recent data.
Chair Schmidt invited the public to comment.
Public Input:
Matthew Majores, Lindenwood Homeowners Association—the southern tip of Lindenmeier Lake, does
have a lot of questions and-concerns about east Vine becoming a defacto truck bypass. As just stated
semis are 54,000 pounds. If the road becomes an enhanced travel corridor—it will be enhanced not only
for cars but also trucks. They believe, in their opinion, that most trucks would use this route. They've
done some travel analysis (like the City) and they are within a minute or two of each other. The one
thing the city did not take into account is on the current Mulberry to Jefferson/Riverside/North College
route, the trucks have to cross two railroad crossings that are at grade. Under this new plan they can go
up 1-25,cut through Mountain Vista to east Vine or Conifer to get to College Avenue going north. It's
only one mile longer. Why would a truck want to go through an existing route where they may have to
stop twice for trains when they can just take the new route?
Majores's next concern is enforcement. They've heard from Advance Planning and Transportation staff
that it comes down to an issue of enforcement. At the Transportation Board meeting on August 19`", he
learned that Fort Collins Police apparently do not have jurisdiction in terms of writing tickets or assessing
fines. All they can do is accompany truckers suspected of being overweight back to the weight station at
Prospect. He thinks they're not going to stop trucks—they'll most likely just let them go by.
He said currently the intersection of Lemay and Vine is a disaster. When returning home (heading north
on Lemay) at 5 p.m., he was recently stopped at Lincoln and waited 10-15 minutes to get through that
intersection. He said that intersection is a disaster without 5700 new homes and new businesses in the
northeast part of the city. He believes before they develop East Vine, they need to fix that intersection
for current residents.
Majores said it gets down to the grade separated crossings for $82 Million so right now there is no
money for those and he thinks there never will be. One possibility is to go to the taxpayers of Fort Collins
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 18
to vote in an increase in sales tax to pay for that—he doesn't think that someone on the south side of
Fort Collins will vote for it. So then you'll put all the property tax just on those people directly affected—he
doesn't think they'll want to be on the hook for$82 Million either. What he envisions is staff gets.
approval for this plan, then building East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road, and all the development
and the neighbors are stuck with a two lane road going on Lemay and no money to fix the ncrthlsouth
grade separated crossings. They talked about getting the railroad to grant an easement to do the work
but they haven't asked yet. Before you adopt the plan, ask and find out if they're going to give it to you
because if not you know you're going to be on the hook for$82 Million.
Majores said within 2000 feet you're going to have three major roads(Conifer, realigned Vine, and the
existing Vine) going east and west. There's not that much traffic out there and they don't see the need to
have Conifer go all the way over to Timberline Road to College. If anything, the truckers will use that
road.
He urges the Board to make sure they address the financing of this plan. The second thing they'd like to
see is make sure they have unequivocal language in the plan that it's the City's intent not to have this as
a truck bypass and they will put in whatever features are necessary to eliminate the potential for a truck
bypass. Third, if it does become a truck bypass, they will use all measures to deter trucks, and pass
code that requires Police enforcement.
Cheryl Distaso, PO Box 340, works for the Center for Peace, Justice, and Environment. She works on
behalf of the Tres Colonias neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods have been marginalized since they've
been in Fort Collins. She said it's important to include neighborhood input in any of these decisions.
Tres Colonias deserves a different kind of approach given the history of the neighbors.
She'd like to address the issue from a historic perspective. She said we all know the issue of the defacto
truck bypass has been a major issue for the Alta Vista Neighborhood and all of Tres Colonias for the past
10 or so years. City Council's 2006 decision to refer back to the voters the initiative that passed in 1999
regarding the truck bypass had an unintended consequence. She said that consequence was a major
decay in trust between the northeast neighborhoods and the city's decision makers. Rebuilding this trust
would be in the best interest of our entire community. There was an enormous democratic effort that
went into the passing of the 1999 initiative—an effort, she believes, that has been unprecedented in the
history of Fort Collins. The Alta Vista neighbors have not forgotten both the enormity of the 1999 victory
and the great degree of discouragement that resulted from the 2006 referral. The truck bypass route
analysis,-while quite comprehensive in the examination of data and possible scenarios, does not take
into consideration the fragile community element that exists as the result of the history of the issue.
She said if we err in this process we should err on the side of being hyper vigilant and proactive in the
enforcement of laws that prohibit trucks using the realigned East Vine. To this aim, she wondered if
there are some solutions we haven't talked about yet like having some kind of a magnet (a sensor) on
trucks that do local business. They're not talking about local business truck traffic; they're talking about
the road being a defacto truck bypass. Even if you take into consideration the design elements of narrow
streets and lower speed limits,why would trucks not use a bigger, wider road more when they currently
use the existing two lane road?
She said if it's not very clear from the maps that the realigned route is at the property line of the Via
Lopez Neighborhood which is just east of the Andersonville Neighborhood. We're talking about putting a
four lane arterial right at someone's property line in a low-income neighborhood. She's not so sure we
want to do that. It also sounds like we're going to have an at-grade separated crossing there unless the
PUC (Public Utilities Commission) sees the light or changes their mind. Although its not been
determined whether that grade separated crossing will be an overpass or an underpass, she's hearing
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 19
"overpass" used a lot. If we have an overpass at somebody's property line it would be very, very
uncomfortable for that entire community so she asks the Board to take that into consideration as well.
Ed Robert, 1923 Linden Ridge Drive, has a few things to cover involving the transportation element of
the plan. He's heard the presentation of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan maybe 15 times. He helped
write the first plan with Pete Wray, among others. It's a fine document and a difficult one to manage. It
does need updating and they're doing a terrific job. Last night at the Transportation Board meeting, a
new element showed up. It was not because of staff, it was because of Council asking questions regard
some interim (less than adequate) transportation intersection change, i.e., they want to basically look at
not putting in any grade separated crossings particularly of Lemay and Vine. They want to delay those
10-15 years by putting in alternative interim type packages and by putting in an at-grade crossing.
He said delays to that crossing started in early 1980s—then it was $8.2 Million. Now we're talking $31
Million—delaying it another 10-15 years is going to make it more difficult to find funds so we need to
concentrate on solving the problem at hand. Delays are more costly. The safety impacts in that area of
town near Alta Vista and Buckingham are terrible—you'd be amazed how people aren't killed every hour.
Traffic has for years justified a grade separated crossing and a 4 lane road there. He said adding a"leg"
from Vine between North College and Lemay may be an interim solution to reducing a little bit of the
east-west traffic. Connecting Linden Street with Redwood would really help north-south. But let
development drive that need. He said staff(Matt Baker) has to also come up with the way of connecting
the new extension of Vine back to the old Vine (east of Lemay about 3 or 4 blocks). The intersection
would have to change when they finally do develop it properly. These interim measures are very
expensive measures and it appears that City Council is looking at avoiding meeting the real problem and
solving it. One of these grade separated crossings (particularly) at Vine and Lemay would certainly go a
long way in helping our transportation of people in that corner of this community. We need that badly—
safety requires it.
He'd like to have them continue looking at other developments. The realigned Vine is outstanding and if
it were built tomorrow great. But let's not do things that are just going to try and push off the real
decision—we need to have at least one good grade separated crossing and the need is at Vine and
Lemay.
Tom Moore represents his family who has farms in this area. He thanked staff for involving them in the
process. They are obviously not planners or developers and staff has shown a lot of patience with a
°bunch of rookies". They see this area as a perfect area for families. It has a park and it has the
schools. They are looking for a walkable/bikeable community of single family homes with some type of
day-to-day amenities. They asked for a change in the road because they'd like to see a commercial area
next to housing. Their goal is: how does a 12 year old safely walk to the grocery for a bottle of milk?
Grocery stores are built when there are 8,000 rooftops around so this area probably won't hit that for
some time. Scotch Pines is a 12,000 square foot commercial area. He's not sure how large the Ridgen
Farms commercial area is.
He knows a truck leaving the AB plant is 80,000 pounds (maximum allowed on the highway.)
He said some other problems they see with the plan are the commercial component. They just don't see
that it's possible to support a 30 acre commercial center there. They see a smaller grocery store (80,000
square feet) and a 20 acre development. They don't think a large"life-style" type center is either
possible or desirable in this area. He doesn't envision another Harmony Road nor do they want that.
They want something to complement the downtown area. As far as the MMN, they want something like
15 acres along with 10 acres of Employment as Anheuser Busch has more than enough Employment
land for the long haul.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 20
They'd like to see a little bit of flexibility. He said no one has a crystal ball to see what's going to happen
and they'd like to suggest"can't we simply say this plan will have 20 acres of commercial, 15 acres of
MMN, and 10 acres of employment"—the rest would be housing rather than put"hard lines" on a map
that make no sense in the future.
Their greatest concern is the residential. They feel that Fort Collins is a successful, attractive community
because of neighborhoods that developed at 3 to 4 units per acre. Neighborhoods developed under the
current(City) plan are not the same quality. Families want lots of about 8,000 square feet so they have a
reasonable size house, back yard, and some privacy. He said they are not talking McMansions. They
can point to several subdivisions with around 8,000 square foot lots and houses valued at $250,000 to
$350,000. He said in this economic downturn,where experience really puts a spotlight on what works,
older subdivisions are really holding up better. We're told we can have mid-sized lots but we need to
"jam up" more lots elsewhere.on the property and this does not create the quality of housing that will
maintain value and create pride-of-ownership and sense of community. If affordable housing is the
problem, let's address that rather than say let's"jam a bunch" of housing in here and maybe some of it
will fall in the affordable housing category. He believes that shotgun approach is pretty crude. They feel
that while the current City Plan is laudable, the goals are to attract national builders who use housing as
a chip in the game of bond deals, subprime mortgages, and derivatives. They leave nothing in the
community.
In conclusion, Moore would like to reiterate that they want to keep this a walkable/bikeable family
oriented locally built neighborhood.
Don Tiller, project planner for the Liberty Farms Senior Living Center on Timberline north of Vine,
thanked staff for their work. It's a complex and extremely time consuming project. He asked do they
have a perfect result—no but it is a definite improvement over what's existing today.
He'd like to express his support with two conditions. The first condition is extending the non-residential
uses to the MMN area on the north side of Vine. You have the same need for that type of a buffer
between the industrial, the railroad tracks, and housing. He believes it's very important that shows up in
the subarea plan. The second is more important and he said Mr. Moore kind of hit on this_ That's the
request that the subarea plan is trying to express the intent of what development should follow 5, 10 or
15 years in the future. He believes the more specific the plan gets, the more rigid it is, and the more
difficult it is for the plan to be on target in the future. He'd like to see something in the subarea plan that
addresses openness and willingness for future Boards to review and consider recommendations from the
development at the time of review. He's been through rezoning himself and it's kind of tough to do
because you're going against something that was recommended by a group several years prior.
From his experience with Liberty Farms, he understands how difficult it is to work against the existing
master street plan—everyone agreed it didn't make sense for the way it was but at the same time it
would be too difficult as a developer to do a traffic study to justify changing it for their specific
development. He thinks being too rigid and too over planned can cause real issues to what you'd like to
accomplish in the future.
He does expect to see shifts in the land use and the distribution. One of the comments that Mr. Moore
made was to look at a range of acreage you'd like to see for different land uses or maybe even a number
of rooftops. As the area develops, look at new developments coming in—maybe you'd end up with more
rooftops than expected so it's probably okay to do a few less in a particular area.
i
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 21
In closing, he thinks the plan need to be written to provide for the intent of the city as you go forward—
something you can measure us against but at the same time not be so overly restrictive or directive to
preclude a good plan in the future.
Ken Crumb, 1044 Trading Post Road—developer for both the Waterglen and Trail head Subdivision, said
both subdivisions represent 1,000 developed home sites of which 600-700 are currently occupied. He
said he also sits on the Board for the Aberdeen Townhomes HOA (approximately 100 homes). He
thanked staff for their work. He particularly likes the realignment of East Vine. The enhanced roadway
will provide a new corridor that will be appropriate for new standards of housing, commercial and some
industrial uses. The current East Vine Drive is more or less of substandard construction in an industrial
zone and they'll now have a new front door into our future residential communities of significant value to
the City of Fort Collins.
This part of Fort Collins, due to lack of good access, has been slow in developing. The area is only 10
minutes from downtown (which he believes is the heart of the community). Timberline is important both
for car and bike traffic. He thinks Timberline could operate effectively as a two lane arterial with
east/west plan improvements. He believes the City should install an at-grade crossing at Vine and
Lemay—the.traffic problems and safety concerns are there now. The City will restrict future growth in the
north corridor until problem intersections are improved sufficiently. He said you're not going to get the
growth if you don't do something to improve the problem crossings. He thinks priority should be to solve
issues with interim solutions that would last 15 years.
He thinks the East Vine realignment should be put in the master plan and he'd like to support the Moore
Family in their proposal to reduce the density. He's found, having developed two subdivisions using City
Plan standards, they're very difficult to sell. Design standards where garages have to be tied into the
floor plan cause the house itself to take up so much of the lot. He believes the standard should be about
8,000 square feet. People can go to Timnath,Wellington, and other regional communities and find the
8,000 square foot lots. Chair Schmidt asked Mr. Crumb what the density is at Waterglen. He said 5-6
units per acre-4,500-5,000 square foot lots. HE said fortunately about 1/3 of Waterglen is open space
so people's yards sometimes extend into open space. He believes the plan should be recommended to
City Council and that it will serve that part of the community well.
George Holter owns property at the northeast comer of Vine and Timberline. He lives at Rigden Farms
where his neighbors' children need to play in the street because there are no back yards. He thinks
we're off base—people are made to live on such small lots and streets are so wide he gets tired when
walking across them. Also, every time he drives into the new shopping centers, he sees acres and acres
of parking lots that are never used.
Hotter said small lots ate hard to sell. He was going to build houses on Trail Ridge but the lots are so
"dam"small he doesn't know who'd buy them. He expressed concerns about the "rough" railroad
crossings—he's had to slow to 3 M.P.H. to cross them.
He was told no development could occur on his farm until the streets are put in place. How can one
developer do that?
He asked the Deputy City Attorney if limiting their opportunity to talk to 5 minutes was an infringement of
his freedom of speech.
Public Input Closed
Chair Schmidt asked staff to address concerns related to grade crossings at the various intersections.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 22
She asked Matt Baker to speak to how the relocation of Vine will affect those graded crossings—make
them a little easier to deal with because we won't have as much traffic. She asked staff to please explain
if those are done as a transition—phased first from College to Lemay. How will it impact things until the
next phase?
Baker said the significant intersection as far as APF (Adequate Public Facility) requirements is Vine and
Lemay. The City has improved it 4 or 5 times to try and get some additional width. It's constrained—
there are no other improvements they can make. Traffic is building to a level where it fails at rush hours.
Without any possibility of making further improvements, to alleviate APF you have made some
intersection improvements. One way is to do a grade separated (over or underpass) crossing. The Vine
and Lemay intersection has been on our Capital Improvement Plan for 20 years and has not yet received
funding.
The realignment of Vine Drive has significant benefits toward relieving the APF issue at both Vine and
Lemay and in the future at Timberline Road and Vine. By moving the Vine alignment up north a %mile
we'll be able to intersect Lemay Avenue and provide a full intersection which would allow turn lanes and
stacking capacity. It would essentially allow the congestion we are currently experiencing to go away.
It would alleviate the APF issue and allow some development to occur in the Mountain Vista area which
is currently restricted by the APF.
Baker said once development starts to occur in the Mountain Vista area, you add that same level of
congestion to Timberline Road &Vine so realigning Vine north at Timberline and building a full
intersection (with additional turn lanes and auxiliary lanes) away from the railroad tracks will alleviate the
congestion at that intersection. The only traffic that the railroad crossing would see would be southbound
traffic on Lemay Avenue (or Timberline Road in the future.) A two lane road segment like that can carry
quite a bit of traffic—almost arterial volumes if there's not an intersection. That is the strategy to
alleviate restrictions in the Mountain Vista area, to allow further development, and to complete a roadway
segment in an area where you currently can't do any more road improvements.
Chair Schmidt asked if he thought it was still necessary, in order to do the grade separation at Lemay
and Vine, to move Lemay over. Baker said he's looked at the intersection as recently as a couple of
years ago. There's a high tension power line on one side and a row of houses on the other so do you
move a high tension power line or do you take down a row of houses? Those are the issues. It's just
constrained=there's not enough room for a four lane arterial. Baker said the City looked at alternate
alignments for Lemay Avenue in the early 1980s and they selected an alignment that went behind the
existing Anderson Place Subdivision and crossed the railroad tracks at the location noted for the future
grade separated roadway. He's purchase the alignment south of Vine Drive prior to the construction of
the existing subdivisions that backs up to it. As the Kederike property north of Vine develops, they'll be
dedicating the additional right-of-way. That grade separated overpass is an existing deficiency area and
a City capital funding responsibility. Chair Schmidt noted the realignment of Lemay was covered
extensively in the Northeast Neighborhoods Subarea Plan and not really in the realm of the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan
Chair Schmidt asked Matt Wempe to speak to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) request. Wempe
said the PUC would most likely require separated grade crossings but City Council directed staff(due to
budgetary constraints)to ask the PUC If the crossings could be done at grade. Council has asked staff
to look at whether or not one, two, three or some combination can be done at grade. Are there
opportunities to do trading where if we do Lemay at a grade separated crossing, is it possible to do
Mountain Vista as an at-grade crossing?There are also concerns from the City's perspective of
emergency access (should an injured person or ambulance need to get through).
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 23
Grade separated crossings are not necessarily a hard and fast rule. The rule is being considered in this
case in consultation with the PUC and the railroads. Wempe said stake holders' main concern is safety.
There is also a need by the railroad to protect the operation of the existing switching yard.
Chair Schmidt asked if it is currently being studied. Wempe said they've presented the facts and the
possibilities to City Council at two separate work sessions. They are anticipating getting direction in
September as a part of the Plan adoption hearing. If it's something Council wants them to do, it would
be a separate implementation follow up item.
Chair Schmidt asked staff to speak to the truck route concerns. She noted there is a railroad crossing at
Mountain Vista. If trucks came off there to use the enhanced travel corridor they would still have to deal
with at least one railroad crossing. The trains can block traffic for long periods of time as they move
back and forth while unloading at Anheuser-Busch.
Wempe said the truck route analysis is a document that has evolved over time and includes input from
the community, including parts of the analysis performed by the Lindewood Neighborhood. The analysis
Looked at:
• Travel times—a Traffic Operations van can do a "run'whereby they drive a particular route
several times to a day to get an idea of travel times and delays.
• Train traffic—the BNSF (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe) line goes up Mason and crosses at
North College several times a day. It is used more than the Union Pacific line which is used
mainly for their switching yard in southern Fort Collins 1-2 trains per day.
All of the elements were included in the analysis—speed, travel time, and train traffic. That's how staff
came to the conclusion that the efficiencies just aren't there for the trucks to abandon the designated
route.
As far as enforcement goes,the City does not have the ability to issue tickets. The Traffic Code has a
provision that allows our officers to escort suspected overweight trucks to a public weight station. That
station is most likely going to be at Prospect and 1-25. The Colorado Bureau of Weights and Measure
would be the agency that would issue that ticket. There is an impetus for enforcement. The level of
enforcement, while its been there could be stronger. The citizens truck route concerns, staffs analysis,
the street design recommendations, and the enforcement options are in the plan. Wempe said the City
has taken extensive steps to try to address the issue.
Wempe said relative to the issues raised regarding the east/west corridors—Conifer Street is already in
the 1999 plan and it has volumes that support that two-lane arterial. Realigned Vine is serving that major
east/west connection, and existing Vine (with the realignment of Vine) is more of a neighborhood access
road.
Board Questions:
Member Lingle asked if the truck route analysis on Highway 14 at Jefferson takes into account the
possibility of a roundabout being installed at Jefferson and Mountain and would that potentially deter
truckers from wanting to go that route. Wempe said they did not really look at intersection controls in
general—its a future question so whether or not a roundabout would make sense is determined at the
time of development. The roundabout at that location is part of the Jefferson Street project. The River
District Plan does recommend narrowing that street down to two lanes and slowing the traffic to have a
more pedestrian friendly environment but it's not intended to discourage truck traffic. That plan, since it's
a state highway is just getting ready to send a RFP (Requests for Proposals)for consultants to do work
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 24
with CDOT(Colorado Department of Transportation), the City and DDA(Downtown Development
Authority). Wempe said that certainly is an issue they will look at.
Chair Schmidt asked does that mean that probably CDOT would not approve any changes that might
discourage truck traffic. Wempe said the City and CDOT have a responsibility to have that truck route
work for truck traffic.
Member Rollins asked if there's analysis that talks about existing through truck traffic on Vine. Wempe
said they do recognize that there are trucks out there now but as far as traffic counts and weight data
that is not something that they've had the ability to look at. Wempe said the last time they did an origin
destination study was for the truck bypass studies that took place in 2004. Rollins says that does seem
very relevant to her because if there is a good amount of through truck traffic in that area; obviously as
you improve that route you'd see an increase in truck traffic unless you approve the other route for better
truck traffic flow. Wempe said he did not necessarily agree with that—you can say anecdotally there are
more trucks using the designated route. Rollins said there's no question about that. She just saying if
there are 100 trucks a day and 80 on Mulberry and 20 on Vine; there could be an anticipated shift; is it 2
trucks, are there more?Wempe said that is what the analysis focuses on—it asked the question would
that route be attractive for truck traffic.
Chair Schmidt said she'd like to comment anecdotally that she does travel that area relatively often and
she's noticed it's difficult for large trucks to go on Vine because it's so hard to get there. At the
intersection at Timberline and Lemay; it's very difficult for semis to make turns without going into
oncoming traffic. You don't see that many trucks coming out of there at College or near Poudre Feed.
She said she has noticed local businesses with trucks use Vine.
Chair Schmidt said the new realigned Vine will be in a more open area—development will be happening
along with it. We won't be putting it in the middle of old established neighborhood so there will be an
opportunity to do noise mitigation with more tree plantings and other noise abatement features.
Member Carpenter says she avoids Lemay and Vine. She can't image a trucker choosing that route as a
way through town the way it is now. She thinks it's important we do the enhanced enforcement because
she thinks it'll be different when it's better—particularly in those areas. She does think that counting now
would be useful because she can't image a trucker selecting it as a way to get through town.
Member Lingle said staff had mentioned some of the operational and design controls—one being
narrower travel lanes. Would those be substandard to the Larimer County Street Standards? Wempe
said he wouldn't use the word substandard. The consultant, Lucas, recommended 12 foot travel lane but
staff recommend an 11 foot lane. It will be looked at more closely in the design phase. Lingle asked if
he thought an 11 foot lane would be a deterrent to truck traffic. Lingle thinks it would just make it less
safe--it wouldn't keep a truck from using it. Wempe said that's a good point—where you'd have to
balance the safety of it. Wempe said the thinking behind that is having narrower lanes reduces speed.
Chair Schmidt asked what the procedure would be if neighbors noticed a lot more truck traffic. Wempe
said there was a recommendation made by the Transportation Board at their meeting last night(August
19). They want to recommend to City Council that there be some type of periodic review of what level of
traffic there was and how the road was operating.
Chair Schmidt asked if staff was anticipating the segment on East Vine from College to Lemay will be
built a significant period before the other segments are built. Baker said with the interest in
redevelopment on North College Avenue and an active URA (Urban Renewal Authority), we're
anticipating 5-7 years out with that connection made with redevelopment.
i
i
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 25
Chair Schmidt asked Wray to point out where other uses near the railroad were being considered.
Wempe said they recommend allowing some non-residential uses near the railroad switching yards on .
East Vine Drive and Timberline—medium density mixed use neighborhoods. They havelan existing
standard in the LUC in the LMN zone that allows a range of non-residential uses and by adding MMN
near Vine at Timberline; they feel they should have the same standard. They'd like to provide supporting
higher density residential along the two merging enhanced travel corridors in the future. By adding the
new MMN east of Timberline right up to the existing Vine, they felt it was a similar situation that we have
that existing standard for the LMN all along the Vine corridor. It would provide more flexibility and allow a
handful of non-residential uses there. Wray said on the west side of Timberline, they were
acknowledging the existing development that is there.
Chair Schmidt noted that any widening of Timberline Road would likely take place on the east side
because the Plummer School is on the west side. Wray said correct. That's where this new language .
would address more flexibility for that new MMN development. In the event a grade separated crossing
is constructed east of the Timberline intersection, the potential impacts of that new intersection (at grade
or grade separated) combined with the railroad track impacts; staff believes calls for flexibility in the Land
Use Code for MMN. Wray said the Code allows for office and light industrial that provide additional
options. This provision is for 500 feet north of Vine Drive,
Chair Schmidt asked Wray what.he would guess the number of houses that are outside the Mountain
Vista Plan but that might use that Community Commercial (CC)center. Mr. Moore mentioned he thought
using 20 acres would require 8,000 homes—a grocery store trigger point. Moore questioned whether
we'd have that number up there. She said Wray noted 5700 homes in the plan but that does not
consider the homes in subdivisions including the Lindenmeier and Richards Lake areas and others. Wray
said a CC is considered a community wide destination. Typically a grocery store series a 4 mile square
area. He thinks this destination would attract the larger area (up to Wellington and county development
east of 1-25). There could be a branch library, hotel, mid-sized retail, and restaurants there. Staff thinks
we need to have a placeholder for the long term market.
Chair Schmidt said in Employment (E), you're allowed 25% secondary uses. Do you know if Anheuser
Busch (AB) is open to anything like that? If they're very committed to just Employment& Industrial
zones, than that community commercial zone would pick up all other commercial uses. Wray said
they've had a lot of discussion with AB's St. Louis staff. Their original thought was to establish a
commercial strip along Mountain Vista Drive and staff was successful in convincing them that did not
really meet the provisions for an attractive gateway. Staff really wants to focus the commercial activity in
the CC center. They do not want a typical auto-oriented commercial development around the Mountain
Vista interchange. Wray said that's why new standards were added several years ago to set back
secondary uses in the Employment a% mile from the interchange.
Member Lingle asked about the four amendments to the different plans—are those critical to the overall
plan being supportable. He asked if they all have to happen. Wray said that's the sequence that we
followed with the creation of the original plan 10 years ago. He said the implementation items precede
the recommendations at the policy level. Wray said we need to amend the land use designations on the
Structure Plan (so City Plan is consistent with this element of City Plan). And the zoning needs to be
updated based on land use policy recommendations. Lingle said his concern is he can support the
overall plan but he has a problem with one of the amended plans. He wondered how that would affect
the outcome. Wray said he'd need to hear his concerns and know whether it was a majority or minority
position as it could affect the recommendation being made to City Council for their September review.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 26
Chair Schmidt said she's been on the Board for some time and she's made derogatory comments
relative to subarea plans because they seem to change as soon as they're approved. She's never seen
the concerns raised by citizens tonight about being too restrictive (lines drawn, etc.) come to pass.
Usually if someone comes in with a development proposal and they've put a lot of work planning, there
aren't too many times when the Board hasn't gone along with them. She doesn't think folks should feel
that because we have the Structure Plan Map that absolutely nothing would ever change on this
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
Member Carpenter said in a recent email from Wray, he spoke of a request from the Moore's for a lower
density standard for.173 acres of the LMN land—that would take the number of housing units from 629
between 440 and 504. Does that include changes to the MMN as well—is that everything? Wray said
that's just a calculation for 173 acres of LMN.
Member Campana asked what another way of accomplishing that lower density is. If we had a PDP
(Project Development Plan) come forward on that property, could they request a modification of
standards at that time? Wray said yes—that's staff's recommendation. Wray said the Moore's
preference is for a predominance of single familyllarger lot development with a "middle" amount of multi-
family housing. That's difficult to achieve with our current LMN standards but there is some flexibility
there. Staff believes with a creative design, particular with a large site like this, that you can provide
some larger lot housing. You'll have to make up for it, however, with densities of other housing types on
other parts of the project. They can show an alternative that's equal to or better than the standard. Wray
said as we create these plans,we're creating policy guidance for future development decisions and
those are implement through our current Land Use Code, zoning, and Master Street Plan. We have to
draw lines on the map for these designations.
Wray said if the Board was supportive of their request, we'd need to do something similar to what was
done in the Fossil Creek area where we had a modified LMN allowing a minimum of 3 units per acre
based on some unique circumstances of some critical natural areas. There was support for reducing
density (°feathering density") as you got closer to the reservoir. That was a joint decision of the City of
Fort Collins and Larimer County. To support the Moore request, we'd have to add language to the Plan
that would set the stage for a potential Land Use Code amendment to specifically spell out this range of
density change for their property.
Member Campana asked if Fossil Creek happened with a modification of standard before the PDP.
Wray said no that it was a provision in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. It included amendments to
the Larimer County Land Use Code and joint agreements for the residential development as a specific
receiving area of the TDU (Transfer Development Units) Program.
Member Lingle asked how design standards were handled for that reduced density since there's not
anything in Article 4 (with the zoning designation)for that density. Wray said that was a unique
situation—we had agreements for deferred annexation. The area east of Timberline, south of Kechter
Road, and north of the reservoir was identified as a TDU receiving area. The development that came
forward in that area would be reviewed first by Larimer County until such time as we had final review
(and final transfer of development rights) then the.City would annex. We had agreed upon development
standards that were put into the Larimer County Code as supplemental regulations that were close to our
own Land Use Code standards. There was a minimum of 3 units per acre in that receiving area.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the one thing about the modification of standard that Wray mentioned
is the equal to or better than approach. The Code says the proposal, which would be a proposal for
lower density, would have to satisfy the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that
met the standard. It would take a creative argument to persuade one to think that the lower standard
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 27
achieves the purpose. You might try the hardship approach or the important community needs approach
but he thinks it would be difficult to use the equal to or better than approach if the sole purpose of the
standard is to achieve higher density.
Member Campana said the challenge here is that normally our decisions are made based on our Land
Use Code(LUC) and on this recommendation, you are asking us to "get out of the box" and review a
recommendation that perhaps is not supported by City Plan or the LUC. He asked Eckman to confirm
whether he understood that correctly. Eckman said if the Board was inclined to do the lower density,
Wray said that legislatively was one way in which it could be done.
Chair Schmidt asked what is the status of the review of City Plan. She said that obviously this density is
a'button'for everyone there tonight. Is that something that City Plan is going to look at? Would they
possibly be thinking of doing a new zoning district within that City Plan that might have a density between
what's available now to meet the need in this case? Would that happen in a timeframe that would work
for the Moores Wray said they've actually debated it quite a bit over the past year. The collective staff
opinion is looking at the overall remaining inventory of available buildable lands in a low density-mixed
used (LMN) neighborhood category; this area in the northeast is really the last large tract. The
conclusion was this really should be handled as a part of this process—specific for their property versus
a consideration of a City Plan amendment community wide.
Member Carpenter had a question for Mr. Moore. In the letter you sent to City Council, you requested
the LMN density be changed but in the letter you sent to the Planning &Zoning Board that wasn't one of
the things you asked for. Have you changed your mind on that? Moore said he was out of town for a
couple of weeks before this meeting so they sent the Board the same letter they sent to City Council and
very hurriedly put together the points because Wray said they needed to present those points more
clearly. Their request for a change in density was already clear enough in the initial letter(and remains
the same.) He apologized for any confusion the second letter may have caused.
Member Campana said he'd like to go back to City Plan versus the subarea plan addressing the Moore
density request. He was on the City Plan Advisory Committee and they spent a "ton" of time on the
density of the LMN. We now have a "look back" period when you could find people on both sides of
question of City Plan density requirements. He feels a little uncomfortable making a recommendation on
density in a one night meeting when they spent 18 month reviewing City Plan for an area that holds the
majority of remaining inventory. He would hate to overrule that at this point. Wray said staff would agree
with you. There was a lot of community input in developing City Plan/Land Use Code. Wray said in this
area the Moore property is the hole in the "middle of the donut". It's central to this whole subarea—it's a
very strategic property. The plan shows a range of mix of uses on their property and they've gone
through some slight adjustments from the original plan. He thinks we have a better result with this
update. We've responded to their initial requests—they thought the original plan had too much LMN and
Community Commercial (CC). With this update we've significantly reducing that.
Wray said City Plan calls for higher density particularly for this area to support this large/significant
business center(with Industrial and Employment)that we've identified for northeast Fort Collins. Two,
high frequency travel corridors merge into this central location. Staff completely understands the Moore
requests. As he's shown in the other maps, there are a lot of examples throughout the community of
pre-City Plan subdivisions that meet their expectations but City Plan evolved from that previous existing
development pattern to a more compact urban pattern for our remaining developable land. That is what
staff is responding to. They support the findings of City Plan and for those reasons we actually need this
density in these locations to support a walkable/transit environment in these more intense uses all
concentrated in this northeast area.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20,2009
Page 28
Member Lingle said he would tend to agree with Member Campana. The City Plan philosophy is not for
everywhere in this community except this subarea and for the Board to change that just for the subarea
he thinks is defeating that 18 month process. As Wray was saying, the modification process is
available—that was put in there specifically to allow property owners to make their case on a case-by-
case basis. It's the burden of the developer to prove to the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council
that their proposal is equal to or better than what City Plan would call for. He said it's not the Board's
burden to come up with a way to allow that to happen.
Chair Schmidt said what she's about to say may be out of turn but having lived in the northern part of
Fort Collins since 1979 and gone through the first City Plan and the second City Plan (update
committee); she'll tell you the feelings of a person who lives in that area. When they went to the very first
City Plan outreach meeting when everyone said we need to become more compact and urban and
there's going to be 250,000 people in Fort Collins; where are we going to put them all. Everyone said
"whoa—look at all that vacant land up there; let's put them up there." Very few of the people lived up
there so they couldn't vote down City Plan. Part of that decision was so they wouldn't have to deal with
infill in their areas. The frustrating thing is north Fort Collins doesn't want to get pegged with a certain
characteristic. Right now, if you look at the City Plan developments that are there,they tend to be more
lower-income (lacking diversity). She'd hate to see the whole area get filled up the type of subdivision.
She thinks, quite frankly, that would not be fair to northern Fort Collins. An example would be
Storybook—it seemed to have no imagination. It was just straight blocks of no different housing designs.
It is not a good representation of what we hoped City Plan would be and that's what they've seen so far.
Schmidt's hoping that some kind of compromise could be reached. 40 acres of MMN is a lot of really
high density. Would we consider doing a buffer there? 'Maybe that might happen when the development
plan comes in.
Member Campana said he's not disagreeing with her. He has mixed feelings on City Plan himself, he
was just thinking it needs to take place with City Plan and not on this piece of ground here tonight. There
is a City Plan review in progress right now. Is he correct in thinking the outreach will be via stakeholder
meetings versus a review committee? Wray said correct. Campana said because there are a couple of
large property owners out there; how can we get them involved in the review. We'd be really smart to
look back at the last 12 years—where was City Plan successful or where was it not successful? He just
thinks that's where the debate for this needs to be. Tonight we need to make a recommendation on the
mix of uses. We should not be debating the definition of the zoning districts.
Member Carpenter says she's struggling with this too. She tends to agree with Member Campana in that
it should be in a bigger forum than we have here. Unfortunately, the land we have to develop whether
it's developed under City Plan or a modified City Plan is what we're looking at tonight. What happens
here tonight and what happens in all of this is really going to guide where City Plan goes.
Carpenter said she served on the first City Plan Advisory Committee. She was.concemed about density
at that time and what's she's a little worried about here is that we've shrunk the commercial zone and the
employment zone. The idea of City Plan was to have activity centers where people could do everything
they needed to do in that space. In making the compromises that we're making, we're not going to get a
good City Plan project and we're not going to get a good suburban type project. She thinks in order for it
to be a good City Plan, you do have a lot more commercial, more office space, more employment, and
then you have a lot of diversity in the housing projects. She can't get a good feeling for what we're
coming out with a good subarea plan or whether we're just going to get a bad suburb.
Carpenter thinks it needs to be looked at more deeply before we move on with this. She appreciates all
the work that's been done but we're right at a point where we're going to relook at City Plan and we're
talking about remaining inventory now. She wouldn't be comfortable saying to a citizen that we have a
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 29
modification process when the City Attorney is saying "well, sort of'. In a review if you can't justify we
have to go back to what the Land Use Code says. She said she's struggling, she doesn't know what
she's going to do.
Member Rollins said she's not struggling. She is fully in support of the Moore property getting a reduced
density. She needs to remember that this is the Moore's property. We're all here planning it and
deciding what's going to happen to it. If you take a look at the overall piece of property, they've got a lot
of mixture. She said what City Plan was looking for has been done on this piece of property—it just
happens to be where we draw the lines. She won't be supporting the plan unless she sees the reduced
densities.
Member Lingle said he'd like to challenge Rollins because if you were to make a motion to reduce the
densities; you'd have to have something to support waiving the requirements of City Plan and the Land
Use Code. What would those be? Member Rollins said she'd rely on the slide that Wray has provided
that said we could do this in a way that was supportable and similar to what's been done in the past.
Chair Schmidt asked Wray when a plan like this might be updated again...ten years. She's wondering
why the Moores are any different than Anheuser Busch. Anheuser Busch can just say we have this
industrial here and you want to put°x, y, z"factory here and "No thank you, we don't want to sell our
land°. Couldn't the Moores do the same thing? What control do we really have over it because the
Moores are the landowners? Couldn't they just sit on it and our plan would never happen.Wray said any
owner can decide to whether to sell a particular developer for a particular use.
Wempe said we're looking at a long-term (20 years) build out of this area. There's a short term market
and a long term market. Looking back at the past 16 months,they've looked at a lot of different plan
alternatives. They've worked with all the different property owners in this area. At some point we need to
more forward and bring the best recommendation to City Council. We're not always going to get
complete agreement(including Anheuser Busch) by every property owner in an area for a community
wide City Plan_
When they were looking at the Moore property, there are several things that we've been willing to agree
on and change. One thing was we've agreed to resize the CC district and still meet City Plan vision and
objectives. They wouldn't have done that it if it had precluded the long-term expectations of City Plan
and the Land Use Code. It provides a lot of flexibility in creating a unique, mix-used commercial center.
The same is true with LMN and.Turnberry not connecting to the south (a complete review of the overall
street network), and the inclusion of 70 acres of Employment on their property. We have worked through
this process and we're ending up with a good updated subarea plan. What we have ended up with is
general support of all affected property owners. This plan provides good direction to look at when
requests for plan amendments or code amendments are made. That's done on a regular basis through a
lot of debate and discussion. Those are part of the challenges for a developing community.
Director Dush said with regard to Member Carpenters concerns about density and how we might be
creating a non-City Plan area. It's important to recognize through the reduction of several of the
identified land uses(Commercial and Employment)that the zoning districts allow for mixed use even in
those residential zone districts. In the LMN, you can do things such as churches, neighborhood centers,
and child care centers. Those things are thoughtfully planned out in a large master plan development of
173 acres. He said you can start to transition some of those neighborhood centers with some densities
and then spread that out with some large lots. Doing some of those things through thoughtful land use
planning in the LMN allows you to capture the intent and the tenants of City Plan. Campana and Lingle
had mentioned some of the 18 month debate about density. If that were to occur later on with the City
Plan update, not withstanding what occurs can always be revisited through an update. There are ways
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 30
through thoughtful design based upon mixed-use capabilities that we have in our zoning that allow for .
the different types of transitions to occur even in what is defined in low-density residential zoning district.
Member Campana said if we just say its 173 acres of LMN and if through the review of City Plan we
decide to change the density of LMN based on what's take place in the developments in our city; those
new density requirements will be applied to the property—is that correct? Chair Schmidt says she finds it
hard to believe in City Plan that we'd change all of LMN in the city to be lower density. In that particular
case we wouldn't be achieving the goals of City Plan. Campana said that as a part of the City Plan
review, we could also look at the Structure Plan and say "now we have a new zoning—let's apply it to a
portion of this area".
Campana said 30 acres of commercial is not that much. When he thinks of 40 acres of MMN—he thinks
of the Argyle on Timberline and the condo project just south of it--that's not that much at all. Those are
challenges we've had with City Plan. He's not saying he agrees or disagrees with it. He's just saying he
doesn't think we should change the density for this piece of property especially when we are years away
from this property being ready to develop. He just thinks this is the wrong place to debate that. He likes
what staff has done on this subarea plan and he's ready to vote anytime the rest of the Board is.
Member Lingle asked Eckman if the order in the staff report is the order in which action should be
taken—subarea plan and then the amendments to the different documents. Eckman said it can be taken
in any order just so long as City Council gets your recommendation on everything. He said if you don't
want to deal with minority reports you don't have to—Council is primarily interested in the
recommendations of the majority of the Board.
Chair Schmidt asked if the rezoning were any different than the rest of the amendments. Eckman said
no. Schmidt asked if we could put it all in one motion. Lingle said he thought the rezoning were quasi-
judicial and has facts and findings. Eckman said if that's the case, you can use the language in the staff
report in support of your motion. Wray said staff reports were created for each amendment. Eckman
said it might be best to take each component—there may be differences of opinion by each component.
Member Campana asked for clarrfication—one the initial staff reported amended by the memorandum
dated August 10? Wray said staff recommendation is to add that additional transition adding Section F
to the rezoning staff report.
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update
Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of the update to the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based on the staff report, item#2.
Member Campana seconded the motion.
Chair Schmidt asked staff if they were planning to strengthen the language for monitoring realigned Vine
to mitigate the possibility of truckers wanting to deviate from the defacto truck route. Member Lingle
asked it that was also a part of the North College Corridor Plan amendment. Wray said their direction
was to add that language to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The only change staff is showing for the
North College plan was to shift the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer to the realigned Vine.
Lingle said he believes shifting the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer to the realigned Vine is what
will trigger truckers from the defacto truck route. Wempe said the enhanced travel corridor is really a
concept related to transit, pedestrians and bicycles similar to what you'd see in the Mason Corridor. It
should not be interpreted as enhanced mobility for trucks.
I
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 31
Chair Schmidt said she thinks we need to watch location so they don't turn into something we haven't
intended. Wempe said the design of those corridors is subject to a separate plan--the Master Street Plan
planning document is the place to best record those comments.
Member Carpenter said she will support it because she feels it's pretty difficult for the Board to address
the issues related to density in this forum. She would encourage those who spoke this evening to
consider participating in a City Plan Update outreach event.
Member Lingle would like to thank staff for all the effort that's gone into this update. He thinks it's
comprehensive and makes some very good broad brush improvements over the 1999 Plan. He said we
all individually might have more focused interests and areas of concern and that will likely come out (at
least for him) in future discussions.
Chair Schmidt said she's also thinks staff has done a great job (comprehensive and well done) and it is a
large improvement over the previous plan.
The motion passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting.
Amendment to City Plan, City Structure Plan Map
Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed
amendments to City Plan involving a change to the City Structure Plan Map related to the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based upon the staff report, item #2A.
Member Campana seconded the motion.
The motion'passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting.
Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan
Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the North College
Corridor Plan,an element of City Plan, involving a change of the Framework Plan Map related to
the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based on the staff report, item#2B.
Member Campana seconded the motion.
Member Lingle said that ironically this is the component he would object to. This may not be the
appropriate document but he thinks that at least City Council will see our minutes and will get the gist of
our discussion. His concern is not that he disagrees with shifting the enhanced travel corridor from
Conifer to Vine—he totally agrees with that. It's the whole idea that some how we think through design,
operation, or enforcement procedures that we can get keep it from becoming a defacto truck route. He
thinks that is exactly what will happen. He would prefer that we recognize that and deal with it
accordingly.
In his experience any kind of design implementation that was based on depending on operational
controls, enforcement, or something that isn't inherent to the design is set up to not be workable. To
depend on mobile truck weigh stations for enforcement when that would be one of the first things yanked
if there was a budget concern does not seem like an effective plan. He's going to vote against this
motion just for that reason but he agrees with the overall idea of moving that enhanced corridor to Vine.
Chair Schmidt said in a way it's more important not to leave it as'Conifer because Conifer could just as
easily become a defacto truck route—it's even closer to some residences. She understands where
Member Lingle is coming from. She'd like to see stronger language relative to monitoring traffic.
Planning &Zoning Board
August 20, 2009
Page 32
The motion passed 4:1 with Lingle dissenting.
Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan
Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council for adoption of the proposed
amendments to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, an element of City Plan involving a change to
the Framework Plan Map based on recommendations from the update to the Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan based on the staff report, item#2C.
Member Campana seconded the motion.
Chair Schmidt thinks it might be convenient for the neighborhoods along Vine and Lemay to have some
small businesses there. Wray asked is she was referring to the new realigned Vine intersection.
Schmidt said yes. Schmidt said she'd like to see that area have some flexibility with regard to
commercial. Being a member of CAG (Citizen Advisory Group for North College) she's aware of their
interest in expanding commercial there and views it as a source for generating tax increment revenue.
Wray said yes that would be possible in both the LMN and the MMN zone districts.
The motion passed 5.0.
Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Zoning Map
Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of rezoning related to
the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based on the Findings of Fact(A-F) beginning on
Page 3 of the staff report and including the addition of F shown on Page 2 of the staff memo
dated August 10, 2009. Member Campana seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting.
Chair Schmidt had one final comment on the discussion today-- she asked Director Dush if it might be
good to have Joe Frank come to one of the work sessions to talk about the updated City Plan. He could
get the Board's feedback and provide information on where they are in the update process and how they
expect to proceed. Director Dush said he'd work to get that scheduled.
Chair Schmidt noted that subarea plans are always open to change. She invited Mr. Moore when he's
closer to the development of his property, he can always submit what he believes to be a better plan.
Member Rollins wanted to thank staff even though she voted no. Other than her concerns about the
Moores' property rights, she thinks the update's been really well done:
Other Business:
None
Meeting.adjoume at 9:40 p.m.
St ve ush, Current Planning Director Brigitt chmidt, Chair
Attachment 2
un[anvista Mountain Vista Subarea �tr�
suB � Proposed Structure Plan
`•► i
..............
� I
� I
f
C—..i
I
f �
N
I Ln
i
C
MOUNTAIN VISTA GR
JO
fcl
LU
Lu
`tr 1 i
f Z i
e>
m
E VINE DR ''
r —
i.
Legend
Boundaries Districts Neighborhoods Edges Corridors
42 Fort Collins GMA VI Downtown District Urban Estate z!�3 Community Separator NEnhanced Travel Corridor(Transl
A'City Limits if Community Commercial District Low Density Mixed-Use G Foothills 0 Poudre River Corridor
Commercial Corridor District Medium Density If?Rural Lands if Poudre River
Neighborhood Commercial Center Mixed-Use dg Open Lands, Parks,
Campus District Stream Corridors
Q Employment District
153 Industrial District 0 2,500 5,000
Feet /�'r
Attachment 3
Mountain Vista Subarea Ot
SUBNtE.a PLAu FOCt Collins
Existing Zoning ter'
• 7-e
`r .. -
� I
N
�C lnnp Pmtl
Z
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
Lu
1 Z
W�
1
VINE,DRL-5
• � ��'
—7
lift'
� � 4
r1 l
Legend
City Zoning Growth Management Area
Community Commercial , ■Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary
Employment — — City Limits
Industrial Railroad Lines /►
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood - -- Streets
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Public Open Lands
Transition 0 2,500 5,000
Urban Estate Feet
Attachment 4
Mountain Vista Subarea f Mounain Vista
`BAY F`c-rfr
l`
Proposed Zoning
ILI
' F1rhd/ds Lak•.� ' r ?
i gPmd
• 0
z
I A, Z
• I j � e
/ I MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
uidM afwLake '� p
w
Z I
..........
■
Ir _`
III VINESDR
I ) •� L 'I _ I • �' S
Legend
City Zoning ®Growth Management Area
Community Commercial f Mcuntain Vista Subarea Boundary
Employment —••— City Limits
Industrial — Railroad Lines n
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood — Streets
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Public Open Lands
ti Transition 0 2,500 5,000
Urban Estate Feet
Attachment 5
' ' • • Mountain Vista
i II
• • • • • . . SUBAREA PLAN
r.;. Proposed
Zoning Areas
im
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
— - a
• ZMediumDensity
1 21 Neighborhoods
L Fell
Ara City of
r
E f�"' /Area D - f' FOrt Collins ! n
E VINE DR 1 _'
z
Attachment 6
Stuumain \'ntt
St BARFA MAN
First Reading of Ordinance
+ 124-2009 for the Rezoning of the
Y. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
2009 Plan update rFort
!& Mountain Vista
Follow-up Action Item SUBAREA PLAN
for City Council to Consider:
Prior Council Actions on September 15, 20090
• Update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
• Amendment to the City Structure Plan map
• Amending the North College Corridor Plan map
• Amending the Northside Neighborhoods Plan map
• Amending the City's Master Street Plan map
City of
ort Collins
1
Attachment 6
Proposed Zoning Areas Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PIAN
0 W. Tv. lrsrrn
Area A
-' ..__.�.�� Mom• ■ • ■ ■/�.�i
r•wr • . �
MWMNN VISTA [Nt ■
4 1
� a •
1
■
■ VIHE DR'� City oNumblika f
VIEW
"` ■� • - • • • 1 F`o_rtCollins
1�
i
Proposed Zoning Areas +SUBAREAMountainVista
PLAN
■
■
■
■
•
Iwo■ ■ \ ■ ■/.d Ra
IF mass
rc ■
u
0
MWNTNN VISTA DR .
o�
J
6 �
■
VINE OR _ ; City of
f ,
Fort Collins
2
Attachment 6
Proposed Zoning Areas Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PIAN
-� /
IP
1•■wr ■ J
1 � o
MWNTAIN VISTA DR ■
� a ■
■
■
■
Cityof
o_rt Collins
1�
i
Proposed Zoning Areas +SUBAREAMountainVista
PLAN
■
■
■
■
•
ww%• ■ ■ ■ ■A•t.1 A.
a age *
rc
u
S
0
Area D
MWNTAIN VISTA DR ■
J
6
D Area D no
NMEoa City of
f ,
Fort Collins
3
Attachment 6
Proposed Zoning Areas Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PLAN
IV
. . . WC �'
.
rc
o . . .
V� 1
MDUMAIN VISTA DR •
■
it
E
r`
E E
■ C `��(j� 1 /��
• VIHE DR'� ■ Vdli s
Proposed Zoning Areas Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PLAN
■
P .
r
■
%
°
MDUNIAIN VISTA DR •
O •
.. . • NNEOR'\
r City of
Fort Collins
4
Attachment 6
Mountain Vista
IW SUBARBA PLAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning;
1. Mandatory Requirements for Quasi=Judicial Zonings or
Rezoning (Less than 640 acres of land) .
City of
Fort Collins
Mountain Visa
SUBAREA PIAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning;
(2) (A) Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan).
City of
ort Collins
5
Attachment 6
Mountain Vista
IW SUBAREA PIAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning;
(2) (B). Warranted by changed conditions
within the neighborhood surrounding
and including the subject property.
Fort Collins
�-
!& Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PIAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning;
Additional factors as considerations for quasi-judicial
rezoning:
(3) (a) Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment is
compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the
subject land and is the appropriate zone district.
city of
ort Collins
6
Attachment 6
Mountain Vista
Iw SUBAREA PIAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning:
Additional factors as considerations for quasi-iudicial
rezoning:
(3) (b) Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Cityof
r�Fort
Collins
f�
*Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PIAN
Land Use Code Requirements for
Rezoning:
Additional factors as considerations for quasi-iudicial
rezoning:
(3) (c) Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
City of
ort Collins
y.
i
7
Attachment 6
► Mountain Vista
$I IAARFA PIAN
Comparison of Zoning Maps
L _
I .
n
Existing Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map
FortCollins
Public Process S +PAN
Summary of Public Meetings to date :
8 — Property owner Meetings
4 — Anheuser-Bush Inbev Meetings
7 — Individual Neighborhood Meetings
4 — Public Open House Meetings
9 — Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Updates
3 — Transportation Board Updates
5 — Other Board Updates
3 — Council Work Sessions
Fort Collins
8
Attachment 6
► Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PLAN
Findings of Fact and Conclusion for proposed rezoning
Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. Consistent with City Plan, and the City Structure Plan
B . Warranted by changed conditions
C . Compatible with existing and proposed uses and is appropriate
zone district
D . No significant adverse impacts on the natural environment
E . Results in a logical and orderly development pattern
Cityof
Fort Collin
- --�
�!�! Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PLAN
Board or Commission Recommendation
August 20, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
The Board voted (4-1 ) to support a recommendation to
Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan, and related items including City Structure Plan
amendment and this proposed rezoning ,
city of
ort Collins
9
Attachment 6
Mountain Vista
IW SUBAREA PIAN
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading
Fort Collins
om`
�!�! Mountain Vista
SUBAREA PIAN
�fu Intnin Vista
St RARrA PIAN
- First Reading of Ordinance
124-2009 for the Rezoning of the
Y Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
u . ' N 44
2009 Plan update - cltyof
ort Collins
10
Attachment 6
Mountain Vista
PLAN
Land Use Compatibility <4�—SUBAREA
IF
4
- ---- --;
City Structure Plan Map Proposed Zoning Map
Fort Collins
rant . m -e . . . a a 0 a a -
Richards Lake Rd
I . L
Proposed 2009 Y
LanAPond
Framework Plan
Mountain
ZYl. Vista.Dr
- Conifer St
Extension of
Realigned Vine Dr it^
1
Attachment 6
I,
h
city
Structure
Plan Map
I
w
c�
1
o
1�
_J
1
1„� r
MOUNTAIN VI DR
LA
I I o
sqm" asomm ado
E VINE DR I Itj
i
ia • • ore a wu w a a 8 . ++
I
Existing ' , •L
Zoning - } i F} •
Map rr.
o
o �
I I I " "
- AIN VISTA OR •
o ■
■
■ i ■
■ NNE DR �- - ■
mammon
- Ml 0
12
Attachment 6
Proposed
City Zoning •+►+ • • �++ • � � � • :
r •
Map o
N
L V
I I I 7 i p . . .
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR ■
m
■
■
--_ • � NNE DR
■ �l
13
ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2009
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 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA 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,by Resolution 2009-090,the City Council has adopted an Amended Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan which Amended Plan calls for the rezoning of the properties which are the
subject of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the foregoing,the City 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 City 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 City 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 that the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning is hereby implemented as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the zoning classification as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code is hereby changed and amended as shown on Exhibit`B"attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
November, A.D. 2009, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of November, A.D.
2009.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of November, A.D. 2009.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
r
EXHIBIT "A"
Mountain Vista Subarea ctYof .
Mountain Vista �t
SUBAREA PLAN
Proposed Zoning
r-
• 1
ard's La
`O
Long P Q
N
Z
C9
I
1
i MOUNTAIN IS DR ■ . s_.,
Lindenmeier Lake ■
d W -
Z
■ W
I �
I e
I
1 I
VINE ' DR
rw
Legend
City Zoning ® Growth Management Area
Community Commercial `■ 6EMountain Vista Subarea Boundary
Employment —• •— City Limits
Industrial Railroad Lines
Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood Streets
Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
Public Open Lands
1111111 Transition 0 23500 53000
Urban Estate Feet
Mountain Vista Subarea EXHIBYTfB
Mountain Visat
ta FK to
�` , PResidential Neighborhood Sign District
1 MEN
GINEEN
ard's La .�
J
Long Pond
W
Z
0
0
No
• 1
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
� LindenmeierLaKe � ''�•'�
\\\ W ' .I
Z � •
W ■
• m
VINE DR
■ ■ t ■ 0
t.._..NEW......_.._.._.Boom..Mow..Moo..i� 1 8
% 1
• Imp
Amended : November 03 , 2009
Legend
In Sign District
® Growth Management Area
■6f Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary
—••— City Limits
�-- Railroad Lines 0 3 , 000 61000
Streets Feet