HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/27/2007 - THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF PROSPECT ROAD I-25 INTER DATE: November27, 2007 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ken Waido FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The Northeast Quadrant of Prospect Road/I-25 Interchange Rezonings.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is there any additional information the City Council would like to receive regarding the proposed
rezonings before hearing the rezonings at the December 4 regular meeting?
BACKGROUND
The City has received a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan
map, and rezone 105 acres located at the northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25.
The current Structure Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres in the northeast corner is the
Industrial District and the current 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Industrial
District. The current Structure Plan designation for 19 of the 105 acres is the Urban Estate District
and the current 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Urban Estate. The applicant
proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan to change the area
into additional Commercial Corridor and Employment District designations with corresponding
rezonings to the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District.
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board are recommending approval of changes to the 1-25 Subarea
Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres into 66 acres of C,
Commercial District and 20 acres of E,Employment District;and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE,
Urban Estate District to the E, Employment District. The northeast corner rezonings would result
in at total of 96 acres of C, Commercial zoned area(66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres of existing
C zoning) and 39 acres of E, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide
a buffer between the 96 acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east.
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange is based on:
1. City Council direction to staff indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level
of"commercial" use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located
in the southwest quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. Staff concluded that
rezoning a portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment) would
encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as an
attractive community gateway, and would be in the best interests of the City.
November 27, 2007 Page 2
a. Short history: The Utilities Department operated a sludge application process on the
property until transferring that operation to other sites in northern Larimer County.
The Natural Resources Department purchased 144 acres from the Utilities
Department to be preserved as open space, the Running Deer Natural Area, and in
2003, purchased an additional 151 acres as open space. In May 2004, the City
Council, following the policies and implementation actions contained in the I-25
Subarea Plan,rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E,Employment into the POL,Public
Open Lands District. At the time of purchase,the eastern portion of the RRF was not
described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas
Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City.
Because the eastern portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low
natural resource values,Natural Areas Program staff embarked on aplanning process
to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In August
of 2005, the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF property
with the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council indicated its
general preference for a higher level of"commercial" use for the property. Based
on Council's perspective,the Natural Resources Department concluded that rezoning
a substantial portion of the property(118 acres)from POL,Public Open Lands to E,
Employment would be in the best interests of the City. Employment zoning would
allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. The adopted I-25
Subarea Plan-as well as other constraints on the property,would allow the property
to be developed in a manner that preserves an aesthetically pleasing viced from I-25
as well as protect adjoining areas with high natural values(namely Box Elder Creek
and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning request excluded Box elder
Creek, as it will remain zoned POL. City Council approved the rezoning of the SW
corner on October 16, 2007.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the
northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange requesting a change in zoning of
86 acres of I, Industrial and 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate.
Staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as a result of the
rezoning requests from the City and the private property owners to determine what would be the best
land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the
specific rezoning requests. The City Council will ultimately need to decide if the plans should be
amended for the proposed land use patterns.The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning
requests but are separate, independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the
rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Said another way,
the rezonings are designed to realign the City's land use regulations with the preferred land use
patterns as show on the respective plans.
The rezoning requests need to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities
(APF) requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect Road/I-25
interchange must include a Transportation Impact Analysis(TIA). The TIA will determine whether
traffic generated by the development will result in reduced level of service(LOS)at the interchange
and the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to
begin construction, developments must either build the needed improvements, or have funding
appropriated that will cover improvement costs.
November 27, 2007 Page 3
In summary,the specific plan amendments for the northeast quadrant request involves changing 86
acres of industrial to 66 acres of commercial and 20 acres of employment and changing 19 acres of
urban estate to employment in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. And again,on October 16,
2007,the City Council approved the rezoning of the SW corner from POL,Public Open Lands,and
C, Commercial, to E, Employment.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast corner is:
should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a
regional/community scale shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25
interchange? The rezoning requests represents a major land use and economic development policy
issue to add the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the limited inventory of sites within the GMA boundary
suitable for the development of regional/community serving retail uses. Such sites are necessary
for the City to maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado. A
regional/community shopping center in the northeast quadrant will help contribute tax revenues
necessary to fund Prospect Road/I-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given
the cost to improve infrastructure, development from all four quadrants around the interchange,
including the area just rezoned at the SW comer, will need to contribute funding to improve the
interchange. These fundamental issues are discussed in greater detail in the next two sections.
Land Use Planning
Fundamental land use issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast corner are:
1. Recognition that I-25 is no longer an eastern urban edge of the community as previously
contained in City Plan visions.
a. More specifically,the area on the Structure Plan map east of the Fort Collins GMA
showing Rural Land Use to make a clear distinction between urban uses inside the
Fort Collins GMA and rural uses outside the GMA is no longer valid. Initially,the
land uses east of I-25 depicted a transition from high intensity urban uses
(commercial and employment) adjacent to I-25, to urban estate residential
(maximum of 2 units/acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (1 unit/2.29
acres) outside the GMA.
b. The land uses adopted in the recent Land Use Plan amendment to the Timnath
Comprehensive Plan have changed the vision for the area east of the Fort Collins
GMA from rural residential to higher density residential uses and urban types of
employment and commercial land uses.
2. The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA create the need for Fort Collins to
reconsider the land uses on the Structure Plan map.
3. The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA will have impacts(largely unknown at this
time)on the City of Fort Collins' land uses,economy,infrastructure,and public services and
facilities.
November 27, 2007 Page 4
a. The City's plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context of what
is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, and
regionally, along the I25 corridor.
4. Fort Collins should analyze the possibility of expanding its GMA further to the east since
the land use pattern proposed by the Town of Timnath significantly changes the City's initial
(rural)vision for the area. If more urban types of land uses will develop in the area,the City
is perhaps in a better position to provide urban services through annexation, which would
require an expanded GMA boundary.
5. The Prospect/I-25 interchange was previously identified in the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an
"activity center."
6. The rezoning includes changing 19 acres from Urban Estate to E,Employment;and 20 acres
of I, Industrial to E, Employment, for a total of 39 acres of E, Employment. The current
Urban Estate zoning is not feasible from a marketing/quality of life standpoint;it is unlikely
anyone will choose to build an estate home so near the interstate and adjacent to commercial
uses. The employment rezoning of this area makes sense; provides a better buffer to the
existing estate subdivision; and adds too our inventory of employment land. The existing
residents preferred the employment zoning.
7. Part of the reason for enlarging the C zoning in the northeast quadrant is to devote about 20
acres of land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. Portions of the
property currently zoned C, Commercial will be "lost' to floodplain and/or storm drainage
management areas. Hence,the proposed zoning, enlarging the commercial zoned property,
is partially in response to this.
8. The loss of commercial zoning, about 25 acres in the southwest corner of the Prospect/I-25
interchange needs to be compensated for by increasing the amount of commercial zoning in
the northeast comer.
a. The amount of commercial zoning should maximize the capability of providing
sufficient ground to locate a regional/community shopping center at the northeast
corner.
9. The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of
economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that the interchange
maximize the ability for the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses.
10. Rezoning Question: Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the
development of a regional/community scale shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I-25 interchange?
a. The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an
expanded role in the City's economic development strategies.
November 27, 2007 Page 5
Economic Development
Fundamental economic development issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast
corner are:
1. Recognition that sales tax revenues are vital to the City's economic (budget)health.
2. Fort Collins'position as a regional retail trade center is weakening;regional shopping patters
are shifting rapidly as new centers become operational; because of its central location and
ease of access,the I-25 corridor is quickly becoming the primary shopping street in northern
Colorado.
3. Regional/community shopping centers are key contributors to City sales tax revenue.
a. The competition for retail sales tax dollars is significantly different now than in
previous years. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado
market, undeveloped regional/community retail commercial sites need to be
provided in desirable locations.
b. The downtown, the Foothills Mall, Harmony Road, and South College Avenue are
typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations to contribute
sale tax revenues. With such a limited supply of sites suitable for the development
of regional/community serving retail uses, interstate interchanges need to be raised
to share a similar importance in order for the City to maintain a leading role as an
important economic center for Northern Colorado.
4. A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate
future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years
an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is anticipated. Ifthe Citywishes
to capture any of this increased retail space(and its related sales tax)the City needs to move
quickly and aggressively.
5. There are limited opportunities to locate new regional/community shopping centers in Fort
Collins' GMA;the"preferred"sites,from a market standpoint,are in/near the I-25 corridor.
6. The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA) and the City have little/no funds to aid in the reconstruction of the Prospect/I-25
interchange, a key transportation entryway, and related street improvements.
a. It was previously not anticipated that the responsibility for improving the Prospcct/I-
25 interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners
using public/private partnerships. The reality is that for the past ten years or more,
interstate interchanges throughout Colorado have been built/improved through a
combination of private and local funding sources.
November 27, 2007 Page 6
b. A regional/community shopping center the northeast quadrant will help contribute
tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/I-25 interchange improvements and
related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, development from
all four quadrants around the interchange will need to contribute funding to improve
the interchange.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Background Information
2A. Recommended Changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan
2B. Recommended Changes to the City Plan Structure Plan Map
3. Draft Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
4. Northwest Corner Rezoning Map
5. Power Point Presentation
• ATTACHMENT 1
BACKGROUND
1. The Site:
The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: C, Commercial and LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, undeveloped
E: County FA-1, Farming, Kitchell Estates, large lot residential subdivision, and UE,
Urban Estate, undeveloped 100 acre parcel owned by the Poudre School District
S: C, Commercial, and County Commercial,partially developed retail and office
uses
W: C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 235 acre Galatia
Annexation in 1990 and zoned HB, Highway Business, IP, Planned Industrial, and RLP,
Low Density Planned Residential Districts. All of the zoning districts had a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning condition attached which required development proposals to
be reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS)
which was the City's PUD ordinance at the time.
• In 1997, the 235 acres of the Galatia Annexation were rezoned as part of the City Plan
comprehensive community rezoning. The 30 acres of HB, Highway Business was
rezoned C, Commercial; the 86 acres of IP, Planned Industrial was rezoned I, Industrial;
and the 119 acres of RLP, Low Density Planned Residential was rezoned UE, Urban
Estate. The HB, IP, and RLP Districts were eliminated'from the Land Use Code in 1997.
No parcels were rezoned as a result of adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan in 2003.
Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre
School District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields
and school bus storage.
2. City Plan and the 1-25 Subarea Plan
In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The
Structure Plan map showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four
quadrants immediately adjacent to the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange; Employment
District designations for other areas in the NE, SW, and SE quadrants; Low Density
Mixed-Use Residential designation in the NW quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and
Stream Corridors designation for other areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan
map also identified the need for additional planning in the I-25 corridor and designated
the area as the "I-25 Special Study Corridor." In addition, City Plan's chapter on
• Principles and Policies contained the following:
1
PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the
adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's
citywide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
Policy LU4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as
priority for future subarea planning:
• I-25 Corridor
Concurrent with the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi jurisdictional
cooperative planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-
25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped. The regional
plan studied the I-25 corridor from County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the
Town of Berthoud,while the subarea plan studied the area from County Road 52 to
County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The most significant difference between the two
plans is that the subarea plan dealt with land uses in more detail than the regional plan.
The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the participating jurisdictions.
The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a transportation
element, and open lands/natural areas policies. The Northern Colorado Regional
Communities I-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the City in November 2001.
In 2003, the City adopted the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key
points, conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows:
• The I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25
from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road
52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east.
• No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed.
• Two activity centers were identified, one at the Mulberry Street
interchange and the other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE
quadrant of the Mulberry interchange was planned for the potential
location of a regional/community shopping center. The NE quadrant of the
Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with
commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
• Employment and industrial districts adjacent to I-25 are to be designed in
a manner as to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
• Secondary uses (retail and highway-oriented commercial uses)typically
permitted in employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back
at least '/a mile from I-25 to avoid a commercial strip appearance along I-
25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within '/.
mile of I-25.
• Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within %2
mile of Mulberry Street.
• The balance of areas planned for residential development are to be urban
estate developments.
2
• • The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
• The subarea is planned to eventually be served with multi-modal
transportation options. A supplemental street system will facilitate
movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the need to utilize I-25 for
short trips.
• Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to
development.
3. Land Use Code:
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division
2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty(640) acres of
land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding
• and including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether
to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including,but
not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife,
vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
a logical and orderly development pattern.
NE CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION:
The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning
requests:
•
3
• The Prospect/ I-25 interchange was constructed in 1966. Since its construction,
traffic volumes have increased significantly and the interchange structure has
deteriorated.
• A recent North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)team analysis of the
interchange indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTLY
experiencing a failing Level of Service (LOS) quality F (failure).
• Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic
volume for the interchange in the next 20 years.
• North I-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate Right-of-Way
(ROW) to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and
improvements to the on/off ramps and safety lanes. As a result, any reconstruction
of the Prospect interchange must accommodate a wider footprint. The current
interchange ROW will not accommodate this widening.
• Cost estimates/projections for the interchange and Prospect Road improvements
are substantial:
o The projection for the interchange itself is $25,000,000.00 (excluding
ROW acquisition costs).
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect Road. west of interchange is
$3,000,000.
o Prospect Road east of the interchange to County Road 5 is $1,700,000 to
$2,300,000 (excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation
of Timnath inlet canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection).
o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1,000,000 to
1,300,000 (similar exclusions).
o The total, thus, ranges from $30,700,000 to $31,600,000, at a minimum.
• Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of
this interchange and related street improvements.
• A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
requirement for the new CSU R&D center in the SW quadrant as well as for the
property owner's anticipated project or other developments on the interchange
comers. A new interchange will serve as a"Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by
the University. If the City wishes to have this interchange constructed anytime in
the near future, it will likely need to be funded by a public/private financing
vehicle.
• The 1-25 Subarea Plan and the current Overall Development Plan (ODP)on the
property were developed prior to the current interchange cost projections and
proposed land use changes on the City-owned property becoming available.
Clearly such magnitude of interchange constructions costs and such land use
changes could not have been anticipated.
• Gene Andrist, a financial planner involved with the financing of many
interchanges and other major projects throughout the state, has developed a
number of funding scenarios for public/private financing of the interchange.
Increased levels of retail space at the interchange comers appears to be the key to
provide increased revenue sources to the City to pay for interchange and related
improvements.
4
• • A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to
evaluate future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over
the next few years an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is
anticipated. The City is in a very competitive market with the Towns of Timnath,
Windsor and Wellington for this retail space. If the City wishes to capture any of
this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City needs to move
quickly and aggressively.
The property owners (the Whites) have been very involved is a series of planning related
studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor.
Listed below is a summary of their involvement:
BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE
• Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the
representative for a group of private property owners.
• Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado
Water Conservation Board) who EQUALLY funded the stormwater masterplan.
• Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)
which provided overall direction to the Alliance's efforts. The TAC:
• o Prepared the Scope of Work for the engineering consultant,
o Selected the engineering consultant,
o Provided ongoing direction to/coordination with the selected consultant
o Reviewed/commented on work products,
o Held monthly public meetings to discuss progress,
o Participated in weekly/biweekly meetings to complete tasks for the
Alliance,
o Reviewed/commented on final Regional Master Plan,
o Participated in Alliance presentations to Alliance members and town
councils.
• Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC).
o FAC was formed to ensure financial feasibility to the engineering options.
o Independently funded legal consultant to the FAC.
o The FAC:
■ Completed funding analyses of the Master Plan alternatives,
■ Researched project financing options,
• Completed damages & consequences assessments,
■ Developed Funding/Implementation Strategy for final Master Plan,
• • Coordinated with TAC in developing a recommended alternative.
• Prepared list of property owners in vicinity of I-25/Prospect (400 names) for
public notices.
5
• Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues.
• Coordinated with Alliance members including: Larimer County, Town of
Wellington, the City, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor,North Poudre
Irrigation Company, Boxelder Sanitation Distirict, New Cache la Poudre
Irrigation Company, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department
of Transportation and others.
NORTH I-25 EIS
• Attended North I-25 EIS Technical Advisory Committee meetings (usually
was the only member of the public in attendance).
• Participated in all local(Group 7)meetings.
• Organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of I-25/Prospect and
advised them of interchange issues.
• Met regularly with City Transportation staff as well as CDOT and Felsburg
Holt Ullevig., consultants on the North I-25 EIS project.
• With City Transportation staff and other property owners, influenced the
proposed alignment and details of the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the
advantage of City.
• Facilitated meetings between North I-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Stormwater
Alliance to resolve mutual issues.
• Researched and resolved historic preservation issue with North I-25 EIS team.
PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
• Organized group of local property owners concerning issues pertaining to
future Prospect Road improvements.
• Coordinated regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff.
• Facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Timnath Engineer,
and local property owners to address future improvements to Prospect before
they became problems. These issues included:
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of I-25,
o Greeley Water Extension&Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of
Prospect,
o Boxelder Sanitation District sewer crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin
Lane,
o Relocation of Timnath Inlet canal to allow future widening of
Prospect,
o Prospect/County Road 5 intersection issues,
6
• o Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the
Grand Canal).
o With Town of Timnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation
Company, Poudre Valley School District and a local developer,
developed cross section profile of future Prospect ROW which is in
use today.
GREELEY WATER EXTENSION &TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET)
Background: Greeley's GWET project is a 60"diameter waterline delivering water
from their pre-treatment plant NW of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal
configuration, the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2
feet of gravel and covered with at least 60"of soil making the total depth of their
pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet. The sheer size of this project
makes it important to anticipate related issues in advance of the project's
construction. The 2007 segment of this project included a crossing of Prospect Road
at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of I-25 at a location north of Prospect and completion
to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark. The I-25 crossing is particularly
complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek
• crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as various other
utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another.
• The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives
from Greeley, Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering
and Stormwater Departments, the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder
Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected landowners, and others to
discuss details of the project.
• Arranged to have GWET representatives attend several Boxelder Alliance
TAC meetings to coordinate the particularly tight and complex I-25 crossing
as well as other mutual issues.
• Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GMA
developers to discuss project alignment to minimize impacts to properties in
vicinity of Timnath.
• Worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding
crossing of the GWET project across the District's and White's properties.
• The 2007 segment of the GWET pipeline is nearing completion.
• 4. Amendments to the Structure Plan mao and the I-25 Subarea Plan
7
The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets
forth a basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve
over the next 20 years. The 1-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides
greater detail and policies for the I-25 corridor. For the SW comer, the maps in these
existing plans currently designate the 25 acre parcel as commercial and the 118 acre
parcel as open space. For the NE comer, the maps in these existing plans currently
designate 30 acres as commercial, 86 acres as industrial, and 19 acres as urban estate (not
including the 100 acres owned by the Poudre School District) in the NE quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I-25 interchange.
To recommend approval of the rezoning proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning
Board have to find that: 1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and 2)the
proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision,
goals,principles, and policies of City Plan. The applicable criteria are contained in
Appendix C of City Plan.
Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments:
Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice,review
process and evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure
Plan map amendments. The Plan text states:
"A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings
that:
The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed
amendment; and
The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be
consistent with the vision, goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the
elements thereof."
To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary.
Listed below are the statements,policies, and maps which need to be amended within the
1-25 Subarea Plan.
Analysis Based on Rezoning Review Criteria
How the rezoning requests address the requirements in the City's Land Use Code are
summarized below:
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
8
• As indicated earlier, staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25
interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the SW quadrant, and
the private property owner, for the NE quadrant, to determine what would be the best
land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent
of the specific rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the
rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are
approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan
amendments. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to allow additional
commercial and employment land uses to develop in the NE quadrant of the Prospect
Road/I-25 interchange. It is becoming more apparent that I-25 is not a logical urban edge
to the community. The importance of the I-25 corridor to the economic development of
Northern Colorado can be viewed all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath,
Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character of areas east of I-25 from the rural,
low density residential areas envisioned in both the initial City Plan of 1997, and the
2004 update, to urban types of uses. In staffs opinion, the City's plans need to be
changed to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's
Growth Management Area(GMA)boundary.
In City Plan, one of the stated community goals is:
Fort Collins will maintain its role as a regional economic center.
• The downtown, the Foothills Mall, and South College Avenue are typically the areas
cited as the most important retail shopping locations to help achieve this goal. Staff
believes that interstate interchanges need to be elevated to share a similar importance.
Principle ECON-2 states:
Economic Sustainability: The City will strive to develop an economy which will
be self-sustaining within the limits of its GMA.
Policy ECON-2.2 states:
Fort Collins will be a leader in developing an economy which continues to
"develop"within its GMA.
The NE comer of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange is within the City's GMA
boundary. The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for
an expanded role in the City's economic development strategies.
Policy GM-4.2 states:
Capital Improvement Policy. The City will continue to operate under the
• following Capital Improvement Policies:
9
e. The City will use a variety of different funding sources to fund capital
projects with an emphasis on the "Pay-as-you-go"philosophy.
One of the NE applicant's stated justifications for the plan amendments and rezoning is to
provide a land use basis for the ability to generate sufficient tax revenues from the
development of parcels around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchanges to cover the costs of
necessary infrastructure improvements, including the major expense of reconstructing the
Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. This would be consistent with the pay-as-you-go
philosophy.
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
There are several changed conditions that help justify the plan amendments and rezoning
request.
When the I-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003, it was assumed that the necessary
improvements to the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange would be funded by the Colorado
Department of Transportation(CDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) since it was part of the federal/state highway system. It was not anticipated that
the responsibility for improving the interchange would fall on local governments and/or
adjacent property owners using public/private partnerships. The plan amendments and
rezoning request will help address this changed condition whereby local revenues will
need to be created in order to finance interchange improvements.
The competition for retail sales tax dollars is also significantly different now in 2007 than
it was in 2003. hi order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado
market,undeveloped retail commercial sites in desirable locations need to be provided.
The City is lacking in areas to attract regional/community scale retail establishments.
Interstate interchanges are the type of desirable sites for such regional serving retail uses.
Land use plans by other jurisdictions,particularly the Town of Timnath, are changing the
character of areas east of I-25 from the rural, low density residential, areas shown on the
City's plans, to more intense urban uses. In June 2007, the Timnath Town Board
approved an amendment to Timnath's Land Use Plan which extended Timnath's Growth
Management Area(GMA)boundary north of Timnath to County Road 52 (the northern
boundary of the A-B brewery). The Timnath Land Use Plan also intensified the
residential densities and land uses in the area to include commercial and employment
uses. This is a significant change of conditions that affects areas within the Fort Collins
GMA boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to decrease in
intensity from employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban
residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of I-25
are beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of 1-25. Even the 100 acres of
UE zoned property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields
and school bus storage are not low intensity, rural types of land uses.
10
• In addition to the above, Section 2.9.4[H][3] provides factors that may be considered
along with the mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. Staff has prepared a
response to each of the additional factors, demonstrating how the optional criteria could
also be met:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate
zone district for the land;
The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for
the NE comer. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from
the C, Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and
east. The E, Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial
District for the property to the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix
of commercial and employment uses. And again, the regulations contained in the Land
Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the I-25 corridor designed in a
manner to maintain openness through the use of: setback requirements, maximum
building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of
floodplains.
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
• significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including,but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management,wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
Staff s perspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E,
Employment District at the NE corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Again, development applications will be subject to the City's
development standards relative to natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and
landscape design. Part of the reason for enlarging the C, Commercial zoning in the NE
quadrant was to devote land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain.
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
The Prospect Road/I-25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community
gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It
is logical that such an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available
for the development of a mix of commercial and employment types of uses. The City's
development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in
place to assure an orderly development pattern.
• FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
11
After reviewing the East Prospect Road and I-25 rezonings and amendments to the I--25
Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, staff makes the following findings
of fact and conclusions as explained in detail above:
1. The request for amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map would be consistent with the City Plan's overall vision, goals, principles,
and policies.
2. The rezoning requests are consistent with City Plan,the City's Comprehensive Plan,
based on the Structure Plan map amendment and amendments to the I-25 Subarea
Plan.
3. The proposed C, Commercial District and E, Employment District are appropriate for
the NE corner and will help provide tax revenues necessary to cover local funding
required to improve the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as well as other infrastructure
improvements.
4. The proposed rezonings will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
5. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City
Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C,
Commercial and 20 acres of E, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE,
Urban Estate to E, Employment. to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C,
Commercial zoned area(a total of 96 acres) and residential areas to the north and east.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular monthly meeting on September 20,
2007,voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested
rezonings.
12
• ATTACHMENT 2A
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Beletiefis Additions for the Change
Page vi The undeveloped land in the
NE quadrant of the I-25 and
Executive Summary: Mulberry Street interchange
initially planned for the
Two activity centers are Two activity centers are potential location of a
identified for the subarea, identified fee in the subarea regional/community
one at the I-25/Mulberry for the potential location of shopping center is
Street interchange and the regional/community approximately 50 acres in
other at the I-25/Prospect shopping centers, one at the size. Adding 66 acres of
Road interchange. The I-25/Mulber y Street commercial zoned land to
northeast quadrant of the I- interchange and the other at the existing 30 acres at the
25/Mulber y Street the I-25/Prospect Road NE quadrant of the Prospect
interchange is also planned interchange. The neFtkeast Road and I-25 interchange
for the potential location of quadr-ant efthe 1 would make a 96 acre
a regional/community 2SFr„ °� met parcel large enough for a
shopping center. iffteE ned regional or community
for the potential leeatien e shopping center. However,
• all 96 acres are not totally
shopping eentee. developable due to 20 acres
of site constraints, including
the Boxelder Creek
floodplain. Therefore, the
total developable size of the
commercial area would be
76 acres, or about the size
of the Foothills Mall
property.
The need for additional
undeveloped commercial
land in the City is critical
for the community to
provide alternative locations
for retail development in
Northern Colorado.
Interstate interchanges are a
logical location for
regionally serving retail
development.
•
13
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies,Maps Deletion Additions for the Change
Page 21 With the rezoning of 25
acres of commercial zoning
5.2 Land Use Plan to employment zoning in
Objectives the SW quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I-25
Designation of Activity Designation of Activity interchange and the relative
Centers. This plan Centers. This plan lack of commercial zoning
designates activity centers designates activity centers in the community as a
along I-25 at the Prospect along I-25 at the Prospect whole, it is important to
Road and Mulberry Street Road and Mulberry Street maintain a significant
interchanges. These centers interchanges. These centers amount of commercial
are intended to evolve into are intended to evolve into zoning at the Prospect/I-25
concentrated areas of concentrated areas of interchange. Basically,
mixed-use development mixed-use development transferring 25 acres of
with high visibility, with high visibility, Commercial zoning from
increased levels of activity, increased levels of activity, the SW quadrant to the 30
and more integrated and more integrated acres of Commercial zoning
appearances. In addition, appearances. In addition, in the NE quadrant is a
the northeast quadrant of start. However, due to
the I-25/Mulberry the 1 25 lbem development constraints in
interchange is planned as a irAerehange is Plamed as " the NE quadrant, such as
potential location for a and also the potential land needed to
regional/community locations fora accommodate the Boxelder
shopping center. regional/community floodway, etc., which
shopping centers. requires about 20 acres,
additional land is necessary
to be designated for
commercial development
above the simple addition of
25 acres from the SW
quadrant. A total of 96
acres of commercial zoning
is requested and should be
sufficiently large enough
for a regional/community
shopping center.
14
Existing Amendments Justification
Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiens Additions for the Change
Page 26 The map amendments will
graphically depict the
Fort Collins I-25 Subarea wording changes being
Plan—Land Use Plan made in the I-25 Subarea
Plan.
Existing map. The map will be amended
to delete 86 acres of
Industrial designated land
and 19 acres of Urban
Estate land in the NE
quadrant and to show about
66 acres of additional
Commercial land and 20
acres of Employment land
in the NE quadrant of the
Prospect/I-25 interchange.
Also, the Activity Centers
• boundary around the
Commercial Corridor
designated land in the NE
quadrant will be expanded
to cover all 96 acres of
commercial designated
land.
Page 26 The map amendments will
also graphically depict the
Fort Collins I-25 Subarea proposed zoning changes to
Plan—Zoning Plan show 96 total acres of the
C, Commercial District and
Existing map. The map will be amended 39 acres of the E,
to delete 86 acres of I, Employment District in the
Industrial zoning and 19 NE.
acres of Urban Estate
zoning to show about 66
additional acres of C,
Commercial zoning and 20
acres of E, Employment
zoning the NE quadrant of
the Prospect/I-25
• interchange adjacent to the
highway.
15
ATTACHMENT 2 B
Below is a summary of the recommended change to the City Plan Structure Plan map.
Justification
Existing Map Amendment for the Change
Existing map (see attached The map will also be The map amendments will
map). amended to delete 86 acres graphically depict the map's
of Industrial District land consistency to the
and 19 acres of Urban amendments being made in
Estate land to show about the I-25 Subarea Plan.
96 acres of Commercial
Corridor land and 39 acres
of Employment District
land located in the NE
quadrant of the ProspectJI-
25 interchange adjacent to
the highway.
16
• ATTACHMENT
Planning and Zoning Board Mirute,�
Council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W)223-1820
Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: 491-2579
Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, Wetzler
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Stanford,Waldo, Stokes, and Sanchez-Sprague
Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note—
Item#4, Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development
Plan, #14-07 is continued from the August meeting. Also, staff recommends Item#7, East Skyway
Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 be continued until the October 18, 2007 meeting.
Citizen participation:
None
• Chair Lingle ask members of the audience or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the
consent agenda. A member of the audience asked that Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning,
#25-07 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Collinwood North Major Amendment, #24-07 Zoning, #21-07
Discussion Items:
3. Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, #25-07
4. Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development
Plan, #14-07
5. Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments
6. Northeast Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments
Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda,which Includes Minutes from
the August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Collinwood North Major
Amendment, #24-07 Zoning,#21-07. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
•
Planning &Zoning B
September O, 20077oard DRAFT
Page 4
Meeting to continue oast 11 o.m.
Member Wetzler made a motion to continue the meeting until all time-sensitive agenda items
were completed. Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
The following two projects were considered together
Project: Southwest Corner of East Prospect and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments, #4-04A
Project Description: SW—This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map, and rezone property located at the southwest corner of
East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning
will change commercial and open space lands to an employment district
designation.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands (POL)to Employment(E).
Project: Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments,#16-07
Project Description: This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map, and rezone property located at the northeast corner of East Prospect
Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning will change
industrial and urban estate space lands to commercial and employment district
designations.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of
C, Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from
UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer
between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential
areas to the north and east.
i
• September 20, 20077oard DRAFT
Page 5
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ken Waido reported staff is recommending changes to the /-25 Subarea Plan and the
City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143.34 acres located in the southwest comer of
East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the E, Employment District.
In the northeast corner, staff is recommending approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan
and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, industrial to 66 acres of C,
Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E,
Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96
acres) and residential areas to the north and east.
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchanged is based on:
1. City Council direction indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level of
"commercial" use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located in the
SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange. Staff has concluded that rezoning a
substantial portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment(for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment)would
encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as an
• attractive community gateway and would be in the best interests of the City.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the NE
quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 Interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of
I, Industrial.
Staff decided to review the land uses around the interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from
the City and the private property owner to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the
area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests.
The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the
amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to
the plan amendments.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the southwest rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zonings changed to covert an area currently preserved as open space to an area
that will permit the development of employment land uses in the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-
25 interchange?
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in this northeast rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale
shopping center in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange? A regional/community
shopping center in the NE quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect
Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the high infrastructure cost to
development from all four quadrants around the interchange, this property will need to contribute
funding to improve the interchange.
The rezoning needs to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect interchange must include a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the
development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical
improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction,
planning &Zoning
September 20, 2008oard DRAFT
Page 6
er build the improvement or have funding appropriated that will cover
all development must eith
improvement costs.
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land
Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map
involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640)acres of land or less(a quasi-
judicial by the)C city shall
Councl only if he pro for
posed amendment tfsnning and Zoning Board or
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including
the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings.proposed amendment,ithe Plannl inning
and Zoning Board and
recommend approval of any suchuch p prop p
City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district
for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air,
noise, stormwater management,wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning
of the environment; proposed amendment would result in a logical and
(c) whether and the extent to which the prop
orderly development pattern.
Interstate 25 Subarea Plan
pConcurrent
lanning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communititheeevelopment of the 1-25 Subarea Plan,was a s 1-25 Colrridor Plan.r The
planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the 1-25 cc idor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Townenter Road The most the sign plan studied
the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32(Carp
ce
een the two ans is that te ubarea plan (adopted in November 2001)dealt with land uses detail than the regional plans The regional plan wasbased on exist In
g and use plans of the
more
participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a
atural areas policies.
transportation element, and open landsln
In 2003,the City adopted the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points,
conclusions, and policies of the 1-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows:
The 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around the
Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County
Road 5 on the east. was proposed.
No change in the City's GMA boundary
Two activity centers were identified: one at the Mulberry Street Interchange and the
other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange
• Septem�20, 20 Board DRAFT
Page 7
was planned for the potential location of a regionallcommunity shopping center. The
NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center
with commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
• Employment and industrial districts adjacent to 1-25 are to be designed in a manner as
to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
• Secondary uses (retail and highway-oriented commercial uses)typically permitted in
employmentfindustrial districts will be required to be set back at least%mile from 1-25
to avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within %mile of 1-25.
• Low density, mixed-use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within Y2 mile of
Mulberry Street.
• The balance of areas planned for residential development were to be urban estate
developments.
• The City's Resource Recovery Farm Is to be preserved as open space.
• The subarea eventually would be served with multi-modal transportation options. A
supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus,
diminishing the need to utilize 1-25 for short trips.
Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development.
Regulations contained in the Land Use Code both applicable to the 1-25 corridor and more generally
throughout the community are intended to have employmentrindustrial districts designed in a manner
• to maintain openness through the use of: setback requirements, maximum building frontage
allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of floodpiains. Minimum building
setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of 1-25. Maximum building frontage allowance
is 50% at the 80 foot minimum setback from the property line, which can be expanded to 60% at an
increased setback of 120 feet. Building heights are restricted to 40 feet within 600 feet from the
property line adjoining 1-25.
The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic
development and open space preservation. it is logical the interchange maximize the ability for the
development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. Changes in the surrounding
neighborhood warrant consideration. Land use plans by other jurisdictions are changing the character
of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low-density residential, areas to more intense urban uses.
Interchanges are desirable sites for regional serving retail uses. Competition for sales tax dollars is
different in 2007.
The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place
to assure an orderly development pattern. Prospect interchange will not be funded by CDOT or
FHWA. Local revenue sources must be found for interchange improvements.
Staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and
the following rezoning:
• 143.34 acres located in the southwest comer of East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the
E, Employment District.
• In the northeast of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 E,
Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to
• create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres)
and residential areas to the north and east.
Chair Lingle asked Natural Resources Director John Stokes to outline the natural resource value of
that land. Member Schmidt also asked if there would be enough buffering of the Boxelder Creek.
Planning &Zoning Board DRAFT
September 20, 2007
Page B
Stokes provided the following background information. The Natural Resources Department's Natural
Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery Farm(RRF) as a scenic and open
lands buffer in 2003. At the time of purchase, the eastern portion of the RRF was not described as an
area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various
community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the eastern portion was not shown in these
plans, and because it has low natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a
planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status.
In August of 2005,the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF property with
the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council indicated its general preference for
a higher level of"commercial" use for the property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural
Resources Department staff concludes that rezoning
onwould be in substantial
the best ion of interests ofthe Cityproperty are acres)
from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment
retaining a buffer around Boxelder Creek.
The rezoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same
time, it would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves aesthetically pleasing
vie w as ell
ngettnd values
tleo Elder Creek
and the Running DeerNat al Area). The rezoning BoxelderCreekliwil remain
POL.
owners
have been
e r Involved is aorris l series of planning g related s the tudies/projects s/p ojeRcts for the interchange,reported they
have been very
surrounding area, and along the 1-25 corridor.
Listed below is a summary of their involvement:
Boxelder Creek Regional Storm water Alliance. They've served from the inception of the
Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners
including Conservation Board,who equallyown of funded theington, Larimer County,storm water masterplan.and the Colorado Water
The Whites attended North 1.25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Advisory Committee
meetings.They've organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of I-25/Prospect and
advised them of interchange issues. They met regularly with City Transportation staff as well
as CDOT and consultants on the North 1-25 EIS project. With City Transportation staff and
other property owners,they've influenced the proposed alignment and details of the
Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of the City. They facilitated meetings between
North 1-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Storm water Alliance to resolve mutual issues. They
researched and resolved historic preservation issues with the North 1-25 EIS team.
Prospect Road improvements. The Smiths organized a group of local property owners
concerned about issues pertaining to future Prospect Road improvements. They coordinated
regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff. They facilitated series of
public/private meetings with the City,Town of Timnath Engineer, and local property owners to
address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems. These issues
included : Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of 1-25, Greeley Water Extension &
Transmission Project (GWET)crossing of Prospect, Boxelder Sanitation District sewer
crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, Relocation of the Timnath Inlet canal to allow future
widening of Prospect, Prospect/County Road 5 intersection issues, Boxelder Creek
stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect(the Grand Canal).With the Town of Timnath,
• Planning
September 20, 2gOBoard DRAFT
Page 9
former City Engineer Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley
School District and a local developer, they developed a cross section profile of future Prospect
ROW which is in use today.
Greeley Water Extension &Transmission Project(GWET)
GWET is a 60"diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant NW of Fort
Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration,the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on
top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60"of soil making the total
depth of their pipeline excavation and backfilI approximately 12 feet. The 2007 segment of this
project included a crossing of Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of 1-25 at a
location north of Prospect and completion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark.
The 1-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings,
the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as
various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another.
The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley,
Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the
Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected
landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. They worked closely with Poudre
Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's
and White's properties.
• Public Input
None
Member Schmidt noted on the SW side employment zoning is proposed rather than commercial
because of the buffering needed for the Boxelder Ditch. On the other side of the interchange it
appears there would be more commercial. Staffmember Waldo replied yes, with the loss of
commercial on the west side, they looked to the east for increased commercial zoning. That came
after working with stakeholders who agreed that commercial with employment buffering would be
preferred.
Member Schmidt asked it this would not continue to be an activity center? Waldo responded we
would also amend our activity center boundary to coincide with the outside periphery of the
commercial zone. There would need to be a commercial mass to produce the revenue needed to
improve the infrastructure (including funding for the interchange.)
Member Schmidt said she is in support of the changes, the main reason being the changes driven by
the Town of Timnath. With the increase in the intensity of use, it would be an appropriate thing to
provide services in the interchange area—connect the whole region with good land use patterns.
Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages 8.12 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
• Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
southwest corner of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7.0.
Planning &Zoning Board DRAFT
September 20, 2007
Page 10
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands (POL)to Employment(E) on the southwest corner of East
Prospect and 1-25,# 04-04A. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt asked if staff was comfortable with the reduction of 1-Industrial land inventory.
Staffmember Waido responded yes.
Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages 13-16 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
northeast corner of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Rollins seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt wanted to thank the applicant for taking the time to meet with the neighbors to
consider their concerns and for working with affected interests on the water issues and creek
mitigation.
Membning of the
east corner
East
and -25 as listed dt made a on page 19tion to approve of the staff report.oMember Wetzlerhseconded the Prospect
motion.
Motion was approved 7.0.
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Cameron Gloss, Director David Lingle, Chair
i
W
!n W
e r D
a.
P
W w ow
a
LU
p
p J
Z S =
= W N $
O �
N
■� O s
C V �a W Es �
N W J iio
= L
La
L
c
_ Z J •
W
tm
12
Aj
W mow =
Z
A
ATTACHMENT 5
November 20, 2007
City Council Work Session
NE Prospect/1-25 Interchange
Rezonings
Prospect Interchange Rezonings
lu
4404A SW Comer of p" 91w NEComeraf "A
1.25 S Prospect Road Rezoning /; 1.25 6 Prospect Road Rezoning /1
r.....r.�. e.<re.m.eu.w
1
SW Corner Rezoning
Approved by the City Council 10/16/2007
s k
•40,4 SW ca Ora A •4-01A SWcamer a• F25 S Proapa Road Running /y 425 S Prm t Road Rssaning A
NE Corner Rezoning
• From: 86 acres of I, Industrial
• To: 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 acres
of E, Employment, and
• From: 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate
• To: 19 acres of E, Employment
• Result:
— 96 acres of C, Commercial, and
. — 39 acres of E, Employment
2
NE Corner Rezoning
Existing and Proposed Zoning
i
`F
9
0641 NE Comer of N 01647 NE Comm of N'
1.25 6 Prospect Read Razonlnq 1.25&Pmpeet Road Rezoning A
..we..nz..p
Fundamental Policy Issue
• NE Corner Rezoning
- Should City plans be amended and zoning
changed to allow for the development of a
regional and community scale shopping center
and employment land uses?
3
Land Use Code
Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi-Judicial (<640 acres) Rezonings
— (a) consistent with City Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
and / or
— (b) warranted by jchanged conditions
within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
2004 Structure Plan
• The City Plan - ,
Structure Plan maps
and the policies of
City Plan form the
basis for judging -
rezoning requests. r
4
1-25 Subarea Plan
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan
• The 1-25 Subarea Plan
is an element of City
Plan and contains
more specific land use
policies and provides
development decision
making guidance for
the areas along the 1-25
corridor.
1-25 Subarea Plan
Major Policies
• No change to the GMA boundary.
• Two activity centers: Mulberry and Prospect
interchanges. NE quadrant of Mulberry planned
for the potential location of a regional/community
shopping center.
• Employment districts adjacent to 1-25 to be
designed to maintain a perception of openness
through the corridor.
• The Resource Recovery Farm to be preserved as
open space.
5
Prospect Road / 1-25 Interchange
• The 1-25 Subarea Plan
shows the interchange
as a commercial (red)
activity center (dotted _
line) with employment
(purple) and industrial
(pink) areas, urban
residential (bright
yellow) and rural '
residential (light yellow) ---
with natural areas and ,��,
• stream corridors (green).
Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi-Judiciial Rezonings.
• (a) consistent with City
Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
• To support the requested
rezonings, amendments
to existing plans are
necessary.
• Neither the SW nor the
NE rezoning requests are
consistent with exiting r:
• adopted plans.
6
Recommendation for NE Corner
Change the Land Use Plans and
Zoning Designations as Requested
91647 NE Comar of N p1647 NE Comar of n
1.25 Q Prospeet Road Razaning A 1.25&Prospect Road RazoMnq
Prospectl1-25 Activity Center
• The Prospectl1-25 interchange was
previously identified in the 1-25 Subarea
Plan as an "activity center."
• The rezoning request increases the size
of the activity center (from 30 to 96
acres) and adds to its importance in the
community's economic development
strategies.
Prospect Interchange Rezonings
• Mandatory Requirements for
Quasi-Judicial Rezonings.
— (b) warranted by changed conditions
within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
•
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
• Competition for sales tax dollars is different
in 2007 than it was earlier in the decade.
• Interstate interchanges are desirable sites
for regional serving retail uses.
• There are limited opportunities within the
GMA for new regional serving retail uses.
8
Limited Opportunities
• Mountain Vista
- 72 acres
• NE Mulberry/1-25
- 47 acres
• NE Prospect/1-25
- 96 acres (with rezoning)
• SW Carpenter/1-25
- 109 acres
• Foothills Mall/Square
- 130 acres (redevelopment)
�MGY •W N
Limited Opportunities
With such a limited supply of sites
suitable for the development of
regional serving retail uses,
interstate interchanges need to be
raised in importance in order for the
City to maintain a leading role as an
important economic center for
Northern Colorado.
9
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
• Land use plans by other jurisdictions
are changing the character of areas
east of 1-25 from the rural, low density
residential areas, as envisioned in City
plans, to more intense urban uses.
2004 City Structure Plan
o The Structure Plan map east of .:
the Fort Collins GMA shows
Rural Land Use(brown)to make
a clear distinction between urban
uses inside the GMA and rural
uses outside the GMA
o Land uses east of 1-25 depicted a
transition from high intensity
urban uses (commercial and r,
employment) adjacent to 1-25, to
urban estate residential
(maximum of 2 units/acre) inside
the GMA, to rural residential
uses (1 unit/219 acres)outside
• the GMA.
Tf
2005 Timnath Land Use Plan
• The Town of Timnath's
2005 Land Use Plan,
adopted one year after ) - ,
the 2004 update to City ! _L
Plan showed basically
the same type of land E •-
uses east of the Fort
Collins GMA. —
_ B
Land Use Plans Comparison
Showing Same Land Uses f
0
cif
—
For,Coifins- ^' i
T'MmM
sa�arnmr
i
11
2007 Timnath Land Use Plan
• In 2007 Timnath
amended its Land use
Plan changing the
character of areas east ��
of the GMA: ;
— added urban commercial _ *__
and employment uses V _
AM
— increased residential '
densities
— extended urban uses G
north to County Road 52
— eliminated the Fort
Collins/Timnath
community separator -- - -- —
Timnath Land Use Plan Comparison
Showing Significant Change of Character for
Areas East of the GMA
Ir r
r-
•
12
Structure Plan / Timnath Plan
• Compilation map Fort C Land Use
se
showing Structure --
Plan land uses within (1
the GMA and Timnath
Land Use Plan uses l�► ,
outside the GMA. +�
• East of GMA shows '
employment (purple), w,
commercial (red) and
non-rural residential
densities (gold).
Implications of Other Plans
• Recognition that I-25 is no longer an eastern
urban edge of the community as previously
contained in the City Plan vision.
• City plans need to be reconsidered to
address the new regional context of what is
happening beyond the City's GMA
boundary, and regionally along the 1-25
corridor.
13
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
• Prospect interchange will not likely be
funded by CDOT or FHWA.
• Local revenue sources must be found
for interchange improvements.
Additional Considerations for
Quasi-Judicial Rezonings.
• (a) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land, and is the appropriate zone district for the
land;
• (b) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment;
• (c) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
• pattern.
14
(a) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land, and is the appropriate zone district for
the land;
• Areas to the N, S, and W are designated for
a mix of commercial and employment uses.
• The E District will provide a transition from
the C District to the residential properties to
the N and E.
(a) whether the proposed amendment is
compatible with uses surrounding the subject
land, and is the appropriate zone district for
the land;
• Regulations in the LUC are intended to have
employment districts along the 1-25 corridor
designed to maintain openness through:
— Increased setback requirements,
— maximum building frontage allowances,
— restricting building heights, and
— proper management of floodplains.
15
(b) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment;
• Development in the C and E Districts would
have no adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
• Development applications will be subject to
the City's development standards relative
to:
— natural habitat,
— energy conservation,
— stormwater, and
— landscape design.
•
(b) whether the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment;
• Part of the reason for enlarging the C
zoning in the NE was to devote land
(about 20 acres) to the proper
management of the Boxelder Creek
floodplain.
16
(c) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
pattern.
• The Prospect interchange represents a key
community gateway, combining a balance of
economic development and open space
preservation.
• It is logical that the interchange maximize
the ability for the development of a mix of
commercial and employment uses.
(c) whether the proposed amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development
pattern.
• The City's development standards will
require adequate public utilities and
infrastructure to be in place to assure
an orderly development pattern.
17
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -)
I 724 - 86 (NE)
638 Total
•
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -)
+143 (SW)
E 710
+39 NE
892 Total
18
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Vacant Acres
Zone Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -)
-25 (SW)
c 447
+66 NE
488 Total
Staff and PU Board
Recommend Approval
IT -
i
ft. ' $;
pi 6.0. RtE Comor of Rof
b]5 d Prospect Road Raxeninp � Y
wmmwmy
19
•
Work Session Question
to be Answered:
Is there any additional information the
City Council would like to receive
regarding the proposed rezonings
before hearing the rezonings at the
December 4 regular meeting?
s
20