HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/07/2017 - ITEMS RELATING TO GATEWAY AT PROSPECT PLAN AMENDMEAgenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Gateway at Prospect Plan Amendment to the City Structure Plan Map and Rezoning of Two
Parcels.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2017-009 Amending the City’s Structure Plan Map.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2017, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Gateway at
Prospect Rezoning and Making Corresponding Changes to the Sign District Map.
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in
accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures
adopted in Resolution 2015-091.
These items are related to a development application being submitted for an Overall Development Plan (ODP)
on a parcel of vacant land located at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. The purpose of
these items is twofold: first to amend the City’s Structure Plan map (which is a component of the City’s
comprehensive plan) to change two land use designations applicable to the site; and second to rezone the
site.
The Structure Plan amendment proposes to change the existing land use designations applicable to the site to
promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of the City Plan and
the elements thereof by reflecting land uses consistent with changed conditions within the neighborhoods
surrounding and including the site.
The rezoning proposes to change the existing zoning of the entire 22.43-acre site, which includes 12.40 acres
of land currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and 10.03 acres of land currently zoned
E, Employment. The proposed rezoning amends the zoning map for the entire site to M-M-N, Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District.
Both the rezoning and the ODP are designed to facilitate a future multi-family development project on the
subject 22.43 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the amended ODP). While multi-family is a permitted use
in the L-M-N zone district, it is capped at 12 dwelling units per gross acre, 12 units per building and 14,000
square feet per building. The applicant seeks to develop a project that exceeds these parameters. While
multi-family is also a permitted use in the E zone district, and not restricted by the L-M-N metrics, the applicant
has voluntarily requested a down-zoning to M-M-N in order to create a unified development parcel with
singular, unified zoning.
The request to rezone the two subject parcels complies with the standards and criteria of Land Use Code
Section 2.9(H). In addition, and in compliance with Section 2.9(I), staff is recommending seven conditions of
approval to ensure that all aspects of the future multi-family development measures up to the principles and
policies of City Plan.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
On January 12, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval to City
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N County, R, Residential (Sunrise Acres)
S E, Employment (Colorado Welcome Center and Colorado State University Research Foundation-
owned parcel)
E C-G, General Commercial (Vacant)
E I, Industrial (Vacant)
W County R, Residential and FA, Farming (Boxelder Estates and other County Residential Parcels)
The property was included in the City’s Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate
Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business (157
acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for
development be processed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System.
In 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner:
C, Commercial (44.7 acres)
E, Employment (104 acres)
L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres);
U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer (21 acres).
This rezoning was part of a citywide rezoning to implement the City’s new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and
the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the PUD system.
About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the ODP to the
Cooper Slough Association/Boxelder Estates HOA for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between
100 and 125 feet for a length of about 1,880 feet and contains approximately 4.7 acres. This conveyance
essentially precludes any street connection between the ODP and Boxelder Estates.
Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market
conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase
the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres.
In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone
districts in the following manner:
U-E, Urban Estate (21 acres);
L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (68.6 acres);
E, Employment (60.9 acres);
C-G, General Commercial (26.9 acres).
Interstate Land First Filing PUD for a Harley Davidson dealership was approved in 1996 and consisted of a
26,000 square foot building on a four-acre lot located along the Southwest Frontage Road.
In summary, since annexation in 1989, the parcel has been rezoned three times in 28 years.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
1. Structure Plan Map Amendment
City Plan allows amendments to the Structure Plan Map to be processed concurrently with rezoning
applications. In conjunction with the more detailed analysis regarding the rezoning request, staff finds that
amendment to the Structure Plan Map satisfies the requirement that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the
elements thereof.
2. Summary of the Review Criteria for Rezoning of Parcels Less Than 640 Acres Per Section 2.9 of the
Land Use Code:
Per Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code, any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of
640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial versus legislative) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning
and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is:
Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or
Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
property.
Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial):
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;
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern.
3. Section 2.9(H)(2)(a) - Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
The request to upzone 12.4 acres from L-M-N to M-M-N and downzone 8.4 acres from E to M-M-N is
supported by the following City Plan Principles and Policies:
A. “Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability - Economy: A mix of housing options
throughout the community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near
places of work or other activity centers.” (Page 47.)
The request to rezone the subject parcels to M-M-N would add a housing type, multi-family, to the mix of
housing options in this area of the City at development parameters that exceed L-M-N metrics. The nearest
multi-family development is located 1.2 miles to the southwest. Multi-family housing is envisioned to be in
close proximity to major employment areas and the subject parcels are located near existing and future
workplaces in the following manner:
Existing - Prospect East Business Park (1.05 miles to the west)
Existing - Seven Lakes Business Park (.9 mile to the west)
Future C-G, General Commercial (adjoining)
Future I, Industrial (.5 mile to the east)
Future E, Employment (adjoining)
Multi-family housing is one of 33 permitted uses in the M-M-N zone district. In order to ensure that rezoning
the subject parcels to M-M-N results in actual development of multi-family housing in furtherance of the City
Plan policy, and not one of the other permitted non-residential land uses, staff recommends the following
condition of approval:
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
Condition Number One: Development on the subject 21.98 acres shall be limited to multi-family
dwellings.
B. “Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability - Environment: Emphasis on
redevelopment, infill, historic preservation, and high-efficiency housing and buildings also helps to
divert waste and conserve water, energy and other environmental resources. Lastly, a compact
development pattern and transportation options help reduce carbon emissions, reduce impacts on
climate change, and improved air quality. (Page 47)
In terms of utilization of public services and land consumption, multi-family housing is efficient and promotes
compact urban growth. In addition, Prospect Road is designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor, which
means it will be served by transit in the future which offers an option in mobility.
C. “Growth Management Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined
boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of Growth Management
Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements.” (Page 49)
The subject site has been annexed into the City for 28 years. The site does not represent an urban edge
condition, nor is I-25 considered a hard edge, as the City’s eastern boundary extends east to CR 5, a distance
of greater than one mile. The City’s boundary and Growth Management Area have been established in
conjunction with Larimer County and the Town of Timnath through a series of jointly adopted Agreements.
While the site may appear to be disconnected from the urban area, this is due to the Poudre River floodplain,
and three natural areas (Riverbend Ponds, Cottonwood Hollow and Running Deer). The areas that are not
protected are zoned for urban levels of intensity. (See the City Zoning Map attached.) For example:
East of I-25: C-G, General Commercial (15 acres) and I, Industrial (117 acres)
South of Prospect: E, Employment (143 acres)
Development of the subject site, and the larger Gateway at Prospect ODP, represents sound growth
management practice within existing City limits, within the GMA and in fulfillment of City Plan.
D. “Principal LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public
facilities and services concurrent with development.” (Page 50-51)
The site is capable of being served with water and sanitary sewer by the East Larimer County Water and the
Boxelder Sanitation Districts. Electricity and natural gas can be extended to serve the site. Widening Prospect
Road to the arterial standard will be accomplished by multiple established mechanisms that ensure growth
shall pay its own way. This includes improving the development’s direct frontage and any off-site
improvements as may be necessary to mitigate the project’s impacts and achieve the City’s adopted levels of
service.
E. “Housing - Principal LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be
available throughout the Growth Management Area.” (Page 59)
Multi-family housing has been identified as a critical component in the City’s mix of housing on a citywide
basis. For decades, the historic split between single family and multi-family housing has held at a consistent
60%/40% ratio. City Plan reinforces long-standing policies that multi-family housing must be widely distributed
and not concentrated around the Downtown or the CSU campus. (Land Use Policies Plan, 1979; City Plan,
1997, 2011.)
F. “Housing - Policy LIV 7.1: Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Locations. Encourage a
variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-served by
public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities.” (Page
59)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 5
Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will allow multi-family development within the 177-acre Gateway at
Prospect ODP, thus enriching the mix of housing. Currently, there is no M-M-N zoning within a radius of
greater than one mile. The subject parcels are within close proximity to land zoned for employment, industrial
shopping and services. Amenities include the active and passive outdoor recreation offered by Riverbend
Ponds, Cottonwood Hollow and Running Deer natural areas and the future regional trail along Boxelder Creek.
G. “City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies - Focus on a Compact Development Pattern:
Growth within the City will be focused to promote a compact development pattern by directing
urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The
compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural
lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing
urban areas.” (Page 66)
Gateway at Prospect ODP is not sprawl or leapfrog development. The 177 acres are annexed, zoned and not
at the edge of the Growth Management Area. The development pattern is expected to provide three key
objectives:
Clustering the allowable density in the Urban Estate zone district will result in open space and provide
a land use transition along the western and northern edges;
Compact development and urban character will be placed on the parcels zoned L-M-N, C-G, I, and the
prospective M-M-N;
Natural resource protection will be provided along Boxelder Creek.
As noted, surrounding zoning is mixed ranging from Urban Estate to Industrial. I-25 adjoins the ODP to the
east. Since multi-family housing is expected to be distributed to all portions of the GMA, and contribute to the
vision for a compact development pattern, the rezoning fulfills the principles and policies of the Structure Plan
Map.
H. “City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies - Provide an Interconnected Transit System: An
expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map. The
system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major arterials and
Enhanced Travel Corridors. Feeder transit lines will provide connections from all major districts
within the city. The City’s compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient
transit service possible.” (Page 66)
Prospect Road is designated on the Structure Plan Map as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. The density gained
by multi-family housing will help support transit as an alternative mode of travel.
I. “Components of City Structure Plan Map - Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the
primary building blocks of the community’s built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and
connected and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within
walking distance such as schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, and places of work and civic
uses.” (Page 68)
Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will enrich the mix of housing types. At the master plan level, Gateway
at Prospect includes a public neighborhood park, regional trail, future shopping and employment opportunities.
J. “Principle LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure,
connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic
facilities and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or a Community Commercial District.” (Page 73)
As noted, the vision for Gateway at Prospect ODP is to build on the success of other large-scale master-
planned neighborhoods such as Rigden Farm, Oak Ridge, Miramont, The Landings, Sidehill/Bucking Horse
and the like. All of these mixed-use neighborhoods include multi-family housing at typical M-M-N densities.
With 177 acres, the goal is to create a neighborhood with a variety of housing types, a neighborhood park, a
regional trail and a commercial area. Multi-family housing will contribute to fulfilling these policies in a manner
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 6
that is customary to the City’s established development pattern.
K. “Principle LIV 22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity
and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting
community.” (Page 74)
Multi-family housing on 22.43 acres of a 177-acre ODP will add housing diversity and help create a mixed-use
neighborhood.
L. “Policy LIV 22.1: Vary Housing Models and Types. Provide variation in house models and types in
large development, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes,
increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of a standardized subdivision.” (Page 74)
Adding M-M-N zoning to the Gateway at Prospect ODP will contribute to the mix of housing types and options
within a large, unified development. Streetscapes will include buildings facing streets with front doors and
connecting walkways to avoid the appearance of a standardized subdivision. Per Section 3.8.30(F)(2) -
Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings - Variation Among Buildings, projects containing more than five
buildings must provide at least three distinctly different building designs (excluding clubhouse). In order to
ensure compliance with this City Plan policy, and to ensure the elimination of the appearance of standardized
land development, staff recommends the following condition of approval:
Condition Number Two: Multi-family development on the subject 22.43 acres (also designated as
Parcel J on the Amended O.D.P.) must include four distinctly different building designs as defined
by the Section 3.8.30(F)(2) - Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings - Variation Among
Buildings.
M. “Policy LIV 22.2: Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design. Design smaller multi-family
buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically associated with single family
detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include orientation of the front door to a
neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space, adequate parking and
storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security.” (Page 74)
As mentioned, Gateway at Prospect ODP will include public streets, a public neighborhood park, a regional
trail, a commercial center and employment uses. South of Prospect Road there are 143 acres zoned
Employment and east of I-25 there are 132 acres zoned C-G and I. The proposed multi-family component will
include buildings that front on public streets with individual street-facing ground floor units featuring their own
entrance and connecting walkways to the maximum extent feasible. The multi-family dwellings will be within
approximately one-quarter of a mile of the future public neighborhood park, a future commercial center and
adjacent to the proposed Boxelder Creek Regional Trail.
Staff finds that the multi-family component, as proposed, would be integrated into the larger neighborhood in a
town-like pattern unlike a prototypical apartment complex with series of inward-facing buildings served by
common breezeway entrances and perimeter parking lots. M-M-N zoning would contribute to supporting
commercial uses that would serve the larger neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is found to conform to the
basic design characteristics and amenities of the M-M-N zone. In order to ensure that any subsequent PDP
comply with these basic design characteristics, staff recommends the following condition of approval:
Condition Number Three: Multi-family development on the 22.43 acres that are the subject of the
rezoning, must be designed with a framework of streets (public or private) and that buildings are
oriented to these streets to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, street-facing ground floor
units must include each unit having an individual entrance. Further, such street-facing units must
include a front porch or stoop that is connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not
possible to orient a building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian
connectivity standards of Section 3.5.2(D) - Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 7
A. “Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods - Purpose: …are intended to be setting for a diverse
mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services,
employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other
moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character.
Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create
an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are
intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a
centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual
transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will be
further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets
and blocks.” (Page 80)
The prototypical arrangement of M-M-N zoning on a city-wide basis is that such zones are generally located
between N-C, Neighborhood Commercial or C-C, Community Commercial and L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood. This hierarchy places the commercial properties along the arterial streets, bounded by M-M-N,
which in turn is then bounded by L-M-N.
As proposed, the subject 22.43 acres are bounded by the following:
North: L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (55.6 acres)
South: East Prospect Road (500 linear feet of frontage)
East: C-G, Commercial (27 acres)
West: County Residential
While the proposed rezoning arrangement does not perfectly comply with the prototypical relationship among
the three zones, all three zones are represented, and concentrated M-M-N housing is in close proximity to
transit, commercial services and employment. In addition, the proposed M-M-N parcel is within easy walking
or biking distance to the future public neighborhood park and the proposed regional bike trail. Finally, the three
zone districts are all part of the ODP and will function together by virtue of a connected pattern of streets and
blocks.
A. “Principal LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium density housing types,
providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community
Commercial or Employment district.” (Page 80.)
As noted, the subject parcels include 22.43 acres which are located between the lower density existing County
subdivision to the west and the L-M-N parcels within the ODP and the parcels zoned C-G, General
Commercial and E, Employment per the Gateway at Prospect ODP.
The proposed M-M-N zone would adjoin County Residential zoning. There are eight abutting properties.
Initially, from strictly a zoning perspective, this juxtaposition may seem abrupt but distances between the
existing houses to the west and the subject site are significant. (The applicant has prepared an illustrative map
showing these separations.) The land development standards in Article Three of the Land Use Code are
specifically intended to ensure that new development is of high quality, and that impacts are identified and
mitigated in order to achieve compatibility.
The applicant has included, for information purposes, a conceptual site plan indicating a multi-family project
that shows up to 276 dwelling units. Distributed over 22.43 acres, the average residential density would be
12.30 dwelling units per gross acre. This slightly exceeds the required minimum density of 12.00 d.u./ac. for
parcels greater than 20 acres in the M-M-N zone.
(For comparison purposes, it is interesting to note that in the L-M-N zone, a single phase is allowed to be
developed multi-family dwelling units up to a maximum of 12.00 d.u./ac. but only as long as the overall project
does not exceed 9.00 du/ac., there are no more than 12 units per building and no more than 14,000 square
feet per building.)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 8
In order to ensure that future multi-family development at this location, under M-M-N zoning, takes its place
within the transitional hierarchy called for in the City Plan policy; staff recommends the following condition of
approval:
Condition Number Four: Multi-family development on the subject 22.43 acres (also designated as
Parcel J on the Amended Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan), shall be capped at 276
dwelling units.
B. “Principal LIV 29-3: Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a
Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily
get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 80)
Access from the proposed M-M-N parcels to the areas zoned General Commercial would be via an east-west
local connector street and the existing north-south Southwest Frontage Road, designated as a collector
roadway, both of which include public sidewalks.
C. “Principal LIV 29-3: Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a
Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily
get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 80)
Access from the proposed M-M-N parcels to the areas zoned General Commercial would be via an east-west
local connector street and the existing north-south Southwest Frontage Road, designated as a collector
roadway, both of which include public sidewalks.
D. Catalyst Project Area: Catalyst areas are viewed as places for ongoing and new public and private
sector initiatives that use a multi-disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing
economic, environmental and social factors in a balanced manner. City Plan focuses on City
actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change. (Page 157)
The Prospect/I-25 Gateway is identified as one of 14 Catalyst Project Areas and is one of three Catalyst Areas
that is not presently zoned to allow multi-family at greater than 12 du/ac. (Portions of the other two areas
include land that is not yet annexed and zoned.) Staff contends that the greater the mix of land uses and
variety housing choices, the greater the potential for creating a critical mass that would position the area for
catalytic change per the vision outlined in City Plan.
4. Section 2.9(H)(2)(b) - Warranted by Changed Conditions Within the Neighborhood Surrounding and
Including the Subject Property
Changes since the last rezoning in 2004:
A commitment by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to widen I-25 to three lanes
between Mulberry Street and Loveland at an estimated cost of $235 million dollars to be constructed
beginning in 2018.
A commitment by the owners of land at the four quadrants of I-25 and Prospect Road to collectively
contribute up to $7 million dollars to widen the I-25/Prospect Road interchange estimated to cost a
total of $28 million dollars. This interchange improvement is not currently a part of the lane widening
project of 2018. If not included in this lane widening, then the interchange improvement would be
delayed until 2035.
A feasibility analysis by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath to collectively contribute up to
$7 million dollars to widen the I-25/Prospect Road interchange.
A commitment by CDOT to match the aforementioned $14 million dollars to construct the interchange
improvement so that the interchange could be improved at the same time as the lane widening project
and benefit from economies of scale.
Improvements by the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority to control flooding along Boxelder
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 9
Creek adjacent to the Gateway at Prospect ODP at an estimated cost of $10.5 million dollars. This will
remove a significant amount of land area outside the floodplain and will be documented by a Letter of
Map Revision by F.E.M.A.
Passage of the Poudre School District Bond Issue which funds the construction of a high school and
middle school campus on the 110-acre parcel north of Prospect Road and east of I-25 at an estimated
cost of $125.5 million dollars.
Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Trails Master Plan which calls for a regional
trail along Boxelder Creek and between the two irrigation ditches within the Gateway at Prospect ODP.
Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Master Plan which calls for a future public
neighborhood park within the Gateway at Prospect ODP.
The conveyance (by trade) of the former (143 acres) City of Fort Collins Sludge Farm, south of
Prospect Road, to Colorado State University Research Foundation, and rezoning the parcel from P-O-
L, Public Open Lands, to E, Employment.
Ratification of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of
Timnath on the boundaries of their respective Growth Management Areas. Based on the Timnath
GMA, existing agricultural land is expected to develop at an urban level of residential density.
As can be seen, there are a number of significant changes within the neighborhood surrounding and including
the subject property over the past 12 years. Staff contends that proposed rezoning is warranted by these
changes.
5. Section 2.9(H)(3)(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 177 acres of Gateway at Prospect ODP are undeveloped. Regarding the various residential parcels to the
west, the applicant has provided an exhibit that illustrates an on-site transitional buffer ranging from 9 to 88
feet, located between the rear property lines of the County parcels to the edge of the future north-south street.
The exhibit also shows the off-site separation between the existing houses to the west to the ODP’s onsite
transitional buffer ranging from 35 to 787 feet. These physical separations are effective in achieving
compatibility. The owner of the nearest house has provided a letter in support of the rezoning and amended
ODP.
In addition, while not a buffer, the future north-south public street will include 76 feet of total right-of-way plus
18 feet of total utility easement (94 feet) which contributes to separation. Finally, there would be on-site design
aspects, such as building setbacks and front yard landscaping on the east side of the future street that will
contribute to overall buffering and separation. Combined, these buffers, distances and setbacks contribute to
buffering and mitigation of any negative impacts.
The proposal to introduce M-M-N zoning, in relationship to Boxelder Estates and other adjacent properties, is
proportional to that of similar relationships found within the City’s Growth Management Area. Due to the
privately-owned buffer, there will be no street connections and thus no traffic impacts. The multi-family
housing can be placed at distances that are equal to or greater than similar land use relationships found
throughout the City.
In addition, compatibility can be achieved by requiring the elements of compatibility to be implemented at the
PDP stage. Consistent with City Plan and existing development patterns, the existence of a County semi-rural,
residential subdivision does not preclude the City from realizing the goals of compact urban form and
opportunities for a variety of housing in all parts of the City.
In order to ensure that any subsequent PDP complies with the applicable compatibility criteria, Staff
recommends the following three conditions of approval:
Condition Number Five: Multi-family development on the subject 21.98 acres must be designed
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 10
such that buildings do not exceed 40 feet in height. Masonry exterior materials must be provided
on the front elevations up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be
located between buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible.
Condition Number Six: A transitional landscape buffer ranging between 9 and 88 feet must be
provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining County parcels and the western
edge of the future north-south collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E.
Prospect Road. Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on the northern
portion, and overall, must include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and other plants,
undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground covers and proper irrigation in order to establish an
effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition.
Condition Number Seven: The multi-family buildings that are placed along the future north-south
street that intersects with Prospect Road must be setback from the property line by no less than 15
feet.
Staff, therefore, finds that the proposed rezoning of the subject 21.98 acres to M-M-N, as conditioned, is
compatible with existing and proposed uses and is the appropriate zone district for the land.
6. Section 2.9(H)(3)(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.
Under current L-M-N zoning, multi-family is permitted but capped at three specific metrics. In addition, there
are over 30 permitted uses ranging from single-family detached to convenience retails stores with fuel sales.
This wide range is intentional and specifically calibrated to create mixed-use neighborhoods as envisioned by
City Plan.
Under current E zoning, multi-family housing is also permitted with no caps on the three aforementioned
metrics. In addition, there are over 67 permitted uses ranging from single family detached to light industrial.
This wide range of uses is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces. Secondary uses are
allowed to support primary uses and to allow residential in close proximity to employment.
Up-zoning 12.40 acres of L-M-N and down-zoning 10.03 acres of E to 22.43 acres of M-M-N would not create
any different impact on natural habitats and features than the impacts associated with the permitted uses in the
underlying zone districts. The wide range of currently permitted uses is roughly comparable to M-M-N
permitted uses, particularly the non-residential commercial uses. The rezoning to M-M-N would not result in
significant adverse impact on the stated criteria.
7. Section 2.9(H)(3)(c) - Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in a
Logical and Orderly Development Pattern.
The current zoning around the four quadrants of the I-25/Prospect Road interchange is as follows:
Northwest (Vacant - Gateway at Prospect O.D.P.):
C-G, General Commercial 27 acres
E, Employment 60 acres
L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 68 acres
U-E, Urban Estate 22 acres
Southwest (Vacant - CSURF):
E, Employment 143 acres
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 11
Southeast (Vacant - Paradigm Properties):
C-G, General Commercial 17 acres
Northeast (Vacant - White Brothers):
C-G, General Commercial 15 acres
I, Industrial 117 acres
Total: 469 acres
As can be seen, there is no M-M-N zoning within the four quadrants of the interchange covering a total of 469
acres. In contrast, a square mile section is 640 acres and defined by section line roads typically classified as
arterial streets. On a city-wide basis, with the exception of natural areas, it is rare to find such a large area as
469 acres that does not include either M-M-N zoning, or comparable multi-family housing developed under
different zoning or under prior law. Allowing M-M-N on the subject site would result in creating opportunities to
locate housing in close proximity to a variety of potential workplaces. Further, such M-M-N zoning would be
the only such zone within a 1.5 mile radius.
Staff finds that this arrangement of zoning would also result in a logical and orderly development pattern for
east-central Fort Collins.
In conclusion, the request to rezone two parcels to M-M-N complies with the applicable criteria of City Plan to
amend the Structure Plan Map and Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial or economic impacts resulting from the Structure Plan Map amendment and the
rezoning request that would be any different than if the land development occurred under existing zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 12, 2017, at its regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6 – 0) to approve
the Structure Plan Map Amendment and the rezoning of two parcels from L-M-N and E to M-M-N.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Per Section 2.9(B), a neighborhood meeting is not required except that with respect to quasi-judicial map
amendments (rezoning) only, the Director may convene a neighborhood meeting to present and discuss a
proposal of known controversy and/or significant impacts. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 19,
2016. Note that two earlier meetings were held in conjunction with the amended ODP and the Request for an
Addition of Permitted Use. The request for an APU was withdrawn and replaced by a request for rezoning. All
three neighborhood meeting summaries are attached since the issues related to potential multi-family development
are similar whether entitled by an APU or rezoning. One of the results of this public outreach is the
recommendation of seven conditions of approval.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial Vicinity Map (PDF)
2. Proposed Structure Plan Map Amendment (PDF)
3. Existing Zoning (PDF)
4. Proposed Rezoning (PDF)
5. East Prospect Corridor Features Map (PDF)
6. East Prospect Corridor Zoning Map (PDF)
7. Rezoning Map/Legal Descriptions (PDF)
8. City Plan M-M-N Purpose and Policies (PDF)
9. Applicant's Rezone Justification (PDF)
10. Gateway at Prospect Amended ODP (PDF)
11. First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF)
12. Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF)
13. Third Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF)
14. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
EXISTING ZONING ATTACHMENT 3
PROPOSED REZONING ATTACHMENT 4
EAST PROSPECT CORRIDOR FEATURES MAP ATTACHMENT 5
EAST PROSPECT CORRIDOR ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 1
December 14, 2016
Gateway at Prospect
Justification of Rezoning Request
Ownership
The owner of Gateway at Prospect (“Gateway”) is Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner, LLC (“FCIC”),
a 14 member group that acquired the Gateway property in 2013 for investment purposes.
The Property
Gateway is the 177-acre property located at the northwest corner of I-25 and Prospect Road.
Recent History
Gateway was previously owned by a Great Britain based investment group called Western VII
Investments LLC, which called the property “Interstate Land.” It was annexed to the City and zoned
in April 1989. It has been rezoned twice since, most recently in April 2000. An Overall Development
Plan (“ODP”) was approved in 2004.
Adjacent Properties
In addition to Gateway at the northwest corner, the other properties at the corners of Prospect and I-
25 are:
Southwest Corner: 142-acre tract owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation
(“CSURF”). The property is annexed to the City and zoned for employment and commercial
development. Its proposed use is for a high-tech campus to house spin-offs from CSU and other
R&D uses.
Northeast Corner: 129.4 acres owned by Rudolph Farms. The property is annexed and zoned
for commercial development. Its proposed uses include retail, industrial, assisted living facilities
and a church.
Southeast Corner: 17.4 acres owned by Paradigm. The property is annexed and zoned for
commercial development. Proposed uses are the permitted commercial uses, and would include
retail, restaurants, fast food and office/warehouse.
Additional properties surrounding Gateway
To the South, the Colorado Welcome Center owned by Colorado State University, a CDOT rest
area, a strip owned by the City, and a 12.5-acre tract owned by K and M Company.
To the West, Boxelder Subdivision and Sunrise Acres Subdivision, both older Larimer County
residential subdivisions.
To the North, a fully developed Larimer County industrial park.
In addition to the foregoing, the 110 acre Poudre School District site is just east of the Northeast
Corner, on the north side of Prospect Road, and is planned for a Senior High/Middle School and
associated athletics fields. Construction of the school was approved as part of the recent $375
Million Poudre School District Bond Issue.
Page 2
Request For Rezone
This is a request to rezone approximately 12.4 acres of LMN (Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods) district and approximately 8.4 acres of E (Employment) district land at Gateway at
Prospect (a total of 20.8 acres) to MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods). The purpose
of the rezoning is to allow for an increased level of residential intensity, for an already permitted use
within both of the existing zone districts. The MMN parcel would provide a more gradual transition in
development intensity and use between lower density development to the west and higher intensity
development proposed to the east. The MMN zone district also allows for the opportunity to provide
more diversity in housing product within the City.
There are several other neighborhoods in Fort Collins that have MMN zoning situated in a similar way
to what is proposed at Gateway at Prospect including:
a) Carpenter and College Ave
b) Harmony and College Ave
c) Harmony and Boardwalk
d) Harmony and Lemay
e) Timberline and Zephyr
f) College and Crestridge
g) Harmony and Shields
h) Horsetooth and Shields
i) Drake and Shields
j) Prospect and Shields
k) Prospect and Overland
l) Taft Hill and Elizabeth
m) Shields and Elizabeth
n) College and Willox
o) Vine and Timberline
p) Mulberry and Greenfield
q) Timberline and Drake
r) Timberline and Horsetooth
The MMN at Gateway at Prospect, as proposed, would be the only MMN property in the I-
25/Gateway district, as it is not zoned in any of the other quadrants of the interchange.
1. Text Amendments and Legislative Zonings or Rezonings. Amendments to the text of this Code,
and amendments to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six hundred
forty (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters committed to the legislative discretion
of the City Council, and decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one (1) factor.
The proposed area for rezoning is less than six hundred forty (640) acres of land.
2. Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or 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's Comprehensive Plan; and/or
The rezone to MMN (Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) at Gateway at Prospect meets the
intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and City Plan which is a component of the Comprehensive
Plan in the following ways:
1. Introduction – Community and Neighborhood Livability
a. Defining how neighborhoods will accommodate future population and lifestyle shifts.
Page 3
2. Introduction – Urban design and Historic Preservation
a. Defining gateways that help distinguish Fort Collins from surrounding communities.
3. Introduction – Housing
a. Serving the housing needs of many diverse groups and changing demographics.
b. Providing high-performing housing for all income groups.
3. Community and Neighborhood Livability Vision
a. A compact pattern of development within a well-defined community boundary.
b. Cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe and attractive neighborhoods
c. Quality and accessible housing options for all household types and income levels.
d. Distinctive and attractive community image, design, and identity.
4. Community and Neighborhood Livability
a. Overview: …By increasing the overall average density of the city, the community’s
neighborhoods will foster efficient land use, support a mix of housing types, increase
efficiency of public utilities, streets, facilities, and services, and accommodate multiple mode
of travel (including vehicle, bus, bike and walking).
b. Supporting land uses are to be brought together in a development pattern designed to create
a pleasant environment for walking and bicycling as well as automobile and transit travel.
c. Activity centers generally correspond to Commercial Districts identified on the City Structure
Plan Map and are intended to be vibrant, walkable, bicycle friendly, transit-supportive places
that contain a mix of housing, employment, retail, culture, arts and dining.
d. Earlier versions of City Plan also envisioned a community with a wide variety of housing
types (including single-family houses, duplexes, townhomes, apartment, and condos/lofts) –
ideas which are carried forward in this chapter of the 2010 City Plan so that people from all
income levels may have choices of affordable and quality housing in diverse neighborhoods
throughout the community.
e. Finally, the earlier versions of City Plan introduced the introduced the City Structure Plan Map
to guide ongoing growth and evolution of the community. It translates the overall vision for
our built environment into a map with four basic kinds of components that make up the
physical form and development pattern of the city: Neighborhoods, Districts, Edges, and
Corridors. These components are structured around the following key themes:
- Focus on a Compact Development Pattern
- Provide an interconnected Transit System
- Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel
- Provide Transit-Oriented Activity Centers
- Provide an Interconnected System of Open Lands
- Reduce Carbon Emissions
5. Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability
a. The economic, environmental and human aspects of the City’s sustainability relate to
community and neighborhood livability in the following ways:
b. Economy: A mix of land uses (housing, retail, employment, etc.) provides opportunities to
grow and diversity the economy throughout the community and for citizens to meet their retail
an services needs in a variety of locations. A mix of housing options throughout the
community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near places of work
or other activity centers.
c. Human: Community and neighborhood livability is related to human well-being in that a mix of
land uses and housing and transportation options provide opportunities for citizens to be self-
sufficient and to live, work, and travel within the community.
6. Subarea Plans
a. Prospect Road Streetscape Plan
Page 4
7. Housing – Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be
available throughout the Growth Management Area.
a. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations:
Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed use developments that
are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping,
services, and amenities.
b. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop and Adequate Supply of Housing:
Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and
maintain and adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing.
8. City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies
a. Focus on a Compact Development Pattern
Growth within the city will be focused to promote a compact development pattern, by directing
urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The
compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and
rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of
existing urban areas.
b. Provide an Interconnected Transit System
An expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map.
The system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major arterials and
Enhanced Travel Corridors (including Prospect Road). Feeder Transit lines will provide
connections from all major districts within the city. The City’s compact form will help make
comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible.
c. Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel
The City’s form and structure will facilitate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, as well as cars
and trucks. New development will be organized and woven into a compact pattern that is
conducive to automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit travel.
d. Components of the City Plan Structure Plan Map
Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks of the community’s
built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and connected, and will include a mix of
housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within walking distance such as
schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, places of work and civic uses.
e. Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types
Provide variation in house models and types in large developments, along with variations in
lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and
eliminate the appearance of standardized subdivision.
f. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design
Design smaller multi-family buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically
associated with single-family detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include
orientation of the front door to a neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private
outdoor space, adequate parking and storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security.
g. Policy LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Building Variation
Offer variation among individual buildings within multi- building projects, yet stay within a
coordinated overall “design theme. Achieve variation among buildings through a combination
of different footprints, facade treatment, roof forms, entrance features, and, in specialized
cases, building orientation. Avoid monotonous complexes of identical buildings, although
there may be ways to achieve visual interest among substantially identical buildings with a
high degree of articulation on each building, combined with variation in massing on the site.
9. MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN)
a. Purpose: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a
diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit,
commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may
also contain other moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale
and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be
configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed-
Page 5
Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial
District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium
Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods
and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks.
b. Policy LIV 29.2 – Mix of Uses
Include other neighborhood-serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual
mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods may
include the following:
Principal uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (under 6,000 square feet),
duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live-work units, and multi-
family housing.
Supporting uses: Non-retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks
and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses
with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed-and-
breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units
stacked above retail or office space; and live- work units. Home occupations are permitted
provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not
consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood.
c. Policy LIV 29.3 – Neighborhood or Community Commercial District
Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood
Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily
get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.
d. Policy LIV 29.4 – Mix of Housing Types
Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood’s
transitional, higher- activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood
and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate
low- and medium-cost housing with higher-cost housing and non-residential uses.
e. Policy LIV 29.5 – Transitions
Encourage non-residential uses and larger buildings of attached and multiple-family housing
near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached
houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods.
10. Enhanced Travel Corridors
a. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit- supportive development along Enhanced
Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix
of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating
efficient automobile use.
11. Longer Term Action Item
a. Gateway Design Standards (including Prospect Road)
b. Prospect Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan
12. Catalyst Project Areas
a. During the Plan Fort Collins process project team members, City Council, and the public
identified areas throughout the city that have the potential to “showcase” opportunities to
embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. Through a
combination of public and private actions that complement and build upon one another, these
areas have the potential for lasting, desirable change. Catalyst areas are viewed as places
for ongoing and new public and private sector initiatives that use a multi-disciplinary and triple
bottom line approach, addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced
manner. While each area requires City and private sector engagement, City Plan focuses on
City actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change.
The intent of this section of City Plan is to identify these areas as those that are positioned for
catalytic change, and to use several case studies as examples to illustrate how change might
Page 6
occur in a synergistic manner. The timing and pace of activity in these areas will ultimately be
determined by market forces, community interest, and City and private sector investment.
There are multiple areas and projects that can be viewed as Catalyst Project Areas
throughout the City. The planning team initially identified 12 areas, and others may surface as
the plan is implemented over time:
Prospect/I-25 Gateway
b. warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
There has been significant change in character of this property since it was originally zoned.
These changes include:
1. Boxelder Floodplain:
Over the course of the last 16 years, dramatic development has occurred at all the
intersections of I-25 from Loveland (Hwy 34 and Crossroads) to Fort Collins (Hwy 392,
Harmony Road and Mulberry) except one – the I-25 and Prospect intersection. The
primary cause of this isolation is the Boxelder Floodplain.
Boxelder Creek starts north of Ft. Collins and flows down the east side of I-25 until it
reaches the north end of Gateway, where it crosses under I-25 onto Gateway. It passes
through Gateway and crosses under Prospect Road at the south end of Gateway. Prior
to remediation work being completed, it passed under I-25 through 2 culverts (there are 4
culverts under I-25, but two have been blocked), and under Prospect Road through one
culvert. The small size of the culverts caused the highway and road to act as a dam in a
100 year storm event, causing flooding of the northeast and southwest corners of I-25
and Prospect, hundreds of acres in Timnath, and the portions of Gateway adjacent to
Prospect. As a consequence, no development could take place on these lands.
During 2016, the Boxelder Stormwater Authority (Ft. Collins, Wellington and Larimer
County) and Timnath contributed $10,851,588 Million dollars to remediate the floodplain
caused by Boxelder Creek. Among other improvements, the two closed culverts under I-
25 were opened, and the City closed Prospect Road for June, July and August in order to
install 7 culverts under Prospect Road. The remediation work removed from the
floodplain all of the property located in Timnath, all of the northeast and southwest
corners of the I-25 at Prospect Road intersection, and the portion of Gateway adjacent to
Prospect, making all of that property available for development.
The engineers for the City and the Boxelder Stormwater Authority have submitted the “as
built” data to FEMA and are awaiting the issuance of a Letter Of Map Revision
(“LOMAR”) to formally remove the floodplain. The LOMAR will allow development to take
place on all the properties formerly in the flood plain.
2. Prospect and I-25 Interchange improvements:
At a cost of approximately $235 Million, the Colorado Department of Transportation
(“CDOT”) plans to expand I-25 to 3 lanes on each side from Mulberry to Loveland.
CDOT proposes to accomplish this through a “Design-Build” process in which CDOT
prepares the engineering work up to a 30% level and sends it out to contractors to
complete the engineering work and bid on the construction. The Design-Build bid is
planned to be sent to contractors in January, 2017. The original bid proposal did not
include any intersection construction.
FCIC and the three other owners of the other I-25 and Prospect Road corners (together,
the “Prospect Interchange Task Force”, or “PTIF Group”) contacted the City and CDOT
this past September, in hopes of persuading CDOT to include a new intersection
(including a new 7 lane overpass bridge, on and off ramps and expansion of Prospect in
the vicinity of the interchange) at Prospect Road (the “Prospect Intersection”) in the
Design-Bid process. The objective was to accelerate the construction of the intersection
from 2035 or beyond, to 2018.
Page 7
CDOT responded by indicating that the Prospect Intersection was estimated to cost $28
Million, and that CDOT could be willing to include it in the Design Build bid if the City and
private parties would come up with half the cost, $14 Million, split $7,000,000 each from
the PTIF Group and from the City.
Construction of an improved intersection is critically important to the City and CDOT. The
intersection is currently reaching its capacity, and has significant traffic issues. The City
Plan and the Transportation Plan both identify the Prospect Road interchange as the
“Gateway” to the City, and deem it to be a “Catalyst Project “, critical to future of the City.
After many meetings and significant efforts by all parties, The City Council, on November
25, 2016, adopted a resolution to include the Prospect Intersection in “CDOT’s North I-25
Improvement Project” through cooperative public-private funding. FCIC and the rest of
the PTIF Group have agreed to provide up to $7,000,000 for the project. And finally,
CDOT has agreed to include the project in its Design Build bid.
It is anticipated that construction of the North I-25 Improvement Project, including the
Prospect Interchange, will commence in January, 2018.
3. Floodplain Weir:
As part of the Boxelder floodplain remediation construction, the City requested that FCIC
convey to the City an exclusive easement of a 2.7-acre site fronting on Prospect Road for
the construction of a “weir” (a ditch) to carry overflow water from Boxelder Creek to the 5
culverts to be built under Prospect Road. At no cost to the City, FCIC conveyed the
easement requested to the City. The weir consumes 2.7 acres of Gateway’s property,
eliminates 110 feet of Gateway’s frontage along Prospect Road and eliminates 110 feet
from the east side of the Gateway tract on which FCIC had hoped to sell for multifamily
development.
4. CSURF:
Until 2007, when CSURF acquired its 142 acres, the property belonged to the City and
was used as a “sludge farm”. After its acquisition by CSURF, it was zoned for
commercial and employment uses, adding significant potential commercial uses to the
area.
5. Additional ROW for Prospect Road widening:
Also at the request of the City, FCIC has conveyed to the City 27.5 feet of Prospect Road
frontage and granted an additional, parallel, 15-foot easement for utilities for a 42.5-foot
setback from the current Prospect Road right-of-way. The conveyance of the 27.5
frontage was for the future widening of Prospect Road. These conveyances were also
made at no cost to the City.
6. New PSD Middle/High School:
On November 8, 2016, voters in the Poudre School District approved a bond issue of
$375 Million, a portion of which will be used to construct a Middle School /High School
and an associated athletic complex on the District’s 110-acre site ½ mile east of
Gateway. Construction is scheduled to start in 2017. The middle/high school is expected
to cost $125.5 Million and to open in 2020.
7. Dramatic growth and changes in land use in north Timnath:
There has been significant development on the east side of I-25. What was previously
farm land has either developed into residential property or has approvals for future
construction of residential development.
c. 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:
Page 8
1. 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;
Boxelder Estates, a County subdivision with platted lots, is located to the west of
Gateway at Prospect. This neighborhood consists of semi-rural ranchettes which were
platted in the 1960’s. The zoning for the majority of the neighborhood is R – Residential
with a few lots zoned FA-Farming. Streets in this neighborhood are paved and lot sizes
range from 0.41 acres – 5.41 acres. There is an existing strip of land which separates
Boxelder Estates from Gateway at Prospect which is owned by the Boxelder HOA. This
land was purchased approximately 20 years ago, is roughly 110 feet wide and 1,880 feet
long. This land was purchased by the Boxelder HOA, from a former owner of Gateway,
to ensure that street connections could not be made with any future adjacent
development.
There is a significant, existing buffer between the houses in Boxelder Estates that area
located to the west of the proposed MMN parcel. With the exception of one house, all of
the Boxelder Estate houses are currently located 640 feet – 787 feet from the Gateway at
Prospect property boundary. The one house that is closer, is located approximately 35
feet from the Gateway at Prospect property boundary. This property owner has reviewed
the planned development and provided written consent to the proposed development. In
addition to the existing buffer, a transitional landscape buffer is planned which will range
from 9 feet – 88 feet. A North-South collector road is planned adjacent to the transitional
landscape buffer which will have a 76-foot right-of-way. We anticipate some additional
land area on the east side of the collector road, in the form of building setbacks, which
will be determined at the time of PDP/FDP applications. In total, this provides a buffer
that ranges from 110 feet (which includes the nearest house)– 875 feet between
Boxelder Estates houses and the nearest possible building within the multi-family parcel.
The multi-family parcel also serves as a transition between the County subdivision and a
planned high intensity commercial development to the east of both the multi-family parcel
and the Boxelder Creek, and will act as a buffer to the noise associated with I-25. I-25 is
located to the east of the commercial zone district with overall intensity in zoning planned,
per City of Fort Collins zoning maps, increasing as you move from Boxelder Estates to
the east.
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with
surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located
Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in
development intensity and use. This parcel would serve as a transition between the
platted County subdivision to the west and future commercial development to the east.
Multi-family is currently a permitted use in the existing zone district. A change to MMN
zoning will allow for an increased level of residential intensity providing housing more
diversity within the City. The increased intensity of housing works symbiotically to
support adjacent neighborhood commercial development and promote non-auto oriented
development.
2. 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;
We do not anticipate any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The
proposed multi-family development would be arranged in a manner that protects the
adjacent Boxelder Creek. In addition, a regional trail, per the City’s Master Trails Plan, is
Page 9
proposed along the eastern side of the multi-family parcel providing additional buffer
between the natural environments and the residential units.
3. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix
of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial
services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also
contain other moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale
and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will
be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community
Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and
use. Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding
neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks.
This District is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods
(typically the L-M-N zone district) and a central commercial core (typically an N-C or C-C
zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like
pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in
separate zone districts.
The Prospect and I-25 interchange is identified as an enhanced travel corridor per City Plan.
Development within the MMN zone designation would allow for higher intensity, transit-
supportive development. The MMN zone district would encourage the densities and
broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use. It would serve as a setting for concentrated
housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district.
ATTACHMENT 10
1
FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and
Addition of Permitted Use.
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road
DATE: April 21, 2016
APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC
CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group
Nick Haws, Northern Engineering
Matt Delich, Delich and Associates
CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer
Project Description
As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the
northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and
was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned,
from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate.
The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and
development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with
multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in
subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to
develop property in accordance with the plan.
The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family dwellings
with greater than 12 units per building, and with buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet
in size, and on a single phase that exceeds 12.00 dwelling units per acre, to be allowed
on 12.4 acres within the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone. Per the
City’s Land Use Code, multi-family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the
aforementioned parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of
Permitted Use to allow multi-family apartments in buildings that are larger than would
otherwise be permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone.
Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team.
ATTACHMENT 11
2
Questions, Comments, Concerns
1. Could you describe the access point on Prospect Road?
A. This will be a ¾ access, not a full-turning access. This means left turns exiting
the site will not be allowed. Allowable turn movements would include right-in,
right-out, and left-in, but no left-out.
2. So the access point on the Frontage Road will allow for full turning movements?
A. Yes, full access will be allowed at the Frontage Road access point.
3. Can you estimate the total number persons at full build-out?
A. We are not able to provide a precise number at this time as we do not know the
number of houses that may be designed on the single family portion of the site.
The L-M-N zone district requires no less than 4.00 dwelling units per net acre
and no greater than 9.00 per gross acre. Residential development in the
Employment zone must be no less than 7.00 dwelling units per net acre and
there is no density minimum or maximum in the General Commercial zone. For
the proposed multi-family project, at this time, we estimate there would be
approximately 276 units.
4. The proposed apartment project needs the Addition of Permitted Use to allow the
larger buildings both in terms of number of units, size of building and overall
average density for one phase of larger project. Do any other proposed uses
need an Addition of Permitted Use?
A. No, just that portion of the apartment project that is in the L-M-N zone. All other
proposed uses are permitted in their respective zone districts.
5. You mentioned that the L-M-N zone allows for a mix of housing. Could you
describe what types of housing?
A. Yes, the L-M-N allows for single family detached, single family detached – alley
load, single family attached (townhomes), two-family dwellings (duplexes), multi-
family, mixed-use dwellings and mobile home parks. The standard requires that
no one type of housing comprise more than 80% or less than 5% of the total.
6. Will there be a traffic signal at the Prospect Road access drive?
A. No, placing a traffic signal at this point would be too close to the existing signal at
the S.W. Frontage Road. This is one reason why this intersection is limited to ¾
turning movements only.
3
7. Is the Cooper Slough a protected wetland?
A. Please note that the Cooper Slough is not on our property.
8. What are the plans for increased traffic on Prospect Road? I’m concerned about
the new stadium being on Prospect and the game day traffic. Also, it seems
there are more commuters driving into Fort Collins on a daily basis from outlying
areas and towns.
9. I would like to follow-up on that comment by asking about why we don’t have an
eastbound protected left-turn signal to turn north onto Summitview? With the
heavy traffic, this left turn is getting more and more difficult and dangerous. We
need to get into our subdivision (Boxelder Estates) from eastbound Prospect and
the high speed and volume of westbound traffic, we are taking more risks with an
unprotected left.
A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Please note that at this time,
the project has not been submitted yet. One of our submittal requirements is that
the applicant submits a Transportation Impact Study. This analysis will assess
the traffic impact generated by the proposed project based on the number of
units and the amount of commercial square footage. These impacts will be
evaluated and the appropriate mitigation measures will then be required. In
general, this may mean dedicating additional public right-of-way and building the
requisite auxiliary turn lanes. In terms of the present situation, we will look into
adding a protected left turn signal for eastbound Prospect.
10. Can you talk about the construction on Prospect planned for this summer?
A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Where Boxelder Creek crosses
under Prospect Road will be totally reconstructed this summer with a new bridge.
This will result in a temporary full road closure. Summitview will get the detour
traffic.
11. If Summitview gets the detour traffic, then you will need to adjust the signal
timing at the Summitview/Mulberry intersection. As it’s timed now, northbound
traffic turning left (west) onto Mulberry allows for only about five cars per cycle.
This is not long enough to accommodate the detour traffic.
A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: We will look into increasing this
signal timing for northbound left turns.
12. You mentioned in your presentation but could you confirm that there is to be no
access from the O.D.P. west into Boxelder Estates and north into the County
Subdivision?
A. That is correct.
4
13. Question for the City: Are you factoring in the future development of the 100-
acre Poudre School District campus on the east side of I-25? Traffic around
schools can be heavy at times especially given the options available under the
school of choice policy.
A. Response from City: Yes, we will be looking at development of that parcel.
14. Why not a new traffic signal on Prospect at the site access?
A. Response from City: It’s simply too close to the existing signal at the Frontage
Road. Since Prospect will carry significantly more traffic than the site access
drive, we need to allow for a signal progression that favors east-west traffic.
Residents within the O.D.P. that need to go westbound during peak times would
be making a right turn which does not necessarily need a signal. Or, residents
may choose to exit the site on the east to gain access to the Frontage Road
which will take them to the signal at Prospect. This will allow for a safe left turn
to go east on Prospect. Now, having said that, as development occurs in this
area, we may have to coordinate with CDOT on the signal timing at the Prospect
Road/Frontage Road signal so that traffic in all four directions is accommodated.
15. Is a round-about under consideration?
A. Yes, a round-about may be a practical and efficient traffic control device at the
site access intersection with the Frontage Road on the east side of the site, north
of Prospect.
16. I just want to make sure – you are not proposing to build a road across the
irrigation ditch and tie into Locust Street in Sunrise Acres to the north?
A. That is correct.
17. Does the City plan on annexing our Sunrise Acres (to the north)?
A. Response from City Planner: There are no immediate plans to annex either
County subdivisions (Boxelder Estates and Sunrise Acres).
18. I’m concerned about the O.D.P., and subsequent phases, complying with the
Adequate Public Facilities provisions of the Land Use Code particularly with
regard to the ever increasing traffic on Prospect. Timnath continues to grow and
the School District’s upcoming bond issue calls for new schools on their parcel
east of the interstate. I’m not seeing how all the projected growth can be handled
on our streets and still maintain safe levels of service.
A. Response from City: You are correct. We will continue to be challenged to keep
our level of service standards (measure of delay at intersections) at the level that
we have committed to. Our job is to make sure that as development occurs, the
5
proper amount of mitigation is provided commensurate with the impact being
created.
19. I see congestion at the CDOT ramps that impacts through traffic on Prospect. As
growth continues in this area, the City will need to coordinate with CDOT to make
sure that traffic flows smoothly.
A. Response from City: You are correct. CDOT plays a major role in this area.
20. What does the green area on the map mean? Is this area developable?
A. Yes, this area is in the City and zoned. But, developing this area is challenging
due to the need to cross the ditch (Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal). At this time,
the developer prefers not to develop this area due to the constraints with access,
utilities, etc.
21. What about crossing ditch with a footbridge?
A. Yes, that is possibility that we have discussed. We have also talked to the City’s
Parks Department about developing a public neighborhood park on that parcel
but the City is concerned that it’s a bit isolated. The Parks Department has also
indicated that a regional trail on the south side of the ditch may be worth
pursuing, especially if it can be connected to a larger trail system.
22. Have you talked to the ditch company about potential crossings?
A. Not yet.
23. You need to be aware that the Greeley Water Line is in that area.
A. Yes, we are aware of the Greeley Water Line Easement.
24. Who will provide the water and sewer?
A. Elco Water and Boxeleder Sanitation special districts.
25. Can the applicant tell us what other properties or projects that he has developed?
A. Response from Mr. McKenna: I represent a small ownership group. We do not
intend to be the developer. Rather, we are interested in doing the master
planning but would prefer to sell to a development company.
26. Will the condos be one story?
A. We don’t know yet.
6
29. We need a Transfort bus route out here on East Prospect in time to serve the
proposed high school.
A. Transfort plans on providing a bus route in this area in the long term.
30.I live on Sherry Drive and concerned about trespassing.
A. We don’t anticipate residents trespassing on private property.
31. In general, I oppose the project. It’s too dense for our area.
32. In Boxelder Estates, we have adjudicated wells. I’m concerned about the
increase in impervious surface that may impact our wells.
33. Boxelder Creek flooded in 1963. With the newly formed Boxelder Basin Regional
Stormwater Authority, we pay $83 per month. As the O.D.P. develops, new
residents should pay into this District as well.
A. We will abide by the financial requirements and obligations of the special district.
34. We like the quiet of Boxelder Estates. It seems like we are being bombarded by
new growth. We like our peace and quiet and do not support your project.
35. I like single family detached homes that are owned by the occupants, not rental
apartments.
36. I seems like this project represents just dumping renters out on the fringe of the city.
It’s like East Vine Drive with Waterglen and Trailhead with all those houses but
no amenities for the residents. These types of projects are isolated from the city.
37. Traffic on Prospect is unbearable. With the upcoming road closure, it will just
become worse. What are the traffic counts on Prospect?
A. Approximately 24,000 trips per day.
38. East Prospect needs a separate right turn lane for the I-25 southbound entrance
ramp. There’s just too much traffic and not enough improvements.
39. I would like to point out that PSD plans not only to build new schools on their 100
acres but a district-wide athletic facility as well. This will just add to the traffic
problems.
40. What is your timeframe for developing and constructing the first phase apartments?
A. It’s hard to say because as we noted, our ownership group does not plan on
being the actual developer. But we anticipate that we would gain approval of our
7
Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use, which requires a public
hearing, this summer. Then if we are successful in finding an interested party to
become the developer, then that group has to submit for a phase one Project
Development Plan for the apartments which also requires a public hearing which
takes us into Fall / Winter. Then that group would have to submit a Final Plan
and complete a Development Agreement with the City which takes us into Spring
of 2017. The earliest we could expect to begin earth work would be Spring /
Summer of 2017.
1
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and
Addition of Permitted Use.
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road
DATE: August 10, 2016
APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC
CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group
Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group
Nick Haws, Northern Engineering
Matt Delich, Delich and Associates
CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer
Project Description
As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the
northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and
was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned,
from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate.
The purpose of an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) is to establish general planning
and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with
multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in
subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to
develop property in accordance with the plan.
The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use (A.P.U.) for Phase One of the
O.D.P. to allow multi-family dwellings with greater than 12 units per building; and with
buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet in size in the L-M-N zone. Per the City’s Land
ATTACHMENT 12
2
Use Code, multi-family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the aforementioned
parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to
allow multi-family apartments in buildings that are larger than would otherwise be
permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone.
Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team.
Questions, Comments, Concerns
1. In reviewing the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.), I see where the “short
term” is defined as five years out which take us to 2021. My concern is that
widening Prospect Road to four lanes will not take place in five years. And, there
is a need for a separate Prospect eastbound right-turn lane to turn south on I-25.
A. Yes, that is correct. The City requires the T.I.S. to consider two timeframes: the
short term is five years to 2021 and the long term is 20 years out to 2035. In
addition, the project itself will be phased. Phase One will include the residential
portion of the site and the gas/convenience store. The short range analysis
factors in the Phase One extent of the O.D.P. as opposed to a Project
Development Plan (P.D.P.). In the short term, the developer will be required to
improve their frontage to the four-lane arterial standard and build the required
auxiliary turn lanes. But, in the short term, Prospect will not be widened to four
lanes as a larger public capital project between the Poudre River and I-25.
2. Could you expand on the Prospect / I-25 interchange?
A. This interchange is the least improved of the five interchanges serving Fort
Collins. Operationally, this interchange is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and they are aware of the existing
deficiencies. We are aware of the congestion due to the eastbound through lane
being combined with eastbound to southbound right turn. The City, Poudre
School District, CDOT and Timnath have been in discussions regarding the
funding and timing of the long term improvements required at this interchange.
3. What are the traffic impacts associated with Phase One?
A. The T.I.S. analysis for the ODP is a high level analysis and indicates that traffic
generated by Phase One will result in mostly acceptable Levels Of Service (LOS,
rated A – D on a scale of A – F) at the affected intersections with the
recommended construction of the necessary turn lanes. A more detailed T.I.S.
will be required for a site specific development plan for phase one with specifics
related to LOS and the applicant has to meet City standards for LOS, or request
a variance if standards are not met.
3
4. Do the findings you just mentioned include the gas/convenience store?
A. Yes.
5. What about the future employment and commercial Phases?
A. We expect that future Phases will be responsible for submitting an updated T.I.S.
to account for conditions that are being experienced at that time. This would
include all the improvements done for Phase One and the increase in
background traffic.
6. How does all this factor into Adequate Public Facilities (APF)? Without Prospect
being widened to four lanes, or without a separate eastbound to southbound
right-turn lane from Prospect to I-25, does Phase One comply with the A.P.F.
standards?
A; Response from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer: The Adequate Public
Facilities standard, as locally adopted Ordinance, cannot be applied to an
intersection that is outside the jurisdiction of the City. The interchange is under
the control of CDOT. As mentioned, we coordinate with CDOT on operational
aspects of the all the City’s interchanges on a continual basis.
7. It seems to me that if the City is successful in working with CDOT on jointly
constructing a round-about at the easterly site access and the Frontage Road,
then it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to expect the City and CDOT to work
together to build the necessary improvements to the I-25 / Prospect interchange.
A. Response form City Traffic Engineer: CDOT is in the process of designing a new
interchange. We estimate that they are at about 30% design. But, at this time,
there is no project funding. The City is looking at improvements to all four
quadrants in conjunction with CDOT, the Poudre School District and Timnath.
8. I find that response to not be very comforting.
A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: While the response may seem to indicate
that improvements are a long way off, please note that multiple jurisdictions are
actively working together to try to develop an improvement plan that can be
funded from various sources and improvements can move forward.
9. For those of us who live in Sunrise Acres (north of the subject parcel), we have a
hard time getting out of our subdivision on Greenfields at the East Mulberry
intersection. With the road closures on Prospect, there is heavy traffic on
Mulberry and we need more green time to make a left turn to go west on
Highway 14.
4
A. Larimer County is in the process of improving that intersection. Once
construction is complete on Prospect, the heavy traffic on Mulberry should be
reduced.
10. Overall, Prospect needs four lanes, not two, to handle the traffic that is coming in
from around the region. I’m concerned about the 100 acres that PSD has east of
I-25 and Timnath’s plans for growth.
A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: As mentioned, the City will require the
developer to dedicate the necessary public right-of-way and construct the public
improvements along their frontage to the four-lane arterial standards. In addition,
we have the ability to require the necessary off-site improvements as identified in
the T.I.S. to mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed development. But,
widening Prospect from the Poudre River to I-25 is a much larger capital project
that involves multiple jurisdictions and will require a large capital outlay. The
burden of widening Prospect Road as a four-lane arterial does not fall on one
particular development. Funds for this widening have not been approved by the
City.
11. I live in Boxelder Estates and we are experiencing too much traffic associated
with all the construction on Prospect. As we drive east on Prospect, we need a
left turn arrow to go north on Summitview from. With so little green time, it takes
several cycles to get through the intersection.
A. Response from City: We understand that with all the traffic that is re-routed due
to construction projects on Prospect, there is undue delay for left turns at the
major intersections. When Prospect reopens, we can analyze signal timing. As
traffic engineers, we are responsible for keeping traffic moving on a system-wide
basis. This means that the legs of the intersections that carry the most volume
get the most green time at the signal. Obviously, the east-west traffic on
Prospect carries more volume than Summitview so to keep the city-wide system
at optimum efficiency, Summitview green time is impacted. Another reason we
allocate more green time for the legs with the most volumes is that it reduces the
number of rear-end collisions.
12. A lot of us in Boxelder Estates are elderly. It’s unnerving to have to make a right
turn on red to go west from Summitview to Prospect. We have to accelerate
rapidly because of the speed of the drivers on Prospect. My car is small and it
takes a bit of time to get up to speed after I make the right turn and the looks
(and hand gestures) I get from drivers are rude.
5
13. Northbound Summitview to westbound Mulberry (left turn movement) is
dangerous due to the diagonal geometry of the intersection, and the fact that
east-west trucks have a hard time slowing down and stopping at the red light.
A. Response from City: We are aware of the conditions of this intersection which is
under the jurisdiction of the CDOT.
14. When do you think widening Prospect to four lanes will be funded? It’s not part
of the current round of capital projects and was not voted in for the next round.
That means it will have to be approved in the following round.
A. Response from City: You are correct. As an unfunded project, it’s difficult to
predict when the project would be approved. It has to be approved as a project
first and then funded as revenue becomes available. Based on this timeframe,
the widening will not occur in the short term.
15. How many apartments are planned and is there any interest from the multi-family
market in its development?
A. We are planning on 276 apartments and we are receiving significant interest from
the development community.
16. Are there any similar projects where we could see the scale and size of the
project?
A. The apartments at Timberline and Drake are roughly comparable. The new
apartments that are under construction on South Timberline Road across from
the Bacon Elementary School are similar. In addition, the apartments at the
Foothills Mall along Stanford Road are similar but are not fully constructed yet.
And, the recently approved apartments at Bucking Horse are comparable but are
not yet under construction.
17. What do the colors on the map represent?
A. The green is Boxelder Creek (and floodplain), the yellow is residential (Urban
Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone districts) and the red is
commercial (Employment and General Commercial zone districts).
18. How big are the lot sizes in the residential area?
A. In the Urban Estate, the minimum lot size is one-half acre, or less if located
within a cluster plan where one-half of the U-E ground is preserved as open
space. In the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), because we are
over 30 acres, we are required to have a minimum of four housing types. These
can be single family detached, single family detached with alleys, duplexes,
townhomes, and multi-family. The density range in the L-M-N is no less than
6
4.00 dwelling units per net acre at the low end and no greater than 9.00 dwelling
units per gross acre at the high end. Therefore, there will be a variety of lot sizes
in the L-M-N.
19. Will your proposed multi-family buildings in the L-M-N be three stories?
A. Yes. Three story multi-family buildings are already allowed in the L-M-N zone.
20. I live west of the project on a large lot in the County. Three-story apartments
don’t conform to our area. I’m concerned that the apartment folks will trespass
on my property and I have animals. I’m concerned about liability. I’m concerned
that the new development will impact my well. And, I’m concerned that the new
development will cause flooding on my property.
A. We will be using potable water from Elco, not groundwater. We are required by
the City’s Stormwater Utility to not route any stormwater from our property onto
your property.
B. Response from City Planner: Please note that the property was included in the
City’s Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate
Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B,
Highway Business (157 acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both
zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as
a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System.
Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: C, Commercial
(44.7 acres); E, Employment (104 acres); L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (15.7 acres); U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a
buffer. This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City’s
new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created
new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system.
About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the
western edge of the O.D.P.to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates
H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125
feet for a length of about 2,100 feet and contains approximately 5.18 acres. This
conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and
Boxelder Estates.
Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a
rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was
primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of
the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres.
In 2003, a Final Plan was approved on four acres along the Frontage Road for
the Harley Davidson dealership.
7
In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various
configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: U-E (21 acres);
L-M-N (68.6 acres); Employment (60.9 acres); and Commercial (26.9 acres).
21. What are the two current construction projects on Prospect that are causing the
full road closure?
A. The two projects are related to the improvements being constructed by the
Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA). First, Boxelder Creek
is being routed under Prospect by the installation of the new culverts. This
involves a new bridge which is being designed for the ultimate four-lane arterial
cross-section. Second, since the culverts are sized to only carry approximately
the 10-year storm, an overflow channel, or weir, is being excavated to handle the
amount of flood water associated with the 100-year storm. This overflow channel
will be between 85 feet and 100 feet wide and about ten feet deep and may carry
flows in more frequent events due to local tributaries. These two projects are
being constructed in conjunction with the new Grays Lake flood control reservoir
that has been built upstream on Boxelder Creek. The entire system-wide project
is designed to prevent flooding in areas along Boxelder Creek in Larimer County,
Timnath and Fort Collins.
22. And these are the improvements being constructed with the new annual
stormwater service fee assessed on our properties?
A. Yes, all residential properties within the BBRSA are assessed an annual fee of
$60.00 to cover all the new construction, and, as time goes on, to cover the long
term maintenance of the facilities. In addition, for any new construction in the
BBRSA that results in new impervious surface, there is a stormwater system
development fee based on the amount new impervious surface area that is
created.
23. Can you describe the details of the A.P.U. for the multi-family in the L-M-N?
A. Yes, as mentioned, multi-family, per se, is a permitted use in the L-M-N but is
capped in the following manner: no greater than 12 units per building; no greater
than 14,000 square feet per building; and on an individual phase that is no
greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre of land. Our proposal would
increase the number of units per building to exceed 12, increase the size of the
building to exceed 14,000 square feet, and to increase the density to greater than
12.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
8
24. By how much would you exceed these limits?
A. Our buildings would be a mix of 24-plex and 36-plex structures. The size of the
buildings has not yet been determined but will exceed 14,000 square feet. And,
we estimate that our phase of multi-family in the L-M-N will come in around 13
dwelling units per gross acre.
25. Would the multi-family phase cause the overall 67-acre L-M-N area to reach a
density that exceeds the maximum allowable 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre?
A. No, our overall L-M-N density on the entire 67 acres, plus the multi-family, would
not exceed 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
26. I don’t support the request for the A.P.U. The expectation under zoning is that
the property will develop as L-M-N, not M-M-N. How do you justify this request?
A. We see a multi-family component as adding to the mix of housing types for a
mixed-use neighborhood. With close proximity to I-25, we do not want to
develop the ground as an isolated truck stop with highway-oriented uses like you
see along the interstates in other jurisdictions. We see value in developing a
neighborhood that offers a wide range of housing for a variety of people in a wide
range of incomes. We see the multi-family component has a part of the highest
and best use for this portion of the site.
27. You cannot use an economic benefit argument as a justification for an A.P.U.
A. Understood.
28. An L-M-N neighborhood is supposed to have an L-M-N neighborhood center. I
don’t see the gas/convenience store as being an L-M-N neighborhood center. I
don’t see any amenities. The development appears isolated from the City.
A. We see multi-family as adding diversity to the neighborhood. We recognize that
we are separated from the City but this is primarily due to the Poudre River
floodplain, natural areas and existing County subdivisions. The parcel, however,
is inside the Growth Management Area, and was then annexed and zoned, and
then master planned as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. We see the
land as being a unique parcel that is near I-25 and major employment areas.
There are other neighborhoods in the City where the neighborhood center is a
gas/convenience store.
29. But I still don’t see a walkable neighborhood center. Access from the L-M-N to
the gas/convenience store is via a round-about which is difficult to cross as a
pedestrian. It looks to me like the gas/convenience store will be highway
oriented, not neighborhood oriented. And, it’s located in the commercial zoned
area, not in the L-M-N. You still need an L-M-N neighborhood center.
9
A. We understand the requirement for an L-M-N neighborhood center.
30. In general, I’m not seeing any neighborhood amenities.
A. As noted, we intended to pursue the conveyance of a parcel to the City Parks
Department for a future public neighborhood park. In addition, the Parks
Planning Department has identified a portion of our northeast area as logical
segment for the future regional bike trail. Our goal is to develop the commercial
area for neighborhood oriented businesses and services. As mentioned, we
don’t want to replicate the highway oriented land uses found at the I-25 and
Highway 14 interchange.
31. I’m concerned that Phase One represents a five year build out and we would still
experience congestion and failing levels of service for certain turn movements at
I-25 and Prospect.
A. We understand your concerns. The T.I.S., at this stage, is intended to provide a
broad analysis at the appropriate level for an Overall Development Plan. As
noted, the big picture issues have been identified. With each subsequent phase
that is submitted for a Project Development Plan, a new T.I.S. will be required
that provides analysis at a more refined level of detail.
32. Does the City keep data on accident statistics?
A. Response from City: Yes, keeping track of accident statistics is very important to
us. We continually analyze crash data city-wide as one of our core functions.
33. I would like to remind everyone that an A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone goes on to City
Council for consideration. It is my opinion that the request for an A.P.U. is
speculative and for purposes of the developer trying to enhance the marketability
of the property.
A. As we have mentioned, for an O.D.P. that is 177 acres in size, having a multi-
family component enriches the mix of housing on a city-wide basis.
34. Do you already have a buyer lined up for the multi-family?
A. No, we do not.
35. Where exactly is the A.P.U. parcel and how big is it?
A. It is at the south end of the area zoned L-M-N, closest to Prospect Road. It is
about 12.4 acres in size. It’s designated as Parcel k on the O.D.P.
10
36. What will be the density on the L-M-N as a result of the A.P.U.?
A. The density will be about 13.00 dwelling units per gross acre which is slightly
over the maximum allowed in any on phase in L-M-N of 12.00 d.u./a.
37. Will there be a buffer between the apartments and the existing homes to the
west?
A. Yes, we estimate that the closest house will be about 130 feet away from the
nearest apartment building. Other houses will be further away by a distance
ranging from 793 feet to 875 feet.
38. What will be the size of the lots on the very west edge of the site north of the
A.P.U. parcel?
A. This area is zoned Urban Estate. As a result, this area will have our largest lots.
As noted, in the U-E, lots must be a minimum of one-half acre. Or, lots can be
smaller but only if arranged within a Cluster Development where one-half of the
land area is preserved as open space and the other half is the clustered lots that
can be smaller than one-half acre.
39. I live to the west and in my opinion; our large lots will need more of a transition
than what you are describing.
A. We are aware of your concerns. As you know, Boxelder Estates purchased from
the previous owner a swath of land about 110 feet in width along their eastern
edge. This buffer will contribute to making a transition and also precludes any
street connections.
40. I live on three acres. Multi-family doesn’t conform to our neighborhood character.
41. When was the property annexed into the City?
A. 1983.
42. When do you think you will break ground?
A. The first thing we have to do is apply to F.E.M.A. for an amendment to their
floodplain maps based on the improvements being done by the Boxelder Creek
Flood Control Project. This requires a process known as a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR). This could take us into 2018. We can be submitting our
Phase One plans and having our plans reviewed by the City somewhat
concurrently to the F.E.M.A. process. So as you can see, it may be at some
point in 2018 when we can break ground on Phase One.
11
43. Will the requested density associated with the A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone be
capped?
A. Response from City Planner: Yes, all requested A.P.U. metrics will be capped
and not open-ended. This is what was done for the multi-family project in
Bucking Horse which was also an A.P.U.
44. I live in Sunrise Acres to the north. Is the proposed public neighborhood park still
indicated to be north of the ditch? If so, I’m concerned about trespassing.
A. No, we are now discussing with Parks Planning about conveying a parcel that is
south of the ditch and just north of the proposed multi-family parcel. This parcel
would be about four acres and is centrally located within the larger residential
area. This would a public neighborhood park.
45. Will you be putting any of the ditches into a pipe to gain more ground?
A. No, we are not thinking about putting any ditches into a pipe.
46. We need to be realistic that a City-funded Prospect Road widening capital project
will not happen in the short term (2021). Such a project would likely have to be
put to the voters as part of a package to renew one of the sales taxes that is
dedicated to transportation improvements. And then, if approved by the voters
as part of a sales tax capital projects package, it would then have to wait for
revenues to come in. As a result, it may be at least 10 years out or longer before
Prospect could be widened to four lanes.
A. Response for City Traffic Engineer: That is correct. It is unlikely that Prospect
will be widened to four lanes by 2021. Large capital projects that benefit the
City’s arterial system as a whole are generally funded by one of the dedicated
sales taxes specifically earmarked for transportation improvements. As you
mentioned, these funding sources expire after their term and must be renewed
by the voters. These projects are intended to address existing deficiencies and
are not considered the obligation of any one particular development proposal.
Please note that dedicated sales tax revenue is just one funding source. Other
sources include the City’s Street Oversizing Fund, and grants from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, State of Colorado and the federal
government. Oftentimes, multiple funding sources are consolidated to move a
project up on the priority list.
47. I’m concerned about the future development of PSD property on the east side of
I-25. This is a 100-acre parcel that PSD has indicated could be used for schools
serving grades K through 12 as well as a district-wide athletic facility. PSD is
seeking voter approval this Fall for a bond issue that would fund these planned
schools and facilities.
12
A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are in discussions with PSD. We have
been told that the schools planned for this parcel will draw primarily from
students who already reside east of I-25. We are also aware that the planned
athletic facility would be the new French Field and draw participants district-wide.
48. With the Boxelder Buffer now owned by the H.O.A., does this mean there will be
no road connection?
A. Yes, that’s correct – no road connection.
49. Could you tell me how much new traffic we can expect on Summitview as a
result of this project?
A. Our trip assignment estimate in the short term is shown as Figure 7 in our T.I.S.
Based on our assumptions, we see most of the trips using Prospect and the
Frontage Road versus Summitview. For example we estimate for southeast flow,
there will be six trip ends in the a.m. and 17 trip ends in the p.m. during the peak
hours. For the northwest flow, there will be 16 a.m. and 10 p.m. trip ends during
the peak hours. Please note, however, that it may be more accurate to measure
the delay at the Prospect / Summitview intersection.
50. Will the Frontage Road be widened?
A. No, but the intersections will add capacity with the auxiliary turn lanes as
recommended in the T.I.S.
51. Will there be only one access onto the Frontage Road?
A. Yes, that’s correct due to the constraints of Boxelder Creek.
52. Do you have an idea about the alignment of the proposed regional trail?
A. Within our O.D.P., and between Prospect and Mulberry, this trail will generally
follow the alignment of Boxelder Creek and the two ditches. The alignment of
this trail is loosely based on the preliminary concept per the Parks 2013 Trails
Master Plan.
53. Is the applicant involved at all in the current construction on Prospect?
A. Yes, but only to the extent that we have conveyed 42 feet along our frontage to
the City of Fort Collins for the project.
54. Are you intending to sell the land for a profit?
A. Yes.
13
55. I see a big benefit in providing a safe sidewalk along Prospect from your project
to the Summitview intersection to tie into the existing trail along Prospect west of
Summitview. Since your project does not extend west to Summitview, there is a
gap. It seems like pedestrians, runners and bike riders from your project would
want to safely gain access to this trail without having to deal with unimproved
frontage along Prospect.
A. Thank you for this comment and this something we may consider for their first
phase.
56. Will there be sufficient sanitary sewer capacity to serve the site as proposed?
A. Yes, we have had conversations with the Boxelder Sanitation District and they
have indicated that there is capacity available. As you know, their treatment
plant is just south of Prospect.
57. Will there be any commercial development south of Prospect?
A. The large vacant land south of Prospect is owned by Colorado State University
Research Foundation. We do not know their plans for the property except to say
that they typically hold land for the long term for the various needs of the
University.
1
ATTACHMENT 13
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and
Rezoning
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road
DATE: December 19, 2016
APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC
CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group
Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group
Stephanie Thomas, Northern Engineering
Matt Delich, Delich and Associates
CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer
Project Description
This item was formerly a Request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family
on 12.4 acres of land zoned L-M-N due to the request exceeding three development
standards. Since multi-family is already a permitted use in the L-M-N per se, the
development review process has now been adjusted to delete this request. This item
now consists of a Rezoning of 12.4 acres of L-M-N and 8.4 acres E, Employment, a
total of 20.8 acres, to M-M-N.
This item is also being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development
Plan (O.D.P.) on 177 acres land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and
East Prospect Road. This area was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The
purpose of an O.D.P. is to establish general planning and development control
parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while
allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals.
Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in
accordance with the plan.
The requests for Rezoning and an Amended O.D.P. would have the effect of reducing
the L-M-N zone from 68 to 55.6 acres, reducing the E zone from 60 to 51.6 acres and
adding 20.8 acres of M-M-N zoning.
Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or the consulting team.
2
Questions, Concerns, Comments
1. Could you explain the progress that is being made with regard to future widening
of the I-25 / Prospect Road interchange?
A. Yes, we are working with CDOT to find a joint public/private funding mechanism
to leverage the interstate widening project between Mulberry and Loveland by
adding the interchange widening to the project scope. As you know, for this
segment of the highway, CDOT plans on sending out for bid the widening of I-25
from two lanes to three. This project is estimated to cost $235 million dollars.
But, this project is funded for widening the lanes only and does not include
improving the Prospect Road interchange. The cost of widening the interchange
(bridge, ramps and roadway) is estimated to be an additional 28 million dollars.
As a result of this added cost, we, along with the City of Fort Collins and the
Town of Timnath and the other three adjoining properties (Colorado State
University Research Foundation, Paradigm Properties LLC and the White
Brothers) have committed to raising the 28 million dollars so the interchange is
widened in conjunction with the larger CDOT project. If not done now, CDOT
estimates that interchange improvements would be delayed until 2035. The four
adjoining property owners have agreed to raise seven million with the balance
raised by Fort Collins and Timnath (seven million dollars each.)
B. The widened interchange would include a new seven-lane cross-section bridge,
new ramps and widening of Prospect Road. CDOT anticipates that construction
would begin in early 2018.
2. How far in each direction would be the extent of the four-lane widening?
A. Our understanding at this time is that the four lanes would extend to the frontage
roads.
3. That may not be sufficient to mitigate the traffic generated by the development.
A. Keep in mind that as developers, we are obligated to improve the linear front
footage along our property that adjoins Prospect Road. And, in conjunction with
the recent stormwater improvements, we have already dedicated 43 feet of
additional right-of-way along Prospect Road. Further, as each building permit is
issued, for both commercial and residential buildings, the City will collect the
Street Oversizing Fee which is earmarked for funding improvements to arterial
and collector streets and sidewalks on a city-wide basis. In 2016, the Street
Oversizing Fee for a multi-family dwelling unit is $2,143. (This fee is typically
increased annually to keep pace with capital construction costs.) For 276 units,
the total Street Oversizing Fee would be, based on 2016 rates, $591,468.
4. Is the area north of the Dry Creek Ditch still slated to be open space?
3
A. Yes, this has not changed. The area between the two ditches will be set aside
as open space. This area would be difficult to develop. The exception is that this
area is being considered as a logical location for the future regional bike trail per
the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
5. As the land owner going through the entitlement process, is it still your intention
to sell the property in the future to a developer?
A. Yes.
6. Will the future developer be obligated by the parameters of the both the
Rezoning and O.D.P.?
A. Yes, that is correct.
7. I live to the north in Sunrise Acres. Will any of our neighborhood streets be
extended into your development? I’m concerned about Locust Street and Sherry
Drive being used by future residents of your project.
A. Due to the constraints of the two ditches, and consistent with our previous
presentations, we are not planning on extending any of the streets in Sunrise
Acres into our project.
Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you can see, Locust Street currently
terminates in a dead-end at the applicant’s property. In order to provide a
standard turn-around on a public street, we will be requiring the developer to
provide a turn-around on their property. This will help fire trucks navigate
Sunrise Acres.
8. And, just to be sure, your plan still shows no street connections to the west into
Boxelder Estates?
A. Yes, as we have discussed in our previous presentations, due to the H.O.A.
purchasing a buffer strip, we are precluded from any street connections to the
west. And, south of the H.O.A. buffer strip, we do not plan for any street
connections.
9. Are you still willing to discuss various options as to long term maintenance of the
buffer with the H.O.A.?
A. Yes, we think we may have a mutual interest in how best to manage this buffer
with the H.O.A. and we look forward to having that conversation.
10. Could you review the floodplain issues and timing associated with amending the
FEMA maps?
4
A. As we have noted, there is a significant portion of the site that is mapped as
being the Boxelder Creek floodplain. But, this area will reduced as a result of the
new culverts under both I-25 and Prospect Road and overflow weir that were
constructed this past year by the Boxelder Basin Stormwater Regional Authority.
This included five new culverts (total of seven) under Prospect and opening two
closed culverts under I-25 (total of four). The overflow weir is 2.7 acres. This is
why Prospect was closed for three months this past summer. In addition, the
BBSRA is in the process of constructing a system of flood control improvements,
including a new reservoir, further upstream from our property. The result is that
the extent of the floodplain on our property will be reduced. Once these
improvements have been completed, FEMA will amend their floodplain maps
accordingly and remove the floodplain. We anticipate that the new mapping will
be in place in 2018. All told, these flood control improvements cost $10,851,588
million dollars.
11. Are there areas of the site that are not in the Boxelder Creek floodplain?
A. Yes, the further away from Boxelder Creek to the west, this area is not impacted
by the FEMA floodplain.
12. Will you be making any changes to the two ditches?
A. No, there will be no changes to the two ditches.
13. With a potential of 20.8 acres of M-M-N, combined with the fact that multi-family
is a permitted use in the E, Employment zone, of which there are an additional
51.6 acres within the O.D.P., I’m concerned about a possible massive multi-
family project on 72.4 acres.
A. We are not intending to develop the site in that fashion. And, we are restricted
from this happening by the Land Use Code. This is because multi-family in the E
zone is a secondary use and is restricted from taking up more than 25% of the
51.6 acres. The balance of the E zone, 75%, must be developed as primary
uses.
14. I’m concerned about the additional traffic generated by the density allowed by
rezoning to M-M-N.
A. Yes, based on our previous meetings we are keenly aware of the traffic issues
related to our project within the context of the immediate area. Please keep in
mind that we are rezoning only 12.4 acres of L-M-N. Overall, across a multi-
phased project, residential gross density in the L-M-N is capped at 9.00 dwelling
units per acre. L-M-N zoning also allows a single phase to be up to 12.00
dwelling units per acre as long as the overall does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a. Our
multi-family project comes in around 13 to 14 d.u./a. Regarding the rezoning of
5
the Employment parcel (8.4 acres), please note that there is no residential
development density cap in the E zone.
15. If there are no density caps in either the M-M-N or the E zones, then how can we
expect the future developer to hold to your commitment to density of 13 to 14
dwelling units per acre?
A. We are willing to add a condition to our Rezoning request that would cap our
gross residential density just as we did for our A.P.U.
16. So if the 12.4 acres remained as L-M-N, the maximum allowable density could
range from 112 units (9.00 d.u./a) to 149 units (12.00 d.u./a)?
A. That’s correct and we are suggesting that these 12.4 acres come in between 13
and 14 d.u./a for a range of 161 to 174 units under M-M-N zoning but as
conditioned by the same parameters as the request for an Addition of Permitted
Use.
B. We would like to emphasize that our Rezoning to M-M-N will be conditioned just
like the request for an Addition of Permitted Use. We would commit to a cap of
14 dwelling units per acre. We are proposing a multi-family project of
approximately 276 units on a total combined M-M-N parcel of 20.8 acres which
equates to 13.27 dwelling units per acre. We are suggesting a cap of 14 d.u./a
due to the fact that after surveying the site, land may be taken out of the gross
acreage for public roads, private roads and various other dedications and
easements for utilities which would drive up the dwelling-units-per-acre ratio but
without adding units.
17. Do the extra units gained by the M-M-N zoning have any bearing on the
recommendations of the Traffic Study?
A. The gain in multi-family units versus L-M-N zoning results in
approximately an increase of 100 trips during the peak hour. This
increase does not result in any changes to the recommendations in the T.I.S.
(Seems high – 174-149 = 25, so how do we get up to 100?)
18. I’m concerned that you are putting 276 units of multi-family, and all those
residents, in area where there is no walkability to a grocery store or other
convenient services. Under typical City Plan zoning, M-M-N would be near
commercial area that would have a grocery store and similar services.
A. While we may not have N-C (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning next to our
proposed M-M-N, we do have 27 acres of land zoned C, Commercial, which, as I
recall, allows most of the same uses as allowed under N-C. In terms of
walkability, we will be providing a trail along Boxelder Creek and we have
approached the City about widening the public sidewalk on the future east-west
6
street that goes over Boxelder Creek and ties into the commercial area. Please
note that multi-family residents will be able to walk to the future public
neighborhood park (distance xx) and the future regional trail which abuts the site
(Running Deer Natural Area distance xx).
19. So a grocery store is allowed in the C, Commercial zone?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
20. As I mentioned, last time, it seems like an abrupt transition between our County
lots and the proposed M-M-N parcel.
A. We are aware of this concern that has been raised at the previous two meetings.
As a result, we have committed to providing a landscape buffer on the west side
of our future north-south street that ranges in width from nine to 88 feet that can
be densely landscaped. Most of the houses to our west front on Summitview
Drive and are separated from our multi-family parcel by varying distances. One
house is 35 feet west of our site and we have met with this owner and this person
has indicated support for our project. All the other houses front on Summitview
and range from 640 to 787 feet from our project boundary. In addition, our future
buildings will also be setback from our future north-south street (76 feet of public
right-of-way) creating even more separation. We think with these separations,
combined with effective landscaping, we will successfully mitigate any impacts
associated with our multi-family project. We also think that be capping our
density, our project will be roughly similar in scope as if it were an L-M-N
development.
21. I’m concerned that even if the CDOT project, with the City and Town and
landowner participation, results in widening Prospect Road, and combined with
the developer’s obligation for their frontage, there will still be gaps between the
river and the Frontage Road. When can we expect these gaps to be fully
improved?
Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you know, we are aware of these
concerns. At this time, there currently is no City capital project that is designated
to address this segment of East Prospect Road. Since this gap is considered an
existing deficiency as part of the regional arterial system, it is not the developer’s
obligation to address. Instead, the completion of this segment to the arterial
standard will fall to the City as a future capital improvement just like what you see
going on at the intersection of Prospect and Timberline.
22. I’m concerned about the wildlife that uses the area. There are typically lots of
geese that are attracted to the site.
A. Keep in mind that we will not develop the open space to the north between the
two ditches. And, we will be required to provide a buffer along Boxelder Creek.
7
These two attributes will complement the existing City of Fort Collins Natural
Areas (Riverbend Ponds and Running Deer) and the Poudre River floodplain.
23. Is the open space between the ditches zoned Urban Estate and, if so, can this
acreage be used to determine the number of potential units under a Cluster
Development Plan?
A. Yes, this area is zoned U-E and, therefore, these acres could be counted as part
of the basis that determines the maximum allowable number of dwelling units
that could be within a Cluster Plan. Keep in mind that under a Cluster Plan, no
less than 50% of the total land area (zoned U-E) must be preserved as open
space. Without a Cluster Plan, the required minimum lot size in the U-E is .5
acre.
24. From what I see, there are two access points into the portion of the O.D.P. that is
west of the Frontage Road. Is that correct?
A. Yes, there is full-turning access, by way of a planned round-about, at the
Frontage Road. And there is three-quarter access (no left-out) at a planned
intersection at Prospect Road.
25. Will this round-about be a single lane or a two-lane?
A. A single lane will have sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated level of traffic.
26. Will the developer be required to construct any public improvements along
Summitview Drive?
A. No. (What about a westbound right-turn lane?)
27. At one point, for eastbound Prospect traffic, we had a separate left-turn arrow at
the traffic signal so we could make a protected left turn to north on Summitview.
Then, mysteriously, this left turn arrow was taken away. With all the westbound
traffic coming in to town from I-25, this left-turn arrow was very convenient.
Could the City bring back this protected left turn?
Response from City Traffic Engineer: We can look into this. From traffic
engineering perspective, there are pros and cons to providing a separate left-turn
arrow. On the one hand, the protected left turn makes it safer to turn left to go
north. On the other hand, our crash data suggest that there would be an
increase in rear-end collisions.
28. With 276 multi-family units on 20.8 acres, what is the traffic impact?
A. This would generate approximately 230 peak hour trips during the peak hour.
This a ratio of .833 trips per unit during peak.
8
29. How do you define “peak hour?”
A. The a.m. peak is between 7:30 – 8:30 and the p.m. peak is between 4:30 and
5:30.
30. Does the traffic study account for stadium traffic?
A. No, stadium traffic, as is currently the case with Hughes Stadium and will be the
case with the new stadium, is a considered an event and not a daily occurrence.
Response from City Traffic Engineer: Our analysis for the new stadium is that
the traffic will on a game day (typically Saturday) will be roughly equivalent to the
peak traffic on a Thursday p.m.
31. I mentioned at the last meeting that by not having four lanes on Prospect
between I-25 and the Poudre River causes the project to fail the requirements for
having adequate public facilities.
Response from City Traffic Engineer: Please note that we measure traffic levels
of service at intersections and not along any particular segment of roadway.
Since congestion occurs at intersections with turn movements, through traffic
volumes between intersections is not measured. Now, having said that, we are
looking at requiring a westbound right turn lane on Prospect to go north on
Summitview.
32. Turning left out at Hageman’s on a Saturday afternoon is pretty scary.
Response from City Traffic Engineer: We know. We are thinking of constructing
a three-lane cross-section along Hageman’s so exiting vehicles can make a two-
stage left-turn exit and then merge with through traffic. Again, please note that
there is no capital funding available for this improvement at this time.
33. At the previous meetings, we have mentioned that there will soon be a
cumulative effect of increasing traffic on Prospect due to the stadium, Poudre
School District plan for a high school/middle school campus in Timnath and the
new C.S.U. Health Center at College and Prospect. Are these facilities
accounted for in the traffic studies?
A. Yes, our traffic studies include pending developments, existing background traffic
and an annual growth rate in the background traffic. Then we factor in the
proposed project and project out the traffic impacts for five years. The scope of
our traffic studies are approved by the City.
Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of the PSD plans for a high
school and middle school campus. Most of the trips for these two schools should
9
be east of I-25 since boundaries for these schools will not include areas west of I-
25. We acknowledge, however, that PSD has a school of choice option if
schools are not at capacity serving their boundary area.
34. To what extent will you be improving the open space between the ditches?
A. Our plan is to keep this area unimproved and natural. For example, there would
be no bluegrass turf and irrigation. As mentioned, the City’s regional trail is
planned to go through this area so there may be some benches, and the like, but
overall, the area is expected to serve passive not active uses.
35. Will Buckeye Street be extended to the east?
A. No, we do not intend to extend Buckeye and it currently terminates at a house.
36. We need a transition in density for the benefit of the County residents.
A. As mentioned, we think that a sensitive transition can be provided by not only the
significant distances between the existing houses but also by the landscaping
and buffering that we commit to providing per the conditions that we have already
agreed during the A.P.U. process.
Planning and Zoning Board
January 12, 2017
Minutes (draft)
Project: Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan
Project Description for Rezoning: This is a request to rezone 12.27 acres of land currently
zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and 9.71 acres of land currently zoned E,
Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone
district. The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall
Development for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East
Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands
O.D.P. The site is presently zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E,
Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate.
Project Description for ODP: This is a request for an amended Overall Development Plan
(ODP) for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect
Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands ODP. The
site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Proposed land uses include a mix of
permitted uses allowed on a per zone district basis. The O.D.P. also includes 12.27 acres
zoned L-M-N and 9.71 acres zoned E (Parcel J) that are the subject of a separate and
preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N. This rezoning request must be considered
prior to this Amended ODP as the Parcel J is designated “Multi-Family, 276 total units & 13
DU/A” which requires M-M-N zoning without the need to modify any L-M-N standards.
The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development
control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while
allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. There is no
established vested right with an ODP.
Recommendation: Approval
Applicant Presentations
Chief Planner Shepard introduced the project, explaining that the Rezoning of this project must
first be approved before the Overall Development Plan (ODP) can be approved. He provided
some history of the project, including the current and proposed zoning and the conditions for
approval.
Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, a letter has been received that was
written by Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner (FCIC) to an abutting resident that appears to be
a signed contract acknowledging concerns over property impacts because of this development.
Tim McKenna, Co-Manager of FCIC (the Applicant), gave a detailed presentation of this project.
He gave some history of the investor group and ownership, how the name, “Gateway”, came
into being, the land acquisition and subsequent zoning. He stated that there is no street
connection between Gateway and Boxelder Estates. He reviewed the FEMA rezoning process,
including flood plain removed or modified. In addition, modified maps must be submitted for a
review period, which isn’t expected to be issued until September 2018. He described the
difficulties of obtaining funding for the design build improvements. He stated that this project is
designated in City Plan as a “catalyst” project, indicating it is critically important to the City. He
stated how the intersection will look as the “Gateway” to the City, including the proposed
ATTACHMENT 14
Planning and Zoning Board
January 12, 2017
Minutes (draft)
landscaping. He described CSURF’s ownership of the 143-acre parcel south of Prospect Road,
which began in 2007. He illustrated how the road will be widened, the proposed easements, the
water lines, the new school proposed, potential traffic generated, and the impacts of the removal
of the flood plain.
Jim Birdsall, Planner with the TB Group, continued the presentation by discussing the goals for
the project, the zoning, commercial aspect, non-auto-oriented project, amended ODP, higher
density multi-family project to support the commercial and employment aspect, modifications
needed, the proposed rezone rather than Addition of Permitted Use (APU). They have agreed
to a number of parameters for this project. He discussed a list of changes related to the ODP,
including the removal of the flood plain, the sale of a strip of land on the west side of the ODP to
Boxelder Estates for open space, which prevents a road connection, transportation connections
update, land uses allowed within the LMN zone, and a neighborhood park location for the multi-
family housing. He described the proposed rezoning and the changes from the original APU
process, saying he would rather have the same zone throughout the project rather than two
different zone districts, resulting in the down-zoning of the Employment parcel. He discussed
the modification of units, the rezoned parcel size, the difference in units/acre being requested,
and the building sizes (LMN zone requires smaller buildings and they are asking for some larger
buildings). He stated that his company is trying to be sensitive in addressing compatibility
issues. He cited a letter from an abutting resident indicating acceptance of their proposal. He is
in favor of a large diversity of housing, adding the importance of live/work balance. The
rezoning area will be restricted to only multi-family, which will support a living area close to
commercial and retail. He also discussed the acreage discrepancy, the height restrictions for
compatibility, an enhanced landscape, and a larger setback.
Staff Analysis
Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief analysis, responding to a question from the work session
regarding edge condition perception. He discussed this topic at length, showing slides of similar
projects to justify Staff’s decision. He discussed the Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC),
concluding that this is a logical area for urban development, adding that the conditions of
approval are written specifically for providing compatibility. He pointed out that the rezone
request must first be approved, and then the ODP may be considered; both items are
conditioned.
Interim Vice Chair Hansen asked if there is a maximum density in the MMN zone; Chief Planner
Shepard said that there is no maximum - only a minimum.
Public Input
Sally Craig, 1409S. Summit View, has a concern about the rezoning, and she feels that there
are many options for zoning. Since the owner has a specific project, he wants to change the
zoning and structure maps, and she is questioning the justification. She feels that MMN is not a
good transition to urban estates. She has a concern with high density that has no
complementary service in place. She is worried that this will be a high density development with
no support services, saying the rezoning is not justified and there is a future concern that, if this
project falls through, the property will then be opened up to all uses of MMN.
Nancy Deadmond, 1424 S. Summit View Drive, is opposed to the rezoning, as her home abuts
Planning and Zoning Board
January 12, 2017
Minutes (draft)
to this property. She doesn’t feel this development is compatible with surrounding areas. She
doesn’t feel that others should benefit from the flood plain improvements that have been paid for
already. She stated that school numbers are down, so she questions how a new school will be
filled. She doesn’t want to see high-rise apartments from her backyard.
Robert Slate, 726 Sherry Drive, has a concern with the canal overflowing, and he feels there is
good reason to be concerned with future flooding. He also doesn’t believe that the buffers are
adequate, and he feels the rezoning is wrong.
Bob Thydean, 1110 S. Summit View, has some questions about ingress/egress into this
property. He also questioned plans for traffic on Highway 14 and related traffic hazards, like
poor visibility.
Pat Griego, 1116 Greenbriar, is opposed to the rezoning. She noted that the City Traffic
Engineer predicted that this project would result in an additional 3-4 cars per minute, and traffic
is already heavy. Based on the traffic impacts, she does not agree with the reason for rezoning.
Becky Bedan, 3445 Kenwood Drive, asked if there are any plans for affordable housing in this
development.
Applicant and Staff Response
Mr. McKenna stated he is very sympathetic with resident’s concerns, but he doesn’t think that
community growth should be halted, adding that this multi-family housing will be affordable.
This property has not been rezoned in 28 years, and it is an opportunity for the City to have a
project that will create a beautiful community with wonderful services. Regarding traffic issues,
the developer will pay a good amount of the cost to upgrade the their frontage along two public
streets and his group is working with other property owners to help fun improvements to the I-
25/Project Road interchange. The four owners are committing to raise $7 million.
In response to a comment from the public, Chief Planner Shepard clarified that the list of
change conditions noted in the staff report are not dependent on the rezoning; therefore, the
LUC would stay the same. He added that the Cooper Slough and Boxelder improvements
upstream have taken away all of the drainage issues in this area. He confirmed that there will
be no street connections to west or north. The standard for the criteria for rezoning states that
there are change conditions, which is not dependent on MMN rezoning. Joe Olson, City Traffic
Operations Department, stated that there is already a previously-approved ODP for this
property; at this phase, there are no real concerns about traffic. Subsequent development
phases will require in-depth traffic studies.
Board Questions
Member Hobbs asked whether there would be egress to the frontage road; Mr. Olson confirmed
that there will be, adding there will most likely be a roundabout installed, but that would be
decided during future phases. Member Rollins asked about the number of access points; there
are 2 access points, which will include one full access point and one with a ¾ movement.
Planning and Zoning Board
January 12, 2017
Minutes (draft)
Interim Chair Schneider clarified for the audience that a traffic impact study will be prepared at
the Project Development Plan phase. Member Hobbs asked whether, in the event that the
general surrounding properties and the one owned by CSURF are transferred to CSU, the
current zoning will not apply; Chief Planner Shepard confirmed that this would be the case, and
he shared some of the ownership history of this parcel.
Board Deliberation
Member Hobbs observed that, although the rezoning of this portion of the project changes the
overall density, he does not feel that this change is incrementally significant, and he will support
the rezoning. Member Carpenter agreed; while she sympathizes with the upcoming changes for
the surrounding residents, she will also support the rezoning. Interim Vice Chair Hansen
described how a mixed-use development will be important, adding that there will be a minimal
change in density, so he feels this is an appropriate rezone. Chair Schneider also agreed with
the rezoning proposed and will support it.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a
recommendation to Council for the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning #REZ160001,
including the 7 proposed conditions, based upon the findings of fact contained in the
staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board
discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0.
Member Hobbs asked whether the rules for setbacks and buffers are different for MMN versus
the LMN zones; Chief Planner Shepard detailed the differences and similarities, adding that the
Applicant is aware of concerns.
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the
Gateway at Prospect amended Overall Development Plan #160001, based upon the
findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for
this hearing and the board discussion on this item, and subject to the following
condition: that the approval of the ODP is contingent on City Council approval of the
accompanying and preceding request for rezoning. Member Hansen seconded. Vote:
6:0.
-1-
RESOLUTION 2017-009
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY’S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located
generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road; and
WHEREAS, under the rezoning application, known as the “Gateway at Prospect
Rezoning,” 12.40 acres of such property would be rezoned from the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District to the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-
M-N”) Zone District and 22.43 acres of such property would be rezoned from the Employment
(“E”) Zone District to the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, while the proposed Gateway at Prospect
Rezoning does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City’s Structure
Plan Map for that location, it complies with the Principles and Policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City’s Structure Plan; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City Council has determined that the proposed Gateway at
Prospect Rezoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the City’s Structure Plan Map
should be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, so that the proposed rezoning will
comport with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, including the City’s Structure Plan
Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map
is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment promotes the
public welfare and is consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear
as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
-2-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th
day of February, A.D. 2017.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Weld County
Larimer County
Terry
Lake
Cobb
Lake
Timnath
Reservoir
Fossil Creek
Reservoir
Trilby
Horsetooth Reservoir
Cache La Poudre River
Shields
Taft Hill
College
Overland Trail
Mulberry
Prospect
Drake
Horsetooth
Timberline
Harmony
Vine
25
Lemay
287
287
Willox
Mountain Vista
Ziegler
Douglas
CR 52
Carpenter
Country Club
SH 392
Lindenmeier
Lake
Long
Pond
Windsor
Reservoir
SH 1
CR 56
SH 14
CR 5
CR 38E
25
CR 54G
CR 58
CR 30
CR 3
WCR 1
CR 23
Cache La Poudre River
Loveland
Windsor
Timnath
Horsetooth
Mountain
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2017
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 GATEWAY AT PROSPECT REZONING
AND MAKING CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE SIGN DISTRICT MAP
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, at its meeting on January 12, 2017, the City Planning and Zoning Board
unanimously recommended rezoning the property that is the subject of this Ordinance as set forth
below and 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, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance and has determined that said
property should be rezoned as hereinafter 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:
Section 1. That the findings set forth above are incorporated into the body of this
Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of
the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of 12.40 acres
from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District, to Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District, for the following described property in the
City known as the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning:
A tract of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
-2-
Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, T7N, R68W as bearing North
00° 33' 51" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
PARCEL 2:
COMMENCING at the South Quarter corner of Section 16; thence along the West line of the
Southeast Quarter of Section16, North 00° 11' 16" East, 360.01 feet; thence, North 00° 11' 16”
East, 14.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 00° 11” 16” East, 761.98 feet;
thence, North 90° 00” 00” East, 835.33 feet; thence, South 48° 21” 44” East, 46.60 feet; thence,
South 30° 17” 28” West, 565.44 feet; thence, South 05° 36” 07” West, 81.76 feet; thence along a
curve concave to the west having a central angle of 19° 03” 45” with a radius of 610.00 feet, an
arc length of 202.95 feet and the chord of which bears South 19° 01” 34” West, 202.01 feet;
thence, South 88° 21” 50” East, 20.33 feet; thence, South 01° 38” 10” West, 96.90 feet; thence,
North 88° 21” 50” West, 60.00 feet; thence, North 56° 32” 31” West, 208.88 feet; thence, North
88° 02” 35” West, 297.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 540,254 square feet
or 12.403 acres, more or less.
The above described area is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
Section 3. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of
the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of 22.43 acres
from Employment (“E”) Zone District, to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-
N”) Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Gateway at
Prospect Rezoning:
Tracts of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, T7N, R68W as bearing North
00° 33' 51" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
PARCEL 1:
COMMENCING at the South Quarter corner of Section 16; thence along the West line of the
Southeast Quarter of Section16, North 00° 11' 16" East, 360.01 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence, North 00° 11' 16” East, 14.91 feet; thence, South 88° 02' 35” East, 297.10
feet; thence, South 56° 32' 31” East, 208.88 feet; thence, South 88° 21' 50” East, 60.00 feet;
thence, North 01° 38' 10” East, 96.90 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 50” West, 20.33 feet; thence
along a curve concave to the west having a central angle of 19° 03' 45” with a radius of 610.00
feet, an arc length of 202.95 feet and the chord of which bears North 19° 01' 34” East, 202.01
feet; thence, North 05° 36' 07” East, 81.76 feet; thence, North 30° 17' 28” East, 565.44 feet;
thence, South 48° 21' 44” East, 400.32 feet; thence, South 58° 32' 55” West, 129.64 feet; thence,
South 24° 25' 35” West, 303.45 feet; thence, South 00° 50' 59” West, 222.69 feet; to the
Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 2, Boxelder Estates Second Filing; thence along the North and
West lines of said Lot 3 the following 2 courses and distances: North 88° 21' 50” West, 290.40
feet; South 01° 38' 10” West, 269.97 feet to the North right-of-way line of East Prospect Road;
thence along said North line, North 88° 21' 25” West, 515.72 feet to the East line of Lot 1, Block
1, Boxelder Estates Second Filing; thence along the East and North lines of said Lot 1 the
following 2 courses and distances: North 00° 11' 10” East, 330.01 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 50”
-3-
West, 120.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 437,090 square feet or 10.034
acres, more or less.
The above described area is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
Section 4. That, as authorized by Section 2.9(I) of the Land Use Code, the following
seven conditions of approval shall apply to the land subject to this rezoning:
1. Development shall be limited to multi-family dwellings.
2. Multi-family development must include four distinctly different building designs
as defined by Land Use Code Section 3.8.30(F)(2), Design Standards for Multi-Family
Buildings, which states:
(2) Variation Among Buildings. For any development containing at least
three (3) and not more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing
offices), there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building designs. For
any such development containing more than five (5) buildings (excluding
clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different
building designs. For all developments, there shall be no similar buildings placed
next to each other along a street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine.
Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in
footprint size and shape. Building designs shall be further distinguished by
including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a
coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other
characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of
different combinations of the same building features.
3. Multi-family development must be designed with a framework of public or
private streets and the front of buildings must face such streets to the maximum extent
feasible. In addition, ground floor units located along the front of any building facing a
street must have an individual entrance and must include a front porch or stoop that is
connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not possible to orient a
building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian connectivity
standards of Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(D) which states:
(D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably
feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a
connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet
from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted:
(a) Up to two (2) single-family detached dwellings on an individual lot
that has frontage on either a public or private street.
-4-
(b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet
from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly
onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine.
(c) If a multi-family building has more than one (1) front facade, and
if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street
sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s) need
not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
(2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more
dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any
adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking.
4. Multi-family development shall be capped at 276 dwelling units total.
5. Multi-family development must be designed such that buildings do not exceed
forty feet in height. Masonry exteriors materials must be provided on the front elevations
up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be located between
buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible.
6. A transitional landscape buffer ranging between nine and eighty-eight feet must
be provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining parcels, currently
located in unincorporated Larimer County, and the western edge of the future north-south
collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E. Prospect Road.
Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on the northern portion,
and overall, must include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and other plants,
undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground covers and proper irrigation in order to
establish an effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition.
7. A future north-south public street (the “Street”) is proposed to be constructed to
serve development within the land subject to this rezoning. The Street will intersect E.
Prospect Road, run north along the western edge of the M-M-N zone district, and
continue north to serve the adjacent U-E and L-M-N zone districts. The Street will be
located approximately 1,122 feet west of the intersection of E. Prospect Road and the
Southwest Frontage Road. All multi-family buildings that are placed along the Street
must be set back from the property line by no less than fifteen feet.
Section 5. That the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map adopted pursuant to
Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by
showing that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District.
Section 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
-5-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D.
2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Park
Lory
State
Park
CSU
Foothills
Campus
GMA
Expansion
Area
La Porte
Wellington
Bellvue
Fort Collins -
Loveland
Separator
Fort Collins -
Wellington
Separator
CSU
Stadium
Carpenter
CSU
FRCC
City Structure Plan
Printed: January 26, 2017
Boundaries
Fort Collins GMA
Potential GMA Expansion
Other City GMA
Planning Area
Adjacent Planning Areas
City Limits
County Boundary
Districts
Downtown District
Community Commercial District
General Commercial District
Neighborhood Commercial District
Campus District
Employment District
Industrial District
Neighborhoods
Urban Estate
Low Density Mixed-Use
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Edges
Community Separator
Foothills
Rural Lands
Corridors
Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors
Poudre River Corridor
Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit)
00.511.52
Miles
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only,
and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or
warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying
dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE
UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL
FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having
made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of
these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or
liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof
by any person or entity.
EXHIBIT A