HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/15/2008-RegularApril 15, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 15, 2008,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Rich Knowles, 1809 North College, thanked Council its response to the concerns raised by disc golf
players.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, stated the use of renewable energy credits was not a wise use
of funds by the City and should no longer be part of the renewable energy portfolio.
Courtney Sullivan, 308 Allison Hall, asked Council to consider zoning in certain neighborhoods near
CSU to allow for more boarding houses which would provide cheaper housing for students.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, spoke about the costs of the war in Iraq and urged Council to
adopt a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Bill Tegee, ASCSU member, urged Council to consider rezoning certain neighborhoods around
campus to permit more boarding houses that would allow students to find more affordable housing.
George Hoffman, 1101 Valley Oak Court, asked how future park maintenance will be funded.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, Executive Director of Funding Partners, stated a regional approach
to address affordable housing issues is in the best interests of Fort Collins and Loveland. Funding
Partners aids both Fort Collins and Loveland in the development of affordable housing projects.
Cheryl Distaso,135 South Sunset, asked Council to adopt a resolution calling for withdrawal of U.S.
troops from the war in Iraq.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, stated citizen input before Council should be changed to allow extra
time during Council discussion of an item and allow citizens an opportunity to ask further questions
or clarify any statements.
253
April 15, 2008
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Roy stated efficiencies and other avenues will offer a better value for renewable
energy than renewable energy credits provide. He asked for an update on the Habitat for Humanity
development that will be located at Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road.
Councilmember Troxell supported the proposal to consider rezoning neighborhoods surrounding
CSU to permit more boarding houses in those neighborhoods. He supported Funding Partners and
its regional perspective on affordable housing issues.
Councilmember Ohlson stated more boarding house permits should not be allowed if they affect
neighborhood quality. More time is needed to determine if the current regulations are effective as
the "three -unrelated" occupancy regulation has been in effect less than one full school year. City
Manager Atteberry stated staff is not currently reviewing boarding house rezoning.
Councilmember Brown asked how many boarding house applications have been submitted, accepted
or rejected and why were applications rejected.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published Agenda.
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item #8 First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2008, Amending
Section 2-272 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 18, 2008 Regular Meeting and the
March 25, 2008 Adjourned Meeting.
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - City Park South Ballfield Redevelopment Capital Project to Convert
the Use of the Field from Softball to Baseball.
Colorado State University, the Fort Collins Foxes Baseball Club (a semi-professional
baseball team) and the Fort Collins Baseball Club have approached the City Parks Division
with a proposal to redevelop City Park South Ballfield into a hardball field. City Park South
was originally a hardball field until approximately 10 years ago, when it was converted to
softball. New softball fields at Fossil Creek and Spring Canyon Parks allow for the
conversion of City Park South to hardball because there are now enough softball fields to
accommodate the demand.
254
Apri115, 2008
Estimates for the conversion are $245,706 and include a 20% contingency. CSU has agreed
to pay these costs. The City's Parks Department will manage the project. Staff believes the
conversion of the field for hardball is a benefit to the City and will bring an exciting, high
level of baseball back into the park system.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2008, Amending Section 2-272 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board.
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board as
contained in Section 2-272 of the City Code. The proposed modification will broaden the
scope of the Board's functions to include review of City plans or policy changes or other
activities that could have some impact on properties owned by the Natural Areas Program,
or of interest to the Program, if such review was requested by either the City Manager or the
City Council.
9. Resolution 2008-036 Stating the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to Annex Certain Property
and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Shields and
Vine Enclave Annexation.
The proposed annexation consists of two properties, totaling 4.84 acres in size, located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Shields Street and Vine Drive. This Resolution makes
a finding that the proposed Shields Vine Enclave Annexation substantially complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing on May 20, 2008 should be established
regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The area to be
annexed is an enclave that has been surrounded by the City of Fort Collins for more than
three years; therefore, no annexation petition is required for this annexation. This annexation
request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of
Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the
Northwest Subarea Plan. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this
annexation.
10. Resolution 2008-037 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space is located on the south side of Fossil Creek
Reservoir and north of Carpenter Road (Highway 392). This Resolution makes a finding that
the voluntary petition for annexation for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing on May 20, 2008
should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the
hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning
ordinances. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. This
annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they
relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and
City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,
255
Apri115, 2008
and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. There are no issues or known controversies
associated with this annexation.
11. Resolution 2008-038 Adopting Amendments to the Financial Management Policies.
This Resolution will formally amend the City's Financial and Management Policies
regarding Fund Balance Reserves. The significant amendment is the consolidation in the
City's General Fund of the Financial Uncertainty and Designation for Contingencies into a
single contingency reserve labeled the "60 Days" Liquidity Reserve. The other amendment
is the Utilities adding a reserve primarily for their vehicles and heavy equipment. This
reserve is labeled Capital Outlay Reserve.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - City Park South Ballfield Redevelopment Capital Project to Convert
the Use of the Field from Softball to Baseball.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2008, Amending Section 2-272 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the
Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated CSUnity, a recent one -day volunteer event, had approximately 1,700
CSU students volunteer for community service.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Roy recently participated in a panel discussion of the Northern Integrated Supply
Project (Glade Reservoir) that discussed dangers to the Poudre River posed by the Project. City
Manager Atteberry stated staff has been examining the project in detail and the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for release on April 30. The City will have 90 days to respond
to the EIS.
256
Apri115, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson asked when the update to the Bike Plan would be released. Mark Jackson,
Transportation Group Director, stated the Bike Master Plan Update has ben delayed 6 to 9 months
due to staff turnover and other special projects that have taken priority. The Update will be
presented to various Boards and Commissions in May and Council should receive it by early
summer.
Items Relating to the Northeast Corner
East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning, Defeated on First Readin¢
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-028 Amending the City Plan Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the
Northeast Corner of the Prospect Road and I-25 Interchange.
B. Resolution 2008-029 Amending the I-25 Subarea Plan.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the
Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning.
This is a request to amend the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone
105 acres located at the northeast corner of I-25 and East Prospect Road.
The current Structure Plan map and 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres is the
Employment District; the designation for remaining 19 of the 105 acres is the Urban Estate District.
The applicant proposes amendments to the Structure Plan map and I-25 Subarea Plan to change
existing Employment into Commercial Corridor and change Urban Estate into Employment along
with corresponding rezonings to the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District. As
indicated, the applicant is proposing amendments to existing City plans because the requested
rezonings are not consistent with the Structure Plan map and I-25 Subarea Plan. In order for
Council to approve the rezonings, amendments to the existing plans will be necessary.
In June 2007, the City received two rezoning requests for properties adjacent to the Prospect
Road/I--25 interchange. Neither request was consistent with the existing land use designations for
the properties as depicted on the Structure Plan map or the maps and policies of the I-25 Subarea
Plan. The rezoning request at the Southwest corner of the interchange for 143 acres ofEmployment
District was not consistent with City plans which showed the area as a Commercial Corridor
District (25 acres) and open space (118 acres). The rezoning request at the Northeast corner of the
interchange for 66 additional acres of Commercial Corridor and 39 acres of Employment was not
consistent with City plans which showed the area for a larger 86 acre parcel of Employment, 30
acres of Commercial Corridor, and 20 acres of Urban Estate District.
257
April 15, 2008
Rather than decide immediately to recommend denial ofthe rezoning requests to the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council based on inconsistency with adopted City plans, staff took the
opportunity to do a detailed review for land uses around the interchange. The review was intended
to determine the pattern for land uses around the interchange as a benefit to the City as a whole,
independent of the specific rezoning requests. Staff recognized that the rezoning requests could
elevate the importance ofthe interchange in the City's economic development efforts. In total, the
requests could net an additional 96 acres of Employment District to provide locations for primary
jobs in the community and could net an additional 55 acres of Commercial Corridor District for
retail development. The resulting Commercial Corridor parcel size in the Northeast corner would
be large enough for the development of major regional retail uses.
In their simplest forms, the rezoning requests represent a shifting of land uses already expected in
Cityplans to develop adjacent to the interchange. For example, instead of 25 acres of Commercial
Corridor developing at the Southwest corner, the results of the rezonings could be that those acres
would be shifted to the Northeast corner. And, instead of86 acres ofEmployment developing in the
Northeast, the results of the rezoning could be that most of those acres would be shifted to the
Southwest corner.
After reviewing the rezoning requests in detail, staff determined that the requests represented a
better land use pattern for area around the I-25/Prospect interchange than the land uses in existing
Cityplans. Since neither rezoning request was consistent with adopted Cityplans, staff decided to
recommend approval of the changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map in order
to help justify the rezonings to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
In October 2007, the City Council agreed to amend the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan
map and approved the rezoning requests for the Southwest corner ofthe Prospect/I-25 interchange.
The rezonings specifically changed 25 acres of C Commercial District and 118 acres of POL,
Public Open Lands District to 143 acres of E, Employment District.
Staff is recommending changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map and approval
of the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial District into 66 acres of C, Commercial District and 20
acres of E, Employment District; and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate District to
the E, Employment District. The Northeast corner rezonings would result in at total of 96 acres of
C, Commercial zoned area (66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres of existing C zoning) and 39 acres
of E, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide a buffer between the 96
acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east. The table below
summarizes the land use data.
Comparison of Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
for the Northeast Corner of the Prospect/I-25Interchange
Existing Zoning
Acres
Proposed Zoning
Acres
Commercial
30
Commercial
96
Industrial
86
Industrial
0
Employment
0
Em to ment
39
258
April 15, 2008
Urban Estate
19
Urban Estate
0
Total
135
Total
135
The next table indicates the available supply of buildable lands within the GAM boundary for each
of the affected zoning districts, the existing supply and the supply if the Northeast rezoning were to
be approved.
Buildable Lands Inventory
Existing Acres and Available Acres if the Northeast Rezoning Were Approved
Zoning District
ExistinjzAcres
A ter Rezoning
Commercial
422
488
Industrial
724
638
Employment
853
892
Urban Estate
2,254
21,235
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/I--25 interchanged is based on:
City Council direction to staff indicating the Council 's general preference for a higher level
of "commercial " use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located
in the Southwest quadrant of the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange. Staff concluded that
rezoning a portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment) would
encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as
an attractive community gateway, and would be in the best interests of the City.
a. Short history: The Utilities Department operated a sludge application process on
the property until transferring that operation to other sites in northern Larimer
County. The Natural Resources Department purchased 144 acres from the Utilities
Department to be preserved as open space, the Running Deer Natural Area, and in
2003, purchased an additional 151 acres as open space. In May 2004, the City
Council, following the policies and implementation actions contained in the I-25
Subarea Plan, rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E, Employment into the POL, Public
Open Lands District. At the time ofpurchase, the eastern portion ofthe RRFwas not
described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas
Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City.
Because the eastern portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low
natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning
process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In
August of 2005, the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF
property with the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council
indicated its general preference for a higher level of "commercial" use for the
property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural Resources Department
concluded that rezoning a substantial portion ofthe property (118 acres) from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment would be in the best interests of the City.
259
April 15, 2008
Employment zoning would allow the property to be used for economic development
purposes. The adopted I-25 Subarea Plan - as well as other constraints on the
property, would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves an
aesthetically pleasing viewshed from I-25 as well as protect adjoining areas with
high natural values (namely Box Elder Creek and the Running Deer Natural Area).
The rezoning request excluded Boxelder Creek, as it will remain zoned POL.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the
Northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange requesting a change in zoning
of 86 acres of I, Industrial and 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate.
The table below combines land use data for both the Southwest and Northeast rezoning requests.
The table indicates the amount ofacres in each land use categoryprior to the rezoning requests and
the amount of acres in each land use category if both rezoning requests were to be approved.
Comparison of Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
for the Southwest and Northeast Corners of the Prospect/I-25Interchange
Existing Zoning
Acres
Proposed Zoning
Acres
Commercial
55
Commercial
96
Industrial
86
Industrial
0
Employment
0
Employment
182
Urban Estate
19
Urban Estate
0
Public Open Lands
118
Public Open Lands
0
Total
278
Total
278
The next table indicates the available supply ofbuildable lands within the GMA boundaryfor each
of the affected zoning districts when considering the areas in both the Southwest and Northeast
corners of the Prospect/I-25 interchange, i.e., the existing supply and the supply if the Northeast
rezoning were to be approved.
Buildable Lands Inventory After Approval of the Southwest and Northeast Rezonings
Zoning District
Existin Acres
After Rezoning
Commercial
447
488
Industrial
724
638
Employment
710
892
Urban Estate
2,254
2,235
The City Council will ultimately need to decide if City plans should be amended for the proposed
land use patterns. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are
separate, independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests
are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Said another way, the rezonings are
260
April 15, 2008
designed to realign the City land use regulations with the preferred land use patterns as shown on
the respective plans.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the Northeast corner is:
Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a
community/regional retail center in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect Road/I--25 interchange?
The rezoning requests represent a significant land use and economic development policy issue to
add the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the limited inventory ofsites within the GMA boundary suitable
for the development of community/regional retail uses. Such sites are necessary for the City to
maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado.
Land Use Planning
Fundamental land use issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the Northeast corner are:
Recognition that I-25 is no longer an eastern urban edge of the community as previously
contained in City Plan visions.
More specifically, the area on the Structure Plan map east of the Fort Collins GMA
showing Rural Land Use to make a clear distinction between urban uses inside the
Fort Collins GMA and rural uses outside the GMA is no longer valid. Initially, the
land uses east of I-25 depicted a transition from high intensity urban uses
(commercial and employment) adjacent to I-25, to urban estate residential (maximum
of 2 units/acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (1 unit/2.29 acres) outside
the GMA.
The land uses adopted in the recent Land Use Plan amendment to the Timnath
Comprehensive Plan have changed the vision for the area east of the Fort Collins
GMA from rural residential to higher density residential uses and urban types of
employment and commercial land uses.
The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA create the need for Fort Collins to
reconsider the land uses on the Structure Plan map.
The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA will have impacts (largely unknown at this
time) on the City ofPort Collins' land uses, economy, infrastructure, andpublic services and
facilities.
The City's plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context ofwhat
is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, and
regionally, along the 125 corridor.
The Prospect/I-25 interchange was previously identified in the I-25 Subarea Plan as an
"activity center. "
261
April 15, 2008
The rezoning includes changing 19 acresfrom Urban Estate to E, Employment; and 20 acres
of I, Industrial to E, Employment, for a total of 39 acres of E, Employment. The current
Urban Estate zoning is not feasible from a marketing/quality of life standpoint; it is unlikely
anyone will choose to build an estate home so near the interstate and adjacent to commercial
uses. The employment rezoning of this area makes sense; provides a better buffer to the
existing estate subdivision; and adds to the inventory of employment land. Based on
comments from a neighborhood meeting conducted in September 2007, the existing residents
preferred the employment zoning.
Part of the reason for enlarging the C zoning in the Northeast is to devote about 20 acres
ofland to the proper management ofthe Boxelder Creekfloodplain. Portions ofthe property
currently zoned C, Commercial will be "lost" to floodplain and/or storm drainage
management areas. Hence, the proposed zoning, enlarging the commercial zoned property,
is partially in response to this.
The loss of commercial zoning, about 25 acres in the Southwest corner of the Prospect
Road/I--25 interchange needs to be compensatedfor by increasing the amount ofcommercial
zoning in the Northeast corner.
The amount of commercial zoning should maximize the capability of providing
sufficient ground to locate a community/regional retail center at the Northeast
corner.
The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of
economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that the interchange
maximize the abilityfor the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses.
Rezoning Question: Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the
development ofa community/regional retail center in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect
Road1I--25 interchange?
o The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an
expanded role in the City's economic development strategies.
Economic Development
Fundamental economic development issues to be addressed in the rezoning requestfor the Northeast
corner are:
Recognition that sales tax revenues are vital to the City's economic (budget) health and the
provision of municipal services and facilities.
Fort Collins' position as a regional retail trade center is weakening; regional shopping
patterns are shifting as new centers become operational; because ofits central location and
262
April 15, 2008
ease of access, the I-25 corridor is quickly becoming the primary regional retail corridor in
Northern Colorado.
Community/regional retail centers are key contributors to City sales tax revenue.
The competition for retail sales tax dollars is significantly different now than in
previous years. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado
market, undeveloped community/regional retail sites need to be provided in desirable
locations.
The Downtown, the Foothills Mall, Harmony Road, and South College Avenue are
typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations in the City.
However, these locations cannot accommodate largerformat regional retail centers,
because they are largely built out. With such a limited supply ofsites suitable for the
development of community/regional retail uses, Interstate interchanges need to be
considered as locations for regional retail trade.
A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate
future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next ten years
an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of regional retail space is anticipated. If the
City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City
needs to allow regional retail sites to locate along Fort Collins' interchanges.
Transportation
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA) and the City have little/no funds to aid in the reconstruction of the Prospect/I-25
interchange, a key transportation entryway, and related street improvements.
o It waspreviously not anticipatedthat the responsibilityfor improving the ProspectJ-
25 interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners
using public/private partnerships. The reality is that for the past ten years or more,
interstate interchanges throughout Colorado have been built/improved through a
combination ofprivate and local funding sources.
A regional/community retail center the Northeast quadrant could help contribute tax
revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/I-25 interchange improvements and
related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, developmentfrom
all four quadrants around the interchange will need to contributefunding coding to improve
the interchange.
The rezoning requests need to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities
(APF) requirements. Development plans for parcels in the Northeast quadrant must include a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the
development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) on City streets (not the interchange) and
263
April 15, 2008
the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin
construction, developments must either build the needed improvements, or have finding
appropriated that will cover improvement costs.
The Site:
The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows
N: C Commercial and LAIN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, undeveloped
E: County FA-1, Farming, Kitchell Estates, large lot residential subdivision, and UE, Urban
Estate, undeveloped 100 acre parcel owned by the Poudre School District
S: C, Commercial, and County Commercial, partially developed retail and office uses
W.• C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 235 acre Galatia Annexation
in 1990 and zoned HB, Highway Business, IP, Planned Industrial, and RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential Districts. All of the zoning districts had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
condition attached which required development proposals to be reviewed against the criteria ofthe
Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) which was the City's PUD ordinance at the time.
In 1997, the 235 acres of the Galatia Annexation were rezoned as part of the City Plan
comprehensive community rezoning. The 30 acres of HB, Highway Business was rezoned C,
Commercial; the 86 acres of IP, Planned Industrial was rezoned I, Industrial; and the 119 acres of
RLP, Low Density Planned Residential was rezoned UE, Urban Estate. The HB, IP, and RLP
Districts were eliminatedfrom •om the Land Use Code in 1997. No parcels were rezoned as a result of
adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan in 2003.
Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre School
District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields and school bus
storage.
City Plan and the I-25 Subarea Plan
In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan map
showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four quadrants immediately adjacent to
the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange; Employment District designations for other areas in the
Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast quadrants; Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation
in the Northwest quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors designation for other
areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan map also identified the need for additional planning
in the I-25 corridor and designated the area as the " I--25 Special Study Corridor. " In addition, City
Plan's chapter on Principles and Policies contained the following:
PRINCIPLELU-4: More specific subareaplanning efforts willfollow the adoption
of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's citywide
perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
00
April 15, 2008
Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as
priorityfor future subarea planning:
I-25 Corridor
Concurrent with the development ofthe I-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi jurisdictional cooperative
planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan. The
planning boundaries ofthe two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the I-25 corridor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan
studied the area f•om County Road 52 to Carpenter Road (Colorado State Highway 392). The most
significant difference between the two plans is that the subarea plan dealt with land uses in more
detail than the regional plan. The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the
participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a
transportation element, and open lands/natural areas policies. The Northern Colorado Regional
Communities I-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the City in November 2001.
In 2003, the City adopted the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points,
conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows:
The I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around the
Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road
5 on the east.
No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed.
Two activity centers were identified, one at the Mulberry Street interchange and the other
at the Prospect Road interchange. The Northeast quadrant ofthe Mulberry interchange was
planned for the potential location ofa regional/community shopping center. The Northeast
quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with
commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
• Employment and industrial districts adjacent to I-25 are to be designed in a manner as to
maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
• Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in
employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least % mile from I-25 to
avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within 114 mile oft--25.
• Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within 112 mile of Mulberry
Street.
• The balance ofareas planned for residential development is to be urban estate development.
265
April 15, 2008
The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
The subarea is planned to eventually be served with multi -modal transportation options. A
supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the
need to utilize I-25 for short trips.
Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development.
Land Use Code
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the
Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundredforty (640) acres ofland
or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning
Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
NORTHEAST CORNER APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION:
The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning requests:
The Prospect / I-25 interchange was constructed in 1966. Since its construction, traffic
volumes have increased significantly and the interchange structure has deteriorated.
266
April 15, 2008
• A recent North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team analysis of the interchange
indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTLY experiencing a failing Level of
Service (LOS) quality F (failure).
• Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic volume
for the interchange in the next 20 years.
• North I-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate Right -of -Way (ROW)
to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and improvements to the
onloff ramps and safety lanes. As a result, any reconstruction of the Prospect interchange
must accommodate a wider footprint. The current interchange ROW will not accommodate
this widening.
• Cost estimates/projections for the interchange and Prospect Road improvements are
substantial:
o The projection for the interchange itself is $25,000,000.00 (excluding ROW
acquisition costs).
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect Road west of interchange is $3, 000, 000.
o Prospect Road east of the interchange to County Road 5 is $1, 700, 000 to $2, 300, 000
(excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation of Timnath inlet
canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection).
o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1,000,000 to 1,300,000
(similar exclusions).
o The total, thus, ranges from $30, 700, 000 to $31, 600, 000, at a minimum.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of this interchange and
related street improvements.
A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirement for
the new CSU R&D center in the Southwest quadrant as well as for the property owner's
anticipated project or other developments on the interchange corners. A new interchange
will serve as a "Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by the University. Ifthe City wishes to have
this interchange constructed anytime in the near future, it will likely need to be funded by a
public/private financing vehicle.
The I-25 Subarea Plan and the current Overall Development Plan (ODP) on the property
were developed prior to the current interchange cost projections and proposed land use
changes on the City -owned property becoming available. Clearly such magnitude of
interchange constructions costs and such land use changes could not have been anticipated.
Gene Andrist, a financial planner involved with the financing of many interchanges and
other major projects throughout the state, has developed a number offunding scenarios for
public/private financing of the interchange. Increased levels of retail space at the
interchange corners appears to be the key to provide increased revenue sources to the City
to pay for interchange and related improvements.
A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate
future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years
an increase ofapproximately 1.5 million feet ofretail space is anticipated. The City is in a
very competitive market with the Towns of Timnath, Windsor and Wellington for this retail
267
Apri115, 2008
space. If the City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales
tax) the City needs to move quickly and aggressively.
The property owners (the Whites) have been very involved in a series of planning related
studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor. Listed
below is a summary of their involvement:
BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE
Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a
group ofprivate property owners.
Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado Water
Conservation Board) who EQ UALL Yfunded the stormwater masterplan.
Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which
provided overall direction to the Alliance's efforts. The TAC:
o Prepared the Scope of Work for the engineering consultant,
a Selected the engineering consultant,
o Provided ongoing direction tolcoordination with the selected consultant
o Reviewed/commented on work products,
o Held monthly public meetings to discuss progress,
o Participated in weekly/biweekly meetings to complete tasks for the Alliance,
0 Reviewed/commented on final Regional Master Plan,
o Participated in Alliance presentations to Alliance members and town councils.
Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC).
FAC was formed to ensure f nancial feasibility to the engineering options.
Independently funded legal consultant to the FAC.
The FAC:
N Completed funding analyses of the Master Plan alternatives,
N Researched project financing options,
N Completed damages & consequences assessments,
ff Developed Funding/Implementation Strategyfor final Master Plan,
a Coordinated with TAC in developing a recommended alternative.
Prepared list ofproperty owners in vicinity ofl-25/Prospect (400 names) for public notices.
Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues.
Coordinated with Alliance members including: Larimer County, Town of Wellington, the
City, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, North Poudre Irrigation Company, Boxelder
Sanitation Distirict, New Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Transportation and others.
mop
April 15, 2008
NORTH I-25 EIS
• Attended North I-25 EIS Technical Advisory Committee meetings (usually was the only
member of the public in attendance).
• Participated in all local (Group 7) meetings.
• Organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of I-25/Prospect and advised them of
interchange issues.
• Met regularly with City Transportation staff as well as CDOT and Felsburg Holt Ullevig.,
consultants on the North I-25 EISproject.
• With City Transportation staffandotherproperty owners, injluencedtheproposedalignment
and details of the Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of City.
• Facilitated meetings between North I-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Stormwater Alliance to
resolve mutual issues.
• Researched and resolved historic preservation issue with North I-25 EIS team.
PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Organized group of local property owners concerning issues pertaining to future Prospect
Road improvements.
Coordinated regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff.
Facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Timnath Engineer, and local
property owners to address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems.
These issues included:
o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of I-25,
0 Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of Prospect,
o Boxelder Sanitation District sewer crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane,
o Relocation of Timnath Inlet canal to allow future widening of Prospect,
0 Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues,
o Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal).
o With Town of Timnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre
Valley School District and a local developer, developed cross section profile of
future Prospect ROW which is in use today.
GREELEY WATER EXTENSION & TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET)
Background: Greeley's GWETproject is a 60-inch diameter waterline delivering water from their
pre-treatment plant northwest of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom
of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet ofgravel and covered with at least 60
inches ofsoil making the total depth oftheir pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet.
The sheer size of this project makes it important to anticipate related issues in advance of the
project's construction. The 2007 segment of this project included a crossing of Prospect Road at
McLaughlin Lane, a crossing ofI--25 at a location north of Prospect and completion to a point in
the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark The I-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three
irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District
269
April 15, 2008
sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one
another.
• The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley,
Timnath, BoxelderAlliance, City Transportation/EngineeringandStormwaterDepartments,
the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group ofaffected
landowners, and others to discuss details of the project.
• Arranged to have GWET representatives attend several Boxelder Alliance TA meetings to
coordinate the particularly tight and complex 1-25 crossing as well as other mutual issues.
• Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GMA developers to discuss
project alignment to minimize impacts to properties in vicinity of Timnath.
• Worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the
GWET project across the District's and White's properties.
• The 2007 segment of the GWET pipeline is nearing completion.
Amendments to the Structure Plan map and the I-25 Subarea Plan
The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets forth a
basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. The 1-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides greater detail and policies
for the 1-25 corridor. For the Northeast corner, the maps in these existingplans currently designate
30 acres as commercial, 86 acres as employment, and 19 acres as urban estate (not including the
100 acres owned by the Poudre School District) in the Northeast quadrant ofthe Prospect Road/I--25
interchange. To recommend approval of the rezoning proposal, the City Council has to find that:
1) the existing Structure Plan is in need ofchange; and 2) the proposed changes would promote the
public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. The
applicable criteria are contained in Appendix C of City Plan.
Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments: Appendix C of City Plan outlines
mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor
amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states:
"A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings
that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the
proposed amendment; and the proposed plan amendment will promote the public
welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City
Plan and the elements thereof. "
To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary.
Attachment 1 contains the statements, policies, and maps which need to be amended within the 1-25
Subarea Plan.
Attachment 2 is a summary of the recommended change to the City Plan Structure Plan map.
270
April 15, 2008
Analysis Based on Rezoning Review Criteria
How the rezoning requests address the requirements in the City's Land Use Code are summarized
below:
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
As indicated earlier, staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I--25
interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the Southwest quadrant, and the
private property owner, for the Northeast quadrant, to determine what would be the best land use
Pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific
rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are
independent actions.
Also as indicated earlier, the requested rezonings are not consistent with the current Structure Plan
map or the 1-25 Subarea Plan for the Northeast quadrant. First, current Cityplans designate the
Northeast quadrant more as an Employment District (86 acres) versus a Commercial District (30
acres). The rezonings would essentially switch to focus to more ofa Commercial District (96 acres)
than an Employment District (39 acres). And, second, the 1-25 Subarea Plan identified the northeast
quadrant of the Mulberry and I-25 interchange, not the Prospect interchange, as the potential
location of a regional/community shopping center.
Before being approved by the Council, the proposed rezoning in the Southwest quadrant was also
not consistent with the existing Structure Plan map or the I-25 Subarea Plan. Cityplans designated
the Southwest quadrant more as a Commercial District (25 acres) and open space (118 acres). The
Southwest rezonings switched the focus to an Employment District (143 acres).
In order for Council to approve the Northeast rezonings, amendments to the existing plans will be
necessary, just as Council approved plan amendments in order to approve the Southwest rezoning.
If the amendments to City plans are approved, the Northeast rezoning requests are simply
implementation actions to the plan amendments. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to
allow additional commercial and employment land uses to develop in the Northeast quadrant of the
Prospect Road/I--25 interchange.
It is becoming more apparent that I-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The
importance of the I-25 corridor to the economic development of Northern Colorado can be viewed
all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character
of areas east ofI-25 from the rural, low density residential areas envisioned in both the initial City
Plan of 1997, and the 2004 update, to urban types of uses. In staffs opinion, the City's plans need
to be changed to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's Growth
Management Area (GMA) boundary.
In City Plan, one of the stated community goals is:
Fort Collins will maintain its role as a regional economic center.
271
April 15, 2008
As part of working toward that end, the City Council has created and adopted an Economic Action
Plan. Its purpose is to describe specific activities to enhance the local economy. Over the years, a
healthy economy in Fort Collins has been achieved by focusing on preserving and enhancing the
natural environment, preserving and maintaining programs and services that contribute to a high
quality of life, continuing to build on the success of the Downtown area, and maximizing the value
of Colorado State University in our community. The Economic Action Plan contains an Economic
Vision and Economic Values statements as follows:
Economic Vision: A healthy economy reflecting the values of our community in a
changing world.
The Plan also lists several Economic Values, including the following:
Municipal services contribute to making Fort Collins a great and visionary city and depend
on a healthy economy that fuels a reliable revenue stream.
The item above is the link between high quality municipal services and a reliable income stream.
Since the majority of the City's tax revenues come from sales tax, this is the key point of the
Economic Action Plan that relates to community/regional retail development in the I-25 Corridor.
The plan talks about being proactive regarding economic issues. The City has been proactive in
working with the developers and adjoining communities on issues of transportation and new
regionally oriented retail development. Staff routinely analyzes monthly tax collections to better
understand where the community is losing local retail opportunities and factors that information
into the City's overall retail strategy. The plan also talks about identifying key infrastructure gaps
that may stall development. This relates to groups like the Boxelder Alliance which is working on
solving floodplain issues, and on needed improvements to the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange.
Lastly, the plan talks about keeping the buildable lands inventory up-to-date to be constantly aware
of land area needs for all types of land uses and to be able to identify where community/regional
commercial activities are best directed.
In summary, staff believes that the City Council's Economic Action Plan provides a comprehensive
frameworkfor addressingjob creation objectives balanced with pursuing the rebuilding of the City's
sales tax base. The work that has been done in evaluating the economic impact of the Mason
Corridor project, analysis of the plan amendment request at Prospect Road and I-25 all consistent
with the Economic Action Plan.
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
There are several changed conditions that help just fy the plan amendments and rezoning request.
When the I-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003, it was assumed that the necessary improvements
to the Prospect Road/I--25 interchange would be funded by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since it was part of
the federal/state highway system. It was not anticipated that the responsibilityfor improving the
272
April 15, 2008
interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacentproperty owners using public/private
partnerships.
The competition for retail sales tax dollars is also significantly different now in 2007 than it was in
2003. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado market, undeveloped
retail commercial sites in desirable locations need to be provided. The City is lacking in areas to
attract new community/regional/community retail establishments. Interstate interchanges are the
type of desirable sites for such regional serving retail uses.
Land use plans by other jurisdictions, particularly the Town of Timnath, are changing the character
ofareas east of7--25 from the rural, low density residential, areas shown on the City's plans, to more
intense urban uses. In June 2007 the Timnath Town Board approved an amendment to Timnath's
Land Use Plan which extended Timnath's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary north of
Timnath to County Road 52 (the northern boundary of the Anheuser-Busch Brewery). The Timnath
Land Use Plan also intensified the residential densities and land uses in the area to include
commercial and employment uses. This is a significant change of conditions that affects areas
within the Fort Collins GMA boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to
decrease in intensity from employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban
residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of I-25 are
beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of I-25. Even the 100 acres of UE zoned
property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields and school bus storage
are not low intensity, rural types of land uses.
In addition to the above, Section 2.9.4[H][31 provides factors that may be considered along with
the mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. Staff has prepared a response to each of
the additional factors, demonstrating how the optional criteria could also be met:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone districtfor the land;
The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for the
Northeast corner. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from the C,
Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and east. The E,
Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial District for the property to
the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix ofcommercial and employment uses.
Regulations contained in the Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the
I-25 corridor designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of setback requirements,
maximum building f•ontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of
foodplains.
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise,
stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the
environment;
273
April 15, 2008
Staffs perspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District
at the Northeast corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Again, development applications will be subject to the City's development standards relative to
natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Part of the reason for
enlarging the C, Commercial zoning in the Northeast quadrant was to devote land to the proper
management of the Boxelder Creek foodplain.
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The Prospect Road/I--25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community gateway,
combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such
an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available for the development ofa mix
of commercial and employment types of uses. The City's development standards will require
adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the East Prospect Road and I-25 rezonings and amendments to the I-25 Subarea
Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, staff makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions as explained in detail above:
1. The request for amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan map would be
consistent with the City Plan's overall vision, goals, principles, and policies.
2. The rezoning requests are consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, based
on the Structure Plan map amendment and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
3. The proposed C, Commercial District and E Employment District are appropriate for the
Northeast corner and are consistent with the types of land uses previously planned for the
interchange area.
4. The proposed rezonings will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
5. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development.
STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval ofthe amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 acres
of E, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to create
a 39 acre Ezoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of96 acres) and residential
areas to the north and east.
274
April 15, 2008
Staff is also recommending that a zoning condition be placed on the requested rezoning. The
purpose of the zoning condition is for the City to be able to "control" development of the entire
property via an overall development plan (ODP) if smaller parcels are sold off to other owners
before development plans are submitted to the City. In other words, the City can require aproperty
under single ownership that will develop in phases to submit an ODP for the total development of
the property, but the City cannot require other parcels/owners to also be involved under a single
ODP. Again, the zoning condition will give the City the ability to control development of the total
105 acres via an ODP.
Section 3 of the rezoning ordinance contains thefollowing:
"That, under the authorityprovided in Section 2.9.4(I) and Section 2.2.9 ofthe Land
Use Code, the rezoning as described in Section I (legal description ofthe property)
is conditioned upon the requirement that all ofthe lands described in Section 1 shall
be developed under a single overall development plan, in order to insure that the
rezoning will result in a a logical and orderly development pattern. "
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on September 20, 2007, voted 7-0
to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings. "
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the City received two rezoning requests for the southwest corner
and northeast corner of I-25 and Prospect in June 2007. Staff reviewed the land use patterns around
the interchange and the implications of each rezoning request. The conclusion was the rezoning
request represented a shift in land uses that were already approved in previous City Plans for the
interchange. The rezoning requests did not introduce any specific new land uses for the interchange.
Staff had concerns about the loss of Commercial zoning and Industrial zoning that would result from
the two rezoning requests. The rezoning would add 143 acres of Employment zoning in the
southwest corner and 66 acres of Commercial in the northeast corner that would offset the losses.
The area under consideration is currently predominantly zoned for industrial uses along with 30 acres
of Commercial zoning. This request would provide a larger Commercial area with an Employment
area to act as a buffer between the Commercial zoning and residential properties to the north and
east. It would rezone 86 acres of Industrial to 66 acres of Commercial and 20 acres of Employment
and change 19 acres of Urban Estate zoning to 19 acres of Employment.
Rezoning requests must meet criteria in the Land Use Code. Council must consider if the request
is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This request is not consistent with the City's
Structure Plan Map or the Land Use Plan and Policies in the I-25 Subarea Plan. Staff recommends
amendments to the Structure Plan Map and the 1-25 Subarea Plan. Another criteria to consider is
changed conditions. Three other criteria can be considered in reviewing a rezoning request. (1) is
the rezoning compatible with surrounding uses; (2) are there any adverse impacts upon the natural
environment; and (3) whether the rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
275
April 15, 2008
The Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommend approval of the rezoning. If the area is not
rezoned, the Commercial zone currently in place would likely be developed with highway oriented
types of commercial uses such as fast food restaurants, motels, gas stations, or some retail outlets.
The Industrial zone would develop with industrial uses or employment uses that would benefit from
close proximity to I-25 such as warehouses, distribution facilities, light industrial or heavier
manufacturing. The Industrial zoning does permit outdoor storage uses while the Employment zone
does not.
The I-25 Subarea Plan discusses the northeast corner of the Mulberry/I-25 interchange as the
appropriate location for regional retail uses. Currently, there are 46 acres undeveloped at this
interchange that is available for development but there are no other undeveloped parcels in that area.
The northeast corner of Prospect/I-25 is currently zoned for 30 acres of commercial development.
Much of the 46 acre tract at Mulberry/I-25 is in the Boxelder Creek floodplain. The northeast corner
of Prospect/1-25 also has a portion that is in the Boxelder Creek floodplain. Both areas would need
to deal with floodplain issues and improvements would be needed at both interchanges. The 46-acre
parcel located at the Mulberry interchange is large enough for a single, regional type of retail but is
not large enough for a regional retail center. It is currently outside the city limits. The 30 acres
zoned Commercial at the northeast corner of Prospect/I-25 is too small for a regional retail center
or a single retailer. The proposed rezoning area is totally within the city limits.
Mark Jackson, Transportation Group Director, stated current volume of traffic on the Prospect
corridor, west of I-25 to Lemay, is at 18,000 to 23,000 daily trips, which is beyond the threshhold
for an arterial roadway. Prospect Road is functioning fairly well because the link from Summitview
to the bridge at Poudre River does not contain intersections. Intersections are generally the cause
of congestion on roads. The bridge at Poudre River has been improved and the engineering and
earthwork has been done in anticipation of widening the bridge to a 4-lane bridge. Prospect, from
I-25 to Summitview, will be improved when development does start to occur and that portion will
be improved to a 4-lane arterial status.
Prospect is identified as a future 4-lane arterial on the Master Street Plan. It is also identified by the
MPO, CDOT and the City as a regionally significant corridor. It is a key entry into central Fort
Collins and CSU. The land uses of the Prospect/I-25 interchange, combined with the growing
background traffic, will eventually result in the need to widen Prospect to a 4-lane arterial. The
proposed rezoning would generate more trips but those trips would be at different times and different
trip patterns. Retail does generate more trips but the trips do not tend to be at traditional trip times.
Office employment, industrial and commercial generate trips at peak times. Retail areas generate
more trips but the trips are spread throughout the day and weekend. Analysis of projected trips
shows about a 6 to 7% difference between trips generated by the current zoning and the proposed
zoning.
Prospect Road, from I-25 to Summitview, will be a traditional 4-lane arterial, when it is widened as
it will be serving more intense uses. From Summitview west to the Poudre River, Prospect is
generally designed already and will only need some shoulder work and restriping. The footprint will
not noticeably change and the bike path will stay in its current location. The viewshed from I-25 to
Summitview will be designed and installed according to the I-25 Plan standards. The viewshed west
FWi
April 15, 2008
from Summitview is already established. When Prospect is widened, the natural areas will be
protected with minimal additional impacts.
Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer, stated by 2030, a population of more than 500,000 people
is projected for the trade area of the I-25 corridor, which is Larimer County, excluding Estes Park,
and portions of northwest Weld County, including Windsor and Timnath. Total personal income
is estimated to increase to $6.5 billion with this growth in population which means there would be
more dollars available for retail sales. This regional growth means Fort Collins is no longer the retail
center of Northern Colorado. Even though there is more opportunity for increased population and
sales, ultimately, the projections are that Fort Collins will take a smaller and smaller percentage of
those sales. As the surrounding communities grow and expand their retail sales tax base, it does
impact Fort Collins.
Estimates by economists show that a third regional center will emerge along the I-25 corridor. The
issue is where to place that regional center to best benefit Fort Collins. Windsor and Timnath are
growing rapidly and retail will "follow the rooftops." There is more commercial property zoned
along the interchanges of northern Colorado than will be used. A limited amount of regional retail
is projected to be developed in the northern Colorado area This is a competitive environment and
the rezoning request and the issue to be discussed is what role does Fort Collins want to play in
securing regional retail. Retail development on I-25 from Mulberry to Highway 392 will impact the
city. The Land Use Code contains many processes that will limit negative impacts development
might have.
Waido stated staff believes the northeast comer of Prospect and I-25 is a better location for a regional
retail center than the northeast corner of Mulberry and I-25.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, opposed the rezoning request and stated the Mulbery/I-25
interchange is the best location for development of a retail shopping center.
David White, property owner, stated the property had infrastructure issues that would impede
development and the property owners have worked hard to resolve those issues. The proposed
rezoning would result in a mixed -use project well planned, complimentary with the developing
CSURF Center and would be more desirable than development that would occur under the current
Industrial zoning.
Rick White, property owner, stated a major regional project is underway to eliminate the floodplain
on the property. He urged Council to approve the rezoning to create a gateway to Fort Collins that
would enhance the city.
Wendy Birchler, Norris Design, landscape architect for the White project, stated the I-25 Subarea
Plan has designated the northeast corner of Prospect and I-25 as a major activity center and to
provide a high -quality, mixed -use development that incorporates design features that will provide
an aesthetic gateway to Fort Collins. The proposed rezoning will provide the opportunity for a
design that will meet this intent for the interchange and is consistent with the City's goal to maintain
its role as a regional economic center.
277
Apri115, 2008
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, asked what the economic effect would be of eliminating the
Industrial zoning. He opposed the rezoning and stated the Mulberry interchange already contains the
infrastructure necessary for development and would a better location for a regional shopping center.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated Mulberry/I-25 would be a better site for regional retail
development and opposed the rezoning of the northeast corner of Prospect and I-25.
Mark Wilson, CSU student, stated Fort Collins should keep the open space appeal of the gateway
at Prospect and I-25 and Council should not approve the rezoning request.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, stated the zoning at this site was intended to create an activity
center with a mix of commercial, industrial, and multi -family housing where people can live, work
and shop in a local area. He opposed the rezoning request.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Ohlson asked who will pay for stormwater improvements or interchange
improvements if those improvements are required by development at this interchange. Waido stated
a developer would have to pay for stormwater improvements and the City's stormwater impact fees
for capital improvements as well as operation and maintenance costs. Freeman stated there are
significant stormwater issues on the opposite side of the interchange that have been identified as City
costs. As this area develops, there will be developer contribution and significant City costs to bring
the stormwater under Prospect. Funding would be provided from a combination of Street Oversizing
funds and Stormwater fees. Funding for improvements to the interchange would probably be similar
to the funding proposals for the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange. Jackson stated any development would
be responsible for mitigating any impacts on Prospect.
Mayor Hutchinson stated funding options for interchange improvements were not set at this point
and he asked how other cities in the Front Range had handled funding issues. City Manager
Atteberry stated the towns of Westminster and Thornton have two interchanges where they have
collaborated closely and have agreed to split the costs evenly. They have agreed to revenue sharing
from the development that occurs. Funding for those interchanges was a public/private match. The
funding mechanisms for the Prospect/I-25 interchange still need to be determined and there is not
a development proposal for the northeast corner to be considered.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification of the figures used to determine future traffic at the
interchange. Jackson stated the figures used for trip generation were not a comparison of today's
traffic with no development at the site to the trips generated by a fully developed site. It was a
comparison of the traffic that would be generated by the current zoning as opposed to the traffic that
would be generated by the proposed zoning change. Staff has determined the difference between
trips to an industrial -zoned site versus a commercial -zoned site would only be 6 to 7%.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the stormwater issues at the Mulberry interchange. Waido
stated the stormwater issues were similar to the Prospect interchange because both interchanges have
the same water flow issues. Development at the northeast corner of the Mulberry interchange would
278
April 15, 2008
need to find similar solutions to managing the floodplain as development at the Prospect interchange.
Long term solutions to the Boxelder Creek Drainage area are proposed but will probably take five
to ten years or longer to develop. Freeman stated the property owners of the northeast corner of
Prospect/I-25 have envisioned making improvements to the property that would allow the property
to be developed but as the long-term improvements are made, further development of the site would
be possible. He noted much of the area around the Mulberry interchange is not yet annexed into the
City. Stormwater issues in this area are not resolved because the area is not yet in the City. The cost
of resolving those issues will need to be addressed when annexation of that area is considered. The
Mulberry interchange area is largely developed with office and light industrial uses. No large pieces
of property are available for development. The northeast corner of Mulberry and I-25 is a
constrained site with little opportunity to add more land for a larger development.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Mulberry interchange would be a better choice for a regional retail
center. Freeman stated both interchanges will eventually be in the City and are important to Fort
Collins. The sites are very different and present different opportunities for development. There is
not much development occurring in the northeast part of the city yet although more development will
eventually occur. New construction on the Mulberry corridor is light industrial and very small retail.
The Prospect/I-25 interchange is a larger site and better suited for a regional shopping center. The
Mulberry site is better suited to a single major retailer with perhaps a few smaller retail sites.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if an industrial site would generate fewer traffic trips because
employees at that site could be encouraged to ride Transfort and not drive while a regional retail
center would create more traffic because people would be less likely to ride Transfort. Jackson
stated the analysis did take into consideration transit as well as vehicular travel. Providing good
transit service with a full network in place will encourage people to use transit to go to a regional
retail center. Commercial retail will generate more trips than an industrial site and the difference is
there are different travel patterns with different intensities that are spread out throughout the day.
Councilmember Roy stated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team projects increases of
roughly 4 times the current traffic volume for the interchange in the next 20 years and asked for that
number compared to today. Jackson stated traffic trips would possibly increase from 19,000 to
30,000 to 40,000 trips, depending on the land uses. Travel forecast modeling was used to project
these figures which are estimates and can vary widely. The EIS projection is a much larger number
than the figures quoted by staff because it includes north -south travel on I-25 as well as east -west
travel on Prospect. It also includes increased traffic on I-25 that would occur with the widening of
I-25 to a 6-lane highway. The projection of 30,000 to 40,000 trips is for Prospect alone and does not
include travel on I-25.
Councilmember Manvel asked if staff had concerns with reducing the number of acres zoned
Industrial if this proposed rezoning is approved. Waido stated there are 724 vacant acres currently
zoned Industrial in the city and a loss of 86 acres leaves 638 acres available. The city has 710 acres
zoned for Employment. Adding the 143 acres in the southwest corner of Prospect/I-25 and the
proposed 39 acres increases the total acres zoned Employment to almost 900 acres. There are many
same uses permitted in the Industrial zone that are also permitted in the Employment zone. One
difference between the two types of zoning is Industrial allows outside storage that would not be
279
April 15, 2008
permitted in the Employment zoning. Staff believes the inventory of buildable land is sufficient to
the year 2025 or 2030.
Councilmember Manvel asked if some of the land zoned Industrial belongs to Anheuser-Busch.
Waido stated a small portion of the land owned by Anheuser-Busch is zoned Industrial. City
Manager Atteberry stated although that property is zoned Industrial, there is a chance that it will
never be developed that way.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution
2008-028.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if rezoning this property to allow a regional retail center at the Prospect
interchange would have a serious impact on Foothills Mall. Josh Birks, Economic Planning
Systems, stated the regional retail opportunities along I-25 largely will not compete with Foothills
Mall. The region supports one enclosed or super -regional center, such as Foothills Mall. Regional
retail centers are typically anchored by one to three large -format retailers with a variety of smaller
mid -box and ancillary retail, are not in an enclosed format and do not attract the fashion -oriented or
home furnishing retailers such as are found at Foothills Mall or Centerra.
Councilmember Manvel asked if several large -format retailers would be needed for the proposed
site. Birks stated some large -format anchor retailers prefer to have co -tenants and some are willing
to stand alone, such as a Wal-Mart Supercenter or Costco. Target, Kohl's, Home Depot and Lowe's
prefer to co -locate because they get synergy from having other large -format retailers located with
them. The opportunity on I-25 is for two or three large -format retailers to co -locate together and
create activity that drives traffic and synergy to benefit many retailers. A Wal-Mart Supercenter
would probably not be built at the Prospect location as one is now under development in Timnath
while Costco could greatly benefit from the synergy of adjacent retail. The amount of available
commercial land vastly exceeds the potential for retail in the I-25 corridor. All retailers looking in
the area are looking for an opportunity to create synergistic relationships with other retailers. The
benefit of the Prospect site is it does have the size to provide those relationships between retailers.
If a single retailer is located at each interchange, there is no benefit from adjacent retailers because
people would have to physically drive to each store. A site where a larger center can be located is
beneficial.
Councilmember Manvel stated having several regional shopping centers along I-25, a few miles
apart from each other, could encourage people to drive more as they might view the I-25 corridor as
a composite shopping opportunity. Birks stated that possibility is far in the future, given the
potential seen for retail. The real opportunity is to focus the market potentials at one given
interchange. The I-25 corridor constitutes an emerging opportunity that relates to the household
growth happening to the east and southeast and, in the future, will occur in the northeast. That
growth is driving the development of the I-25 corridor to provide regional retail to that emerging
market. The existing markets in Fort Collins are serving the existing population. Development
along I-25 will serve those on the periphery of I-25 and attract residents from neighboring
communities.
April 15, 2008
Councilmember Manvel noted there is general agreement that there are far more acres zoned
commercial in northern Colorado than will be used for retail locations. Birks stated retail growth
will happen and the question is whether Fort Collins wants to compete for a portion of that market.
Councilmember Ohlson stated most Fort Collins citizens are not happy about the prospect of a much
greater population living in northern Colorado. Birks stated the growth projections by the MPO
present a certain market opportunity so there are choices to be made.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the change in conditions along the I-25 corridor was driven by the
change in land use planning by neighboring communities, particularly Timnath and if there were any
alternatives to those plans. Waido stated Timnath amended its Plan in June 2006. In January 2008,
Larimer County Commissioners considered signing an intergovernmental agreement with Timnath
that formalized its growth management boundaries which was proposed to extend north to County
Road 52. Approval of that IGA would also be County approval of its adopted Land Use Plan. The
City of Fort Collins objected to that land use pattern as some of the resulting impacts would affect
City services and facilities. The Commissioners did not approve the signing of the IGA and directed
Fort Collins and Timnath to work together to find a resolution for the issues. Staff has been meeting
with Timnath staff and are working on a memorandum of understanding as to what the issues are
open to discussion. No agreement has been reached about those issues.
Councilmember Troxell stated the rezoning would move the property from industrial to commercial
and provides opportunity for a different project than is allowed with the industrial zoning. The
rezoning would provide a better interchange and gateway into Fort Collins.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Structure Plan needs to be discussed. Prospect needs to be
compared to Mulberry. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan was developed without much attention
given to the Mulberry/I-25 interchange. The focus in the I-25 Corridor Plan and the Mulberry
Corridor Plan is not on a regional shopping center as there is no zoning in these Plans to allow such
a shopping center. Waido stated the interchange was examined in the I-25 Subarea Plan as it dealt
with the I-25 corridor. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan overlaps with the I-25 Subarea Plan. Some
significant changes have occurred in the area east of I-25 as neighboring communities change the
way they plan to use that area which are different from the way the City planned to use that area.
The question is whether the City's plans need to be changed with these changing conditions. The
City does not have any authority over Timnath's ability to adopt a Land Use Plan. The only
influence the City has is through the County with the IGA and the establishment of the growth
management boundary. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, noted State statutes provide limited
authority in terms of having consistent Comprehensive Plans. The only authority Fort Collins has
is the ability to comment on a neighboring community's Plan and ask for State mediation if there are
inconsistencies between Plans. The community adopting the Plan can do as it pleases and does not
have to agree to abide by any mediation. Intergovernmental agreements are put in place to establish
areas of future growth and, hopefully, prevent some conflicts between neighboring communities.
In the I-25 Corridor Plan, the northeast corner of Mulberry and I-25 is planned for 46 acres of
commercial development. The plan has been for that site to be a highway -oriented, commercial
retail development. From a timing perspective, the most desirable locations for retail will be toward
the center ofthe regional market, which extends from Longmont to Cheyenne, Estes Park to Greeley.
281
April 15, 2008
The center is Highway 34 and I-25. The farther away a location is from this center, the less desirable
it is for retail. The interchanges at Highway 34, Highway 392 and Prospect are more attractive to
retailers than Mulberry, which is too far north and does not have the rooftops to support retail. At
some point in the future, the Mulberry interchange will be desirable, but not in the current market.
Councilmember Manvel noted there are no rooftops near the Prospect/I-25 interchange. Frank stated
there is considerable housing development on County Road 5 in Timnath, only about a mile from
I-25.
Councilmember Manvel asked how many acres were available on the southwest corner of the I-
25/Highway 392 interchange. Frank stated there were approximately 100 acres available for
development but the issue at that location is that the land is split between a number of small property
owners. Freeman noted there are wetlands at that location that will have to be considered with any
development so it is a constrained development site.
Councilmember Manvel asked if there was a sense of urgency surrounding this rezoning request.
Freeman stated the applicant submitted this request 14 months ago and the City is responding to this
request. There is a limited number of sites today to locate a large scale regional center and acting
now would be beneficial to facilitate such a center being located in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Manvel asked if rezoning the property would increase its price and make it less
attractive to a retailer. Birks stated the rezoning would change land value but it also removes a risk
for a retail developer who would be willing to pay more for the land with the zoning already set.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Fort Collins has City Plan that is comprehensive and well designed. It
contains criteria based on principles that are to be used to determine rezonings. Staff has pointed
out changes that warrant this rezoning. One of the criteria addresses compatibility with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land and it has been shown the proposed rezoning is
compatible. Staff has explained what impacts the rezoning would have on the environment.
Another criteria is whether the proposed rezoning will result in a logical and orderly development
pattern which has been demonstrated.
Councilmember Ohlson stated previous rezonings had not worked out as originally proposed and he
was concerned this proposed rezoning would not develop as envisioned. Placing regional retail on
I-25 will negatively impact the Foothills, Mall, the Mason Corridor, Downtown and North College.
The city gateways along the I-25 corridor were not envisioned to be "mega -strip malls" but were to
make Fort Collins special and unique. He did not support the rezoning.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the I-25 Corridor Plan uses activity centers clustered around the
interchanges and would not allow for strip malls to be developed.
Councilmember Roy stated the entrances to Fort Collins should be special and set the city apart.
Retail is a difficult business especially as the country seems headed for a recession. Redevelopment
of the Foothills Mall does not appear to be happening in the near future. Having a successful retail
center at the proposed site seems to be difficult venture in the next few years. The I-25 Corridor Plan
282
April 15, 2008
does not seem to ensure a logical and orderly development pattern of the I-25 interchanges. Logic
does not seem to have been applied to this interchange or the other interchanges in the I-25 corridor.
He did not support the rezoning request.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the proposed rezoning area is located east of I-25 and the area west of the
Prospect/I-25 interchange already has a set plan that includes open space.
Councilmember Poppaw stated a regional retail center does not seem to be consistent with the vision
for this interchange which included clean energy and a CSU gateway.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not believe it would be a good decision to rezone this property
and reduce the amount of land available for manufacturing. The long term economic health of Fort
Collins will best be served by doing things differently and not looking like every other community
in northern Colorado. This rezoning would not create primary jobs and would not truly benefit the
economic health of Fort Collins. This rezoning is an attempt get a share of the regional sales tax
dollars in order to fund local government and is not about the future economic health of the City.
Councilmember Brown stated this issue is about the economy and choosing not to allow the rezoning
risks millions of dollars of revenue to the City by not moving ahead with this project. Any developer
who moves forward with a project on this site would not do so unless he has a viable product and
the timing is right so the retail project would not fail. The northeast corner of Prospect and I-25
provides access to people from Wyoming, Timnath and Wellington. This issue is about tax revenue
and the City should do all it can to get a portion of those sales tax dollars. Aesthetics and the look
of the interchange should not be an issue as Fort Collins has high standards that would ensure a
development that is complimentary to the City. The site is currently zoned Industrial and
development of the property under that zoning would create an industrial complex with outdoor
storage and not a stylish retail center.
Councilmember Troxell stated this is a well designed plan, is consistent with planning policies and
is well within the Land Use Plan, City Plan and I-25 Subarea Plan. It addresses environmental
standards, transportation, and economic development and would be an important part of the future
of Fort Collins. The current zoning could create a site similar to the Mulberry interchange.
Councilmember Poppaw stated development of this site under the Industrial zoning could create
primary jobs which would benefit economic health.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want I-25 to be the "main street" of northern Colorado and
encourage the growth of retail along the 1-25 corridor. It would be better to present shopping
opportunities for Fort Collins citizens along the Mulberry corridor, College corridor or the Harmony
corridor rather than encourage them to drive out to I-25. Going forward with this plan may not
maximize the City's sales tax over the next five years. Rezoning the property does offer the
opportunity for a regional retail center but would remove the industrial zoning. The rezoning would
not best serve the economy of Fort Collins.
283
April 15, 2008
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Mulberry/I-25 interchange is not an option for a regional retail center.
The future of industrial activity in Fort Collins is very much in doubt and it is highly unlikely that
another company such as HP will come to Fort Collins. Foothills Mall would not be impacted by
this proposal as it is a different market entirely. A regional retail center at this site would serve
people from Wyoming and Timnath and not just pull people from Fort Collins. The request fits the
City Plan principles.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2008-028 was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson,
Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt Resolution
2008-029. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt Ordinance
032, 2008. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Ordinance No. 041, 2008,
Amending Section 2-272 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and
Functions of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
A modest impact is associated with the possibility ofadditional stafftime to prepare items for review
by the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board as
contained in Section 2-272 ofthe City Code. The proposed modification will broaden the scope of
the Board's f unctions to include review of Cityplans or policy changes or other activities that could
have some impact on properties owned by the Natural Areas Program, or of interest to the Program,
ifsuch review was requested by either the City Manager or the City Council.
The Code amendment will read as follows:
"Upon request ofthe City Manager or at the direction ofthe City Council, to advise
City Council regarding any positive or negative impacts that particular plans or
284
April 15, 2008
projects of the City may have on Natural Areas Program properties or properties
that may be of interest to the Natural Areas Program. "
The request to amend the Code occurred after the Board was not able to review the Cooper Slough
Stormwater Master Plan due to the limited description of its duties and functions contained in the
Code. Staff did take the Cooper Sough Master Plan to the Natural Resources Advisory Board for
its review. "
Councilmember Troxell stated this revision of the duties of the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board includes a provision that "upon request of the City Manager or at the direction of Council, to
advise Council regarding any positive or negative impacts that particular plans or projects of the City
may have on Natural Area properties or properties that may be of interest to the Natural Areas
Program." He asked if this provision related only to City projects and the impact of those projects
on natural areas. City Attorney Roy stated the projects that could be reviewed by the Board would
be plans or projects of the City or it could also be other projects that either affect the Natural Area
properties or other properties that are not presently within the Natural Areas Program but may of
interest to the Program.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a developing property was adjacent to aNatural Areas property, but
does not impact the natural area or is viewed as a future part of the Natural Areas Program, would
be exempt and would not be brought before the Board. City Attorney Roy stated the decision to
request Board review would depend upon whether the Director of the Natural Areas Program felt
that property might be of interest for future acquisition.
Councilmember Troxell stated he was concerned this provision would add another step to the
development process if a project is located near a natural area and the project would have to be
brought before the Board. City Attorney Roy noted Board review is limited to plans or projects of
the City and not plans or projects of private parties.
Councilmember Ohlson stated there could be projects that are not City projects but would still affect
natural areas. He asked for language that would not require individual development proposals going
through the planning process to be brought before the Board but would allow the Board to review
projects that would directly affect natural areas, such as the installation of power lines.
City Attorney Roy noted the ordinance could be amended to broaden the duties of the Board to allow
it to review projects, public or private, but not including particular project development plans
submitted through the Land Use Code process.
Councilmember Troxell asked why this provision was proposed for the Land Stewardship and
Conservation Board and not for the Natural Resources Advisory Board. City Manager Atteberry
stated the proposed revision of duties of the Land Stewardship and Conservation Board came about
after the Board was unable to review the Cooper Slough Master Plan because that review was outside
the scope of the Board. City Attorney Roy stated the scope of this Board is narrow and the duties
of the Board as outlined in the City Code do not contain the provision "such other duties and
functions as may be assigned to the Board by the Council by resolution or ordinance." City Manager
285
April 15, 2008
Atteberry noted leadership wanted to bring the Cooper Slough Master Plan to this Board but City
Code did not permit this Board to review the Plan.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Land Stewardship and Conservation Board has different duties
from the Natural Resources Advisory Board. The intent of this revision of duties is to allow this
Board the opportunity to review certain projects that it currently cannot. John Stokes, Natural
Resources Director, stated the Board does have the power to examine projects that directly affect
natural areas, such as power lines being installed over natural areas. The Board cannot currently
review projects in areas adjacent to natural areas.
City Attorney Roy suggested a proposed amendment to the ordinance to include "upon request of
the City Manager or at the direction of the City Council, to advise City Council regarding any
positive or negative impacts that particular plans or projects of the City or of other public or private
entities may have on natural area program properties or properties that may be of interest to the
Natural Area Program. This provision shall not apply to land use proposals submitted to the City
for review and approval under the City's Land Use Code."
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy to adopt Ordinance No.
041, 2008 on First Reading with the amended wording.
Councilmember Troxell asked ifthe wording could be changed to "upon request of the City Manager
and approval of City Council." He wanted the decision to review projects to be an open process and
not add a step to the development process.
Councilmember Ohlson stated delaying a review of a project by requiring both City Manager and
Council approval could be cumbersome and time consuming. Proposals in the development review
process will not be subject to this provision and changing to this wording would add unnecessary
delays. City Attorney Roy stated it was clear Council did not intend this Board review to become
part of the development review process.
Councilmember Troxell asked that the decision to refer projects to this Board be handled in a similar
way as other boards. City Attorney Roy stated the difference is City Code requires other boards and
commissions to review issues referred to them by a majority vote of the Council which is a public
process. This revision would allow a review without a majority vote of the Council but enables the
City Manager, whether at the request of Councilmembers or on his own initiative, to set the review
in motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
286
April 15, 2008
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into Executive
Session, as permitted by Section 2-31(1)(2) of the City Code, for the purpose of meeting with the
City Attorney to discuss the manner in which particular policies, practices and regulations of the City
may be affected by existing provisions of the law and to discuss potential litigation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Marvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
ISM UI N&us]I IIQaal\:�:i
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy to adjourn the meeting
to April 22, 2008 at the conclusion of the work session for a potential executive session.
Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
PA,
Adjournment
287