HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 11/21/2023 - Memorandum From Sylvia Tatman-Burruss And Megan Keith Re: Additional Materials For November 21 First Reading Of The East Mulberry Plan
City Manager’s Office
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation
281 N. College Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation
Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
FROM: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager
Megan Keith, Senior Planner
RE: Additional Materials for November 21 First Reading of the East Mulberry
Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to update Councilmembers on the discussion
that occurred at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on November 16, 2023.
Background
Planning & Zoning Commission: On November 16, 2023, the Planning & Zoning Commission
conducted a Regular Hearing to make a recommendation to Council regarding the DRAFT East
Mulberry Plan.
East Mulberry Plan Recommendation to Council (Recommended Approval: 5-0)
2 people provided public comment in person, and none online. Comments included:
o General support for the work of staff, along with reservations about the cost of
future infrastructure upgrades.
o Desire to codify allowable uses that are discussed in the plan and not just allow
them to exist in the plan document.
o Support from a resident for the plan and the potential for improvement in the
corridor.
Commission discussion included:
o Emphasis that some of the desired commercial uses require residential density.
o The various mechanisms for financing future improvements
o The possibility of annexing vacant lands to allow regulation of land use activities
rather than County referral
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E91C75-6CA6-40D6-A048-582D138C020D
Staff Recommendations
Staff have documented various suggested edits from Planning and Zoning Commissioners
between the Work Session held on November 9th and the Hearing held on November 16th. The
following edits and clarifications could be categorized as minor text changes and are
recommended to be adopted as part of the East Mulberry Plan:
Rename ‘Transitional’ Character Area to ‘Transitional / Mixed Use’ to better reflect the
anticipated mix of future land uses.
o Character Areas Map, Plan Page 29
o Various text edits throughout document
Update strategies to clarify the tools and incentives available to the City for billboards
located on undefined parcels (e.g., ditch corridors)
o Strategy 1.2.5, Plan Page 48
o Strategy 7.2.3, Plan Page 90
Future Monitoring Reports could contain information about existing signage and
billboards within the East Mulberry Enclave and their status.
o Monitoring Reports bullet, Plan Page 120
The explanation of 15-Minute Cities is best-suited as a call-out box for reader reference.
o Opportunity, Equity, & Accessibility, Plan Page 16
The following are other comments from Planning and Zoning Commissioners that are not
recommended to be adopted as part of the East Mulberry Plan:
Consider adding additional reference to Lincoln Avenue under Goal 7 and include
statement that aesthetic qualities of interior streets within the I-25 Interchange Character
Area should not be prioritized.
o Future cross-section design and aesthetics of Lincoln Avenue is discussed within
the Plan as a potential future Capital Project. Goal 7 primarily focuses on the
Frontage and I-25 Interchange Character Areas. Qualities of Lincoln Avenue that
may function similarly as a gateway into the plan area could be explored in future
design exercises.
o Strategies and implementation action items under Goal 7 reference Mulberry
Street right-of-way and properties abutting Mulberry Street and the I-25
Interchange as priority locations for implementing this goal.
Proactive annexation of vacant land as part of threshold consideration.
o Staff does not recommend a change associated with this edit. On Plan Page 117,
the section titled ‘Other indicators of annexation readiness’ explores that sites
that are developable could be considered as a threshold or as part of a combined
threshold.
At this time, staff does not recommend additional language related to increased density and
potential funding mechanisms be added to the East Mulberry Plan. Instead, staff would like to
incorporate these comments into the monitoring reports and analysis conducted as part of the
thresholds annexation strategy as they arise.
Attachments:
Planning & Zoning Commission Draft Minutes from November 16, 2023 (East Mulberry
Plan item only)
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E91C75-6CA6-40D6-A048-582D138C020D
Planning and Zoning Commission
Draft Minutes from Regular Hearing on November 16, 2023
Draft East Mulberry Plan Consideration
7. East Mulberry Plan Recommendation
Project Description: This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a
recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the East Mulberry Plan.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that there were no additional public emails or letters received after the agenda
packet had been posted.
Staff Presentations
Planners Keith and Mounce gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, appreciates the work completed on this plan but has one issue to bring to
light. The city tends to adopt plans before we know how we are going to pay for them. He also pointed out
that there is some ambiguity with the Sanctuary on the Green court decision and what the role of subarea
and master plans have in relation to the Land Use Code.
David Eisenbraun, 427 Stout St., is excited to see this in front of the Commission and feels this is a great
way to put future tax dollars and investments toward it. He is in full support.
Staff Response
Member Shepard asked if there is enough emphasis being placed on residential density. Planner Mounce
responded that what staff has noticed is that most of the corridor is already built out or has master plans,
such as PUD’s, in place. There is not a lot of new residential planned. There is a lot outside of the corridor
boundary.
Chair Katz asked if there have been conversations amongst staff, about what challenges they see
regarding annexation from an infrastructure perspective. Planner Keith responded that much of the
infrastructure is deficient. Under the thresholds approach when an area has been identified as a potential
threshold, this will then kick off an analysis period in which staff will examine, in-depth, how the area can
be served by infrastructure and utilities in the future. This will include a detailed cost analysis of each of
the components. Then a determination will be made if an annexation is right.
Member Shepard asked if the term authority, in relation to the Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater
Authority, is listed along with the SIDs, GID’s and does this authority have any land area within the plan
area? Planner Keith responded that she was not sure of this but could look this up. Member Shepard
commented that this could be another tool and that maybe this could be included.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Commission clarifying questions:
None noted.
Commission questions:
Member Shepard is interested in the monitory report and asked if this was a staff exercise or if this is a
consultant task. Planner Mounce responded that staff envisions this to be more of a staff exercise. One of
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E91C75-6CA6-40D6-A048-582D138C020D
Planning and Zoning Commission
Draft Minutes from Regular Hearing on November 16, 2023
Draft East Mulberry Plan Consideration
the first tasks is to set a baseline monitoring report over the next several months. Annexed areas are able
to receive funding. Member Shepard thinks this is a good methodology.
Member Shepard wonders if the plan should emphasize that annexing vacant land does not incur a cost,
per se, in the short term and that it would allow the city to regulate the land development to an urban
standard in the city code rather than through the county referral process. Would adding this as a criterion
to the annexation thresholds is strategic? Planner Keith responded that she feels this could be a good
addition and a means to more proactively looking at these areas.
Member Shepard commented on goal 7 and is wondering if staff might go further in the prioritization by
adding Lincoln and excluding some of the side streets. Planner Mounce responded that this could be
looked at. Planner Mounce spoke to the transportation resources needed and this area being an industrial
and commercial hub, not wanting to drive a lot of potential impacts to some of these areas.
Member Shepard thanked the staff for the minor revision to the billboard section. He would perhaps
emphasize that as part of the monitoring project, upon annexation our policy is the 7-year amortization
period. This makes sense for the on-premises signs. Billboards are typically off-premise and some are not
on legal parcels, is there a possibility that these were erected in a non-regulatory environment, if so,
these are not legal, and would not be eligible for the 7-year amortization. Maybe there is a different
approach for these? This should be made clear.
Member Shepard likes the Link Lane main street concept, this should be pursued.
Member Katz echoed Member Shepard’s signs comments and the Link Lane main street concept. He
appreciates staff listening.
Member Shepard mentioned that the 15-minute city section needs a gray call-out box.
Member Sass commented that public outreach was good, and this is really well thought out, and thanked
staff.
Member York commented that staff did a great job on this item.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City
Council approval of the East Mulberry Plan as presented. Member Sass seconded. Vote: 5:0
(Commissioners Stackhouse and Stegner absent).
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E91C75-6CA6-40D6-A048-582D138C020D