HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 6/16/2020 - Memorandum From Delynn Coldiron Re: Item #9 - Harmony Gateway ProjectCity Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
June 16, 2020
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
Re: Item #9 ‐ Harmony Gateway Project
Attached please find public comments regarding the Harmony Gateway Project, submitted until
4:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 16, 2020.
From: AYLEEN BURNS
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CityLeaders - Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:34:49 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is Ayleen Burns and I reside in District 3. I support the Harmony Corridor
Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor
of this at second reading on June 16, 2020.
From: carol schinkel
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:21:08 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Carol Schinkel and I reside in District 2. I support the Harmony Corridor Update
Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor of this at second
reading on June 16, 2020.
Sincerely,
Your Name
From: Harry Strharsky
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Update Plan
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 4:37:53 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Harry Strharsky and I own a home and reside in District 1. I support the Harmony
Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor
of this at second reading on June 16, 2020.
Thank You, Sincerely,
Harry Strharsky
From: Jan Rossi
To: City Leaders; Ken Summers
Subject: [EXTERNAL] We need more open space right from the start with this Harmony Corridor Plan - Let"s Really PLAN
for the FUTURE
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:45:55 PM
Dear City Leaders, Staff and Attorneys:
I'm Jan Rossi and I reside in District 3. I travel on the Harmony Corridor and it is very busy -
too much so. We need to support our open spaces not just in the delightful old town area,
but also other areas of the city that constantly get overlooked. Why is it we have all the
congestion and packed development areas when there should be more open space planned
right from the start?
Let's get this right now.
I support the Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and
request you vote in favor of this at the second reading coming up on June 16, 2020.
With growing unrest around our country more folks are stepping up to urge you to do the
right thing and think of the future residents of this area, think of the wildlife that is important
to our environment that you are displacing and think of all the increased vehicle noise, fumes
and large trucks that will make this area a problem for people living in these compacted
spaces.
Let's give them a bit of space. Don't let the developers run you over - do it for the residents.
Thank you,
Jan Rossi
Fort Collins, CO
Active Voter and Community Participant in District 3
From: Jane Schopfer
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Corridor Update Plan
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2020 8:03:56 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is Jane Schopfer and I reside in District Southeast FC. I support the Harmony
Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor
of this at second reading on June 16, 2020.
Sent from my iPad
From: Jeanne Grove
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor
Date: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:16:41 PM
Dear Fort Collins City Council Members:
We support the Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open
space and request you vote in favor of this second reading on June 16th. Please look
to the incredible example the City of Boulder has set by recently purchasing even
MORE open space on Shanahan Ridge.
Thank you,
Jeff and Jeanne Grove
2214 Sandbur Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
From: Jude Friend
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Open Space in the Harmony Corridor
Date: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:10:18 PM
My name is __Judith Friend_________ and I reside inFort Collins. I support the Harmony
Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor
of this at second reading on June 16, 2020.
Please keep Fort Collins and its surrounding areas a nice place to live. We need open space
and parks for our mental and physical well being.
Sincerely,
Judith Friend
From: Mbsk7200
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Leaders-Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:26:15 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Maryann Babbs and I reside in District 4. I support the Harmony Corridor Update
Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor of this at second
reading on June 16, 2020.
Sincerely,
Maryann Babbs
From: nchenkin@comcast.net
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:14:15 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Nelson Chenkin and I have resided in District 1 for 42 years. I support the
Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote
in favor of this at second reading on June 16, 2020.
One of the lessons of this current Covid pandemic is the critical importance and value of open
space in our community. We are incredibly lucky to have this resource in Fort Collins. Please
ensure there is even more in the future. Once gone, it’s gone forever.
Thank you,
Nelson Chenkin
From: roxanne griffin
To: City Leaders
Cc: Ken Summers; Emily Gorgol; Ross Cunniff; Susan Gutowsky; Julie Pignataro; Kristin Stephens
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Gateway and City"s 50 million dollar shortfall
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:04:10 PM
Dear City Leaders,
I attended a Planning and Zoning Community outreach meeting on the
Harmony Corridor Plan. We eventually broke into round table discussions
and two prominent developers in Fort Collins were seated at my table.
Both developers raised grave concerns about the viability of retail on this
property. Some of their concerns were those of limited accessibility and
visibility to the property. They flat out said that any retail in this area is
doomed from the get go. Did Planning and Zoning share these concerns
with you? I do not recall this being discussed when Cameron Gloss gave
his presentation to Council at first reading prior to the vote.
Please don’t be fooled by the argument that our city will lose valued tax
revenues if the developer is not allowed the additional requested retail
space. I remind you once again of all the empty retail spaces that have
been sitting empty in shopping centers along east Harmony prior to the
pandemic only to have increased over the course of the last several
months. What kind of magic retail is this developer proposing will thrive
there? Has there been any marketing studies presented to you to support
the requested amendment to retail density?
Furthermore to use the argument that the City is facing a 50 million dollar
shortfall as justification for the increased development density including
that of retail is ludicrous.
In addition to the 40% natural area I also support as do many residents
from ALL districts across Fort Collins the 15% retail maximum density as
proposed in Option E from Citizen’s Stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Roxanne Griffin
District 3
From: roxanne griffin
To: Wade Troxell
Cc: Kristin Stephens; Ross Cunniff; Emily Gorgol; Susan Gutowsky; Julie Pignataro; City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for recusal from HCP vote June 16th
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 8:54:50 AM
Dear Mayor Troxell,
I request you recuse yourself from the Harmony Corridor Plan vote on
June 16th during second reading.
With all due respect you have consistently voted to give the developer the
green light in every step thru this process without once acknowledging the
concerns of residents who have engaged with you directly via emails or
indirectly during public comment at Council meetings. This total lack of
acknowledgment regarding residents input coupled with the fact that you
have received campaign contributions from multiple LLCs owned by the
developer who purchased the land under review puts to test your
impartiality in public opinion and perceptions.
As you well know you received ten $100 donations amounting to $1000
from the developer Joseph Padilla who owns the land at Harmony
Gateway. While this is not illegal in Fort Collins since LLCs are considered
"persons" and I want to be very clear that I am not suggesting any
impropriety on your part; the bigger picture is that State law does not
count LLCs as natural persons. At the State level a natural person can
contribute to a candidate through their personal funds, their LLCs, or a
combination but NEVER in excess of their individual limit. Therefore under
State law for example Mr. Padilla would not have been able to donate
more than $100 whether that be through his LLCs or personally to your
campaign. In the court of public perception best case scenario this could
look like someone trying to buy influence.
For going on two years now I've attended Council meetings and work
sessions on the Harmony Corridor Plan. At the meetings I attended
Councilmembers (with the exception of you and Councilmember Summers)
have shared and/or acknowledged the concerns expressed by residents in
their districts. Furthermore they raised the concerns from their
constituency to Planning and Zoning to better understand how the
developer plans to mitigate citizen's concerns ultimately resulting in
Council sending P&Z back to the drawing board. You as well as
Councilmember Summers (who represents District 3 where residents have
been most vocal in opposition) were also recipients of same emails or in
attendance at those meetings hearing the same public comments
regarding concerns raised by residents. Yet you and Councilmember
Summers (also a recipient of multiple donations from LLCs owned by Mr.
Padilla) have consistently ignored the concerns of citizen's across Fort
Collins some of which are highlighted below:
Impact of high density development on traffic along east Harmony
The ethics of residential building on a floodway
The sustainability of the developer's requested additional retail space
when many store fronts sit empty along east Harmony and sadly
more given the economic impact of COVID
The preservation of a cottonwood tree that hosts a decades old heron
rookery
Disregard for numerous established city policies and strategies as it
relates to the following:
The Poudre River Corridor
City Separators and Connectors
Nature in the City
Natural Lands and Open Spaces
Instead during the meetings you have been in lock step alliance with the
developer’s proposal from the get go offering comments and superlatives
like “I think this a great idea" and "This could be something spectacular."
This total disregard and lack of respect of citizen input even if you do not
share their concerns is not the kind of leadership one should expect from
their elected representatives. Furthermore being the recipient of multiple
donations from the developer as shared earlier I would argue does not
instill confidence that you and Councilmember Summers are an impartial
voice in this process. I request you do the right thing and recuse yourself.
Your responsibility to the voters of Fort Collins goes beyond that of a
fiduciary one. So before I offer you a concluding thought I want to recap
concerns that have arisen over the course of two years regarding the
appearance of yours as well as Councilmember Summers actions and
inactions that have compromised public perceptions regarding your
impartiality.
1. Complete disregard of concerns expressed by residents during City
Council meetings and work sessions.
2. Fully embracing w/out question the amended proposal requested by the
developer for the Harmony Gateway Corridor over those of residents.
3. Recipient of multiple campaign donations from the developer
4. Obstructing efforts of Represent Fort Collins, the League of Women
Voters and requests from individual residents for campaign finance
reforms from your positions in serving on the Election Code Committee
In conclusion I want to point out that the appearance of impropriety to buy
undue influence does not say anything about the personal honesty of any
individual or whether the individual will be influenced by the conflict. No
matter how honest a person may be or how able a person is to set aside
their personal interests, if a conflict exists it UNDERMINES the appearance
of fairness and impartiality. It UNDERMINES the public's acceptance that
all public decisions are being made for the public good.
This is institutional conflict. Fort Collins City Council needs to decide do
they want to align elections codes that are currently in conflict to our
State's election codes in regards to campaign contributions or require
those Councilmembers to recuse when an appearance of impropriety or
conflict of interest arises. You and Councilmember Summers sit on the
Election Code Committee and have obstructed efforts towards reform. As
you well know public opinion is growing and demanding you can't have it
both ways.I hope you will give this serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Roxanne Griffin
Engaged Resident Fort Collins
District 3
From: Sarah Peacock
To: City Leaders
Subject: Harmony Gateway
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:53:45 AM
Good morning,
I am writing to express support for the requirement of a natural area at the southside of the
Harmony Gateway. What makes Fort Collins distinctive and uniquely livable is not our chain
stores and mass apartment complexes, but our natural areas and preservation of open spaces.
Thank you,
Sarah Peacock
From: Walter Lyons
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] We Support Ordinace 044 + Scenario E
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:53:15 AM
Dear Councilmember,
My name is Dr. Walter Lyons (District 3). We support the Harmony Corridor Update Plan
Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor of this at second
reading on June 16, 2020.
Over the upcoming years, along with thousands of other residents and visitors to our City, you
and your family will likely frequently pass through the Harmony Gateway at I-25.
Will you like what you see? Will it serve as a testament to the foresight of the current City
leadership?
Will you see a landscape that is welcoming to visitors, provides a sense of arrival, and has a
look and feel supportive of our community values?
(All goals elucidated by current and past City Councils).
Or will it be just another non-descript commercial highway interchange, perhaps with a facade
of a few extra trees?
That will depend on your vote on Ordinance 044.
Already it is likely, given the drive to expand the developer's apartment complex eastward into
H25, that much of the Gateway's most visible frontage will be a continuation of the eyesore
that is the Wyatt.
By voting to “save” the remainder of the H25 area by passing Ordinance 044 while protecting
the 40% open space requirement, and by augmenting it with at least some of the features of
Scenario E supported by large numbers of area residents, at least some of the original Gateway
vision can be realized.
In future years when you pass the finished project, you will be pleased that you stepped up and
did the right thing.
Walter Lyons
walyons@frii.com
From: William Dewey
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:52:12 AM
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is William Dewey, and I reside in District 3. I support the Harmony Corridor Update
Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor of this at second
reading on June 16, 2020. As you well appreciate, this vote involves a host of issues around
environment, health, aesthetics, and ethics. It is a time when leadership and concern for
constituents should for once outweigh avarice and boundless enthusiasm for sales tax
revenues. Your constituents are watching.
Thank you.
William Dewey
From: Marge Norskog
To: City Leaders
Subject: Citizen Comments on the Harmony Gateway Project
Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 1:07:33 PM
Dear Councilpersons and City Manager,
I’m sending this note to express my full support the recommendations of 'Protect Our
Gateway' (Option E). I live on the Harmony Corridor and this development is my most
frequently used gateway in/out of the city. Over the years I have seen the flooding in this low
area, so I know how important it is that we proceed with respect for the contours of the land
and the forces of nature or we'll develop an area that we knowingly put new neighbors and
their homes at risk. The city needs to protect itself from thoughtless development — once the
developer is gone the city and all its neighbors (tax payers) are responsible. We are the ones
who get stuck with ambitious plans that look good on paper, but are ultimately found out to
be short sighted when nature strikes.
Also, this will be quite an isolated neighborhood, boxed in by I-25 and Harmony Road — how
much nicer it will be to live there if there are natural areas that make walking within the
neighborhood fun and offer relief from the highways that surround it. Just a bit of retail will
mean these neighbors won’t have to jump in the car for every need — and — I don’t think we
should add a large, isolated shopping destination reachable only by driving (surrounded by
high-speed highways, this location isn't a bike-friendly destination!) Our current vision to
cluster shopping into areas throughout the city is working. Because Council Tree is within a
mile, I puzzled as to why the city would encourage/support the creation of another shopping
destination within a mile so close to Council Tree.
Therefore, I ask that you reject the amended proposal (Option D) recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Board for the following reasons:
1. Option E requires a cultural component to be included which aligns with the City's
vision in its 2020 Strategic Plan "Culture and Recreation: Section 2.3)
2. Option E requires 40% of the land to be designated as a natural area. The area contains
a Poudre River flood way and floodplain that should be protected as well as a heron
rookery that is on the property.
3. Option E limits retail maximum density to 15% - P&Z recommendations have increased
the current HCP retail max density from 25% to a max retail density of 50% (Option D).
Option E just seems to be better guidance to a developer to ensure they are a creating a new
neighborhood that will nicely support the spirit of Fort Collins and ensure our new neighbors
will experience the best Fort Collins has to offer.
Kind regards,
Marge Norskog
Resident in District 2
From: Michael Feldhousen
To: City Leaders
Cc: mnm5@frontiernet.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] #PRIVATE - Approval of the Harmony Gateway Plan (Second Reading)
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:06:33 PM
Attachments: Citizens Stakeholder - HCP Update Plan Recom (06-16-20).pdf
The Journey to Protect our Gateway Vision.docx
From: Fort Collins Citizen Stakeholders/Protect our Gateway (Mike Feldhousen)
Attached to this email is a short presentation that we would ask you to review prior to your
vote on the proposed Ordinance 044 before you. While this ordinance was firmly supported
by the Council on first reading, those of us who have been engaged in trying to promote
this effort, fully understand the extent of the pressure that is being applied to the Council for
either defeat, or in making major concessions to the current proposal. Despite many
“hurdles”, we have remained engaged for the benefit of all Fort Collins citizens. We feel
that you should also.
We feel, that after meeting with hundreds of Fort Collins Citizen Stakeholders over the past
several years, we have a pretty good understanding that these issues represent the
majority of your citizen’s preferences on development of this unique “Gateway” location.
This presentation highlights some of the major reasons that we feel you should consider
when you consider your vote.
While this property cannot fully utilize its unique location role as a community separator,
Open Space connector, and Poudre River Corridor considerations, the 40% Open Space
requirement attempts to mitigate it in the best way possible while still allowing for
“responsible” development.
We support both the Ordinance as is, or would support the addition of a lower density
Amendment as suggested by our Scenario E alternative. Under no circumstances, would
we support any rollback of the 40% Open Space requirement currently in the proposed
Ordinance.
We also believe the City Council should NOT accept the burden of allowing an aggressive
re-zoning in an attempt to assist the developer in compensating for development
impediments on the property. This is exactly why the development interests are asking for
a roll back of the 40% open space requirement.
In addition to the attached presentation, I have added a brief summary of the Citizen
Stakeholder engagement on this issue. We have found our efforts to be an “enlightening
experience”.
We encourage our city leaders to “Do the Right Thing” and approve this Ordinance.
By doing so, the City Council we will increase transparency, provide institutional oversight,
and establish greater accountability with the citizens it represents.
Thank you in advance for your careful consideration.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
The Compelling Case for
Scenario E
While we support the Ordinance Before You …
We suggest adding Scenario E criteria is even a better approach
Fort Collins, Colorado
June 16th, 2020
Facebook.com/HarmonyGATEWAY
2
Introduction
Over the course of several months, P&Z Board staff prepared four alternative land use and development scenarios that
are distinguished primarily by differences in density/intensity of development, mix of uses, and amount of open space and
undeveloped areas. They are referred to as Options/Scenarios A, B, C, and D.
At the same time, a citizens group has advanced an alternative proposal, Scenario E: Reduced Density & Intensity. The
five proposals are profiled in the illustration found on slide 7. A comparison of the proposals shows that:
• Scenario E is more compatible with the HCP concept of reduced density/intensity
• It more successfully addresses the issues attendant to the river and the river corridor
• It is aesthetically better and provides a more extensive Community Separator
• It affords cultural opportunities, offers educational benefits, and facilitates recreation; and,
• It responds to contemporary norms and standards for health and the environment
Just as Scenario E responds more directly to the traditional vision for the Harmony Corridor, land use codes,
environmental concerns, and aesthetic considerations…
…it is also conforms more closely to the needs and desires of local citizens and the traditional western/agrarian culture
and values of our city
While we Support the Ordinance, we suggest inclusion of Scenario E criteria is an even better approach
3
Impediments to Development
The Poudre River – the life blood of our community
Water is our community’s most important natural resource, and the river is a critical water source for irrigation, drinking,
and industry
A major portion of the parcel is flood plain – 10% is flood way, and 30% is flood plain. Is it even responsible to
contemplate a major development in the middle of a flood plain/way?
A gentle reminder: FC Natural Areas Master Plan (2014), pg 30: “The city has a strong desire to protect and enhance
the natural state of the river by expanding the current inventory of natural areas from the canyon mouth to I-25.
Continued protection along the river will ensure floodplain protection, habitat, and migration/travel corridors for both
wildlife and people.”
Wildlife
The H25 flood plain is also a haven for an abundance of wildlife including many species of aquatic birds. The heron
rookery – at last count, 21 active nests – may well be the larger metaphor for the issue before you
Environment / Public Health
Gridlock, noise, air quality: Already, shoppers on the way to Walmart and Costco confront a traffic nightmare at the I-25 /
Harmony interchange. The greater volume of traffic resulting from development of the parcel as currently contemplated
will only compound the traffic problem, as well heighten noise levels and worsen air quality
4
The Harmony Gateway – A Sense of Place
Scenario D doesn’t do enough for the Gateway concept
Where in Scenario D is the longstanding vision for the Harmony Corridor reflected? Where is the Gateway concept as
articulated by P&Z in their submission to you (summarized below) enshrined?
As it stands, Scenario D is little more than a commercial development branded as a gateway. Were it to govern the H25
project, we fear that the result would reflect a homogenous, highway-oriented corporate character with no reference to
local identity
Damage has already been done. To wit, the Wyatt apartments, or, as they are called by residents city wide, “The
Barracks”. Why compound the environmental and aesthetic damage caused by these eyesores?
Scenario E would bring life to the Harmony Corridor Gateway
Scenario E is a better approach than Option D
It responds to provisions of the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(I)1 which states: “Projects in the vicinity of large natural
habitats and/or natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor…shall be designed to
complement the visual context of the natural habitat.”
It is much closer to implementation of P&Z’s own Gateway “Community” requirements: (1) Having a look and feel of
community values; (2) Offer a sense of arrival and welcome; (3) Offer a familiar and welcoming feel signifying home; (4)
Avoiding a homogeneous and corporate character; and, (5) Inviting attention to the city for a visit & drive through
5
Guidance from City Council
From our perspective, adherence to guidance from City Council by P&Z has been sporadic
First, P&Z staff did not properly evaluate existing City strategies and policies put in place to guide future development of
this area
Second, the P&Z staff’s review process was rushed, incomplete, and did not adequately balance the development
interests with that of the public interest
Third, the P&Z staff proposal, and subsequent P&Z Board recommendation, in our opinion, does not adequately respond
to the expressed concerns and direction provided by this City Council in its previous reviews of last May and October
With respect to the latter, it is useful to be reminded that during the sessions in May and October, Tom Leeson and
Cameron Gloss summarized 6 concerns:
• Concerns about land use intensity being too great
• Concerns that the plan did not address the City’s strategies in the Poudre River, Open Lands, and Nature-in-the-City policies
• Concerns that more time be spent on public engagement where results are quantified (as opposed to ad hoc)
• Concerns regarding the promotion of residential uses in the floodplain
• Concerns that careful consideration needs to be reflected in design character
• Concerns that cultural and recreation uses need to be included in the Gateway
A review of the proposal before you will reveal that these concerns only partially inform the current Odinance
6
Retail Density / Intensity
From the very beginning of the proposed parcel development, P&Z has struggled to rationalize the various proposed
development scenarios against the existing Harmony Corridor Plan
What we need is a “hybrid” approach (as identified in Scenario E) that allows for an updated HCP that does not destroy
the original vision of the “Gateway” as defined in the current HCP and further defined by P&Z
A rational hybrid approach can only be achieved by a careful approach to the criteria allowed in a new HCP (Allowing a
Mixed-Use zoning should not overwhelm the Intensity and Density concepts in the current HCP):
• The 40% Open Space requirement addresses the parcel’s Density issue but not the Intensity issue
• Proposed ordinance allowing for Cultural content inclusion in the Open Space is a violation of the 40% Open Space criteria
• The Intensity issue needs to be addressed with a balanced approach of criteria (particularly in the Retail allowances)
• Proposed ordinance of allowable retail Intensity is 50% (2X the current HCP and 3.3X of the alternative Scenario E)
• Proposed ordinance high retail allowance seems to be a compensation for the 40% Open Space requirement. This high retail
allowance will simply create compound the problem – a dense environment in an even smaller space
• See the following page 7 for a comparison of the scenario options
The fact that this parcel has so many existing development impediments is not a reason for the City to allow for
irresponsible rezoning and/or a destruction of the “Gateway” vision
A Scenario E “hybrid” approach is a better way to protect the Gateway vision in the Harmony Corridor Plan
7
8
Economic Viability
COVID 19 and the new economic reality: There is yet no indication for how long the public health crisis will last;
concurrently, we do not know how extensive the damage to the economy will be or how fast we climb out of the hole
Pre-crisis, the project sponsors might have envisioned replicating Centerra. Today, the risk is that the city will be left with
another Foothills Mall. Keep in mind, we don’t have the luxury of do-overs
That is, development proposals which were elaborated before the crisis are no longer credible. And, while the economics
have changed, what has not changed is the fact that the costs to develop the parcel are uniquely high. The risks,
already high before, are higher now
Going forward, commercial real estate projects with a mixed-use character must reflect the new paradigm:
• Market: The numbers must be based on a new set of very conservative assumptions and a new, comprehensive market assessment
• Business case: The numbers must be stress-tested, i.e., assume worst case
• Lending: It is unlikely that lenders will approach the commercial real estate market with any enthusiasm for some time
• Affordable Housing: Not a probable option given this parcel’s high cost of development
A trip down Harmony already reveals empty storefronts and “For Lease” signs all over the place. Given the likelihood of
further damage to the retail sector, will lenders have an appetite for a project based in part (or large measure) on a high-
density/intensity retail component? Probably not until a new business case is formulated based upon new economic
realities
Prudence in light of these new realities calls for the Scenario E “hybrid” approach with less retail & density
9
We support the Ordinance Before You,
but we recommend that adding Scenario E criteria would make it even better
Letter to City leaders dated October 22, 2019, from Gary Wockner, PhD, Director, Save the Poudre:
“We ask that you consider [Scenario E] even if the P&Z staff do not recommend it…
We think it is an option that would greatly benefit and be in line with the unique values of
our community as well as the Poudre River corridor in the Gateway area.
Dr. Wockner’s endorsement reiterates our recommendation that the inclusion of more Scenario E criteria in the
Ordinance would better represent the “unique values of our community”
Examples of Scenario E criteria that could be added in form of amendment:
Reducing the retail intensity allowed in the ordinance currently specified at 50% to:
o Scenario E of 15%, or
o Existing HCP of 25%
• Including larger tree sizes and year-round Heron Tree protections
• Including a maximum trail connection implementation
10
The “Journey” to Protect our Harmony Gateway “VISION”
Recently, as I listened to the Hughes Stadium Rezoning topic discussed by the City
Council members, I heard them identify the importance of establishing the appropriate
vision for the city, and who is really empowered to do that, I was then reminded of the
journey that we citizen stakeholders have taken, on the Harmony Gateway Update
project over the last 2 years.
Please take a minute to read about what our previous City Leaders, and Citizen
Stakeholders had to say about their vision for the Gateway.
(Harmony Corridor Plan - 2008)
THE GATEWAY:
“The most significant natural areas in the Harmony Corridor are associated with
the Cache la Poudre River and located near I-25. This area has been termed the
“gateway” because it is the first point of entry to Fort Collins from the south.
Several lakes, wetlands and associated riparian vegetation are found on both
sides of I-25 in the floodplain of the river. Most of the lakes and wetlands are a
result of gravel mining operations that have and continue to alter the natural
environment. With creative management and appropriate reclamation practices,
these areas have the potential to become recreational, educational and scenic
resources for the community. In addition, wetland areas like these may act as
filtering systems for storm water runoff, preventing pollutants from entering the
river. The potential value of these natural areas should not be underestimated.
The fact that the area is located at the gateway to Fort Collins intensifies its
importance.”
When we were initially informed two years ago of a development proposal for the
Gateway area, we were astounded by:
The massive intensity of the proposed development
The request for rezoning to accommodate the intensity
The attempt to expand the Gateway to include neighboring rural lands
The total lack of any knowledge or sensitivity to stated city policy for the area
We immediately went to work to research city policy for the Harmony Corridor and noted
the vision for the Gateway identified above. We found it hard to believe that current city
staff would allow such a proposal in light of said vision and other established city
policies.
After this research, we not only uncovered the vision identified above, we also found
numerous policy and strategies on:
The Poudre River Corridor
City Separators & Connectors
Nature in the City
Natural Lands & Open Spaces
And much more
So, we began working with the city P&Z staff (as called for in the city’s engagement
process) to identify our research and concerns that the proposal was clearly not
consistent with many of them. Our initial position was that given these issues, the
current Harmony Corridor Plan should be adhered to, not be changed, and that
any proposal should be in step with the vision for the Gateway. (We were never
against “responsible” development that would honor the Gateway vision.)
It should also be noted, that as we exposed more Citizen Stakeholders to the issues,
they endorsed the vision for the Gateway as appropriate and still valid today.
As we furthered our engagement with P&Z, the following became clear:
The P&Z process has been developed primarily to facilitate developers
Engagement with Citizen Stakeholders is primarily an “after-thought” in the
process timing and is done with a “check-the-box” mindset
A belief that it was P&Z’s role to make up for the existing development
impediments on the property (gravel pits, floodplain, etc.) by allowing for
intensive rezoning options not consistent with the Gateway vision
The P&Z Board is primarily focused on insuring adherence to regulations and
does not see their role to include “doing the right thing” with regard to city vision,
policy, and strategy
As a result of these influences, and the process dynamics, we began to run into
numerous, and severe, roadblocks during our engagement with P&Z:
Delays in the review and approval process
A legal threat made against us, which in our opinion, was done in order to
intimidate us, cause conflict, and cost us personal monetary funds in order to
reduce our overall resources
Constantly shifting changes to proposal elements
Eventually, P&Z changed the process strategy to one of updating the Harmony Corridor
Plan in order to better facilitate development to include adequate and protect
reasonable provisions of the Gateway vision. As a result, we dropped our objection
to changing the current HCP in return for an updated plan that appropriately
facilitated the Gateway vision. We began to work with P&Z to do accomplish just
that.
As different development scenarios began to be proposed and considered, we could
see that, once again, the pro-development influences began to take hold. We held our
ground, and forced the inclusion of a Scenario/Option “D” as a consideration to balance
development with the Gateway vision.
It was during this time, that we started engagement with the City Council (at a work
session) to make it visible what the roadblocks were that we were encountering. As a
result, the City Council engaged in the process and set expectations for P&Z staff to
address key citizen concerns.
We were pleased that eventually the P&Z staff and management, and the Board, made
decisions that reflected the issues being brought forward by the Citizen Stakeholders.
Meanwhile; through our engagement via the P&Z Board work sessions, we could see
that despite the various development options, they always included a development
intensity that was too great to justify. That is why, through subsequent citizen
engagements, we developed the alternative “Scenario E” for added cultural components
and identifying a reduced development intensity.
We support both the current Ordinance wording due to the 40% Open Space
requirement and would also suggest that the reduced intensity reflected in
Scenario E would improve the Ordinance even further.
We hope you support our efforts. By approving this Ordinance direction, we believe the
City Council will, in fact, be protecting the vision for the Gateway. With your support,
you will be increasing transparency, providing institutional oversight, and establishing
greater accountability with the citizens you represent.
We, Citizen Stakeholders will continue our efforts to protect the vision as well. 50% of
the Gateway area is currently proceeding with development under a supposedly
“grandfathered” 2012 ODP provision that could allow development under the old HCP
provisions (which would exempt the development from conditions of any approved
Ordinance). In addition, since the current development is being “incrementally phased”
there is no guarantee that even the conditions of the old HCP will ever be met, should
the overall development be prematurely discontinued.
We will continue to work with P&Z to better understand this recent development
undertaking. We are concerned that given its direction (more unsightly and
“institutional” looking Wyatt style apartments), it too, would undermine the vision of our
previous city leaders and citizenry for our Harmony Gateway. And, it would further
compromise the goals and intent of this Ordinance.
From: Ayla Nawrocki
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 40% open space at our Harmony Gateway
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:21:42 PM
I support the preservation of the 40% open space at our Harmony Gateway. I am against high
density development in a floodway and am concerned about the impact mitigating the land for
development will have on the Poudre River as well as this wildlife corridor that hosts a
multitude of migrating birds.
From: Guy Turenne
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor Plan Update second reading post
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:25:31 AM
Dear City Leaders,
I am Guy Turenne and I live in Observatory Village neighborhood of District 3. I urge you to support the
Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance's inclusion of 40% open space and request you vote in favor of
this at the second reading at tonight's Council Meeting.
I understand the developer is continuing to threaten a lawsuit over this proposed requirement. As you are
well aware, the developer purchased this property out of a bankruptcy proceeding knowing full well the
obvious site restrictions and associated problems that contributed to the bankruptcy of the previous
owner/developer; 10% of the property is flood way and 30% is flood plain. As I recall my elementary
school arithmetic, that adds up to the proposed 40% open space requirement. As pointed out by P&Z
staff at the first reading, the proposed setbacks along Harmony Road and I-25 also amount to 10% of the
property – though a portion of this does overlap the flood way / flood plain. As there is no guarantee the
appropriate Federal Permits will allow development in the 40% that is flood way / flood plain, the
developer is now trying to coerce the City into purchasing that property relieving him of potential financial
difficulty.
I would also remind you of existing Fort Collins goals and policies as stated in the Fort Collins Natural
Area Master Plan which states the City's desire for “continued protection along the river will ensure
floodplain protection, habitat and migration/travel corridors for both wildlife and people”.
I also question the practicality and long term viability of placing a major development in a flood plain /
flood way even with the most vulnerable 40% of the property preserved as open space. Any commercial
development within this property will have to deal with the realities of difficult access and visibility as
pointed out by other developers at a P & Z open house presentation several months back. There have
been many vacant business locations along East Harmony Road before the economic problems caused
by Covid-19. Many current “temporarily” closed businesses in Fort Collins, like J. C. Penny, will not be
reopening. Full business recovery from the pandemic will likely take several years. The economic
feasibility of commercial development in the H-25 property at this time should be seriously questioned.
In addition, the issue of possible affordable housing on this site is likely not economically feasible. At
another P&Z H-25 public forum, it was pointed out that even if the appropriate Federal permits allowing
for filling the flood plain to an elevation that would allow development, that cost of at least $30 million
would have to be recouped in the price of housing units and commercial rents.
A recent public official comment about the need for the potential sales tax revenue this project as
envisioned by the developer may generate is needed to address current budget shortfalls due to the
Covid-19 pandemic is patently absurd! The Pandemic and resultant budget crisis will have long since
passed before the first dollar of sales tax from this potential project accrues to the City.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Guy Turenne
From: kathy secor
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:20:25 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Kathryn Secor and I reside in District 3.
I support the 15% retail maximum density as proposed in Option E from Citizen’s
stakeholders, and request that you vote in favor of this at the second reading on June 16, 2020.
Kathryn Secor
From: kathy secor
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:00:20 PM
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Kathryn Secor, and I reside in District 3.
I support the the Harmony Corridor Update Plan Ordinance’s inclusion of 40% open space and
request you vote in favor of this at the second reading on June 16, 2020.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Secor
From: Stefanie T
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Gateway
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:49:38 AM
Dear City Leadership,
I support the preservation of the 40% open space at our Harmony Gateway. I am against high-
density development in a floodway and am concerned about the impact mitigating the land for
development will have on the Poudre River as well as this wildlife corridor that hosts a
multitude of migrating birds.
Overall, the City of Fort Collins needs to focus more on preservation and less on development,
before we ruin our unique environment that draws people to come here in the first place.
Sincerely,
Stefanie Townsend
Resident
From: Marge Norskog
To: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Harmony Corridor Plan review at Council TONIGHT
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:44:18 PM
Dear Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, Councilmember Cunniff, Councilmember
Gorgol, Councilmember Gutowsky, Councilmember Pignataro, Councilmember Summers,
I’m writing to express my support for including 40% open space in the Harmony Corridor
project.
I don’t live in this district, however, I firmly believe that one of the things that makes Fort
Collins such a wonderful place to live is that there are parks and open spaces in walking
distance of nearly every neighborhood — this gives a good quality of life to every resident, and
keeps our community healthier and safer.
Please vote in favor of requiring open space at second reading tonight, June 16, 2020.
Kind regards,
Marge Norskog
District 2
From: jeffpeterson@frii.com
To: Ken Summers
Cc: City Leaders
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Message from Property Owner Directly Adjacent to Land Affected by the Harmony Corridor Plan
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:02:34 PM
Hi Ken,
My name is Jeff Peterson and my wife and I own an acreage and residence directly adjacent to the
land in consideration of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Specifically, we own the property immediately
to the south of the Strauss Cabin Church with our address being 5416 S Strauss Cabin Rd. I’m writing
you as the Councilmember representing our City District.
We have certainly, probably more that any other residence in Fort Collins, been the benefactor to
the naturalistic area now being considered under the Harmony Corridor plan. Our house very
closely overlooks all of the existing ponds and natural areas below it. With that said, we are very
pragmatic and understand that Fort Collins needs to grow in a very careful, well-managed manner.
We have been generally supportive of what has been presented to you as the Stakeholder Propoed
Scenario E. However, we find that the Scenario you’re considering (Scenario D) is a good, viable
scenario. In any event, we feel that the lower commercial densities and 40% open space are
imperative.
One thing that we would like you and the council to keep in mind when considering the Harmony
Corridor Plan and the future development proposals thereunder is the traffic. With interest, I’ve
read the traffic studies that have been presented in preparation for submission of these plans. I’m
worried that they may be flawed and underestimate the impact on what will be very limited access
points off of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads. I currently live a traffic study daily coming from the
north on southbound I-25, merging onto Harmony and then crossing over two lanes quickly to get
into the left-turn lane for Strauss Cabin Road. Certainly pre-Covid and during the high-traffic times,
this has been a very dangerous proposition – several times I’ve been unable to even make it across
to the left-turn lane and have had to continue on to take the next available left turn. Adding two or
three more access points on Harmony and Strauss Cabin along with all of the contemplated
apartments and further developments associated with the Harmony Corridor Plan will simply
exacerbate a traffic problem that is already horrific at peak times. I’m certainly not sure how the
traffic can be properly engineered to flow for safe access to these future newly-developed areas.
But, as I’m sure the Council is already aware, I wanted to emphasize what currently is a very
dangerous situation and what could become a complete nightmare in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peterson