HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY AND SHIELDS REZONING - 1-06 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (3)Cameron Gloss - Re: Fwd:per your invitat; +n _ -m_ - Pag 1
From: Doug Moore
To: Cameron Gloss
Date: 03/22/2006 4:35:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: per your invitation
Hi Cameron,
I do think that it is very important to remember that we have not received an Ecological Characterization
Study for this area. When we do, we will know more about what species are using the site and then we
can determine what buffers should apply. The comments that I made related to buffers that might apply at
the last P&Z hearing are only based on the observations that I have made over the twenty years that I
have been in the Fort Collins area. The two buffer distances that could possibly be applied to Great blue
herons;
1. Great blue heron colonial nest site (825 feet) - This buffer relates to rookeries were many herons
gather. I drove by the property yesterday but was unable to walk the site due to the snow; I was able to
see that there definitely isn't a rookery on the site. Rookeries are usually large and can be seen from
great distances. An example is one located along the Poudre River on the ELC property which can be
seen from the Interstate or the one located at Terry Lake that can be seen from the northern subdivision.
They usually occur in very larger trees like cottonwoods.
2. Wetlands greater than 1/3 acre in size with significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds (300 feet) -
The Technical Memorandum 2 Identification of Natural Areas, which is referred to under 3.4.1 (A) does list
Great blue herons as a species of local concern. This document is the document that we use in part to
base our direction on whether or not we need to consider a 300' wetlands buffer over a 1 00'wetlands
buffer. This document is very old (October 1992) and the key language in the code is "significant use" not
"significant species". Great blue herons have become far more common in Fort Collins over the last 14
years and it is now common to see them taking koi out of backyard garden ponds. It would be a stretch
for me to think that we may need to put a 300' buffer around, these wetlands since I would need to be
consistent and place one around Mark Sears's backyard pond in the middle of the Wood West
Subdivision since it is frequently visited by a couple different herons.
These issues are great to know about though; I will make sure that as we work with the applicant and their
environmental consultant that we receive specific information in the study related to Great blue heron use
as well as waterfowl and shorebird use of the wetlands. I would also be welling to look over a bird count
or species list from the neighborhood if they have been collecting this type of information.
My recommendation still remains that this is an appropriate location for infill development and that 3.4.1
can be used to provide protection and possibly enhance the natural habitats and features occurring on
site.
Thanks,
Doug
>>> Cameron Gloss 3/22/06 12:00:56 PM >>>
Doug,
Could you please let me your take on the assertion about a heron buffer (don't know if he's talking about a
feeding area or nesting) --see forwarded message.
Thanks,
C
property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
April, A.D. 2006, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of May, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of May, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
THENCE NOO-02'44"W, ON SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 365.56 FEET, TO THE
SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2001031854
OF THE LARIM ER COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ON EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY AND NORTHERLY LINES THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES:
1) THENCE ON THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING
A DELTA OF 26'15'18" AND A RADIUS OF 515.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 235.99 FEET, THE
CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARINGN23'23' 10"E, WITH A LENGTH OF 233.93 FEET, TO APOINT
OF TANGENCY;
2) THENCE N36'30'50"E, A DISTANCE OF 490.53 FEET;
3) THENCE S65-36'49"E, A DISTANCE OF 51.14 FEET;
4) THENCE N36'30'50"E, A DISTANCE OF 27.89 FEET;
THENCE N61-24T7"W, A DISTANCE OF 24.81 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
WAKEROBIN LANE;
THENCE S69'30'29"E, ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, A DISTANCE OF 40.40 FEET, TO THE
SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF WESTLAKE P.U.D. FIRST FILING;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF WESTLAKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING, FOR THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN (15) COURSES:;
1) THENCE N13'56'41"E, A DISTANCE OF 159.30 FEET;
2) THENCE N34-40'28"E, A DISTANCE OF 109.36 FEET;
3) THENCE NOO.13'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 65.56 FEET;
4) THENCE N22-44'24"W, A DISTANCE OF 144.02 FEET;
5) THENCE NO2-35'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 117.22 FEET;
6) THENCE N04-51-2I "E, A DISTANCE OF 211.51 FEET;
7) THENCE N33-43'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 101.64 FEET;
8) THENCE N28-23'24"W, A DISTANCE OF 145.92 FEET;
9) THENCE N68-2919"W, A DISTANCE OF 64.19 FEET;
10) THENCE N77-26'24"W, A DISTANCE OF 100.84 FEET;
11) THENCE N39-31'04"W, A DISTANCE OF 234.91 FEET;
12) THENCE NOl' 1414"W, A DISTANCE OF 61.72 FEET;
13) THENCE N27.2331 "E, A DISTANCE OF 92.79 FEET;
14) THENCE N06.231I "E, A DISTANCE OF 145.84 FEET;
15) THENCE N15'46'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 89.85 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT
PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2001008429;
THENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL FOR THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1) THENCE S89'57'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 3.62 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
2) THENCE ON THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A
DELTA OF 19' 16'42" AND A RADIUS OF 548.51 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 184.56 FEET, THE
CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING S80' 19' 12"E, WTTH A LENGTH OF 183.69 FEET, TO APOINT
OF TANGENCY AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE N19'3315"E, ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 72.95 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER;
THENCE S89'5674"E, ON SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 940.02 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY OF SHIELDS STREET;
THENCE ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES:
1) THENCE SOO'00'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 73.14 FEET;
2) THENCE N89'59150"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.00 FEET;
3) THENCE S00'00'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 850.00 FEET;
4) THENCE S89'59150"E, A DISTANCE OF 7.00 FEET;
5) THENCE SOO'00'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 573.32 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 41.50 ACRES.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described
THENCE NO'00' 10"E, ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1148.44
FEET;
THENCE N89'4931"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SHIELDS
STREET, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOO'00'IO"W, ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 1083.44 FEET, TO A POINT
OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA OF
89'55'44" AND A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 23.54 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE
BEARING S44'58'13"W, WITH A LENGTH OF 21.20 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, AND THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HARMONY ROAD;
THENCE S89'56'16"W, ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, A DISTANCE OF 827.85 FEET;
THENCE NOO'03'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 411.52 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA OF
46*51'02" AND A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 327.08 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE
BEARING N23'21'47"E, WITH A LENGTH OF 318.04 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N46'47'18"E, A DISTANCE OF 448.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA OF
40'33'24" AND A RADIUS OF 235.62 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 166.78 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE
BEARING N56'39'03"E, WITH A LENGTH OF 163.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON -TANGENCY;
THENCE S89'4931"E, A DISTANCE OF 254.16 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 17.95 ACRES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST
OF THE 6th PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARRAER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 34, BEING
MONUMENTED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34 BY A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP WITH
ILLEGIBLE MARKINGS IN A MONUMENT BOX AND AT THE EAST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION
34 BY A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "JR ENG 1996 LS 24307", WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
S00'00'10"W.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER;
THENCE NO'00' 10"E, ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1148.44
FEET;
THENCE N89'4V31 "W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SHIELDS
STREET, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N89.49.31 "W, A DISTANCE OF 254.16 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE ON THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A DELTA OF
40'33'24" AND A RADIUS OF 235.62 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 166.78 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE
BEARING S56'39'03"W, WITH A LENGTH OF 163.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON -TANGENCY;
THENCE S46'47'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 448.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCEONTHEARC OF ATANGENT CURVETO THE LEFT, SAID CURVEHAVING ADELTAOF46'51'02"
AND A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 327.08 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARING
S23'21'47"W, WITH A LENGTH OF 319.04 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE SOO'03'44"E, A DISTANCE 01'411.52 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HARMONY
ROAD;
THENCE S89'56'16"W, ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 426.83 FEET, TO THE
WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PINEVIEW P.U.D. PHASE II;
ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2006
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE HARMONY AND SHIELDS REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should
be rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is wan -anted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted byDivision 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the zoning classifications from "MMN", Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood Zone District and the "NC" Neighborhood Commercial District, to "MMN", Medium
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District and "NC" Neighborhood Commercial District,
essentially exchanging zone districts for part of the property, for the following described property
in the City known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED ZONE NC
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST
OF THE 6th PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 34, BEING
MONUMENTED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34 BY A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP WITH
ILLEGIBLE MARKINGS IN A MONUMENT BOX AND AT THE EAST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION
34 BY A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "IR ENG 1996 LS 24307", WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
S00'00110"W.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER,
ia
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN
^
0 05
Boandanes
Pw"m
, I
��..
Fan �.r. ou
4p dr.nwr.n dare
67 IrarYl� D4p1a
Eaapc
=aM m
:�
Nb.K.err.wcmmm.+n
' JjRanrlYl fYA Eprrm
� [ nrY C.aY Olaia
NeIp110or1,00Ea
�Jy�
FaaFrYt
� PoUJF RM�Cmlar
,Q 1 Gy filh
CmmwcW Cmgv Drair
`L
Ubn EWr�
�i
[� iWnl4nJa
PoUO�RM�
RnMp Mw
�WplrporlwaE Camr[IN GrrrM
�Uw D—N,
OW �Ia
(p1I¢c�t RwMg Mw�
Carrpin U<hl
M m Dwn y
tii µ�gr/w
l] 9rwm CarNlw�
Aaapfetl
Al ay u
e'7 Erpaymw, Duna
IFFY z 2p
RESOLUTION 2006-044
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received a request for an amendment to the Structure Plan Map and
for rezoning of certain property located along the west side of South Shields Street and north of
Harmony Road, which property is known as the "Harmony/Shields Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed zoning for the Harmony/Shields Rezoning
complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key
Principles of the City's Structure: Plan, but does not comply with the present land use designation
shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed Harmony/Shields Rezoning is in
the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan except
for the City's Structure Plan Map; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is
in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Harmony/Shields Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 18th day of April, A.D.
2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
P
q
•
u
0
7
11
i
•
•
R
f
0
(D
•
•
3
No Text
Ej
I am
Cameron Gloss - Ref. Harmon and Shields Rezoni # 1-06 e 1
From: <RESENN@aol.com>
To: <aglossofogov.com>
Date: 03/142006 12:20:21 PM
Subject: Ref. Harmony and Shields Rezoning # 1-06
Cameron Gloss, A/CP
Director of Current Planning
I would like to register my vote in favor of rezoning a portion of a 58 acre
parcel located at the northwest comer of Harmony and Shields for the
following reasons:
1. It is evident that the 58 acre parcel MR include a shopping center.
Ifs relocation to the comer of Harmony and Shields not only makes it more
accessible, but protects the residents on the east side of Westbrooke Cr.
2.1 believe that residents that purchased in the affected area were
aware that such a piece of prime property along Shields would eventually of
public use.
3. As a retired resident, I purchased my property with the hope that
there would be facilities available for groceries, restaurant, etc.wkhin
walking distance of our home.
4. Because of growing traffic and fuel consumption problems there is an
Increasing tendency to bring basic facilities closer or integrated to new
neighborhoods making these facilities within walking distance.
5. 1 do not think that the wetlands area will be affect, especially
since there will be a buffer area of homes between that area and the shopping
center.
6. It is inconsistant to be concerned about the possible increase In
traffic when the same people are willing to travel to other areas for their
services requiring additional city services and using more and more fuel.
7. The vast majority of the residents who opposed the rezoning at the
first meeting live considerable distance from the proposed new shopping area.
Many seemed to be opposing for the purpose of opposing. There were too many
chips on shoulders to present a balanced and unbiased opinion.
8. 1 firmly believe that with careful planning and development the new
area can and will be an pleasant and helpful addition to our community and
neighborhood.
9. It is unrealistic for residents to expect the owner of the area in
question to not make the best of his or her property. They did not buy it and
keep it for altruistic purposes. They deserve the same right to develop their
property as today's residents have of protecting the value of their property.
10. 1 am confident that a well -developed shopping center at the proposed
comer and the accompanying residences will Increase the value of our
properties.
Thank you,
Richard Senn
i
Cameron Gloss -Rezoning . P
Trails could be constructed between the three surrounding schools to
promote Fort Collins as a Wellness City. Circuit trails and/or a
climbing wall could be constructed to promote physical activity for our
children. Currently, Fort Collins violates Colorado's visibility
standards t in 4 days or 23% of the time (EPA websde) - do we need to
add to the air pollution problem with more traffic and businesses. Isn't
health a community value?
I personally will volunteer my time to pursue grant opportunities to
promote these ideas. I trust the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Planning staff will contemplate these issues at not rezone the area at
all.
Thank -you for your consideration.
Carnron Gloss„- Rezoning Page 1
From:
"Russo, Rosemarie" <Rosemarie. Russo@frontrangs. edu>
To:
<cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date:
03/14/2008 8:46:50 AM
Subject:
Rezoning
To: Cameron Gloss
From: Dr Rosemarie Russo
Date: March 14, 2006
RE: Rezoning # 1-06 (Harmony & Shields)
I am writing .to express my ooncem about the rezoning request I
attended the public meeting at Front Range but will not be available for
the March 16th meeting. I currently live and work in the area and
experience traffic back-ups on a daily basis. Neither Harmony nor
shields has the capacity to handle the current traffic patterns. At the
Intersection are highsiensky apartments, a library and a college with
continuous traffic in the day and evening. Given the time line of the
traffic engineer, it does not seem likely that the traffic will be
addressed in a timely manner without the additional flow a neighborhood
commercial district (shopping/tavem/business center) will create.
My second ooncem is with the property value of existing homeowners.
Presently Fort Collins is a buyers market - there Is an overabundance of
homes in the price range that the developer abed in the meeting. If we
continue to build shopping centers than the current businesses owners
also suffer. Fort Collins has 2 million square feet of unused commercial
real-estate now (Coloradoan) - the capacity for sustained economic
interest was not presented during the last public meeting.
Another issue is that of accessible open space - not property up near
the Wyoming border. The zoning code notes that natural habitats such as
wetlands, native grassland and wet meadows should be buffered and/or
replaced. No mention of the replacement value was presented - the
irrigation ditch serves as a wildlife corridor and species such as Blue
Heron and raptors have been cited in the area so this needs to be
addressed by the developer (Zoning Code 3.4.1). Children need to have
undeveloped areas to explore. The area in question is between three
schools - it would make an excellent community garden or outdoor
classroom. We need to address as a community what the standardized tests
are neglecting.
March 13, 2006
Dear Cameron,
I attended the rezoning meeting at Front Range Community College several weeks ago.
As an adjacent home owner, I have serious reservations about the rezoning request. I do
not favor moving the NC area to the comer of Shields and Harmony because of the
following reasons:
Traffic: The traffic is already an issue that will not be alleviated in the near future. I
realize that Shields will be widened but that may not even be adequate to address current
traffic problems. Assess to the Harmony Library is problematic. Students are rushing in
and out of the Shields exist every hour. Thousands of students flow in and out of the
school. It is not like a business with traffic at 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
Schools: Johnson Elementary and currently does not have the resources to adequately
meet the needs of the students. Several classrooms at Johnson have thirty students or
more which is above the recommended ratios for an elementary school. Is the developer
willing to invest funds for expansion of the elementary, intermediate and community?
Open Space: The area has valuable habitat in terms of old growth forest and wetlands.
The educational displays could be expanded to other areas of the property but it will
likely be destroyed with the noise and congestion. The area on the comer is a wetland
area for flood runoff. Can't the city get water conservation credits for designating it as a
protected area?
Commercial Value: The shopping centers on Harmony and Shields in either direction
are not at capacity — why set up competition for local businesses struggling to make a
profit?
Public Opinion: Current residents on Wakerobin and Shields are not in favor of the
rezoning. No-one at the public hearing welcomed the idea. Current residents bought
property to raise their children in a quiet safe area — having a tavern or shopping center
aimed at transient customers will not enhance the quality of life in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,,
�t(.0
Kyle McVey
Wakerobin Court
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Bermony/Shields rezoning request: -191/T�
Name
Address
Phone M
Email address
Print:. u taScNAm� a vEr
431T- rw
aoro—ol7(r r
-Sep*
rle n a
�f3Zv 'ufiG,
7,24— /07f
l'KLW Q WOX-g5
cr Q
'F�
Print: �-1 �ctc�
S �- ��
C�4 D 8L.
q �a - �a�a
Print -iie y S rc c �r
c t3f6 Kc
Sign:
Cci(i
Print:
y 3z I wa .t t*-,wA. A r
a of G - 31 )L
1 }_
`a. 1 5� eow�aA. na. 1
3 : !'�- (�u�----
R Cot ►,r+- Co su5�C�
et
G� -C
Print: ' 1Q net N� ikc�+r
i`t°Z- Cfke \f-
3
CO s CA $cy52(o
c;o(o-al-lq
Print:
3
Print:
Sim
Print:
Sim
Print.
Sign:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request: it, l �, 0 h
Name
Address
Phone #
Email address
Print: I -
Prints ! ee I) AO s
/y 20 Iwo L^,efkOvaFu
=i- ZZ51
.
Print .lxhe Ro►ne�v
S'
1'4D42t ` r*j CUJ �-
1�
Q
Print:
Sign:
Print:
S'
Print:
S
Print:
S
Print
Print:
S
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request:
Name
Print: Kim QMSr{G'
$�
Address
4 ro2 W�srl.►-ooK� 1�►�
'a 805�
Phone p
Zoe-o3�a
Email address
Kwiwav�gw
@ COMWt. Met
Print rTr
Wet eerv6i:, C t-
$
/G e-& Coll, ;.s, CO SD'nG
toy - 5// 3
-Cox
Print:
si
�r Co/%,►S CO TOSLG
20`/
s.
rrasso
/+W A/rA/N e e "- ^ C r
Si g n: /--4 9!!
Arg-T mvLiArf co dorz-&
ffS`— i997
—_
Print.- (VICK Sket.A��
'�ir?`� V`iws�bimD�cQp�
Prua
eo
_ 259LO I�.
s
Print:
s
Print
Sign:
Print:
SiiL
Print
sign:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request: —
Name
Address
Phone #
Email address
Si
P' aN.rN�'c•
4a:s twin, GaCu. C-T'
Our"
2I7— irSK3
/
� �a�oPror �eal1 @ cio,. Coih
Si
Fpkr COLl.rr4 i. Ga
Print: Ei35C& N. Miiler
4325 f'kvJ/ CrIAetk Gf'
z23— i99
�I�s�� le@ornar�.ca,r,
s .ryJa4-�-
-fart Cotl;YNs. Co k057-i�
Print p vc ke
A
/YYr wq!(e.ob�1� Cf.
377—?tQ3
L
r�-aP
s
F L CO 0 �
- -70f
.cony
Print:,n1��. r., . W dL
t153 i M.\1E;aZe tic tJr
,S-7 �i�
S'
P"°t S . T �+•...
MWL ICE&..r C..-t
sip:
co g0S1�
21 -�>>
tc„ftec...,,.I+.«t
Print: lettca 10e&t
ptur.,z tc- Ov!pt
1431 ReqpAcl dr
-osa$
�rWcstgyahoo
sign:
f=f ; 611 i �s, 4D 8oyz 6
225
�au .torn
Print:,
sigw=ir
, , ct-
Ph Oi.E.l us t Co sa UP
;?Z5 6445
�quoicuae��+�r;�
Print: rG�vt�.l'�/
�
/Ito -3� N lYM x C "
Z Zi — 9 G6�
S : K�r
Ff. G•ll,n S. Cm 8os-
i�ri"t`,
Si
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request: ` Ok
Name
Address
Phone M
Email address
Print:
yt�y4sl�vbiaok�6e
g7io
sign:
F'L
CAdoL �3 n
y360 &A&,&,Wb/),�F
476
si
FC 60
swouilwooft
Qa�lc �. Couuco ��,(�
aX3- Ill
ai'o`
aa5-9'�
/Illy
me unle._nn Use.
Prim
��lu�ui � �
s•
Prim And
N 3 / 2 Lbroo Gt
j j o
rn ss ; cr)n 0-tovn rr�
S rIA
Ft. Ca II;Ns C0 ao5
ati- sic
Prinr.�Q Q M./A C,P.®&
3d 'J /Ill CT
S
FD CO441AIf CO Ms-;
s
Print: (I� y i°(
V
S i
Y3 -5 Cam.
• L S Co . �
air $�0 �
Mac t
eoAAca s4, xs 4
Print: �1,'z4b 64iG/
431.5
.117, -0-776
6b4.Ir 4�9 G-wO73't. ne 7"
Print:
si :
Print k
4'300-5hacca�.�b/riak.,
si7"4aP!,
Cv
;223 -1 7-vc./
2.. nef
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shlelds rezoning request: A C ,. Q 6
Name
Address
Phone #
Email address
Printgal orris
y3ob 540vil e- er,
ri�'ZZS f
%O o✓�t�ofj
s
>�ti/1c�9/Igs $" Z6
Pont: A/L0.s �(,OtC �!`� /r
pCPi
/ l !►- SVIfI��OW /OO�G c
'D
Q
%G'Lz%�8
�%o.•,tifYo�A�rt�ti /.�o
Sian:
C� Lb
T
Print: rr*R-U So
-V�40K,BOeoatc cT
Print: S?i �'
j�s,d,�.
Si
�i�0_ In-03
5 � . �i•� �r y
Si
1=rct co ec c! L fo
erTO ZOft 84LQ-
Print r 'n. 6t vS
y3mo
�PCril6t Aztcto
Pry r4Ac-I //%A��F ,.��
`/1.f ✓'fi�i .
q 1� l'✓8 %L83
�f•�r, ct r�c�.s er/. vCA'
/✓•/���,ry/�t
PHM: E e a h�ac r
/ 9eAd-
9�a �Z3
Sim.
to eS�
PrhtAnCA Oct-/134
lKeseni f
s 7
do
�i
S"
! t a s 8o5a6
Pfint: 7i•r�or . Pl.ta�e./
/�iG r�a.✓eY
sign:��.[.G_
Fj- G //.;r.. G�• rosin
OM
J�
We the undersiped are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request:
,J� ! - 0,4
Name
Address
Phone #
Email address
YSs I Ai 4
Z,--7- r Z
j by ram..,. s 42 ,►; .
s •w
4- iorzL
Print ��ce
rj33 i N ill L`e cc C{
ao1-161
s
0 fk eo s 4asaL
s
u
Print ofj E ✓O
43211 ..Oil/
?'"�-� 129�-
0.N+h0N .n.¢.voLa�+A��.cm
Sip.
�� l�'�.s Co oS2�
Print: S h
43 is M: i i Crack-
s
'
vfNi
-g, �(
Print: i1La.r" y,, S h�.da�. �
qa% Il Gr�ei
Pnr� K i LSE. 'T3 ��•l
ii b 1 L tW l �.�c. �"
sip:
r-T Collfny co iYes�,6
�Z6-4672
Print:
22-Cor5123
�L�rip °i)Jw,c.can,
st
�vr+lott;•,s �go52ry
Print: Qh'il T6f
01) mill (I- eK.%
s
(0
WU u*- c
aX-51a3
Pritrt w GIBl4
s
foot
K�/e s 3cr Y�lt �r-`i�c r.�- ,L�wdsc~40,fA439 _
fv„ f Cv/l1�s� c0 gosj`
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed Harmony/Shields rezoning request:
J [--ah
Name A-
tia
ddress
Phone #
Email address
ti2-6
L4 sm Far r"e-r
s
153a. to
�a3 -3 0
Print. YV erlC�� k'�C).�f IQq
Si )L
1509 CA'tct4k reekck
ass. �s�1
prima rr.{
S
ISOq W2ndcr_e.aKc_t-
225-4,S�S't
4vAI£S ile
' �i'NCw� C9GScv�e,�
Print
S'
Print:
S
Print:
Sign:
Print:
SAM
print:
S'
; Cameron Gloss - Harmon Shields R g - Paae 1
From: "Melanie" <kmhlmanning@wmcastnet>
To: <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 03/13/2006 3:45:27 PM
Subject: Harmony Shields Rezoning
Dear Mr. Gloss,
My wife and I along with our two children live in the Westbury subdivision
(1219 Mariposa Ct), which is within the prescribed notification area for
the requested rezoning of the property on the northwest comer of shields
and harmony. I was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the
request to rezone the property, and I am unsure whether I will be able to
attend the planning and zoning meeting on Thursday. Accordingly, I am
sending you a brief message detailing my point of view on the issue.
As you well know, with any rezoning request, some individuals stand to gain
and others lose. We moved into our home with a clear understanding of the
zoning of the adjacent properties. While we would have preferred a lower
density zoning, we decided that the MMN zoning that is currently in place
for the south -side of the property in question, provided an adequate buffer
between the NC zoned area (to the north) and our neighborhood. It is
extremely frustrating to have purchased our property with this understanding
and to now be at risk of losing this MMN "buffer." Clearty, our property
value and the quality of our experience in our neighborhood would be
adversely impacted by the zoning change.
Perhaps the change would benefit some neighborhoods to the west However,
these residents to the west should have been aware of the current zoning
prior to purchasing their homes. If they were not aware, and failed to
adequately research the zoning of the adjacent (undeveloped) property, that
is unfortunate, but beside the point They could have decided not to
purchase a home that is relatively close to an NC designation, as we would
have if the NC designation was closer to our property (as Is being
proposed).
A city plan and associated zoning was in place when we purchased our
property, and in our opinion, it is unfair to make this change.
Thanks for your consideration of this point -of -view and I would appreciate
it if you would strongly represent our perspective during your presentation
to the Planning and Zoning board.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss - Hamiori and Shield Page 1
From:
<ranross@gmail.com>
To:
<cplanning@fcgov.com>
Date:
0212&2006 7:11:50 PM
Subject:
Harmony and Shields
I was at the meeting for the rezoning last night at the Harmony Library. I was concerned with the type of
development, buffers, and with Dragonfly Lair. My concerns were met to the degree that I am looking
forward to the improvements to my neighborhood. I am also embarrassed at the tone, questions,
comments and general closemindedness of many of my neighbors at the meeting. The city staff and
developer showed incredible patience.
Randy Ross
Cameron Gloss - RE: Harmony 8 Shie lei iiborhood Meeting Summa pa" e
From: ciaussen <claussen(dlamar.colostate.edu>
To: "Cameron Gloss" <ogloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 03/09/2006 9:00:10 AM
Subject: RE: Harmony & Shields Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Cameron,
Thank you for the summary.in case that I am not at the March 16th hearing, I
want you to know that I support the proposal to rezone.The issues of design,
traffic, hours of truck access, building height, etc. are of more importance
to me at this point
Sincerely,
Brian Claussen
4529 Hilburn Ct
Ft. Collins. CO.80526
From: "Gail Wallis" <ga.wall@comcastnet>
To: <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 02R72006 11:15:32 AM
Subject: Rezoning at Shields and Harmony
Mr. Gloss,
As residents of the Regency park subdivision, we strongly oppose the zone
change at the Shields and Harmony intersection. Our opposition stems from
two primary concerns: 1) the Shields and Harmony intersection already is
extremely congested and dangerous (there was a traffic accident there just
this morning, in fact). A shopping mall at that location will certainly
create a great deal more congestion and danger at the intersection. 2) The
proposed shopping mall is too close to the Dragonfly's Lair wetlands. This
is a lovely and delicate area that surely would be adversely affected by a
mail.
We regret that prior commitments prevent us from attending tonight's meeting
at the Harmony Library. Nevertheless, our concern is strong. We ask that
the Shields and Harmony intersection not be rezoned. We ask that any
shopping areas be limited to the area west of Shields and north of
Wakerobin.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Gail and Lyle Wallis
1436 Hilburn Drive
CC: <Lyle.WalliSODecisio.Net>
ATTACHMENT 7
Community Planning and Environmental Services RECEIVED
City of Fort Collins. MAR 0 7 2W6
Attention: Cameron Gloss, AICP CURRENT PANNING
Director of Current Planning.
Re: Harmony and Shields Rezoning, #1-06
Dear Sir:
I attended the meeting at Harmony Library Tuesday night when the above rezoning
was discussed. My house backs onto the ditch that runs through this property. Although I
enjoy having the open field behind me, I knew when I bought the property that this land would
be developed some day and I also knew that it was partially zoned for commercial.
Therefore; I do not think I have any right at this time to complain of the proposed
development. I thought the plan presented was nice. I am in favor of the proposed rezoning
change. 1 have confidence that the city will do whatever they can to make this area a nice
neighborhood. I was impressed at the way you and the developer conducted the meeting.
I did not think the opposition to the plan had any merit.
Yours truly,
Joan Mordwie
4126 Wesibrooke Dr.
�l'l�_ 3.2oolO
A: It lies just west of the ditch (approximate),
C: Several comments were made about the perceived diminution of
property values as a result of the neighborhood center's construction.
Q: How will the additional housing impact the schools in
the area, namely those on Seneca? Will this be looked into? Who
is responsible for determiningladdressing the impact?
A: At such time that a development plan is submitted to the City, a.
referral'is made to the Poudre School District (PSD) and
comments from the district are included in deliberations during
the project's review. The City relies on the school district's
response when making a recommendation about the development
plan.
Q: Has anyone considered the use/lack of use at the commercial
center located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth and Shields
and how it will impact this decision? This commercial center.
is home to restaurants, a salon, optical store, and other ventures.
It also has empty space. Additionally, the developers of the
property intend to construct another building on the premises. I
question the need of a commercial center at the corner of
Harmony and Shields based on the close proximity of existing
commercial property.
A: The NC - Neighborhood Commercial zoning of the subject
property promotes a much broader range of uses than the Seneca
Center. It is more strategically placed further to the east along
Shields to take advantage of existing neighborhoods that need
services needed by area residents a regular basis —primarily a
supermarket or full -service grocery store and other neighborhood
support services.
As a sidenote, the developers of Seneca Center have indicated in
previous discussions with City staff that the balance of the
property will likely develop with office uses , not retail, given the
relative lack of traffic in that area and limited visibilty of the
building.
0
A: Possibly, but the neighborhood center would likely be less viable
under the presently approved location.
Q: Is there a neighborhood center proposed at Trilby and Shields?
A: No.
Q: Is there hard data showing how neighborhood centers reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VM'1)?
A: Yes. The City completed computer modeling of various land use
scenarios when City Plan was evaluated which indicated that
strategically placed neighborhood centers would successfully reduce
VMT. Studies completed outside Fort Collins have generated similar
results.
Q: Can the neighborhood see the data (referenced above)?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Harmony Road be widened even if development doesn't occur?
A: Yes.
C: Area residents want the neighborhood center to be an economic
success.
C: Moving the NC zone to the corner may provide an opportunity for
Parks/open space on the remainder of the residential site to the north.
Q: Is there any hard data showing that this type of development can
increase nearby property values?
A: Yes. See studies generated by Urban Land Institute (ULI).
C: Light pollution may have a greater impact to properties to the south as
compared to the existing NC location.
Q: Where is the west property line?
E
C: Irrigation ditch is a wildlife corridor. (Yes; the corridor is designated
by the City as a wildlife movement corridor and is subject to a 50 foot
wide buffer area as measured from the top of the ditch bank)
Q: How do you address flooding issues?
A: The subject property is not in a floodway. All on- and off -site flood
impact need to be addressed through site design.
C: Transportation Master Plan improvements are based on 20-year traffic
projections that take into account existing and future development
given present zoning classifications.
Q: Does the % mile separation requirement (to Seneca Center) apply?
A: The separation requirement would prohibit construction of a
convenience store with fuel sales.
Q: What is the projected timeline for development?
A: Rezoning is the first step. The applicant is projecting a 12-18 month
design and entitlement period prior to the start of construction. Full
site development is projected to take 6-7 years to complete.
Q: Why is the detention/natural vegetated area (off -site) zoned UNDO
A: There is no good explanation for the zone designation since this is a
City -owned detention and wetland area.
Q: Is there a need for the potential amount of retail and services that
could be accommodated on -site?
A: The applicant has completed market research indicating that there is
sufficient demand.
Q: If the rezoning is not approved, will retail still be built?
4
City requests for a Plan Amendment will be considered by the City
Council no more frequently than twice per calendar year unless
directed by City Council upon receipt of a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Board. Plan amendments initiated by City
Council, City staff, boards and commissions may be processed at any
time.
Q: How does the applicant define "affordable housing"?
A: Housing sale prices in the $200,000400,000 range per unit.
Q: What transportation improvements are being contemplated?
A: "Building on Basics" was approved by citizens in the November
election and will help fund transportation improvements. The #1
priority is widening Harmony Road from Seneca to College Ave. The
City's Transportation Department hopes to be under construction by
end of 2007 — with the improvements completed by 2010. There will
likely be multiple construction phases.
Phase 1: Harmony Road from Seneca to BNSF railroad tracks —
roadway design and ROW acquisition 2006
Phase 2: Shields/Harmony Intersection
Phase 3: Harmony from Mason to College
C: There will be additional traffic impacts to WakeRobin Lane that
will be at the detriment to the adjacent neighborhood.
Q: What kind of traffic mitigation will take place on WakeRobin due
to the proposed construction and Harmony Road widening?
A: No mitigation design for WakeRobin or adjacent streets will be
completed until after the Development Plan approval stage.
Q: How is the neighborhood benefiting from the rezoning?
A: The rezone moves "negative" commercial impacts away from the
neighborhood to the west. Allows a shorter, more convenient route
from the neighborhood to services.
3
A: Yes to both questions.
Q: How will existing stormwater flows be addresses through
development?
A: Detailed stormwater engineering is required for both on- and off -site
flows and is evaluated at the time that the development plans are
reviewed.
Q: Could the city purchase the site as a Natural Area?
A: Probably not. The site does not appear to possess significant natural
habitat to wan -ant land purchase.
Q: What types of housing/commercial uses are being contemplated?
A: Mixed use, multi -generational housing with a range of housing types;
there may be a potential for co -housing.
Q: Will the proposed north -south street running through the site be
required to align with Westbury Drive?
A: Yes.
C: Not a good thing to have services near housing — residents don't mind
driving further to get to services.
Q: Is there an opportunity to change the City's Comprehensive Plan?
A: Revisions to City Plan are conducted in two distinct and different
procedures: Comprehensive Updates and Minor Amendments.
The 5-year Comprehensive Update to City Plan was approved in
2004; therefore, the next scheduled update then will not occur until
approximately 2009.
2
ATTACHMENT 6
REVISED
Harmony & Shields Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting
DATE:
TIME:
MEETING LOCATION:
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
February 27, 2006
7:00- 9:00 pm
Harmony Branch Library -Community Room
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
John Lang, Transportation Project Manager
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES
74 Neighborhood residents and interested parties attended the advertised
neighborhood meeting. The meeting began promptly at 7:00 pm and
concluded at approximately 9:10 pm.
Following introductory remarks and the introduction of individuals
representing City staff and the applicant, Cameron Gloss provided an
overview of the requested rezoning. Images portraying existing and
proposed zone district patterns were projected on the screen and reviewed by
Mr. Gloss. Michael Markel, representing Markel Homes, displayed a
conceptual development plan and acknowledged that, while the request at
hand was limited to the rezone request, he is interested in making a good
faith effort to portray potential future development of the property.
Neighborhood residents generated the following questions, comments and
concerns. Most responses were provided by staff at the meeting, although
follow-up research was necessary in some cases.
Q = Question
A = Answer
C = Comment
Q: Will the offsite wetland (known as the "Dragon's Lair") be retained?
Is this property owned by the City?
ATTACHMENT 5
%D Markel
Markel Homes Consmsction company
5723 Arapahoe Avenue. e2B
Boulder. CO 80303
303-449-8889 (office)
303-444-2798 (fe4
17 February 2006
Cameron Gloss
Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Request for minor amendment to Structure Plan
Concurrent with Harmony and Shields Rezoning Application
Dear Cameron:
We request that the City of Fort Collin's Structure Plan be amended to match our application for
the Harmony and Shields rezoning map. The amendment would move the Neighborhood
Commercial Center designation to the northwest comer of Harmony and Sbields. The Medium
Density Mixed -Use designation would be moved and transition away from the commercial comer
to be contiguous with the other Medium Density Mixed -Use area on the Structure Plan.
The existing Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment. The neighborhood commercial
center is not economically viable in its current configuration on the structure plan. Market
demand from commercial developers, retail tenants and grocery store anchors is for the
commercial to be located at the comer of the site. A more appropriate transition to existing lower
density homes can be accomplished by moving the commercial to the corner and placing
residential in the middle of the site.
The proposed amendment will promote and maintain the existing public welfare and will be
consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan as outlined below:
Land Use
The requested rezoning map will provide a compact urban design that will be conducive to
pedestrian and transit use. The infill site will enhance the character and sense of place by
increasing the visibility of commercial uses along Harmony and Shields and provide a cohesive
sense of place by having the residential together.
Transportation
The requested rezoning map will implement land use patterns that will support effective transit,
an efficient roadway system and provide for alternative transportation modes on trails and
pedestrian street design.
No Text
11,14f (ll
... n.�.■rrr� 1i.. � R11r . 1� 1. w ti /111111P �
���` ,,fir ^•.•� e``�vi �� \I1111off$
"i7s/74
r f/.rlr.ni
11Ir/unlN�i
t111111111M+,•r■•
w
1r► ..
rrr ^rrF.
Flo
�i�:
��i �
���� I�r
= rulnn►��0;.����ii
■1 •tt.,,fit
R/1111111f /��A�rr ►�111
.�i �rRi . �
jllt11�11if �••�
lii///�"!
,
,A
mrr
Ir
oil lk
o
„�� I N-V-.�
!iffilAlIt111� 011,1111 tl/� tFAIFA1iriw
`ro
a
AAP9,41
�n"
w� �'wi
r!
i1u4n1w Ilvii
.. �uuuu�r nm
I I
II \\ \
I �
I I
I '
1 �
I---. ........... .
I PROPOSED 6REERWAY
7RM. CORRIDOR ,�
` MMN
NC
I / �
/
x/
I � �
I
�vw. fweA n.
4 ,
Hemlmy/SW* SRe 1228.08
ns7 nEsIGR PROPOSED ZONING MAP
April 18, 2006 •a Item No. 22 A-S
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular -monthly meeting on March 16, 2006, voted 6-0
(Stockover absent) to recommend approval to the City Council of the change to the City Plan
Structure Plan map and approval of the requested rezoning.
During the course of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, there was substantial public testimony
about the perceived impacts, both negative and positive, the rezoning would potentially have on the
surrounding area.
There was considerable discussion at the hearing regarding projected environmental impacts.
Several speakers cited the potential threat that future development would have on natural habitat and
features located both on -site and within close proximity. Of particular concern was the impact to
existing wetlands. Some speakers specifically requested the City purchase the site as a Natural
Area.
Requests were made to the Planning and Zoning Board by area residents to consider the traffic
impacts that might arise due to the relocation of the neighborhood center. In addition to the
increased traffic volumes along both Harmony and Shields Street, speakers cited concerns about
other perceived traffic impacts to the surrounding area, including:
• Increased traffic volumes and speeds along Wake Robin Lane from the site
and through the neighborhood
• Traffic volumes along Seneca Street will increase due to the lack of street
network accessing the area; this will cause a potentially dangerous condition
for pedestrians and motorists accessing the adjacent elementary and junior
high schools and Westfield Park.
• No sidewalk exists on the southside of Harmony Road near the project site.
• The City has not installed traffic calming devices within the neighborhood.
Comments were also received about potential diminution ofneighborhood property values, aesthetic
degradation, and perceived lack of market for a grocery store, retail or other similar services.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning exhibit 8 %s" x I I" plan set
2. Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps
3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Structure Plan Maps
4. Aerial photo of Dragon's Lair Wetlands
5. Applicant's written statement
6. Neighborhood Information meeting summary
7. Correspondence Received
8. Powerpoint slides
April 18, 2006 -8- Kom No. 22 A-B
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
As it is proposed to be amended, the rezoning is consistent with the
development pattern envisioned under the City's Structure Plan. The revised
neighborhood center still focuses the commercial service in a way that best
supports neighborhoods as the basic building block to the community.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION
In evaluating the request to amend the Harmony and Shields Structure Plan minor amendment and
rezone, staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed amendment to the Structure Plan will promote the public welfare and will be
consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements
thereof
B. The rezoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code, assuming that the
Structure Plan is amended as proposed.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Although quasi-judicial rezone applications are exempt from the neighborhood meeting
requirements, the City sponsored a neighborhood meeting on February 27, 2006 at the Harmony
Library located cater-comered to the property.
Comments raised at the neighborhood meeting ranged from land use and transportation impacts,
environmental impacts and potential future land development patterns. A detailed meeting summary
has been provided as an attachment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
A. Approval of the requested Structure Plan Map amendment, reconfiguring designations for
the Subject Area on the Plan, moving the Neighborhood Commercial Center, presently
located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane,
approximately 500 feet to the south, and designating the balance of the property Medium
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
B. Approval of the requested rezoning, changing the zoning of the subject area, the NC,
Neighborhood Commercial zone district, presently located in between the proposed
Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, to approximately 500 feet to the south,
and zoning the balance of the property M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
April 18, 2006 -7- Item No. 22 A-B
B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only
if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.
The rezoning acknowledges the relocation of the Neighborhood Commercial
district due to a need for greater market exposure. The NC and MMN
districts on the subjectproperty have not developed to date under the vision
of City Plan, in part due to the location of the NC district on the subject
property.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land.
The amendment will improve the degree of compatibility between potential
future commercial and residential uses and surrounding lower density
residential areas. The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use District
provides a larger buffer and transition to immediately abutting residential
development to the north and west than the existing location.
Rezoning still allows the Neighborhood Commercial district to work in
tandem with the Medium Density Mixed Use zone district. The subject
property provides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center needed to
support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found
within the medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing within
easy walking distance of services and that provide a transition to the
surrounding lower density residential areas.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
Immediately abutting the property to the west is a stormwater
detention/wetland area referred to as the "Dragon's Lair Wetland" owned by
the City of Fort Collins. In the year 2000, a volunteer group, Trees, Water
and People, worked cooperatively with the City of Fort Collins to reconstruct
the wetland and further enhance it with native vegetation.
There is no evidence that the rezoning will result in significant adverse
impacts to the natural environment on- or off -site. At such time that detailed
development plans are submitted, the applicant will be required to submit an
Ecological Characterization Study, identifying wildlife habitat areas, wetland
boundaries, wildlife movement corridors and other natural features and how
impacts can be avoided or mitigated through buffer zones and other
measures.
April 18, 2006 -6- Item No. 22 A-B
Neighborhood Commercial centers work in tandem with, and are surrounded by, Medium Density
Mixed Use zone districts. The subject propertyprovides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center
needed to support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found within the
medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing within easy walking distance of services
and that provide a transition to the surrounding lower density residential areas.
Staffhas reviewed the applicant's request for the Structure Plan Amendment and found it consistent
with adopted City Plan principles and policies. Relocation oftheNeighborhood Commercial Center
and Medium Density Mixed Use Residential areas still allows both districts to function
synergistically as envisioned under the Plan. The location of existing and planned future roadways,
such as Wake Robin Lane to the west, Westbury Drive to the south, and the future western extension
to Troutman Parkway to the north, will allow for direct vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
connections to the center. The size of the Center at 17.9 acres is in keeping with the 15-20 acres
targeted for such districts.
In many respects, the proposed reconfiguration is an improvement over the present City Structure
Plan layout. Commercial uses located closer to the Harmony and Shields corner_ma_Yprovide the
visual exposure needed for retailers to be more economically successful. The reco�gured Medium
Density Mixed Use District arguably provides an even larger buffer and transition to immediately
abutting low -density residential development to the west than the existing location.
The applicant has not submitted an amendment to the Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors
designation that crosses the subject property nor is these a requirement to do so in order for the
parcel to be rezoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. It is acknowledged that the illustration found
on the Plan is a very rough approximation of the Mail Creek drainage, and the natural features "on
the ground" do not coincide with the generalized pattern shown on the Structure Plan Map.
Future development plans on the site will be subject to the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land
Use Code protecting significant habitat and natural features.
Request to rezone by reconfiguring the Neighborhood Commercial, NC, and Medium Density
Mixed Neighborhood, M-M-N, — Section 2.9.4(1T)
The request to reconfigure the NC and MMN zone districts is considered quasi-judicial (versus
legislative) since the parcel is less than 640 acres. There are five standards that may be used in
evaluating a request for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies,
are summarized below:
A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only
ifthe proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and/or.
As stated above, under the Structure Plan amendment analysis, staff has
concluded that the proposal is consistent with the principles and policies of
City Plan, and would be consistent with the Structure Plan if it is amended
as proposed.
April 18, 2006 -5- Item No. 22 A 13
"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. "
Relevant Principles and Policies of City Plan
PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density Mixed --Use
Neighborhood will form a transition and a linkbetween surroundingneighborhoods
and the Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District,
Employment District, oranlndustrialDistrict,subject toadjustmentforsite specific
orpre-existing circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing
development.
Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend
an average of about one -quarter mile from the edge of the adjacent Neighborhood
Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an
Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site specific or pre-existing
circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development.
PRINCIPLEMMN--3: A Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be pedestrian -oriented places as a focal point for the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Policy AfW-3.1 Land Uses/Grocery Store Anchor. A grocery store, supermarket,
or other type of anchor (e.g., drugstore) should be the primaryfunctional offering
of these Centers. A mix of retail, professional office, and other services oriented to
serve surrounding neighborhoods are the secondary offerings. The Neighborhood
Commercial Center will provide locations for some limited auto -related uses.
Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial
Center should be integrated in the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image.
Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an
arterial street.
The City Structure Plan illustrates a future that uses neighborhoods as the primary building block
to the community. Successful residential districts rely on the ability to support and benefit from a
grocery store and other frequent destinations for its residents. These essential services are provided
to residential districts in "Neighborhood Commercial Centers" which are denoted on the Structure
Plan as either a red "dot" or polygon. Typically, Neighborhood Commercial Centers are 15-20 acres
in size. Such centers are intended to serve as a true focal point for surrounding neighborhoods
through not only goods and services but the provision of public gathering spaces and other civic
amenities.
April 18, 2006 -4- Item No. 22 A-B
moving the existing MMN zoning toward the middle of the site. Our reasons are as
follows:
i . This shift of zones is just a "flip/flop" of existing zoning. The new
zoning locations are essentially the same as before, just positioned
differently on the site.
2. The existing lower density neighborhoods to the west of the site will
enjoy a better transition with adjacent MMN zoning than directly
backing to commercial.
3. Existing neighborhoods can easily access the neighborhood from
Wake Robin Lane and also through the future Troutman Parkway
extension that is part of the Transportation Master Plan.
4. A trail connection along the ditch -way will provide alternative modes
for pedestrians to access the site from adjacent neighborhoods.
5. We have had interest from a regional grocer for the commercial to be
located at the comer and not the center of the site.
In addition, the applicant submitted the justification for a corresponding amendment to the Structure
Plan in an attached letter.
STAFF ANALYSIS
City Plan Structure Plan Map Minor Amendment
The City Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan, is a map that sets forth a
basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. The map breaks down the subject parcel into three land use designations: Neighborhood
Center, Medium Density Mixed Use, and Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors (Attachment 3).
The applicant's request is to reconfigure the City Structure Plan designations such that the
Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed Use designations are "flipped". The
resulting pattern would then relocate the south boundary of the Neighborhood Commercial Center
approximately 500 feet from the present location and replace some of the former commercially -
designated property with the residential designation.
The applicant contends the City Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment because the
neighborhood commercial center is not economically viable in its current configuration on the Plan.
Market analysis from commercial developers, retail tenants and grocery store anchors has indicated
the commercial center would be better served at a more visible location at the corner of the site.
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:
April 18, 2006 -3- Item No. 22 A-B
In 1997, City Plan was adopted and Neighborhood Center (NC) zone applied to that area
between Wake Robin Lane and Troutman Parkway (extended) and the remainder of the
property was zoned Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N).
LAND USE CODE
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the
Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of
land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning
Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION
Michael Markel, an authorized representative of the property owner, has submitted a rezoning
petition and corresponding request to amend the Structure Plan.
Reason for request:
The commercial viability of this site and overall neighborhood cohesiveness is better
suited by locating the existing NC zoning on the comer of Harmony and Shields and
April 18, 2006 -2- Item No. 22 A-B
BACKGROUND
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: M-M-N Vaunt Pine View PUD (expired)
R-L, U-E existing single-family residential (Mountain
Ridge Farm Subdivision, Skyline Acres); Westfield neighborhood park
S: R-L, U-E Existing detached single family residential (Westbury, Ridge,
LMN Cottonwood Ridge Subdivisions), Front Range Community College;
Harmony Library
E: M-M-N; Existing multi -family residential (Woodlands Condominiums)
R-L detached single family residential (Woodlands)
W: R-L; Existing detached single family residential (Westbrooke, Regency Park
LMN subdivisions); Johnson Elementary, Weber Jr. High School, Dragon's Lair
Wetlands; Harmony LDS Church
• The property was annexed and zoned on June 3, 1980 as part of a larger parcel of land
bounded by Horsetooth, Harmony, Shields and Taft Hill Roads. The initial zoning was
conditioned upon the property being developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
• The 67 acre Pineview Master Plan and First Phase Preliminary Development Plan were
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 26, 1981. The first phase included
approval of 326 multi -family units (apartments and condominium units) on 26.9 acres
located at the northwest corner of Shields and Harmony Roads. The approved Master Plan
included the following programmatic breakdown:
Tract A (Phase 1) 326 apartments and condominium units on 26.9 acres
Tract B 77 apartment and condominium units on 14 acres
Tract C Neighborhood Commercial Center on 16.5 acres with 140,000-
150,000 square feet of retail and non-residential uses.
Tract D 97 townhouses and condominium units on 8.1 acres
Tract E 124 townhouses and condominium units on 10.3 acres
• Preliminary PUD plans for 80 apartment units (Tract B), a 157,500 square foot
neighborhood shopping center (Tract C), 98 condominium units (Tract D), and 114
condominium units (Tract E), were approved by Planning and Zoning Board on July 25,
1983.
• A one-year extension to the Tract C approval for a neighborhood shopping center approval
was granted by Planning and Zoning Board on July 27, 1987.
ITEM NUMBER: 22 A-B
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: April 18, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Cameron Gloss,
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Harmony and Shields Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan.
RECOMMENDATION .
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Structure Plan and approval of the request to
reconfigure the pattern of existing zone districts northwest of the Harmony and Shields intersection
by relocating the 17.9 acre area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, presently sited in between
the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, approximately 500 feet to the
south. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Plan amendment
and requested rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-044 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the
Harmony and Shields Rezoning.
APPLICANT: Michael Markel
5723 Arapahoe Avenue #213
Boulder, CO 80303
OWNER: Darrell Knudson
17731 Irvine Blvd., Suite 202
Tustin, CA 92781
This is a request to amend the Structure Plan map and rezone a 58 acre parcel located on the west
side of South Shields Street north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially reconfigure the
pattern of existing zone districts by moving the 17.9 acre area zoned NC, Neighborhood
Commercial, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake
Robin Lane, approximately 500 feet to the south. The resulting zone districts would include an NC -
zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zoned M-
M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.