Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PROSPECT ROAD & I-25 - REZONING - 16-07 - REPORTS -Work Session Question to be Answered: r] Is there any additional information the City Council would like to receive regarding the proposed rezonings before hearing the rezonings at the December 4 regular meeting? 20 Buildable Lands Inventory Zone Existing Vacant Acres Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -25 (SW) C 447 +66 (NE) 488 Total Staff and P&Z Board Recommend Approval rrt 11- ON 016-07 NEC wnsrof t-25 & Prospect Road Razonifig 01W NECones of kU A Prospect Rod RaMoing 19 • • Buildable Lands Inventory Zone Existing Vacant Acres Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -) j 9 I 724 � - 86 (NE) 638 Total Buildable Lands Inventory Zone Existing Vacant Acres Vacant Acres Rezoning (+ & -) +143 (SW) E 710 +39 NE 892 Total is (c) whether the proposed amendment wora result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of, economic development and open space preservation. • It is logical that the interchange maximize the ability for the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. (c) whether the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. • The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern. 17 • • (b) whether the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment; • Development in the C and E Districts would have no adverse impacts on the natural environment. • Development applications will be subject to the City's development standards relative to: — natural habitat, — energy conservation, —stormwater, and — landscape design. (b) whether the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment; • Part of the reason for enlarging the C zoning in the NE was to devote land (about 20 acres) to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. 16 (a) whether the proposed amendment is compatible with uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; • Areas to the N, S, and W are designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses. • The E District will provide a transition from the C District to the residential properties to the N and E. (a) whether the proposed amendment is compatible with uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; Regulations in the LUC are intended to have employment districts along the 1-25 corridor designed to maintain openness through: — Increased setback requirements, — maximum building frontage allowances, —restricting building heights, and — proper management of floodplains. 15 • 40 (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. • Prospect interchange will not likely be funded by CDOT or FHWA. • Local revenue sources must be found for interchange improvements. Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. • (a) whether the proposed amendment is compatible with uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; • (b) whether the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment; (c) whether the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 14 1 I Structure Plan / T • Compilation map All showing Structure Plan land uses within the GMA and Timnath Land Use Plan uses outside the GMA_ East of GMA shows employment (purple), commercial (red) and non -rural residential densities (gold). nath Plan For, CollinsTimr=h Land Use Implications of Other Plans Recognition that 1-25 is no longer an eastern urban edge of the community as previously contained in the City Plan vision. • City plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's GMA boundary, and regionally along the 1-25 corridor. 13 • • 2007 Timnath Land Use Plan • In 2007 Timnath - - amended its Land use Plan changing the character of areas east of the GMA: - added urban commercial and employment uses w - _ • ; — �— - increased residential - - �-= densities - - extended urban uses S= north to County Road 52 Lr _ - eliminated the Fort Collinsrrimnath community separator ---- —' _ Timnath Land Use Plan Comparison Showing Significant Change of Character for Areas East of the GMA r> 12 2005 Timnath Land Use Plan • The Town of Timnath's 2005 Land Use Plan, adopted one year after the 2004 update to City Plan showed basically the same type of land uses east of the Fort Collins GMA. Land Use Plans Comparison Showing Same Land Uses Lf P 11 • • (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. • Land use plans by other jurisdictions are changing the character of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low density residential areas, as envisioned in City plans, to more intense urban uses. 2004 City Structure Plan o The Structure Plan map east of the Fort Collins GMA shows Rural Land Use (brown) to make a clear distinction between urban _ ? uses inside the GMA and rural a I at uses outside the GMA c Land uses east of 1-25 depicted a j transition from high intensity urban uses (commercial and employment) adjacent to 1-25, to i urban estate residential (maximum of 2 units acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (t unit12.29 acres) outside the GMA 10 Limited Opportunities • Mountain Vista - 72 acres • NE Mulberryli-25 - 47 acres • NE Prospect/1-25 - 96 acres (with rezoning) • SW Carpenter/1-25 - 109 acres • Foothills MalliSquare - 130 acres (redevelopment) Limited Opportunities With such a limited supply of sites suitable for the development of regional serving retail uses, interstate interchanges need to be raised in importance in order for the City to maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado. 0 • n U Prospect Interchange Rezonings • Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. — (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. • Competition for sales tax dollars is different in 2007 than it was earlier in the decade. • Interstate interchanges are desirable sites for regional serving retail uses. • There are limited opportunities within the GMA for new regional serving retail uses. 9 Recommendation for NE Corner Change the Land Use Plans and Zoning Designations as Requested _— I , 7 01847 NE Comer of 425 a Prospmd Road Rmzoninq near NE Commr of w a ►romped Reed Remiq Prospectl1-25 Activity Center • The Prospectl1-25 interchange was previously identified in the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an "activity center." • The rezoning request increases the size of the activity center (from 30 to 96 acres) and adds to its importance in the community's economic development strategies. r� u • 40 Prospect Road / I-25 Interc • The 1-25 Subarea Plan shows the interchange as a commercial (red) activity center (dotted line) with employment (purple) and industrial (pink) areas, urban residential (bright yellow) and rural residential (light yellow) with natural areas and stream corridors (green). Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. • (a) consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan; • To support the requested rezonings, amendments to existing plans are necessary. • Neither the SW nor the NE rezoning requests are consistent with exiting adopted plans. E • The 1-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and contains more specific land use policies and provides development decision making guidance for the areas along the 1-25 corridor. Fort Codins 1-25 Sut '. lvuceun M o- —A 1-25 Subarea Plan Major Policies No change to the GMA boundary. PIM • Two activity centers: Mulberry and Prospect interchanges. NE quadrant of Mulberry planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. • Employment districts adjacent to 1-25 to be designed to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor. f • The Resource Recovery Farm to be preserved as open space. 5 u Land Use Code Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial (<640 acres) Rezonings — (a) consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan; and l or — (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. • 2004 Structure Plan gcmmrwrr. muw. r. •crnu n,v. The City Plan Structure Plan map and the policies of City Plan form the basis for judging rezoning requests. i P S NE Corner Rezoning Existing and Proposed Zoning • n:: -- n` qn . � 3t 015-V NE Came of NA IMW NE co of P23 6 Pro Oct Road Ring h 1.251 P oqm Road Rezoning Fundamental Policy Issue • NE Corner Rezoning — Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional and community scale shopping center and employment land uses? I 3 i • 11 SW Corner Rezoning Approved by the City Council 1011612007 ti vT� - - - �� NE Corner Rezoning • From: 86 acres of 1, Industrial • To: 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 acres of E, Employment, and �• From: 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate • To: 19 acres of E, Employment • Result: — 96 acres of C, Commercial, and — 39 acres of E, Employment 2 ATTACHMENT 5 November 20, 2007 City Council Work Session NE Prospect/1-25 Interchange Rezonings Prospect Interchange Rezonings Mall ssw c,nw1 "mod FRoad 23 s NosWA R"MIN In s hopaat Rand Raamdnp 1 ATTACHMENT 4 NE Corner Rezoning roposed Zoning ,".eee.sm($w h OUpT OR � LIVIN LMN E E SITE -� .��- _ � iPR•1 Site F rrkmeeci an ,y POL E Cey u. m - c - Carm ml - POL - Public Op.n LIMB ME - Eny.nynenl Planning & Zoning Board DRAF � September 20, 2007 Page 10 Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of 25.17 scree fC��%eC of East and 118.17 acres of Public open Lands (POL) to Employment ( ) on Prospect and 1-25, # 04.04A. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Member Schmidt asked if staff was comfortable with the reduction of 1-Industrial land inventory. Staffmember Waldo responded yes. Northeast Comer of East Prosoert Road and 1-25 Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the matrix found on pages 13-16 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. a motion to Member northeast chnddcomema40 Fast Prospect anted 1 2S. Member Rollins seconded the morove changes to the Structure Plan tition. the Motion was approved 7-0. Member Schmidt wanted to thank the applicant for taking the time to meet with the neighbors to consider their concerns and for working with affected interests on the water issues and creek mitigation. Memning of the noheast corner of East and 1-25 as listed on Schmidt de a motion to approve page 119of the staff report.MemberWetzlretr seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Cameron Gloss, Director David Lingle, Chair Planning & Zoning Board DRAFT September 20, 2007 Page 9 former City Engineer Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley School District and a local developer, they developed a cross section profile of future Prospect ROW which is in use today. Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET) GWET is a 60" diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant NW of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom of the pipeline Is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 6(Y of soil making the total depth of their pipeline excavation and bacldill approximately 12 feet. The 2007 segment of this project included a crossing of Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of 1-25 at a location north of Prospect and completion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark. The 1-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in dose proximity to one another. The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley, Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportabon/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District CDOT, a group of affected landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. They worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's and White's properties. Public Input None Member Schmidt noted on the SW side employment zoning is proposed rather than commercial because of the buffering needed for the Boxelder Ditch. On the other side of the interchange it appears there would be more commercial. Stafirnember Waldo replied yes, with the loss of commercial on the west side, they looked to the east for increased commercial zoning. That came after working with stakeholders who agreed that commercial with employment buffering would be preferred. Member Schmidt asked it this would not continue to be an activity center? Waldo responded we would also amend our activity center boundary to coincide with the outside periphery of the commercial zone. There would need to be a commercial mass to produce the revenue needed to improve the infrastructure (including funding for the interchange.) Member Schmidt said she is In support of the changes, the main reason being the changes driven by the Town of Timnath. With the Increase in the intensity of use, it would be an appropriate thing to provide services in the interchange area —connect the whole region with good land use patterns. Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the matrix found on pages 8-12 of the staff report Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. , Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the southwest corner of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Planning & Zoning Board D��rC� September 20, 2007 Page 8 Stokes provided the foilowing background information. The NaturalFarm F as srcea cenic and open nirs Natural Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery ) lands buffer in 2003. At the time of purchase, the eastern Portion of the RRF was not described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the eastern Portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low natural resource values, lues,ate manaral Areas a d disposition status.ram staff embarked on a planning process to help guide theproperty ions for the RF In August of col a the Natural policy City Council Inared a series of dicated its general preference r rty with the City Council and requested po cY a higher level of "commercial" use for the property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural Resources Department staff conduces that rezoning a substantial portion of the property (118 acres) from POL, Public Open Lands to E. Employment would be In the best Interests of the City They are retaining a buffer around Boxelder Creek. The rezoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same time, it would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves aesthetically pleasing views f1-25 as rom as ehigh natural values twdCreek ). The rezoning xcludes Boxelder Creek, will remainzoned and the Running Dear Natural Area POL. Wendi Birchler of Norris Design, representing the property owners (Rick & Dave White) reported they have been very involved is a series of planning related studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor. v Listed below is a summary of their involvement: ' . Boxelder Creek Regional Storm water Alliance. They've served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners including landowners, the City, Town of Wellington, Lorimer County, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, who equally funded the storm water master plan. The Whites attended North 1-25 Environmental impact Study Technical Advisory Comoand ttee meetings. They've organized group of landowners In the nelghborhood.of 1-251Prospe advised them of interchange issues. They met regularly th ity yY rapsTranortati n taaaffff as well as CDOT and consultants on the North 1-25 EIS project. with C other property owners, they've influenced the proposed alignment and departs of the Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of the City. They facilitated meetings between North 1-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Storm water Alliance to resolve mutual issues. They researched and resolved historic preservation issues with the North 1-25 EIS team. Prospect Road improvements. The Smiths organized a group prolo enof local � heoY ne donated owners concerned about issues pertaining to future Prospect Roadregularty with City Transportation and Engineering staff. They facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Town of TImnath became ngEngineer, and local s property rty owners to es address future Improvements to Prospect before they Included: Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of 1-25, Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GV11ET) crossing of Prospect, Boxelder Sanitation District sewer location of the Ttmnath Inlet canal to allow future crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, Re widening of Prospect, Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues, Boxelder Creek pect (the Grand Canal). With the Town of Timnath, stormwater overflow canal crossing of Pros Planning a Zoning Board DRAFT September 20, 2007 Page 7 was planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. The NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with commercial, industrial, and residential uses. • Employment and industrial districts adjacent to 1-25 are to be designed in a manner as to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor. Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in employmentAndustrial districts will be required to be set back at least'/, mile from 1-25 to avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25. • Detached single-family residential development Is prohibited within'/. mile of I-25. • Low density, mixed -use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within'% mile of Mulberry Street • The balance of areas planned for residential development were to be urban estate developments. • The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space. • The subarea eventually would be served with multi -modal transportation options. A supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the need to utilize 1-25 for short trips. • Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development. Regulations contained in the Land Use Code both applicable to the 1-25 corridor and more generally throughout the community are intended to have employmentfindustrial districts designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of: setback requirements, maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of tloodplains. Minimum building setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of 1-25. Maximum building frontage allowance is 50% at the 80 foot minimum setback from the property line, which can be expanded to 60% at an Increased setback of 120 feet Building heights are restricted to 40 feet within 600 feet from the property line adjoining 1-25. The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It Is logical the interchange maximize the ability for the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. Changes in the surrounding neighborhood warrant consideration. Land use plans by other jurisdictions are changing the character of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low -density residential, areas to more intense urban uses. Interchanges are desirable sites for regional serving retail uses. Competition for sales tax dollars is different in 2007. The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and Infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern. Prospect Interchange will not be funded by CDOT or FHWA. Local revenue sources must be found for interchange improvements. Staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and the following rezoning: • 143.34 acres located In the southwest comer of East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the E, Employment District. o In the northeast of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C. Commercial and 20 E. Employment and approval of rezoning 19,acres from UE, Urban Estate to E. Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential areas to the north and east. Chair Lingle asked Natural Resources Director John Stokes to outline the natural resource value of that land. Member Schmidt also asked if there would be enough buffering of the Boxelder Creek. Planning & Zoning Board DRAFT September 20. 2007 page 6 all development must either build the improvement or have funding appropriated that wiq cover improvement costs. 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 QuasWudiclal Rezoning 0 namendmentor less (a Zoning involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty i 4 the Planning and Zoning Board or res judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval is: approved by the City Council only if the proposed (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 Quaswudldal Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of arty such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: with ! ting (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible zone district and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate for the land; amendment would result in significantly (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amen adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but notand�tura funec.-air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, veg ali of the environment; amendment would result in a logical and (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed orderly development pattern. interstafte 2ubarea Plan l cooperative wasConcurrent with the development of the 1-25 SubareaCommunities ! 25 Coorrrdoan The planning effort to develop the Northam Colorado Regional regional plan studied the 1-25 corridor from planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped• area south County Road 52 on the north to an of the Town Thellmost significantlan diffstudied erence the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32 (Carpsbar nter Road). between the two plans is that the subarea an(adopted was based on exist ng and use lans p theln more detail than the regional plan. The regionalPi participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a transportation element, and open landslnatural areas policies. In 2003, the. City adopted the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points, conclusions, and policies of the P25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows: i The 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around t he prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east - No was proposed. change In the City's GMA boundary a and the Two activity centers were identified: one at the Mulberry Street interchange other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange Planning & Zoning Board DRAFT September 20, 2007 Page 5 Fearing Testimony, en Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ken Waldo reported staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143.34 acres located In the southwest comer of East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the E, Employment District In the northeast comer, staff is recommending approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I. Industrial to 66 acres of C. Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential areas to the north and east. The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchanged is based on: 1. City Council direction indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level of "commerciar use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located in the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange. Staff has concluded that rezoning a substantial portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL, Public Open Lands to E. Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E. Employment) would encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as an attractive community gateway and would be In the best interests of the City. 2. Simultaneously, the Clty received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 Interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial. Staff decided to review the land uses around the interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City and the private property owner to determine what would be the best land use poem for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions_ If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. The fundamental poncy issue to be addressed In the southwest rezoning request Is should City plans be amended and zonings changed to covert an area currently preserved as open space to an area that will permit the development of employment land uses In the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1- 25 Interchange? The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in this northeast rezoning request is should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale shopping center in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 Interchange? A regionalicommunity shopping center in the NE quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related Infrastructure. Given the high infrastructure cost to development from all four quadrants around the interchange, this property will need to contribute funding to improve the interchange. The rezoning needs to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements: All development plans for parcels Impacting the Prospect interchange must include a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction, Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2007 Page 4 DRAFT Meeting to continue oast 11 o.m. Member Wetzler made a motion to continue the meeting until all Ume-sensitive agenda items were completed. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7.0. The following two projects were considered together Project: Southwest Comer of East Prospect and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments, # 4-W Project Description: Sw—This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea at an and the City comer of Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone property East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning will change commercial and open space lands to an employment district designation. Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Pfan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and 118.17 acres of Public Open Lands (POL) to Employment (E). Project: Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments, # 16.07 Project Description: This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone property located at the northeast comer of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning will change industrial and urban estate space lands to commercial and employment district designations. Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan stmdure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres s!,of Industrial rezonint 19 acres from 66 acres of C, Commercial and E E, ploym rnt tot ante a 39 acre E zoned buffer UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 9B acres) and residential areas to the north and east ATTACHMENT 3 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, Wetzier Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Stanford, Waldo, Stokes, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note — Item # 4. Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, #14-07 is continued from the August meeting. Also, staff recommends Item # 7, East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 be continued until the October 18, 2007 meeting. Citizen participation: !None Chair Lingle ask members of the audience or the Board If they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. A member of the audience asked that Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, #25-07 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the August le, 2007 Planning and Zoning Hoard Hearing 2. Collinwood North Major Amendment, # 24-07 Zoning, # 21-07 Discussion Items: 3. Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, #25-07 4. Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, #14-07 5. Southwest Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments 6. Northeast Comer of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which Includes Minutes from the August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Collinwood North Major Amendment, # 24-07 Zoning, # 21-07. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. ATTACHMENT 2 B Below is a summary of the recommended change to the City Plan Structure Plan map. Existing Map Amendment Justification for the Change Existing map (see attached The map will also be The map amendments will map). amended to delete 86 acres graphically depict the map's of Industrial District land consistency to the and 19 acres of Urban amendments being made in Estate land to show about the I-25 Subarea Plan. 96 acres of Commercial Corridor land and 39 acres of Employment District land located in the NE quadrant of the Prospect/I- 25 interchange adjacent to the highway. 16 Existing Statements, Policies, Maps Amendments Deletiew Additions Justification for the Change Page 26 The map amendments will graphically depict the Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea wording changes being Plan — Land Use Plan made in the I-25 Subarea Plan. Existing map. The map will be amended to delete 86 acres of Industrial designated land and 19 acres of Urban Estate land in the NE quadrant and to show about 66 acres of additional Commercial land and 20 acres of Employment land in the NE quadrant of the Prospect/I-25 interchange. Also, the Activity Centers boundary around the Commercial Corridor designated land in the NE quadrant will be expanded to cover all 96 acres of commercial designated land. Page 26 The map amendments will also graphically depict the Fort Collins I-25 Subarea proposed zoning changes to Plan — Zoning Plan show 96 total acres of the C, Commercial District and Existing map. The trap will be amended 39 acres of the E, to delete 86 acres of I, Employment District in the Industrial zoning and 19 NE. acres of Urban Estate zoning to show about 66 additional acres of C, Commercial zoning and 20 acres of E, Employment zoning the NE quadrant of the Prospect/I-25 interchange adjacent to the highway, 15 Existing Page 21 5.2 Land Use Plan Objectives Designation of Activity Centers. This plan designates activity centers along I-25 at the Prospect Road and Mulberry Street interchanges. These centers are intended to evolve into concentrated areas of mixed -use development with high visibility, increased levels of activity, and more integrated appearances. In addition, the northeast quadrant of the 1-25/Mulberry interchange is planned as a potential location for a regional/community shopping center. Amendments Deletions Additic Designation of Activity Centers. This plan designates activity centers along 1-25 at the Prospect Road and Mulberry Street interchanges. These centers are intended to evolve into concentrated areas of mixed -use development with high visibility, increased levels of activity, and more integrated appearances-4n-a�' , the 1254AW ifite"hange is plumed and also the potential locations fora regional/community shopping centers. Justification for the Change With the rezoning of 25 acres of commercial zoning to employment zoning in the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange and the relative lack of commercial zoning in the community as a whole, it is important to maintain a significant amount of commercial zoning at the Prospect/1-25 interchange. Basically, transferring 25 acres of Commercial zoning from the SW quadrant to the 30 acres of Commercial zoning in the NE quadrant is a start. However, due to development constraints in the NE quadrant, such as land needed to accommodate the Boxelder floodway, etc., which requires about 20 acres, additional land is necessary to be designated for commercial development above the simple addition of 25 acres from the SW quadrant. A total of 96 acres of commercial zoning is requested and should be sufficiently large enough for a regional/community shotmine center. 14 ATTACl MEENT 2 A Existing Amendments Justification Statements, Policies, Maps Deletiens Additions for the Chance Page vi Executive Summary: Two activity centers are identified for the subarea, one at the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange and the other at the I-25/Prospect Road interchange. The northeast quadrant of the I- 25/Mulberry Street interchange is also planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. Two activity centers are identified €eF in the subarea for the potential location of regionaUcommunity shopping centers, one at the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange and the other at the I-25/Prospect Road interchange. The nefthe ecam «�_ beffy Street ifftewhaage is also plamed shopping sente • The undeveloped land in the NE quadrant of the I-25 and Mulberry Street interchange initially planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center is approximately 50 acres in size. Adding 66 acres of commercial zoned land to the existing 30 acres at the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road and I-25 interchange would make a 96 acre parcel large enough for a regional or community shopping center. However, all 96 acres are not totally developable due to 20 acres of site constraints, including the Boxelder Creek floodplain. Therefore, the total developable size of the commercial area would be 76 acres, or about the size of the Foothills Mall property. The need for additional undeveloped commercial land in the City is critical for the community to provide alternative locations for retail development in Northern Colorado. Interstate interchanges are a logical location for regionally serving retail 13 After reviewing the East Prospect Road and I-25 rezonings and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained in detail above: 1. The request for amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map would be consistent with the City Plan's overall vision, goals, principles, and policies. 2. The rezoning requests are consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the Structure Plan map amendment and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan. 3. The proposed C, Commercial District and E, Employment District are appropriate for the NE comer and will help provide tax revenues necessary to cover local funding required to improve the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as well as other infrastructure improvements. 4. The proposed rezonings will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 5. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 acres of E, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment. to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential areas to the north and east. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular monthly meeting on September 20, 2007, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings. 12 In addition to the above, Section 2.9.4[H][3] provides factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. Staff has prepared a response to each of the additional factors, demonstrating how the optional criteria could also be met: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for the NE corner. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from the C, Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and east. The E, Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial District for the property to the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses. And again, the regulations contained in the Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the I-25 corridor designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of setback requirements, maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of floodplains. (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; Stabs perspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District at the NE corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Again, development applications will be subject to the City's development standards relative to natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Part of the reason for enlarging the C, Commercial zoning in the NE quadrant was to devote land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a Iogical and orderly development pattern. The Prospect Road/I-25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available for the development of a mix of commercial and employment types of uses. The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: 11 e. The City will use a variety of different funding sources to fund capital projects with an emphasis on the "Pay-as-you-go" philosophy. One of the NE applicant's stated justifications for the plan amendments and rezoning is to provide a land use basis for the ability to generate sufficient tax revenues from the development of parcels around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchanges to cover the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements, including the major expense of reconstructing the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. This would be consistent with the pay-as-you-go philosophy. (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. There are several changed conditions that help justify the plan amendments and rezoning request. When the I-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003, it was assumed that the necessary improvements to the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange would be funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since it was part of the federallstate highway system. It was not anticipated that the responsibility for improving the interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners using public/private partnerships. The plan amendments and rezoning request will help address this changed condition whereby local revenues will need to be created in order to finance interchange improvements. The competition for retail sales tax dollars is also significantly different now in 2007 than it was in 2003. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado market, undeveloped retail commercial sites in desirable locations need to be provided. The City is lacking in areas to attract regional/community scale retail establishments. Interstate interchanges are the type of desirable sites for such regional serving retail uses. Land use plans by other jurisdictions, particularly the Town of Timnath, are changing the character of areas east of I-25 from the rural, low density residential, areas shown on the City's plans, to more intense urban uses. In June 2007, the Timnath Town Board approved an amendment to Timnath's Land Use Plan which extended Timnath's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary north of Timnath to County Road 52 (the northern boundary of the A-B brewery). The Timnath Land Use Plan also intensified the residential densities and land uses in the area to include commercial and employment uses. This is a significant change of conditions that affects areas within the Fort Collins GMA boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to decrease in intensity from employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of 1-25 are beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of 1-25. Even the 100 acres of UE zoned property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields and school bus storage are not low intensity, rural types of land uses. 10 As indicated earlier, staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the SW quadrant, and the private property owner, for the NE quadrant, to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to allow additional commercial and employment land uses to develop in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. It is becoming more apparent that 1-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The importance of the I-25 corridor to the economic development of Northern Colorado can be viewed all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low density residential areas envisioned in both the initial City Plan of 1997, and the 2004 update, to urban types of uses. In staffs opinion, the City's plans need to be changed to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. In City Plan, one of the stated community goals is: Fort Collins will maintain its role as a regional economic center. The downtown, the Foothills Mall, and South College Avenue are typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations to help achieve this goal. Staff believes that interstate interchanges need to be elevated to share a similar importance. Principle ECON-2 states: Economic Sustainability: The City will strive to develop an economy which will be self-sustaining within the limits of its GMA. Policy ECON-2.2 states: Fort Collins will be a leader in developing an economy which continues to "develop" within its GMA. The NE corner of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange is within the City's GMA boundary. The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an expanded role in the City's economic development strategies. Policy GM-4.2 states: Capital hmprovement Policy. The City will continue to operate under the following Capital Improvement Policies: �i The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets forth a basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. The I-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides greater detail and policies for the I-25 corridor. For the SW corner, the maps in these existing plans currently designate the 25 acre parcel as commercial and the 118 acre parcel as open space. For the NE corner, the maps in these existing plans currently designate 30 acres as commercial, 86 acres as industrial, and 19 acres as urban estate (not including the 100 acres owned by the Poudre School District) in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. To recommend approval of the rezoning proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have to find that: 1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and 2) the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. The applicable criteria are contained in Appendix C of City Plan. Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments: Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states: "A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.,, To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary. Listed below are the statements, policies, and maps which need to be amended within the I-25 Subarea Plan. Analysis Based on Rezoning Review Criteria How the rezoning requests address the requirements in the City's Land Use Code are summarized below: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 9 o Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal). o With Town of Timnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley School District and a local developer, developed cross section profile of future Prospect ROW which is in use today. GREELEY WATER EXTENSION & TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET) Background: Greeley's GWET project is a 60" diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant NW of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60" of soil making the total depth of their pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet. The sheer size of this project makes it important to anticipate related issues in advance of the project's construction. The 2007 segment of this project included a crossing of Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of I-25 at a location north of Prospect and completion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark. The I-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another. • The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley, Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. • Arranged to have GWET representatives attend several Boxelder Alliance TAC meetings to coordinate the particularly tight and complex I-25 crossing as well as other mutual issues. • Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GMA developers to discuss project alignment to minimize impacts to properties in vicinity of Timnath. • Worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's and White's properties. • The 2007 segment of the GWET pipeline is nearing completion. 4. Amendments to the Structure Plan may and the I-2S Subarea Plan Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues. Coordinated with Alliance members including: Larimer County, Town of Wellington, the City, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, North Poudre Irrigation Company, Boxelder Sanitation Distinct, New Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Transportation and others. NORTH I-25 EIS • Attended North I-25 EIS Technical Advisory Committee meetings (usually was the only member of the public in attendance). • Participated in.all local (Group 7) meetings. • Organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of I-25/Prospect and advised them of interchange issues. • Met regularly with City Transportation staff as well as CDOT and Felsburg Holt Ullevig., consultants on the North I-25 EIS project. • With City Transportation staff and other property owners, influenced the proposed alignment and details of the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the advantage of City. • Facilitated meetings between North I-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Stormwater Alliance to resolve mutual issues. • Researched and resolved historic preservation issue with North I-25 EIS team. PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS • Organized group of local property owners concerning issues pertaining to future Prospect Road improvements. • Coordinated regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff. • Facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Timnath Engineer, and local property owners to address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems. These issues included: o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of I-25, o Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of Prospect, o Boxelder Sanitation District sewer crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, o Relocation of Timnath Inlet canal to allow future widening of Prospect, o Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues, A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is anticipated. The City is in a very competitive market with the Towns of Timnath, Windsor and Wellington for this retail space. If the City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City needs to move quickly and aggressively. The property owners (the Whites) have been very involved is a series of planning related studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor. Listed below is a summary of their involvement: BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners. Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado Water Conservation Board) who EQUALLY funded the stormwater masterplan. Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which provided overall direction to the Alliance's efforts. The TAC: o Prepared the Scope of Work for the engineering consultant, o Selected the engineering consultant, o Provided ongoing direction to/coordination with the selected consultant o Reviewed/commented on work products, o Held monthly public meetings to discuss progress, o Participated in weekly/biweekly meetings to complete tasks for the Alliance, o Reviewed/commented on final Regional Master Plan, o Participated in Alliance presentations to Alliance members and town councils. • Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC). o FAC was formed to ensure financial feasibility to the engineering options. o Independently funded legal consultant to the FAC. o The FAC: ■ Completed funding analyses of the Master Plan alternatives, • Researched project financing options, • Completed damages & consequences assessments, ■ Developed Funding/Implementation Strategy for final Master Plan, ■ Coordinated with TAC in developing a recommended alterative. • Prepared list of property owners in vicinity of I-25/Prospect (400 names) for public notices. • The Prospect / I-25 interchange was constructed in 1966. Since its construction, traffic volumes have increased significantly and the interchange structure has deteriorated. • A recent North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team analysis of the interchange indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTLY experiencing a failing Level of Service (LOS) quality F (failure). • Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic volume for the interchange in the next 20 years. • North 1-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate Right -of -Way (ROW) to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and improvements to the on/off ramps and safety lanes. As a result, any reconstruction of the Prospect interchange must accommodate a wider footprint. The current interchange ROW will not accommodate this widening. • Cost estimates/projections for the interchange and Prospect Road improvements are substantial: o The projection for the interchange itself is $25,000,000.00 (excluding ROW acquisition costs). o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect Road. west of interchange is $3,000,000. o Prospect Road east of the interchange to County Road 5 is $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 (excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation of Timnath inlet canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection). o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1,000,000 to 1,300,000 (similar exclusions). o The total, thus, ranges from $30,700,000 to $31,600,000, at a minimum. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of this interchange and related street improvements. • A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirement for the new CSU R&D center in the SW quadrant as well as for the property owner's anticipated project or other developments on the interchange comers. A new interchange will serve as a "Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by the University. If the City wishes to have this interchange constructed anytime in the near future, it will likely need to be funded by a public/private financing vehicle. • The I-25 Subarea Plan and the current Overall Development Plan (ODP) on the property were developed prior to the current interchange cost projections and proposed land use changes on the City -owned property becoming available. Clearly such magnitude of interchange constructions costs and such land use changes could not have been anticipated. • Gene Andrist, a financial planner involved with the financing of many interchanges and other major projects throughout the state, has developed a number of funding scenarios for public/private financing of the interchange. Increased levels of retail space at the interchange comers appears to be the key to provide increased revenue sources to the City to pay for interchange and related improvements. 4 The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space. The subarea is planned to eventually be served with multi -modal transportation options. A supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the need to utilize I-25 for short trips. Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development. 3. 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 (M (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 (I) (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. NE CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION: The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning requests: PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's citywide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority for future subarea planning: • I-25 Corridor Concurrent with the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi jurisdictional cooperative planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities P 25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the I-25 corridor from County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan studied the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The most significant difference between the two plans is that the subarea plan dealt with land uses in more detail than the regional plan. The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a transportation element, and open lands/natural areas policies. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the City in November 2001. In 2003, the City adopted the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points, conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows: • The 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east. • No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed. • Two activity centers were identified, one at the Mulberry Street interchange and the other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange was planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. The NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Employment and industrial districts adjacent to I-25 are to be designed in a manner as to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor. • Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least '/. mile from I-25 to avoid a commercial strip appearance along I- 25. • Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within'/. mile of 1-25. • Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within'h mile of Mulberry Street. • The balance of areas planned for residential development are to be urban estate developments. 2 ATTACHMENT 1 BACKGROUND 1. The Site: The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows: N: C, Commercial and LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, undeveloped E: County FA-1, Farming, Kitchell Estates, large lot residential subdivision, and UE, Urban Estate, undeveloped 100 acre parcel owned by the Poudre School District S: C, Commercial, and County Commercial, partially developed retail and office uses W: C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 235 acre Galatia Annexation in 1990 and zoned HB, Highway Business, IP, Planned Industrial, and RLP, Low Density Planned Residential Districts. All of the zoning districts had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning condition attached which required development proposals to be reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) which was the City's PUD ordinance at the time. In 1997, the 235 acres of the Galatia Annexation were rezoned as part of the City Plan comprehensive community rezoning. The 30 acres of HB, Highway Business was rezoned C, Commercial; the 86 acres of IP, Planned Industrial was rezoned I, Industrial; and the 119 acres of RLP, Low Density Planned Residential was rezoned UE, Urban Estate. The HB, IP, and RLP Districts were eliminated'from the Land Use Code in 1997. No parcels were rezoned as a result of adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan in 2003. Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre School District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields and school bus storage. 2. City Plan and the I-25 Subarea Plan In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan map showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four quadrants immediately adjacent to the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange; Employment District designations for other areas in the NE, SW, and SE quadrants; Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation in the NW quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors designation for other areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan map also identified the need for additional planning in the 1-25 corridor and designated the area as the "1-25 Special Study Corridor." In addition, City Plan's chapter on Principles and Policies contained the following: November 27, 2007 Page 6 b. A regional/community shopping center the northeast quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, development from all four quadrants around the interchange will need to contribute funding to improve the interchange. ATTACHMENTS 1. Background Information 2A. Recommended Changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan 2B. Recommended Changes to the City Plan Structure Plan Map 3. Draft Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting 4. Northwest Comer Rezoning Map 5. Power Point Presentation November 27, 2007 Page 5 Economic Development Fundamental economic development issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast corner are: Recognition that sales tax revenues are vital to the City's economic (budget) health. 2. Fort Collins' position as a regional retail trade center is weakening; regional shopping patters are shifting rapidly as new centers become operational; because of its central location and ease of access, the I-25 corridor is quickly becoming the primary shopping street in northern Colorado. 3. Regional/community shopping centers are key contributors to City sales tax revenue. a. The competition for retail sales tax dollars is significantly different now than in previous years. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado market, undeveloped regional/community retail commercial sites need to be provided in desirable locations. b. The downtown, the Foothills Mall, Harmony Road, and South College Avenue are typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations to contribute sale tax revenues. With such a limited supply of sites suitable for the development of regional/community serving retail uses, interstate interchanges need to be raised to share a similar importance in order for the City to maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado. 4. A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is anticipated. If the City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City needs to move quickly and aggressively. There are limited opportunities to locate new regional/community shopping centers in Fort Collins' GMA; the "preferred" sites, from a market standpoint, are in/near the I-25 corridor. 6. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the City have little/no funds to aid in the reconstruction of the Prospect/I-25 interchange, a key transportation entryway, and related street improvements. a. It was previously not anticipated that the responsibility for improving the Prospect/1- 25 interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacent property owners using public/private partnerships. The reality is that for the past ten years or more, interstate interchanges throughout Colorado have been builtlimproved through a combination of private and local funding sources. November 27, 2007 Page 4 a. The City's plans need to be reconsidered to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, and regionally, along the 125 corridor. 4. Fort Collins should analyze the possibility of expanding its GMA further to the east since the land use pattern proposed by the Town of Timnath significantly changes the City's initial (rural) vision for the area. If more urban types of land uses will develop in the area, the City is perhaps in a better position to provide urban services through annexation, which would require an expanded GMA boundary. 5. The Prospect/I-25 interchange was previously identified in the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an "activity center." 6. The rezoning includes changing 19 acres from Urban Estate to E, Employment; and 20 acres of I, Industrial to E, Employment, for a total of 39 acres of E, Employment. The current Urban Estate zoning is not feasible from a marketinglquality of life standpoint; it is unlikely anyone will choose to build an estate home so near the interstate and adjacent to commercial uses. The employment rezoning of this area makes sense; provides a better buffer to the existing estate subdivision; and adds too our inventory of employment land. The existing residents preferred the employment zoning. Part of the reason for enlarging the C zoning in the northeast quadrant is to devote about 20 acres of land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. Portions of the property currently zoned C, Commercial will be "lost" to floodplain and/or storm drainage management areas. Hence, the proposed zoning, enlarging the commercial zoned property, is partially in response to this. 8. The loss of commercial zoning, about 25 acres in the southwest corner of the Prospect/I-25 interchange needs to be compensated for by increasing the amount of commercial zoning in the northeast comer. a. The amount of commercial zoning should maximize the capability of providing sufficient ground to locate a regional/community shopping center at the northeast comer. 9. The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that the interchange maximize the ability for the development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. 10. Rezoning Question: Should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange? a. The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an expanded role in the City's economic development strategies. November 27, 2007 Page 3 In summary, the specific plan amendments for the northeast quadrant request involves changing 86 acres of industrial to 66 acres of commercial and 20 acres of employment and changing 19 acres of urban estate to employment in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. And again, on October 16, 2007, the City Council approved the rezoning of the SW corner from POL, Public Open Lands, and C, Commercial, to E, Employment. The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast comer is: should City plans be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange? The rezoning requests represents a major land use and economic development policy issue to add the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the limited inventoryof sites within the GMA boundary suitable for the development of regional/community serving retail uses. Such sites are necessary for the City to maintain a leading role as an important economic center for Northern Colorado. A regional/community shopping center in the northeast quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, development from all four quadrants around the interchange, including the area just rezoned at the SW comer, will need to contribute funding to improve the interchange. These fundamental issues are discussed in greater detail in the next two sections. Land Use Planning Fundamental land use issues to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast comer are: 1. Recognition that I-25 is no longer an eastern urban edge of the community as previously contained in City Plan visions. a. More specifically, the area on the Structure Plan map east of the Fort Collins GMA showing Rural Land Use to make a clear distinction between urban uses inside the Fort Collins GMA and rural uses outside the GMA is no longer valid. Initially, the land uses east of I-25 depicted a transition from high intensity urban uses (commercial and employment) adjacent to I-25, to urban estate residential (maximum of 2 units/acre) inside the GMA, to rural residential uses (I unit/2.29 acres) outside the GMA. b. The land uses adopted in the recent Land Use Plan amendment to the Timnath Comprehensive Plan have changed the vision for the area east of the Fort Collins GMA from rural residential to higher density residential uses and urban types of employment and commercial land uses. 2. The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA create the need for Fort Collins to reconsider the land uses on the Structure Plan map. 3. The land uses planned within the Timnath GMA will have impacts (largely unknown at this time) on the City ofFort Collins' land uses, economy, infrastructure, and public services and facilities. November 27, 2007 page 2 a. Short history: The Utilities Department operated a sludge application process on the property until transferring that operation to other sites in northern Larimer County, The Natural Resources Department purchased 144 acres from the Utilities Department to be preserved as open space, the Running Deer Natural Area, and in 2003, purchased an additional 151 acres as open space. In May 2004, the City Council, following the policies and implementation actions contained in the I-25 Subarea Plan, rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E, Employment into the POL, Public Open Lands District. At the time ofpurchase, the eastern portion of the RRF was not described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the eastern portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In August of 2005, the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF property with the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council indicated its general preference for a higher level of "commercial" use for the property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural Resources Department concluded that rezoning a substantial portion of the property (118 acres) from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment would be in the best interests of the City. Employment zoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. The adopted 1-25 Subarea Plan - as well as other constraints on the property, would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves an aesthetically pleasing viced from I-25 as well as protect adjoining areas with high natural values (namely Box Elder Creek and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning request excluded Box elder Creek, as it will remain zoned POL. City Council approved the rezoning of the SW comer on October 16, 2007. 2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial and 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate. Staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City and the private property owners to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests. The City Council will ultimately need to decide if the plans should be amended for the proposed land use patterns. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are separate, independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Said another way, the rezonings are designed to realign the City's land use regulations with the preferred land use patterns as show on the respective plans. The rezoning requests need to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange must include a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction, developments must either build the needed improvements, or have funding appropriated that will cover improvement costs. DATE: November 27, 2007 STAFF: Ken Waldo SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL The Northeast Quadrant of Prospect Road/I-25 Interchange Rezonings. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Is there any additional information the City Council would like to receive regarding the proposed rezonings before hearing the rezonings at the December 4 regular meeting? BACKGROUND The City has received a request to amend the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone 105 acres located at the northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The current Structure Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres in the northeast comer is the Industrial District and the current I-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Industrial District. The current Structure Plan designation for 19 of the 105 acres is the Urban Estate District and the current I-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Urban Estate. The applicant proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan to change the area into additional Commercial Corridor and Employment District designations with corresponding rezonings to the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board are recommending approval of changes to the 1--25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres into 66 acres of C, Commercial District and 20 acres ofE, Employment District; and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate District to the E, Employment District. The northeast comer rezonings would result in at total of 96 acres of C, Commercial zoned area (66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres of existing C zoning) and 39 acres of E, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide a buffer between the 96 acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east. The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange is based on: 1. City Council direction to staff indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level of `commercial" use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located in the southwest quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. Staff concluded that rezoning a portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment) would encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as an attractive community gateway, and would be in the best interests of the City.