Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSW CORNER OF EAST PROSPECT ROAD & I-25 REZONING - 4-04A - REPORTS - SECOND READINGPassed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2007. ATTEST: City Clerk r* no Mayor Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66 the following seven (7) courses and distances, (1) South 89 degrees 57 minutes 13 seconds West for a distance of 1059.64 feet; (2) North 36 degrees 10 minutes 43 seconds West for a distance of 117.93 feet; (3) North 17 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds East for a distance of 404.31 feet; (4) along a curve to the left having a radius of 612.96 feet, a central angle o f 40 degrees 05 minutes 20 seconds and anarc length of 428.88 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 02 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds West for a distance of 420.18 feet; (5) North 22 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 110.41 feet; (6) along a curve to the right having a radius of 532.96 feet, a central angle of 14 degrees 20 minutes 52 seconds and an arc length of 133.46 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 15 degrees 13 minutes 34 seconds West for a distance of 133.11 feet; (7)non-tangent from the previous curve, North 44 degrees 22 minutes 29 seconds East for a distance of 98.70 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 24.932 acres more less. 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 property is not 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 16th day of October, A.D. 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 6 day of November, A.D. 2007. ww� Mayor ATTEST: -5- The above described tract contains 117.545 Acres more less. Parcel `B" A tract of land located in Section 21, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Latimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; Considering the north line of the Northeast quarter of Section 21 as bearing North 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds West between a Brass Cap monument, L.S. 14823, at the northeast corner of the said Section 21 and a Aluminum Cap monument, L.S. 14823, at the north quarter comer of Section 21, based upon G.P.S. observation and the City of Fort Collins coordinate base, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto; Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the said Section 2l; THENCE along the north Line ofthe said northeast quarter, North 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds West for a distance of 1241.97 feet; THENCE South 01 degrees 38 minutes 35 seconds West for a distance of 30.00 feet to the northeast comer of the Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66 and recorded June 13, 1988 at Reception No. 88026808 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Latimer County-, THENCE along the easterly line of the said Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66, South 44 degrees 22 minutes 29 seconds West for a distance of 37.44 feet to the south line of that certain tract of land described in a Quit Claim Deed recorded June 5, 2006 at Reception No. 20060041498 records of the said Clerk and Recorder, Parcel 10, and to the TRUE, POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE along the south line of the said tract described at Reception No. 20060041498, South 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds East for a distance of 340.24 feet (recorded as 339.85 feet) to the northerly line of that certain tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed recorded October 2, 1979 in Book 1992 at Page 0280 records of the said Clerk and Recorder; THENCE along the said northerly line and along the easterly line of the said tract described in Book 1992 at Page 0280 the following five (5) courses and distances, (1) South 61 degrees 41 minutes 15 seconds East for a distance of 41.53 feet; (2) North 89 degrees 36 minutes 16 seconds East for a distance of 327.82 feet; (3) South 36 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds East for a distance of 80.95 feet; (4) South 17 degrees 44 minutes 53 seconds East for a distance of 789.49 feet; (5), South 06 degrees 05 minutes 24 seconds East for a distance of 358.54 feet to the northerly line of the said Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88- 66; THENCE along the said northerly line and along the easterly line of the said -4- THENCE North 02 degrees 14 minutes 54 seconds West for a distance of 432.64 feet; THENCE North 00 degrees 39 minutes 47 seconds West for a distance of 512.69 feet; THENCE North 22 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West for a distance of 121.69 feet; THENCE North 02 degrees 47 minutes 24 seconds West for a distance of 129.58 feet; THENCE along a curve to the left having a radius of t 57.27 feet, a central angle of 42 degrees 50 minutes 08 seconds and an arc length of 117.58 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 24 degrees 12 minutes 28 seconds West for a distance of 114.86 feet; THENCE North 45 degrees 37 minutes 32 seconds West for a distance of 71.28 feet; THENCE along a curve to the right having a radius of 330.34 feet, a central angle of 30 degrees 41 minutes 12 seconds and an are length of 176.93 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 30 degrees 16 minutes 56 seconds West for a distance of 174.82 feet; THENCE North 14 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West for a distance of 100.27 feet; THENCE along a curve to the left having a radius of 289.75 feet, a central angle of 20 degrees 34 minutes 23 seconds and an arc length of 104.04 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 25 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds West for a distance of 103.48 feet; THENCE North 35 degrees 30 minutes 43 seconds West for a distance of 144.89 feet; THENCE along a curve to the right having a radius of 364.63 feet, a central angle of 37 degrees 10 minutes i 1 seconds and an arc length of 236.55 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 16 degrees 55 minutes 37 seconds West for a distance of 232.42 feet; THENCE North 01 degrees 39 minutes 28 seconds East for a distance of921.36 feet; THENCE along a curve to the right having a radius of 707.08 feet, a central angle of 17 degrees 07 minutes 56 seconds and an arc length of 211.43 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 10 degrees 13 minutes 26 seconds East for a distance of 210.64 feet to the south line of Parcel No. 2 State of Colorado Project No. MC C 060-031 described at Reception No. 20050068449 records of the said Clerk and Recorder; THENCE along the said south line, non -tangent from the previous curve, North 89 degrees 57 minutes I I seconds East for a distance of 6.45 feet to the southerly extension of the westerly line of the said Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66, the southerly extension is also the easterly line of the said Parcel No. 2; THENCE along the said southerly extension and along the westerly line of the Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66 the following five (5) courses and distances, (1) North 17 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds East for a distance of 673.89 feet; (2) along a curve to the left having a radius of 532.96 feet, a central angle of 40 degrees 05 minutes 20 seconds and an arc length of 372.90 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 02 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds West for a distance of 365.34 feet; (3) North 22 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 110.41 feet; (4) along a curve to the right having a radius of 612.96 feet, a central angle of 15 degrees 37 minutes 22 seconds and an arc length of 167.14 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 14 degrees 3 5 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 166.62 feet; (5) non -tangent from the previous curve, North 45 degrees I I minutes 27 seconds West for a distance of 146.18 feet to the north line of the said Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66; THENCE along the said north line, South 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds East for a distance of 280.00 feet to the point of beginning. -3- Commencing at the Northeast Comer of the said Section 21; THENCE along the north line of the said northeast quarter, North 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds West for a distance of 1241.97 feet; THENCE South 01 degrees 38 minutes 35 seconds West for a distance of 30.00 feet to the northeast corner of the Easement and Controlled Access Agreement described in Resolution 88-66 and recorded June 13, 1988 at Reception No. 88026808 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County, and to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE along the easterly and northerly line ofthe said Easement and Controlled Access Agreement, the following seven (7) courses and distances, (1) South 44 degrees 22 minutes 29 seconds West for a distance of 136.14 feet; (2) along a non -tangent curve to the left having a radius of 532.96 feet, a central angle of 14 degrees 20 minutes 52 seconds and an arc length of 133.46 feet, being subtended by a chord of South 15 degrees 13 minutes 34 seconds East for a distance of 133.11 feet; (3) South 22 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East for a distance of 110.41 feet; (4) along a curve to the right having a radius of 612.96 feet, a central angle of 40 degrees 05 minutes 20 seconds and an arc length of 428.88 feet, being subtended by a chord of South 02 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East for a distance of 420.18 feet; (5) South 17 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds West for a distance of 404.31 feet; (6) South 36 degrees 10 minutes 43 seconds East for a distance of 117.93 feet; (7) North 89 degrees 57 minutes 13 seconds East for a distance of 1059.64 feet to the easterly line of that certain tract of land described in a Warranty Deed recorded October 2, 1979 in Book 1992 at Page 0280 records of the said Clerk and Recorder; THENCE along the said easterly line the following seven (7) courses and distances, (1) South 06 degrees 05 minutes 24 seconds East for a distance of 345.66 feet; (2) South 00 degrees I 1 minutes 08 seconds West for a distance of 53.90 feet; (3) along a non - tangent curve to the left having a radius of 11583.00 feet, a central angle of 06 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds and an arc length of 1324.49 feet, being subtended by a chord of South 03 degrees 07 minutes 19 seconds East for a distance of 1323.77 feet; (4) non -tangent from the previous curve, South 06 degrees 05 minutes 36 seconds West for a distance of 417.50 feet; (5) along a non -tangent curve to the left having a radius of 11680.00 feet, a central angle of 03 degrees 00 minutes 01 seconds and an arc length of 611.62 feet, being subtended by a chord of South 09 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds East for a distance of 611.55 feet; (6) South 25 degrees 25 minutes 54 seconds East for a distance of 425.50 feet; (7) South 12 degrees 38 minutes 54 seconds East for a distance of 968.97 feet to the south line of the tract described in the said Book 1992 at Page 0280; THENCE along the said south line, North 89 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West for a distance of 344.37 feet to the southeast corner of the said Section 21; THENCE along the south line of the southeast quarter of the said Section 21, North 88 degrees 44 minutes 39 seconds West for a distance of 713.83 feet; THENCE leaving the said south line, North 29 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds West for a distance of 653.27 feet; THENCE along a curve to the right having a radius of 424.29 feet, a central angle of 27 degrees 35 minutes 32 seconds and an arc length of 204.33 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 16 degrees 02 minutes 40 seconds West for a distance of 202.36 feet; -2- ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2007 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 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST PROSPECT ROAD AND 1-25 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 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 warranted 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 set forth 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 as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division t.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of Parcel A from " POL", Public Open Lands Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District, and Parcel B from "C", Commercial Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District for the following described property in the City known as the Southwest Comer of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning: Parcel "A" A tract of land located in Sections 21 and 22, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows; Considering the north line of the Northeast quarter of Section 21 as bearing North 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds West between a Brass Cap monument, L.S. 14823, at the northeast corner of the said Section 21 and a Aluminum Cap monument, L.S. 14823, at the north quarter corner of Section 21, based upon G.P.S. observation and the City of Fort Collins coordinate base, and with all bearing contained herein relative thereto; October 16, 2007 -15- Item No. 23 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/CONd& USI After reviewing the East Prosp ad 5 Jonings Samendments to the 1-25 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 1-25 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 E, Employment District is appropriate for the parcels at the southwest comer of Prospect Road and I-25. 4. The proposed C, Commercial District and E, Employment District are appropriate for the northeast corner 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. 5. The proposed rezoninCWill resu PI fiyorly verse impacts on the natural environment. 6. The proposed rezoningu 'n dattern 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 25 acres of C, Commercial and 118 acres of POL, Public Open Lands to to 143 acres of E, Employment at the SW comer and for the NE comer, 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 its regular monthly meeting on September 20, 2007, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the en T 'rezonings. U, U ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan. 2. Recommended Changes to the City Plan Structure Plan map. 3. Draft minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 4. Southwest Corner Rezoning map. 5. Northeast Comer Rezoning map. October 16, 2007 -14- Item No. 23 In addition to the above, Section 2,9.4[H][3] provides factors that maybe 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 which a pr s en t is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounAkg the ect lid, d is the doffDropriatezone district for the land; The E, Employment District is the appropriate zone for the southwest comer. Areas to the north, northeast, and east are designated for a mix of commercial, industrial, and employment uses. Also, 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. The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for the northeast corner. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from the C, Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and east. The E, Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial District for the property to the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses. And again, the regulations contaq'apd, in t4g..Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the I-25 corriduy designm n o %pnt&n openness through the use of setback requirements, maxim build fron g wan , restricting building heights, and proper management of floodpl (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; Staff believes that development in the E, Employment District at the southwest corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any development application will be subject to the City's development standards relative to natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Staffs perspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District at the northeast corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Again, developm i i to City's development standards relative to natural habitat, ener conse ion, dscape design. Part of the reason for enlarging the C, Commer 1 zon' in quadr was to devote land to the proper management of the Boxelder Cr ood - (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Prospect Road/I-25 interchange represents an opportunity to create a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such October 16, 2007 -13- Item No. 23 One of the northeast 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 in ' th ospect Road/I-25 interchange. This would be consistent with a pay- ou- p o h . (b) warranted by changed c oon in neigh ood surrounding and including the subject property. When identified for open space preservation in the 1-25 Subarea Plan, the eastern portion of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) was not described as an area of interest to the Natural Resources Department's Natural Areas Program in thdVatural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the RRF 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. Staff has concluded that the eastern portion is not needed for open space in order to achieve any of the City's natural area preservation goals. There are several changed conditions that help justify the plan amendments and rezoning request. When the 1-25 Subarea Plan was ed in 003, it was assumed that the necessary improvements to the Prospect Road/I-25 i ch wo b the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and/o a Fed Hi mini tion (FHWA) since it was part of the federal/state highway syst It t ic' ted that a 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 th' YArewery). ea (GMA) boundary north of Timnath to County Road 52 ( northe boun f The Timnath Land Use Plan also intensified the resid ial de ies 1 d useea to include commercial and employment uses. This is a sign ch ions areas within the Fort Collins GMA boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to decrease in intensity from employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of I-25 are beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of I-25. Even the 100 acres of UE zoned property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields and school bus storage are not low intensity, rural types of land uses. October 16, 2007 -12- Item No. 23 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 recomme e 1 he commercial and open space lands in the southwest quadran be c ed to a istrict designation. Basically, the plan amendments revert the p erty b to 1 d uses pl ed and zoned prior to the 1-25 Subarea Plan adoption. �,,•" Staff is recommending the plans be amended to allow additional commercial and employment land uses to develop in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. It is becoming more apparent that 1-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The importance of the I-25 corridor to the economic development ofNorthem Colorado can be viewed all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character of areas east of I-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 staff's 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 maint its 1 a o Y nter. The downtown, the Foothills 1 d ut of a Atypically 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 southwest and northeast qu Ulop VhtategYi!es erchange are within the City's GMA boundary. The plan am dmenngthen the interchange for an expanded role in the City's ec omic Policy GM-4.2 states: Capital Improvement Policy. The City will continue to operate under the following Capital Improvement Policies: 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. October 16, 2007 -11- Item No. 23 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 P a el regarding crossing of the GWET project across Dis sand e' ro S. The 2007 segment of GW ipeli i Baring pletion. AMENDMENTS TO THE STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AND THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN: The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets forth a basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. The I-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides greater detail and policies for the I-25 corridor. For the southwest comer, the maps in these existing plans currently designate the 25 acre parcel as commercial and the 118 acre parcel as open space. For the northeast comer, 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 northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. To recommend approval of the City Plan and I-25 Subarea Plan amendments, the City Council has 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, lici of Ci Plan. The a licable criteria are contained in Appendix C of City Plan. Review Criteria for Structure an ents: ALendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states: "A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof." To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary. Attachment 1 contains the statements, policies, and maps which need to be amended within the 1-25 Subarea Plan. Attachment 2 is a summary of the recommended changes to the City Plan Structure Plan map. ANALYSIS BASED ON RFSONIT4 E T EW How the rezoning requests addre a req ' the C' Land Use Code are summarized below: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the southwest quadrant, and the private property owner, for the northeast quadrant, to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the area around the October 16, 2007 -10- Item No. 23 • 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 to C T and Felsburg Holt Ullevig., consultants on the No I-25 I roje • With City Transportati staff ther o owne influenced the proposed alignment and details of the Pro spe in g the ad ge 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 cro i g of ospect west of I-25 0 Greeley Water tense T m si P 'ec GWET) crossing of Prospect, o Boxelder Sani on Dis t se ng o ospect at McLaughlin Lane, o Relocation of T a In t low fu widening of Prospect, o Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues, o Boxelder Creek stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal). o With Town of Timnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley School District and a local developer, developed cross section profile of future Prospect ROW which is in use today. GREELEY WATER EXTENSION AND TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET) Greeley's GWET project is a 60-inch diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant northwest of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60 inches 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 segmen pr ' cl in Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of I-25 at a to tion no of P s t d etion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark. 1-25 c sing cularly mplicated since three irrigation company canal crossings, the B er cr g, a B er Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another. The Whites 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 October 16, 2007 ' -9- Item No. 23 • 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 markCye e o in r and Wellington for this retail space. If the City wis e an f 's cr retail space (and its related sales tax) the City needs toc an sively. AL 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 eninneering consultant, 0 Selected the en eeri nsu Pets, 0 Provided ongoi directito/ rn the selected consultant 0 Reviewed/co t n or o 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 alternative. Prepared list of property i ty 400 names) for public notices. Advised local property ers up o 1 fin g issues. Coordinated with AIR m rs in dV arim County, Town of Wellington, the City, Town of Timnath, o o,th P e Irrigation Company, Boxelder Sanitation Distirict, 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). October 16, 2007 -8- Item No. 23 NORTHEAST CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning requests: • The Prospect / 1-25 rchan as c s c in 6. Since its construction, traffic volumes have increas ignifi tly interch a structure has deteriorated. • A recent North I-25 Envi ent ct ent ) team analysis of the interchange indicates that portions of the interchange are CURRENTLY experiencing a failing Level of Service (LOS) quality F (failure). • Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic volume for the interchange in the next 20 years. • North I-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate right-of-way (ROW) to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and improvements to the 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 projectioCrossing int hana itself is $25 000,000.00 (excluding ROW acquisition co Boxelder Cree f Pros d w f interchange is $3,000,000. Prospect Roadlop o Coun oad 5 is $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 (excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation ofTimnathinlet canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection). o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1,000,000 to 1,300,000 (similar exclusions). o The total, thus, ranges from $30,700,000 to $31,600,000, at a minimum. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of this interchange and related street improvements. A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirement for the new CSU R&D center in the southwest quadrant as well as for the property owner's anticipated project or other developments on the interchange comers. A new interchange will serve as a "Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by the University. If the City wishes to have this interchange co e ' , it will likely need to be funded by a public/private fin ing ve le. The I-25 Subarea Pla d the ent 11 Devel ment Plan (ODP) on the property were developed prior to urr 1,e co ojections 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 ofmany 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. October 16, 2007 -7- Item No. 23 (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 to dment would result in significantly ad rse ' is on a nment, including, but not limited to, wat air, n , to er mana ent, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and na ncti ' g o envir nt; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. SOUTHWEST CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION: In 2003, the Natural Resources Department Natural Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) as a scenic and open lands buffer. 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, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In August 2005, the Natural RMection.e pt' ns for the RRF property with the Council and requested policy is general preference for a higher level of "commercial" use forncil' ctive, the Natural Resources Department staff 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. In addition, staff's perspective is that the 25 acre parcel zoned C, Commercial, immediately adjacent to the interchange and owned by the City should be combined with the 118 acre parcel to create a 143 acre parcel for employment type uses. Employment zoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same time, however, 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 viewshed from I-25 as well as protects adjoining areas with high natural values (namely Boxelder Creek and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning request excludes Boxelder Creek, it will remain zoned POL. Regulations contained in the d Use od)he li b to -25 corridor, and more generally throughout the community, inter to ploym industrial districts designed in a manner to maintain openness thr the k requi ents, maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of floodplains. Minimum building setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of I-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 I-25. October 16, 2007 -6- Item No. 23 1. The I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east. 2. No change in the City o 3. Two activity centers w iden i , on t e lb treet interchange and the other at the Prospect oad ' ch . The NE uadrant of the Mulberry interchange was planned CPO ' to ' n of a nal/community shopping center. The NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with commercial, industrial, and residential uses. 4. 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. 5. Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least 1/4 mile from I-25 to avoid a commercial strip appearance along I-25. 6. Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within 1/4 mile ofl-25. 7. Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within 1/2 mile of Mulberry Street. 8. The balance of areas planned for residential development are to be urban estate developments. 9. The City's Resource ro be reserved as o en space. 10. The subarea is planns ti-modal transportation options. A suppleme1 to ement within the subarea, thus, diminishing theo hort tri 11. Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development. LAND USE CODE The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following: Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval bythe Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consiste e o"ecs ;and/or (b) warrant by gen the neighborhood surround din gty. 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: October 16, 2007 -5- Item No. 23 In 1997, 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, U to istricts were eliminated from the Land Use Code in 1997. parceere r4ft oiid A a Yf adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan in 2003. Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre School District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields and school bus storage. % CITY PLAN AND THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as the City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan map showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four quadrants immediately adjacent to the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange; Employment District designations for other areas in the northeast, southwest, and southeast quadrants; Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation in the northwest quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors designation for other areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan map also identified the need for additional planning in the I-25 corridor and designated the the " -25 S ecial Stud Corridor." In addition, City Plan's chapter on Principles and Poli ' co th o w g: PRINCIPLE LU-4:J40soaku anning a (rtswill 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 1-25 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 plan ' t tVmd uses in more detail than the regional plan. The regional an w ased n x' ng use plans of the participating jurisdictions. The regional pl focus n de o ng a set design standards, a transportation element, and open lands/natural polic I there nrado Regional Communities 1-25 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: October 16, 2007 -4- Item No. 23 THE SOUTHWEST SITE The properties proposed for rezoning are currently an undeveloped 25 acre parcel of land zoned C, Commercial, and a 118 acre par e P41POVeW.Farin zoned POL, Public Open Lands. lk The adjoining existing zoningI..(d us Ilows: N: C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped E: C, Commercial, and County Commercial and FA1, Farming zoning, partially developed retail and office uses, and agricultural uses S: POL, Public Open Lands, and RC, River Corridor, public open space and the Boxelder Sanitation District's wastewater treatment facility W: POL, Public Open Lands, the Running Deer Natural Area, Colorado Welcome Center and I-25 rest area The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 325 acre Sludge Farm Annexation in June of 1988 and zoned RC, River Corridor District. In 1997, the 25 acre parcel was placed into the C, Commercial District and the 118 acre parcel was placed into the E, Employment District as a result of the City PI mpr ensive rezonin of the entire city. The sizes of the commercial and employment w ed al ev opment Plan (ODP) for the area prepared by the Planning Dep ent f e U it' t. 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 1-25 Subarea Plan, rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E, Employment into the POL, Public Open Lands District. The 118 acres requested for rezoning is a portion of the 151 acre tract. THE NORTHEAST 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, ' 11 l 'd - subdivision, and UE, Urban Estate, undeveloped 1 acre p el ow P School District S: C, Commercial, and C ty C erci p ally de loped retail and office uses W: C, Commercial and E, E I nl devel 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. October 16, 2007 -3- Item No. 23 The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange is based on: City Council direction to staff indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level of "commercial" use fMtheos ce covery Farm property located in the southwest quadrR 5 change. Staff has concluded that rezoning 25 acres oftomm - and 118 acres from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Emp3 acres 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 City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 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 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 Cbezaded ndm ts. The fundamental policy issue ssed i Pto nin uest for the southwest comer is: should City Plan be amendedin c goverarea 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/I-25 interchange? The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast corner is: should City Plan 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 regional/community shopping center in the northeast quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect Road/I-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. 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/1-25 interchange must include a Tran o tP ). a TIA will detecnune whether traffic generated by the develo ent wi esult le service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical improvemen at wi l ed t uct o mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction, developmen ust a bn improvements, or have funding appropriated that will cover improvement costs. In summary, the specific plan amendments for the southwest request involves changing 25 acres of commercial and 118 acres of open space designated land to create 143 acres of employment land in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The specific plan amendments for the northeast quadrant of the interchange involve changing 86 acres of industrial to 66 acres of commercial and 20 acres of employment and changing 19 acres of urban estate to employment. October 16, 2007 -2- Item No. 23 of POL, Public Open Lands. The City proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan to change the area into the Employment District designation with a corresponding rezoning to the E, Employment District. The current Structure Plan d gnatio r 86 e 5 a in the northeast is the Industrial District and the current 1-25 S area P des' a n for th ea is also Industrial District. The current Structure Plan designatio 190 0 s is th ban Estate District and the current 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Urban Estate. The applicant proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the 1-25 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. APPLICANT FOR REZONING OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER: City of Fort Collins Department of Natural Resources City Planning and Community Development Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 OWNER OF PROPERTY LU IN y CORNER REZONING: City of Fort Collins 7 c/o Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue, City Hall West Fort Collins, CO 80521 APPLICANT FOR REZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER: Land Acquisition and Management, LLC 7200 South Alton Way Suite B 150 Centennial, CO 80012 OWNER OF PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER REZONING: Same BACKGROUND Staff is recommending changes 2-%4.4aFeakgn and tACity Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143 acres into the E, Employment District in the southwest and in the northeast, the rezoning of 86 acres into 66 acres of C, Commercial District and 20 acres of E, Employment District; and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate District to the E, Employment District. The northeast corner rezonings would result in at total of 96 acres of C, Commercial zoned area (66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres of existing C zoning) and 39 acres of E, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide a buffer between the 96 acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM NUMBER: 23 DATE: October 16, 2007 Items Relating to the Prospect RoadlI-25 Interchange Rezonings. RECOMMENDATION : Ken Waldo Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading and the Resolution. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fill C. Resolution 2007-097 Southwest Corner of ] Plan Map Pertaining to the Resolution 2007-098 Amending the City Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the Northeast Comer of Prospect Road and I-25. Resolution 2007-099 Amending the I-25 Subarea Plan. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Comer of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the Northeast Corner of East1joaDect IL If This is a request to amend the S Suba Pla a City n Structure Plan map, and rezone 143 acres located at the southw t ect and Interstate 25 and rezone 105 acres located at the northeast comer of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The current Structure Plan designations for the 143 acres in the southwest are Commercial Corridor District, for a 25 acre parcel, and Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors, for a 118 acre parcel. The current 1-25 Subarea Plan designations are Commercial Corridor District and Proposed Open Space, with corresponding zoning district designations of 25 acres of C, Commercial and 118 acres AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: 20 DATE: November 6, 2007 STAFF: Ken Waldo Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007 by a vote of 5-0 (Troxell withdrawn, Ohlson absent) and rezones 143 acres located at the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. A 25-acre parcel of land zoned C, Commercial, and a 1 l 8-acre parcel of the former Resource Recovery Farm zoned POL, Public Open Lands is now rezoned to E, Employment District. ATTACHMENTS Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2007.