Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVINEYARD REZONING - 2-03 - REPORTS - SECOND READINGDATE: August 19,2003 ITEM NUMBER: :3 7 Comments/Recommendations from Other Boards Attached are comments/recommendations from the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Affordable Housing Board, the Transportation Board, and the Air Quality Advisory Board. DATE: EM NUMBER: Key new development regulations for the I-25 Corridor are as follows: • Secondary uses (retail and highway oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in the industrial and employment zoning districts will be required to be set back at least 1/4 mile from I-25. This provision expands an existing provision, Division 4.22 Employment District (E), (D) Land Use Standards, (3) Locational Standards within the Mountain Vista Subarea, of the Land Use Code and applies it to all Industrial Employment zoned properties within the I- 25 corridor. 1 - • New, detached single family lresidenti units are prohibited from locating within 1/4 mile of I-25. -' `a . r� • Minimum 80' landscaped setback requirement for buildings and parking lots from the I- 25 right-of-way. Currently there are no minimum setback requirements for developments in the I, Industrial, and E, Employment, Districts. This standard is recommended in the Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document and currently exists in the Land Use Code for the Harmony Corridor District (H-Q. • Building heights are restricted:to 20 feet,.(one story) for buildings located between 80 and 100 feet of the I-25 right -of way, and�resihcted to 40 feet (two stories) for buildings located more than 100 feet but,less than:600 feet from the I-25 right-of-way. This standard is recommended in the Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document. The proposed regulations represent a significant change in Land Use Code building heights in the Industrial and Employment zoning districts that currently allow structures to go to a maximum of 4 stories (up to 100'). • Maximum building frontage of 50% on parcels adjacent to I-25. • No wireless telecommunication t�owers`wit�"�n'1%,4 mile o =2 . IRSTransportation Impacts The proposed changes to the Master Street Plan have been analyzed by staff and, along with the eventual extension of transit and improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities in the area, have been found to be adequate to handle the transportation needs of land use development in the I-25 corridor. Planning and Zoniniz Board Recommendation On June 19, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and voted 5-2 to recommend to the Council that the I-25 Subarea Plan be adopted as an element of City Plan and adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code. A copy of the Board's minutes are attached. .,�v=:•, ::gym:. ,::nv ..�,5;" August, _ �—' DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 31 _ The planning process included meetings with the City's Planning and Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Transportation Board, Affordable Housing Board, and Air Quality Advisory Board. Key meetings included a public forum and two public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board as well as two City Council study sessions and a regular Council meeting where Council provided specific direction on policies issues, including preservation of a portion of the Resource Recovery Farm as open lands, no change to the City's (GMA) Growth Management Area boundary, and restricting residential densities to less than urban densities for areas east of I-25 (see attached copy of Resolution 2001-135). Meetings were also held with the Larimer County Planning Commission and Agricultural Advisory Board, as well as the Board of County Commissioners7Organized community groups involved in the process included Citizen Planners, the Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Review Committee, the East Mulberry Subarea'Plan Citizens ,Steering Committee, as well as the I-25 Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force General Public open -houses were also conducted to provide information to the public and the project maintained a web site where the public could access information and drafts of the plan. The Plan was also given extensive coverage by the local media. Chanties to the Draft I-25 Subarea Plan Some minor wording changes have been made to the draft I-25 Subarea Plan from the version presented to the Planning and Zoning Board last June. The changes are based on comments from the Planning and Zoning'Board, Natural�Resources'Advisory Board, and Transportation Board. Deletions are shown' as a �rotrg{t .%while additions are shown as bold and underlined. Development Regulations The Council is being asked to adopt certain amendments to the City's Land Use Code by adding a new Division 3.9 Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor as well as some minor amendments to provide cross reference provisions in the C, E and I zoning districts. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan produced a Development Design Standards for the I-25 Co'rrido - documen- that To—"S recommended development standards so there would be some constency n, deve opment,quality throughout the corridor. It was anticipated that communities would adopt as van'ation of the document based upon their existing regulations and commuunnit�refe nce . -The document contained a series of "Regional Baseline Standards" often along with additional "Recommended Design Standards" for additional control over development design. City staff completed an exhaustive review of the Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document and compared the regional baseline and recommended design standards to provisions already included in the City's Land Use Code. In many cases, development regulations in the Land Use Code already met, or exceeded, those recommended in the Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document. Where there were gaps, or tighter standards recommended in the regional document, staff has prepared amendments to the Land Use Code to be approved in conjunction with the adoption of the Subarea Plan. DATE: EM NUMBER: of -way, and to maximize views, preserve landscape features or open space, and provide a buffer to any adjacent industrial uses. • Low -density, mixed -use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within one-half (1/2) mile on either side of Mulberry Street east of I-25 (with the exception of the 80 acres located southwest of the Mulberry Street/County Road 5 intersection which are to be urban estate areas). The low -density, mixed -use neighborhoods could have densities as high as eight (8) dwelling units per acre, with affordable housing projects obtaining a density up to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. • The balance of the areas planned for- residential -uses: re to be urban estate developments T.vk with a maximum density of two (2) dwelling' units per acre. ni • In total, the residential areas within -the planning area will generate approximately 2,512 new dwelling units on 1,743 acres, for a total population of approximately 6,154. • The study area is planned to eventually be served with multi -modal transportation options, including mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian connections. A supplemental street system is planned allowing movement within the corridor, thus, diminishing the need to utilize the interstate highway for shorter length trips. The employment and industrial districts adjacent to I-25 will be designed in such a manner that they eventually obtain their access from the_ supplemental street system, thus, minimizing the need to use - the frontage roads adjacent to I-25. ry ' • The proposed changes to_ the Master Street _Plan hav been analyzed by staff, and along with the eventual extension of transit and improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities in the area have been found adequate and appropriate to handle the multi -modal transportation needs of existing and future land use development in the I-25 Corridor. Any infrastructure improvements shown outside of the City's Growth Management Area boundary are not the financial responsibility of the City of Fort Collins and reflect recommendations from other adopted regional plans. Similarly, improvements deemed necessary to Interstate 25 interchanges at SH-392/Carpenter Road, Prospect Road, and Mulberry Street, are the financial responsibility of the Colorado Department of Transportation and anydevelome'n�interes"Is creating im acts. • Most of the undeveloped land 'ign �he�Cityrow Management Area is expected to annex to the City prior to development as' required b the Fort Collins Larimer County intergovernmental agreement. Thus, when development does occur, such development will be subject to all of the provisions of the City's Land Use Code, payment of the City's development impact fees, etc. Planniniz Process The development of the I-25 Subarea Plan began in October 1999, as a commitment to complete City Plan for the areas adjacent to the I-25 corridor. Also, as indicated above, various drafts of the Plan were subjected to numerous reviews by the general public, City and County advisory boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials. ugus DATE: Z� ,ea ;•Sv'�^�";i;!;E'. olP°'nf'��`7vu4cx�yy �.: / ITEM -NUMBER: • Should the plan be developed to include an .expansion of the City's GMA boundary, or should the plan be developed for only areas within the existing GMA boundary? • Should large tracts of land be preserved for the potential location of industry and businesses in prime locations for such uses (most are currently zoned for such purposes), or should some, or all, of these areas be planned for different uses and rezoned? • Should residential neighborhoods of differing types be provided in close proximity to future employment and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and shop in their own neighborhood? Listed below are the key points; conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan: • Due to the recent adoption -of the'Mountain'Vista Subarea Plan (1999), the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (1998), and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (2002), along with the Harmony Corridor Plan (rev. 2003), 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. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (2001) provided the framework for the Subarea Plan. • No change to the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary is proposed as a result of the Plan. y�-.- J • Two mixed -use activity centers are identified for :the planning area, one at the I- 25Mulberry interchange aannd�the'other at the I-25/Prospect interchange. • Future employment and industrial adjacent to I-25 will develop in campus -like settings in between the Activity Centers. This will be achieved through zoning, the use of design standards, including setback requirements and maximum building frontage allowances, minimizing building heights, and the proper management of floodplain areas. • The Corridor contains approximately 416 acres of commercial, 390 acres of employment and 698 acres of industrial lands.' j� • Boxelder Creek is to be preserved as agree coir 'The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preservewlas public�open lan Approximately 1,184 acres in the corridor will be open lands (incluMing nver an stre m comdo'rrss; and, city -owned open lands and natural areas). • Secondary uses (retail and highway oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in industrial and employment districts will be required to be set back at least 1/4 mile form I-25 in order to avoid the development of a "commercial strip" appearance along the interstate frontage. • Low -density, detached single-family residential development shall be prohibited within one -quarter (1/4) mile of I-25 through various means, including zoning patterns and land use restrictions. Development that creates new detached single-family lots in urban estate areas located between one -quarter (1/4) and one-half (1/2) mile from the I-25 right-of- way shall utilize a clustering technique to concentrate densities away from the I-25 right- DATE: EM NUMBER: PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority for future subarea planning: • 1-25 Corridor (emphasis added) • Mountain Vista • East Mulberry • Fossil Creek Reservoir Area The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan was adopted by the City/Council on March 17, 1998, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted on'March 16, 1999,-and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was adopted on September 17, 2002. These plans, along with the Harmony Corridor Plan (rev. 2003), established policies and land uses for areas west of I-25, thus, the I-25 Subarea Plan's focus was mostly directed to areas east of the interstate highway. Two I-25 Corridor Plans At the time of development of the Fort Collins I-25 Subarea Plan there was also a multi - jurisdictional planning effort to develop _the Northern Colorado- Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries; f the regional and subarea planning efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the 32-mile interstate"condor"from County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Beoud,• while subarea plan studied the ten - mile mile long corridor from County Road 52 to Carpenter Road (County Road 32). The regional plan focused on design, transportation, and open lands and natural areas. The objective of the subarea planning effort was to focus on these same issues and more as the regional plan but in a more focused manner than the regional plan. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the Fort Collins' City Council on November 20, 2001. I-25 Subarea Plan The development of the I-25 Suba er a�Pllan'begaan-i Octto er,,199p-as a commitment to complete City Plan for the areas adjacent to the�25 co VA dor,�ThusCi y Plan's basic philosophies and policies are inherently included in the I-2Subarea Plan. Eventually, the land use and transportation policies of the I 25`5uba a Plan'All lead Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, and the Master Street Plan. Implementation techniques will include amended zoning districts, annexation and zoning, and new development design standards. The planning process developed two sets of three land use alternatives and a draft land use plan (a.k.a. "preferred alternative'). All were subjected to numerous reviews by the general public, property owners, City and County advisory boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials. In September 2001, two draft land use plan options were developed, one that included a GMA boundary expansion and one that restricts development east of I-25 to properties already inside the City's GMA boundary. The two options formed the basis for discussing and eventually providing the direction on whether the I-25 Subarea Plan should be completed with, or without, an expansion of the existing GMA boundary east of I-25 as well as other major land use policy issues. The most critical issues were as follows: AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 37 A-B DATE: August 19, 2003 FROM: Ken Waido SUBJECT: Items Relating to the Adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan as an Element of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the I 25 Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and implementing Land Use 'Code` amendments. On -June 19, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to recommend adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan and implementing Land Use Code amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2003-095 Adopting the 1-25 Subarea Plan" as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City (City Plan). ;t B. First Reading of Ordinance No 120, 2003, Amending the City's Land Use Code to Implement the I-25 Subarea -Plaii , Which`is an Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The I-25 Subarea Plan encompasses 10.8 square miles, roughly one -mile on either side of the I- 25 right-of-way for a distance of 10 miles, extending from County Road 52 on the north to Carpenter Road (County Road 32) on the south. Approximately 8.7 square miles of the planning area is located in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. The Subarea Plan includes an inventory of existing conditions; overview of corridor issues; and, vision, goals, principles and policies and plans for land use, transportation, community appearance and design, economic sustainability, houssing''� environ nt, .naturalarareas�7a_nd open lands, and growth management. In addition, the`_Plan describes avar 4Y of i plementation actions that should be taken if the Subarea Plan is o%be succoessful . A series of preolposed amendments to the City's Land Use Code are also being recommende for adoption in conjunction with the Subarea Plan. The planning process included extensive opportunities for comment by the public, property owners, City and County boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials. ROUND: In March 1997, the City Council adopted City Plan, as the new Comprehensive Plan. The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, a map showing the distribution of future land uses and transportation systems, was also adopted as a component of City Plan. The City Plan documents identified the need to do additional planning for the I-25 corridor by designating the area an " I- 25 Special Study Corridor". In addition, the City Plan Principles and Policies document contained the following: Section 9. That Section 4.23 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (F) which reads in its entirety as follows: (F) Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor. Development located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter (1/41 mile) of either-side-of-thcthe centerline of I-25 jig - - shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.9. Section 10. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition "1-25 activity center" which reads in its entirety as follows: 1-25 activity center (located as described in the I-25 Subarea Plan) shall mean an area of concentrated development containing more than one (1) principal land use type and generally served by high frequency transit. Such land uses may include office, retail, residential, or service uses such as hotels, motels and personal and business services. In an I-25 activity center, the different types of land uses are in close proximity, planned as a unified complementary whole, and functionally integrated to the use of vehicular and pedestrian access and parking areas. Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 19th day of August, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of September, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 2nd day of September, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk , n.:r..; Y•. 1 m� rY�,.. :::.�...,.--�1^h�5"i'=r:W.. I Section 4. That Section 4.17(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 14 which reads in its entirety as follows: 14. I-25 activity centers. Section 5. That Section 4.17 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (F) which reads in its entirety as follows: (F) Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor. Development located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter [1/4] mile) of either side of the centerline of I-25 ig - - shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.9. Section 6. That Section 4.22(D)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) Locational Standards along 1-25. Along I-25, any secondary uses shall be located at least (i,326)one thousand four hundred forty five (1,445) feet (onr from the centerline of cithet side of t I-25 . Such secondary uses shall _ be located so that they have direct access from a collector or local street. Section 7. That Section 4.22 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (F) which reads in its entirety as follows: (F) Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor. Development located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter [1/4] mile) of cfth«t 3iIIe—of—the centerline of I-25 Light- O frarttagrroads}shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.9. Section 8. That Section 4.23(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (2) which reads in its entirety as follows: (2) Locational Standards along 1-25. Along I-25, any use listed under 4.23(B)(3)(c) shall be located at least one thotisand ' to one thousand four hundred forty five (1,445) feet from.the centerline of I-25 right — —way Ilullwa. Such uses shall be located so that they have direct access from a collector or local street. M (J) Wireless Telecommunication. (1) Location. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall not be permitted within one thousand four hundred forty five (1,445) feet of the centerline of I-25. (2) Height. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall not exceed the maximum height allowed for a structure as specified in the Land Use Standards of the underlying zone district. (K) Height. (1) Outside the I-25 activity centers, non-residential building heights shall not exceed twenty (20) feet within tile 1--25 jig - - wo hundred twenty five (225) feet of the centerline of 1-25. (2) Outside the I-25 activity centers, non-residential and residential building heights shall not exceed forty (40) feet between om a - cf--+vaytwo hundred twenty six (226) feet and seven hundred twenty five (725) feet of the centerline of I-25. (3) Where existing site topography (whether natural or man-made) blocks views of the mountains or open lands from 1-25, these height restrictions shall not apply. (L) Minimum Residential Density in Activity Centers. (1) Minimum residential density in activity centers shall be twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. Section 3. That Section 4.1of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (F) which reads in its entirety as follows: (F) Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor. Development located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter [1/4] mile) of either side of the centerline of I-25 lir- - fiulltay,e Loads) shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.9. (H) Service Areas, Outdoor Storage and Mechanical Equipment. (1) Location. Loading docks, outdoor storage yards, and all other service areas shall be located to the sides and/or rear of a building, except when a site abuts I-25, in which event said areas shall be located to the sides of the building that do not face I-25. (2) Screening. (a) All outdoor storage yards, loading docks, service areas, and mechanical equipment or vents larger than eight (8) inches in diameter shall be concealed by screens at least as high as the equipment they hide, of a color and material matching or compatible with the dominant colors and materials found on the facades of the principal building. Chain link, with or without slats, shall not be ' used to satisfy this requirement. (b) Equipment that would remain visible despite screening, due to differences in topography (i.e., a site that is at a lower grade than surrounding roadways) shall be completely enclosed except for vents needed for air flow, in which event such vents shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the enclosure facade. (I) Fencing and Walls. (1) Materials. Walls and fences shall be constructed of high -quality materials, such as, tinted, textured blocks; brick; stone; treated wood; or ornamental metal and shall complement the design of an overall development and its surroundings. The use of chain link fencing or exposed cinder block walls shall be prohibited. (2) Location. Fences and walls shall be set back at least six (6) feet from the back edge of an adjoining public sidewalk, and such setback area shall be landscaped with turf, shrubs, and/or trees, using a variety of species to provide seasonal color and plant variety. (3) Maximum Length. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken, and uninterrupted fence or wall plane shall be forty (40) feet. Breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, transparent sections, and/or a change to different materials. 1. Stucco, 2. Brick, 3. Stone, or 4. Tinted, textured masonry block. (b) Smooth faced gray concrete block and tilt -up concrete panels are prohibited. (c) Metal is prohibited as a primary exterior surface material. It may be used as trim material covering no more than ten (10) percent of the fagade or as a roof material. (d) Fagade colors shall only be earth tone colors with a low reflectance. (e) High intensity primary colors are prohibited on any roof area visible from a public or private right-of- way or public open space. (G) Block Pattern for Activity Centers. (1) To the maximum extent feasible, larger sites containing multiple buildings and uses shall be composed of a series of urban -scale blocks of development defined and formed by streets or drives that provide links to nearby streets along the perimeter of the site. (2) Block sizes shall not exceed ten (10) acres for commercial development. (3) In addition to a network streets and drives, blocks shall be connected by a system of parallel tree -lined sidewalks .that adjoin the streets and drives combined with off-street connecting walkways so that there is a fully integrated and continuous pedestrian network. (4) To the maximum extent feasible, remote or independent pad sites, separated by their own parking lots and service drives, shall be minimized. Such buildings shall be directly connected to the pedestrian sidewalk network. 2. Overhanging eaves, extending at least three (3) feet beyond the supporting walls. 3. Sloping roofs not exceeding the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to one (1) foot of vertical rise for every one (1) foot of horizontal run. 4. Three (3) or more roof slope planes. (2) Building FomVFacade Treatment. (a) Buildings that face public streets, adjoining developments, or connecting pedestrian frontage shall be articulated, fenestrated and proportioned to human scale along at least sixty (60) percent of the fagade using features such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, or awnings. (b) Building facades facing a primary access street shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances that feature at least two (2) of the following: 1. Canopies or porticos, 2. Overhangs, 3. Recesses or projections of at least three (3) percent of wall length, 4. Arcades, 5. Distinctive roof forms, 6. Arches, , 7. Outdoor patios, 8. Display windows, 9. Planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting. (3) Materials and Colors. (a) One or more of the following building materials shall be incorporated into the design of a structure and used to provide visual interest at the sidewalk level for pedestrians: shall consist of one (1) tree and ten (10) shrubs per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of frontage. (b) Berms. Berms greater than three (3) feet in height shall not be permitted adjoining the I-25 right-of- way if they block long-range views of mountains and open lands for motorists on I-25 (not including motorists on frontage roads or ramps). (F) Commercial Building Design Standards. (1) Roof Form. (a) Roofs on principal structures with a building footprint of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall: 1. be pitched with a minimum slope of at least 5:12, 2. incorporate the 5:12 pitch by use a modified Mansard roof, covering a sufficient area of the roof so as to create the appearance that the Mansard roof covers the entire structure, and 3. incorporate at least one of the. following elements into the design for each fifty (50) lineal feet of roof: a. Projecting gables/dormers, b. Hips, c. Horizontal or vertical breaks, d. three (3) or more roof planes. (b) Roofs on structures with a footprint of greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall have at least two (2) of the following features: Parapet walls featuring three-dimensional cornice treatment that at no point exceeds one-third (1/3) of the height of the supporting wall. of I-25-rig- q shall be restricted so that no more than fifty (50) percent of the total frontage of the lot, tract or parcel of land is occupied by the building. (2) The placement of a commercial building on a lot, tract or parcel of land adjoining the I-25 right-of-way where the building is located a minimum of one hundmTHwenty 026jtwo hundred forty five (245) feet from the centerline of I-25�aq, shall be restricted so that no more than sixty (60) percent of the total frontage of the lot, tract or parcel of land is occupied by the building. (E) Landscaping Standards. (1) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. At least seventy five (75) percent of the perimeter of all parking areas shall be screened from nearby streets, public rights -of -way, public open space, and nearby uses by at least one of the following methods: (a) A berm at least three (3) feet high with a maximum slope of 3:1 in combination with evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs; (b) A hedge at least three (3) feet high, consisting of a double row of shrubs readily capable of growing to form a hedge, planted three (3) feet on center in a triangular pattern; (c) A decorative fence or wall between three (3) and four (4) feet in height in combination with landscaping including, without limitation, evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. (2) Site Perimeter Landscaping Adjacent to the 1-25 Right-of- way. (a) Buffers adjacent to 1-25. Developments with a site perimeter which is adjoining the I-25 right-of-way shall provide a landscaped buffer of at least eighty (80) feet between the building or parking lot edge and the I-25 right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of informal clusters of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs planted in an offset pattern and N Section 2. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of anew Division 3.9 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 3.9 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE I-25 CORRIDOR Sections: 3.9.1 Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor 3.9.1 Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor (A) Applicability. These standards apply to applications for development within one nrile Oil cither side Of tile I'Zilt Of vM Of the boundary of the I-25 Subarea Plan. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards to implement the model standards outlined in the "Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor" and the "Fort Collins I-25 Corridor Sub Area Plan," in addition to the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Use Code. (C) Location of Single Family Residential Lots From I-25. (1) Development of new single family residential lots within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one - quarter [1/4] mile of the centerline of Interstate Highway 25 (I-25y­right-of-� shall be prohibited. (2) In the Urban Estate zone district, development that creates new single-family residential lots located between one - quarter (1/4) and one-half (1/2) mile from the centerline of I-25right-of waq shall utilize the clustering technique (as provided for in Section 4.1(E)(2) of this Land Use Code for the Urban Estate District) in order to concentrate densities away from the—I-25�q, maximize views, and preserve landscape features or open space. (D) Commercial Building Placement Standards. (1) The placement of a commercial building on a lot, tract or parcel of land adjoining the I-25 right-of-way where the building is located closer than 0-20)two hundred forty five (245) feet from the centerline ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S LAND USE CODE TO IlVIPLEMENT THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN, WHICH IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, by Resolution 2003-095, of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, the Council adopted the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the I-25 Subarea Plan the Council has determined that the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins ("Land Use Code") should be amended by the addition of a new Division 3.9 for the purpose of establishing "Development Standards for the I- 25 Corridor" and that the Land Use Code should further be amended as it pertains to the urban estate, commercial, employment and industrial zone districts to make cross-references in the regulations for such districts to the I-25 corridor regulations and should be amended by adding a definition in the Land Use Code to define the term "I-25 Activity Center"; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the foregoing amendments to the City's Land Use Code are in the best interest of the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code of the City is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.1.1 Applicability All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Divisions 3.1 through 3.9 inclusive, except that single-family dwellings and accessory buildings and structures and accessory uses that are permitted subject only to basic development review as allowed in Article 4 need to comply only with the standards contained in Article 4 for the zone district in which such uses are located and the standards contained in Division 3.4.7 and Division 3.8. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall also apply to the use of land following development to the extent that the provisions of this Land Use Code can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having such ongoing application. 125 WMA AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 35 DATE: September 2, 2003 FROM: Ken Waido SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2003, Amending the City's Land Use Code to Implement the I-25 Subarea Plan, Which is an Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The planning area of the I-25 Subarea Plan includes only lands located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. The planning area includes approximately 5,561 acres (8.7 square miles) of land of which approximately 2,128 acres (3.3 square miles), or 38% of the 8.7 square miles of the planning area, is currently annexed into the City. The vision, goals, principles and policies contained within the I-25 Subarea Plan apply only to the 8.7 square mile planning area. In addition, the I-25 Subarea Plan describes a variety of implementation actions that should be taken if the Subarea Plan is to be successful. Based on concerns expressed by some property -owners staff has amended Ordinance No. 120, 2003, to have most distance measurements be made from the center -line of I-25 instead of the edge of the I-25 right-of-way. For example, instead of stating a distance of one hundred twenty (120) feet the ordinance contains a distance of two hundred forty-five (245) feet (120 feet plus 125 feet [one-half of the I-25 250' right-of-way]). Another example is to change some distances from one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet to one thousand four hundred forty-five (1,445) feet (1,320 + 125). Attached to this agenda item summary is a map depicting the planning area of the I-25 Subarea Plan. Ordinance No. 120, 2003, was adopted 4-2 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy opposed, Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy absent), on August 19, 2003. The parcels are not included within a mapped natural habitat area, nor does it appear they contain any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas which would be impacted by future development of the site. The 1-25 corridor plan does not envision any open space along this portion of the corridor. The site is adjacent to the Boxelder Creek floodplain, which may warrant future study when a project development plan is proposed. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Urban Estio�e stric�w -p vi a t}sition from higher intensity industrial land to the wes and the a ti ru 1 hd use east of the site in Latimer County. This zoning wil1Y rovi A, a fathering o densities outward from the higher intense uses internal to FottxCollinsvto the rurahland outside of the urban growth area. 3. Request for UE - Urban Estate District Zoning The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on January 8, 2003. The current request is to rezone 43.8 acres acres from I to UE. The property is undeveloped. The purpose of the UE Zoning is vide "sett' r a o ' ance of low -density and large - lot housing. The main purpos f th�i ct o kn I e e presence of the many existing subdivisions which have dev ped in I ese u ncti as parts of the community and to provide additional locations im' ar ve m t, typical in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. 4. Neighborhood Response: The Current Planning Department has received several letters from adjacent businesses concerned over the rezoning from I- Industrial to UE - Urban Estate Residential. These letters have been attached to this report. They are concerned that future residential will have children which may be drawn to these properties which use heavy equipment and semi -truck as part of their daily operations, thus creating a saf tjh"'aXJ*°Tt a rgh o so ate compatibility issues from permitting single family resi dal entt s ed r strial uses which generate noise during the early morning hou nd th o hout a y. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Vineyard rezoning, File #2-03, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: The subject property for the Vineyard Rezoning is designated on the I-25 Subarea Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as Urban Estate Residential. 2. The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. The rezoning request is consistent with the existing land use established within the area, particularly outside of the Urban Growth Management Area. 2. Ouasi-Judicial Rezoning: The properties included within the rezoning petition are less than 640 acres. Therefore, the rezoning is considered a quasi-judicial rezoning. In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of a rezoning to the City Council, the following criteria shall be met: A. Consistent with the Citv s Comprehensive Plan: The requested UE zoning is consistent with the recently adopted I-25 Subarea plan. This plan is adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The plan designates this parcel as Urban Estate ti t -Zo District permits residential up to two-units/acre. and/or B. Warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property The area south of this site will be developing into low -density residential at approximately 1.8 units/acre. This parcel is in the process of being annexed and zoned Urban Estate. The Structure Plan designation for this project is Urban Estate. The proposed rezoning is much more compatible with the f de op han exi�pg Industrial designation. The rural densities east of t site wi n e o ty ticipated to remain, or, possibly develop within the de ty permi d un t -1 zo district in Larimer County, which is currently one unit/2. re C. Additional Consideration for Ouasi-Judicial Rezonings: In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed zoning amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: 1. The area east of I-51fas a rrbrAI`chafMter and deer city. Much of the land is used for fanning. The Urban Estate provides one of the lowest maximum densities of the City zone districts, a maximum of two units/acre. The land to the east of the site is zoned FAI in Latimer County, which would permit a residential density less than that of Urban Estate. The proposed UE zoning will provide greater compatibility with the area than the existing Industrial zoning. 2. 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, noise, air. stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 7, 2003FROM: Bob Barkeen SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Vineyard Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption o e Reso tion the Ordi nce on First Reading. On August 21, 2003, the Planning and Zoni g�Board 4- o approv the rezoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and I-25. This parcel is 7 s i i anPnn zoned I — Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eas 43.(es)I-2v t ''31 to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of Ian jacenmai zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the I-25 S 'aLeCi f Fort Collins Structure Plan and Urban Estate on the recently adopted I-25 Subarea Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with the recently adopted I-25 Subarea Plan. This plan designates the land 1/4 mile east of I-25, north of Vine Drive, as Urban Estate Residential. The Urban Estate zone district permits up to two residential units/acre. The purpose of the I-25 Subarea Plan is to provide a mix of housing and employment uses along I-25, and provide a transition of density and land use intensity from the area directly adjacent to I-25 to the rural character outside of the City's Urban Growth Area in Larimer Count . FINDINGS and ANALYSI OFY 1. Backaround: und: A. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I; S: 1/FA1 (County); E: FAI(County); W : I; Undeveloped Undeveloped/Agriculture Undeveloped/Agriculture Undeveloped The property was annexed as part of the Front Range Farms H Annexation in January, 1988. BOUNDARY OF SAID DESCRIBED TRACT THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES: 1. THENCE NORTH 00'05' 34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 158.83 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 89'32' 23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1040.00 FEET; 3. THENCE NORTH 00' 05' 34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 879.00 FEET; 4. THENCE NORTH 67' 41' 06" WET A DISTANCE OF 1050.00 FEET; 5. THENCE NORTH 63' 36' 06" WEST A DISTANCE OF 495.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 89006985 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 1. THENCE SOUTH 00' 21" 00" WEST A DISTANCE OF 868.97 FEET; 2. THENCE NORTH 89' 39' 00" WEST A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 29' 19" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1300.10 FEET,. MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID TRACT DESCRIBED INDEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092; THENCE SOUTH 89' 32' 23" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH TRACT LINE A DISTANCE OF 421.22 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 43.87 ACRES, MORE OR 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 7th day of October, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final. passage on the 21st day of October, A.D. 2003. Mayor AST: " e City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of October, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2003 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 VINEYARD REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided; and WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is 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 as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from "I", Industrial Zone District, to "UE", Urban Estate Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Vineyard Rezoning: ALL THAT PART OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092 OF THE I.ARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS THAT IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCELDESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AT BOOK 1838 AT PAGE 938 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDS AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO BEAR NORTH 47*52' 00" WEST WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE NORTH 47' 52' 00" WEST ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 470.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 61' 53' 30" EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 442.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE AFORESAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2000027092; THENCE ALONG THE ITEM NUMBER: 8 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY JDATE: October 21, 2003 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Bob Barkeen SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2003, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Vineyard Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 7, 2003, rezones a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and I-25. This parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned I — Industrial. The rezoning will rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to I-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the I-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and Urban Estate on the recently adopted I-25 Subarea Plan.