The Future of Commercial Corridors and Centers: Land Use Code Updates

Cannabis stores. Early on zoning was put in place, ordnance 41, but it is outdated and has been encroached upon to the point it is useless as it is all zoned out. Please open more general commerical. or simply treat cannabis like liquor as the law enacted by votes requested. Thank yo for your time.

We find that the city has taken commerical zoning and then restricted it with adding a letter to it. Also the Harmony corridor is general commerical, but no, you can not go there if your business is just allowed in general commerical.

I live off of E. Vine, east of N. Timberline (NOT Mosaic) and attended your presentation. The six sites presented/visited are all very mature. Are you applying any of the lessons learned from those site visits to all of the development going on near my neighborhood (Mulberry and Vine; Mountain Vista)? Particularly with respect to commericial infrastructure (grocery stores, schools, etc.) to suppport the increased population; and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access?

It would be useful to enforce the current land use code before going head-long into revising it. For years in our neighborhood, we've had U+2 which is easily dodged (I know, it's gone now), light industrial properties on parcels zoned RL, and code compliance inspectors that are overwhelmed.

Our city government loves passing laws, agonizingly, in public, but really refrains from making workable efforts at enforcement.

The Land Use Code’s “compatibility” section should include social and behavioral compatibility being considered for a potential development. The recent approval by the P&Z Commission for the FC Rescue Mission’s shelter for 250 men (zoned “Service Commercial”) wound up placing the shelter in the middle of four mobile home parks, homes to some of the most vulnerable and at-risk populations. This is a perfect example of a development having a profound impact on the surrounding residential area, and if social/behavior compatibility had been included in applying LUC, perhaps the shelter capacity would have been reduced to lessen impact on surrounding neighborhoods.

Maybe you people should consider following the current land use codes, specifically the compatibility sections before you start an updated land use code. Of course, that would mean bucking your patron, Pat Stryker which will never happen. Truly you are just wasting time and our money

re: Renovations and Expansions
Many renovation or change-of-use projects trigger significant code requirements than are planned or that may be feasible and can deter the project from moving forward. This can impact a small business from renovating an underused property or deter a large employer from investing in the community. The LUC should encourage and support improvements and renovations to commercial properties while meeting new standards when feasible. Can renovation/change of use projects be better supported by allowing only the planned improvements to meet the latest standards rather than requiring the entire site/property to be changed to meet all portions of the LUC? A step-wise approach?

re: Mixed-Use buildings

1. Support, allow, and incentivize mixed use buildings. But REQUIRING vertical mixed-use can preclude otherwise successful and compatible development. Mixed-use may not be feasible in all situations or market conditions.

2. There seem to be inconsistencies with supporting and requiring mixed-use buildings while also requiring landscape buffering, steps in building massing near residential uses. To encourage mixed-use, it should be considered compatible with residential uses, not a use that requires a buffer.

The city might be due to review their STR maps, and look for suggestions as far as expanding or contracting short term rentals in certain areas, or review the owner occupied and non-owner occupied maps. Certain busy streets that allow commercial, and or are experiencing a migration from residential to commercial, should allow for great STR use, as it does not affect residential neighbors. Examples are Mulberry/prospect etc.

Removed by moderator.

I am trying to figure out how to amend the LUC in regard to developers and the trees that we plant in new communities. Currently, developers are responsible for all street trees until they reach maturity. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the LUC that specifies a time frame of maturity. We are replacing trees that homeowners have removed, over watered, or replaced with a different species. Some of these replacement trees are over 3 years old. We typically spend around $20k per year replacing dead or dying trees and we have no control over what species are planted, where they are planted, or any control over how homeowners maintain these trees. It is a bit of an injustice and would love to know the process to get an amendment made.
Thanks!

Increasing density near traffic is important to fight sprawl and create more walkable and sustainable communities. I am strongly in favor of eliminating parking minimums to free up unused or underutilized space for housing or new businesses. However bike parking at many locations is inadequate and unsuitable for e-bikes which are growing in popularity. King Soopers at Taft and Elizabeth is a great example of inadequate and insecure bike parking.
The new land use code should unlock the unused value in many parking lots around town that sit nearly empty all the time. Many of those lots are near transit and could be prime locations for apartments, senior living and more.

In order to truly achieve a 15 minute city goal, we must make Fort Collins more anti car. Reduce speed limits, higher fines for speeding, making lanes narrower by making more protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks. Increasing frequency of bus routes plus more routes so no one has to walk more than a few minutes to a bus stop. Reducing lanes in major roads, like mulberry, harmony, shields, etc. to accommodate bus only lanes with the concept being that if it is faster and more convenient to take a bus than drive, it will increase ridership, lower traffic, and be a net positive climate wise. The mall, old town, and city park would all great benefit from removing access for vehicles to drive (like on Sheldon, city park dr, walnut, linden, and most of the parking lot at the mall) in order to make these areas safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists. European cities show that more pedestrian friendly spaces are better for business, inclusion, and the well being of all.

Please be careful during LUC Phase 2 to protect the city from damaging change.
In particular, the city should avoid any “upzoning” changes to increase housing density in neighborhoods, or zoning that would allow “customer visitation” type businesses in the middle of neighborhoods.

Great job! . Just one note moving forward- sharing examples of pedestrian friendly shopping centers in Fort Collins and what makes them work might facilitate better feedback. My group had a hard time explaining why they felt a certain way. I think examples could help.