Neighbors press council over Moore annexation zoning, council approves consent calendar containing the item

Neighbors near a proposed Moore annexation told Fort Collins City Council on Sept. 2 they oppose the city’s recommended LMN zoning for a 3.6‑acre parcel and urged a lower-density designation to match surrounding semi‑rural housing and preserve neighborhood character.

Resident concerns and why they matter: Several speakers — including long-time neighbors who live adjacent to the parcel — described a conceptual review showing a 78,000‑square‑foot, four‑story building surrounded by parking and said that massing would be out of character with single‑ and two‑story homes in the Northwest Subarea. Speakers also raised floodplain concerns: multiple commenters said roughly 50 percent of the parcel lies in the city floodplain and a third in the floodway, and warned that additional impervious surface and large parking areas could exacerbate runoff onto adjacent properties.

Public testimony included:
- Kurt Fieseler said the plan as presented would be “like a four‑story Northern Hotel 25 feet from your property,” called for LMN to be rejected in favor of urban‑edge or residential‑low zoning and raised traffic and flood concerns.
- Miranda Spindell, owner of a historic three‑acre farm north of the parcel, asked the council to pull the item for discussion and to consider Urban Estate or Residential Low zoning with a lower LC0 lighting standard to preserve dark‑sky character and neighborhood compatibility.

Staff response and process notes: City staff explained that the current hearing on consent did not consider a final development plan; the applicants had submitted conceptual reviews only. City planner Arlo Schumann said that a formal development proposal would enter the city’s development review process where staff reviews, public notices and additional hearings occur. Engineering staff said the property lies between stormwater infrastructure districts and that future development would require floodplain and stormwater mitigation.

Council action: The proposed annexation was on the consent calendar (consent items 1–19). After no council member pulled the item for separate discussion, the council moved, seconded and adopted the consent calendar by roll call. The clerk recorded the vote as unanimous, 7–0.

Clarifying details and next steps: Speakers requested additional neighborhood notification and design review; staff reminded the public that conceptual reviews do not constitute final approvals and that future development proposals for the property will include public comment opportunities and that comments and staff review letters are made public as part of the development‑review record. Arlo Schumann said that multiple rounds of staff review occur for any development application and that members of the public will be able to access those review materials.

Why residents remain concerned: Speakers cited three interrelated worries — building scale and massing, increased traffic near multiple schools, and flood risk — and asked the council to consider lower‑density zoning now rather than allowing conceptual plans to dictate future siting and scale. The council did not modify the consent action; the annexation will advance under the LMN designation on the development‑review timeline.

Ending: Residents were urged to watch for formal development applications and staff review documents; staff committed to provide follow‑up information by email and in writing for neighbors who requested further detail.