HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/04/2001•
Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Torgerson, Craig, Bernth, and Gavaldon. Member
Carpenter was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Olt, Virata, Jackson, Moore, Waido, Schlueter, Byrne and
Deines.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the September 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board
• Hearing.
2. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval (Withdrawn)
3. #13-82CP Oakridge Business Park, 35th Filing — Project Development
Plan.
Discussion Agenda:
4. #37-01 Recommendation to City Council on the 1-25 Subarea Plan
Land Use Options.
Member Craig pulled Item 1, Minutes of the September 17, 2001 Hearing for
further review.
Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Item 3. Member Craig seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Members Craig moved to continue Item 1 for further review at a worksession.
Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council on the 1-25
Subarea Plan Land Use Options.
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for direction
on whether or not the plan should include an
expansion to the existing Growth Management
Area (GMA) boundary east of 1-25, as well as
direction on other major land use policy issues.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the 1-25 Subarea Plan be
completed without an expansion of the existing
GMA boundary east of 1-25. Staff believes the
GMA boundary issue needs to be discussed in
the greater context of the City Plan update to
be started in January 2002.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Chief Planner for the Advanced Planning Department gave the staff
presentation. He gave a history of the plan and stated that the plan had reached a point
of needing further direction in the policy area from City Council. He stated that the
focus was in three specific areas:
The Growth Management Boundary change and direction as the plan is being
completed whether the plan should include an expansion to the city's Growth
Management Area Boundary, or should the plan only include areas that are currently
in the existing boundary.
The second issue deals with the planned areas for employment, industrial and
commercial uses within the 1-25 Corridor. Most of the areas are currently zoned for
those types of uses and staff would like some direction as to whether we continue to
plan those areas as they are zoned; or should we look at changing some of those
areas to other uses and perhaps eventually rezoning them, or dealing with them in a
different manner.
The third area deals with residential development and what type of residential
development should we have in the corridor area. Should we have urban density
residential development in the corridor?
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 3
PUBLIC INPUT
Dr. Lisa Herickoff, 7400 S. Lemay Avenue commented to the Board. She commented
that if staff wants to solicit public opinion and comment, she felt it would be appropriate
to provide maps so everyone could see them. She could not follow along with staff
because she could not see the maps presented. She asked staff to clarify on the
existing GMA, the gray area between County Road 50 and 52, and what staff was
referring to there. Her major comment was that agriculture is a major portion of what
Fort Collins was founded on. We have a Land Grant Institution right here and you are
not eliminating the crux of that in Fort Collins by this dense development. She lives on
the south side of Fort Collins and she felt the development was "horrid". Houses on top
on houses, on top of houses. She felt that this city stinks now and she cannot wait to
move out of this town: She hoped the Board considers what they are doing to the future
of Fort Collins when they make their decision.
Ruth Wille, 5123 East County Road 52 stated that she lives an the area that is going to
be destroyed. Her father once told her that if you want to know the real reason for
things, you follow the money trail. She sat down this afternoon, after reading the report
in the newspaper and followed the money trail. Who was to benefit from this? The
• number one person that will benefit from this is the developer. He will rape the land,
collect the monies and leave town. Most of the developers are not from our city and
they don't care what they are doing to our land. Who was to benefit next? The city
government because it increases their tax base. The city government expands,
therefore securing jobs. The government has more importance, more people to control.
This is a "protect" my job or "justify" my job project. Who suffers? The taxpayers, they
get to pay an increase in taxes to provide services for this development. Also there will
be an increased in crime due to the density. People who are living in expanded areas
are also going to suffer. This is not an increase in the quality of life. If you doubt her,
take a look at the Waterglen project at 1-25 and Vine Drive. What a wonderful thing it is
to see, roof upon roof upon roof. Before it was a beautiful open field, now it is plain
ugly! She felt she would rather look at a McDonald's sign than look at the Waterglen
project. She felt that this was creating grid lock, and it was going to get a whole lot
worse when you get enough Waterglen projects in there. Even the State of Colorado
opposes the 1-25 Corridor Plan because of the density it will create.
Ms. Wille felt the plan was unrealistic, people in America love their cars, they love open
space, and they want openness and freedom that the auto provides. People will not
work, play, live, shop in a small confined area. This is idealistic and a utopia they are
trying to create and it is not going to work. The wildlife and farm community will also be
gone forever. What are you creating for the future? Destruction, slums, California type
living. When is it time to say "enough", no more. We do not need this expansion; this
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 4
reeks of another roundabout project. This is not growth management this is growth
mania.
Michelle Jacobs, Community Affairs Director for the Homebuilders Association of
Northern Colorado, and a Fort Collins resident spoke to the Board. She stated that it
seemed very odd that the question of expanding Fort Collins Growth Management Area
has been posed. The only reasonable conclusion that can be made from this is to
simply give room for City Council to vote down the adoption of both the 1-25 Subarea
and Corridor Plans. If the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council vote not to
expand the GMA, then obviously the proposed boundaries of the Subarea Plan will fall
outside the GMA. With the boundary outside the GMA, the city will have no control of
the land uses or community design; hence the city will not want to approve either the.
Subarea or Corridor Plans. This appears to be a back door to killing both plans. There
is also still the question of why the City of Fort Collins is balking to approve these plans.
Experts are predicting a slow down in our economy. Our city should take that que and
plan for our future. By not adopting these plans, the city is refusing to recognize the
need for planning. We should be looking to plan for the expansion of infrastructure in
an orderly fashion and accommodate the needs of our city. We need to make available
the land necessary within the GMA to meet the demands of the growth that is occurring
right now.
The City of Fort Collins should not only adopt both the 1-25 Plans, but also extend the
GMA to include all land currently proposed for this Subarea Plan. They would like to
see the city's influence over the development of this area instead of unforeseen entities.
By doing so, the quality and consistency Fort Collins residents have come to expect of
developments will be in place. Good planning will prevent the random occurrence of
growth and development, and will prevent the sprawl no one wants to see. She thanked
the Board for the opportunity to express their opinion, and they sincerely hoped Council
and staff would hear their voice and realize that wise planning for this area is crucial and
the city will only benefit from the amenities, which will surely follow.
Eric Fried, 1813 Suffolk Court stated that he is one of the co -chair's for the Colorado
Green Party. When talking about these plans, there is some confusion as to whether
this is a separate plan, or whether is part of the Corridor. Obviously these two plans are
linked. The last speaker asked why anyone would oppose the Corridor Plan. He
thought that it was obvious because the Corridor Plan is a plan for the taxpayers to
subsidize sprawl to developers. The homebuilders and developers are in favor of the
plan because it is a form of welfare for them. They are not against planning or regional
planning, they are just against bad planning, and these are bad plans, they don't make
sense. There is already enough room within the existing GMA of Fort Collins for this
city to double in size. That seems to be big enough. That is 250,000 people and most
people in this city don't want to be any bigger than that. The city has not decided what
its ultimate size ought to be and that should be a decision that is made first before half
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 5
hazard additions to the growth area and annexations occur. That certainly gives
enough room for people to build houses and developments within the existing GMA. He
thought that the city should be bounded on the eastside of 1-25. He understands that
the GMA already goes past 1-25 in a few places, but that is not a compelling argument
to increase the GMA so Fort Collins goes even farther past 1-25. He could see easily in
a couple of years, if this does pass, that some planner will come in and say that we
need to expand the GMA to County Road 3. There is no natural barrier on the eastside
except the interstate. He thought that the city needs to have a certain boundary, and
that the interstate is where it is now and that is where it should stay.
The argument is made that we have to take over this area because we can't allow the
County to do it. He did not see what was so bad about letting the County plan growth in
the county and the City plan growth in the city. If people think that the County planning
process is so terrible, we should be down at the County Courthouse on Tuesday
mornings talking to the County Commissioners instead of trying to take over the area so
we can have it in the city. The only thing he has heard about the county planning is
that it is ugly and half hazard and we are going to have much more intense
development, but better planned. To him he would rather have low density, ugly
development rather than high -density intense pretty development. The basic thing that
• will go down if this goes through, is much greater densities of housing and industry
along the corridor. He did not think that would work very well. The transportation plan
that is for building more roads and transit is an afterthought. There is a lot of specific
detail on building the roads and the parallel road network; and transit is kind of thrown in
as a possibility. He did not see the city being real serious about putting transit in. If that
is what the city wants, then the city should plan, in detail, right now for transit, trains and
buses for this high density development and for road buildings, and come back later and
promise us something that he did not feel that we were ever going to get. To sum up,
they felt that the city's GMA should stay where it is and not expand to the east. They
are also not in favor of a huge mall at Prospect and 1-25 because that will only increase
sprawl.
James Day, represents 200 acres in the farthest, most northeastern portion, the area
that is currently outside the GMA. He mentioned that his children are 6ch generation and
his family farms this area. All the property owners within the 800 acres that he knows
of, are in support of the expansion of the GMA. His family farms, and has no immediate
plans of changing that, but they would like to have the opportunity to make a decision as
to what they would like to do with their ground. He pointed out that with the current city
limits, if they do not expand the GMA, his property, will be 60% surrounded by the city of
Fort Collins. If in fact that happens, not only from a planning perspective, but also from
a logical perspective, farms do not go right next door to residential neighborhoods. As a
previous speaker spoke, she has a difficulty with a lot of the farming operations, and it is
• hard to have two right next to each other. If their property is developed, it will not be a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 6
slum. He was very encouraged when his property was highlighted in the newspaper a
year ago. Fort Collins is going to grow this direction, quoting John Fishbach. He called
John Fishbach and spoke to him. He told him about the process and he has worked
with Mr. Waido and Mr. Herman and other property owners; he was encouraged
because they listened to them. The neighborhood came together and they had a plan.
Then several weeks ago, someone came up and said, lets not expand the GMA.
He submitted to the board, to please analyze what is taking place. If we do not expand
the GMA, not only will the infrastructure costs be impossible, but also it will not make
sense to have the town stop in the middle of a section. We are not talking about
expanding the city several miles, it is a 1/2 mile area. He hoped that Budweiser, that
built across the street, blocking their views, and pays a lot of taxes, told him that they
supported this plan. They also told him three weeks ago that they are not planning on
annexing and because of that they are not going to annex his area. He hoped, as a six
generation Coloradoan, and his family, their needs and interests are listened to and not
Budweiser, because he was told specifically by staff and by the City Manager that it
would not be a logical decision not to extend the GMA, it would be a political decision
based upon the Council. He respectfully submitted to the Board and those here
listening tonight to allow citizens of America to make decisions of their own property.
When he makes that decision, it will be a good decision, and it will be developed well. It
is a beautiful property that has been in his family for 100 years. He communicated that
it was the new people that move in and build their big houses that don't want views
blocked, they should take a little weight into those who pay taxes and help to develop
and build the town.
Robert Peters, 4717 Ruidosa Drive in Vista Bonita Subdivision had a number of
questions. He did not understand the process and what annexation would mean to
those who live in already established neighborhoods. He questioned the lake in his
neighborhood and with an annexation, would the city take over the lake? A recreation
association owns it and he questioned what would happen with the control of that
particular body of water that they presently enjoy. He was also curious about sidewalk
issues, the older sections of Vista Bonita do not have sidewalks and he wondered if that
would be a requirement when you are annexed that sidewalks go in and who would
bear the cost of that. He also asked about bringing sprinkler systems and the like up to
city code. He wondered what benefits the residents that have been living out there for
20 years receive from this? He did not have many opinions about the 1-25 Corridor, but
has been quite religious in going to the Plaza Inn to see the transportation plans and it
seems like there was never any discussion about the Vista Bonita area .
Margaret Griffin, 3245 Honeysuckle Court, owns property on County road 50 supported
expanding the GMA. She felt that down the road we would grow and she felt that we
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 7
just as well have it well planned even though many think that it is not being well
planned. She supported the GMA expansion.
Gina Janett, 730 W Oak Street spoke to the Board. She thought that we were in a
historic place in our community development. The place that where we are at is to
decide if Fort Collins going to keep growing to the east or is going to have a finite
ultimate boundary. She suggested that it was a good idea to have an ultimate boundary
and that we not expand our GMA on the eastside. She reminded everyone who's city
limits are landlocked that they can't expand are very great and prosperous places to
live. An example is the City and County of Denver, during the decade of the 90's,
increased it's population by 90,000 people in that 10 year period, and they did not
change their boundaries. She felt that this was a chance to do something special.
Many people talk about not wanting to live in a metropolitan area, they like Fort Collins
because it is a unique city by itself. You can leave Fort Collins, go out where there is
nothing and hit another town. She thought that surveys have shown that people want
this. They want that sense of community; they don't want continuous sprawl.
Her recommendations to the Board from that perspective are not to expand the growth
management area, set an ultimate boundary on our east side, allow the areas east of
• that to develop under the County who has lower density zoning which is appropriate for
rural areas. She suggested working on the purchase of the land and conservation
easements east of the GMA where possible to have community separators. Also, within
this area she would like to see the zoning changed to lower intensity land uses,
particularly those that are along the interstate, we want to have through, fast traffic on
the interstate. Warehouse and heavy industry type uses to not have a lot of trip
generation. Retail has huge trip generation, the more intense the land uses, and the
more traffic you will attract to the area. She would like to see less housing and density.
This is the edge of our city and you don't want to put a giant shopping center on the
edge of the city, it should be more where it would be useful to those members of the
community.
She mentioned the Regional Community Separators Study, which was just finished a
year and a half ago, they surveyed people in all the towns in Northern Colorado and
what they found out is that 85% want community separators. This is the chance to
make a nice recommendation about an ultimate growth boundary and it does not
necessarily affect population as we see in other places, it affects land area and having a
sense of community that we want.
Karen Wagner, 437 Pelican Bay, stated that she is a county resident and lives barely
beyond the existing GMA. She and her husband have been a downtown property
owner for years. She was there tonight to encourage the Board to keep the existing
• GMA in place and use the interim between now and the five year review of City Plan to
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 8
rethink some of the zoning and densities, especially along the corridor. She was sure
the Board was well acquainted with both the limitations and advantages of what is on
the map today. She felt that it deserved a review. As a county resident, who thinks she
should be paying for the many city services that she takes advantage of — if it is
determined that the GMA needs to expand, she would like to see it expanded to the
northwest and the northeast. Wellington is now talking about expansive annexation
plans north of Fort Collins. Ault is not a threat to the east, nonetheless, it seems the
right time to look at other areas that are suitable for expansion of the GMA. She felt we
should really try and get community separators in place that have been discussed lately,
especially to the north. She felt that if that sort of approach is taken, that would be a
good means of maintaining downtown as the heart of the community. It gives us our
community identity and sense of place, and those are very important for a growing city.
For cities like Loveland and you see "McWhinneyville" expanding up and down the
interstate, their downtown has suffered because of that. She hoped that it will be a
continued priority for the city in future discussions of the GMA and any annexations.
Les Kaplan, developer and citizen of Fort Collins spoke to the Board. He stated that the
draft Plan shows on both sides of 1-25 a band of commercial land uses, namely
"Commercial Corridor', "Employment", and "Industrial" that stretch over a four mile area.
The combined land area for these commercial land uses is nearly 3 square miles. This
is enough land area for 42 Foothills Fashion Malls. The "Employment' district alone
represents over 400 acres itself, a 60 year inventory. This not only creates non -viable
land uses but, more importantly, it misses opportunities for land uses that would actually
advance the public interest, such as land uses supporting affordable housing. This
repetition of commercial land uses on both sides of 1-25 sets the stage for an
undesirable image of Fort Collins. Apparently an assumption used in the Subarea
planning exercise is that properties already zoned commercially in the county had to be
repackaged as commercial in the city.
As an owner of a property with county commercial zoning, and eligible for annexation,
he was here to say that this assumption is incorrect and has significantly limited the
creativity and outcome of what the Board is considering tonight. The Fort Collins
Subarea Plan is intended to fit into the overall vision of the 1-25 Regional Plan involving
nine jurisdictions over a 32 mile distance. This 1-25 Regional Plan attempts to
discourage the very type of "linear pattern" of development along frontage roads
depicted in the draft. The Regional Plan calls for employment and industrial land uses
to be clustered in campus like settings adjacent to activity centers. The configuration of
the Employment district in this draft is neither clustered nor is the majority of the
Employment land use adjacent to activity centers.
Additionally, the draft does not utilize land use designations as a means to set the stage
for Open Lands acquisitions, and here is one example. Open Lands with Employment
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 9
zoning underlying them and adjoining them are depicted along the east frontage road.
This employment designation would not allow the transferring of development value to
else where on the property, while residential zoning would. Just this change would
replace the likelihood that public dollars would be necessary for open lands with the
opportunity to achieve open lands during the site planning process. Moreover,
Employment zoning behind open lands as is shown violates basic planning principles of
visibility and readable access essential for this land use. The draft shows areas of
Employment that are set back 1,000 feet from the frontage road and behind open lands
so heavily landscaped that visibility is obscured. Setting office buildings back 1,000 feet
from the frontage road and behind a landscape screen is quite frankly ridiculous. Such
setbacks, landscape buffering and open space from open lands are an ideal compliment
to residential uses, including affordable housing, not Employment as called for by this
draft.
The city should use land use designations to advance identifiable public needs, not as a
means to inventory land for the next 60 years and beyond. The eastside of 1-25
represents excellent opportunities for land uses that would promote the public interest.
There are locations that provide easy access to 1-25 for family members working in the
tri-city area, proximity to shopping and employment, access to Transfort and the trail
• system, and would have little impact on the worsening traffic problems in Fort Collins.
Unfortunately this draft falls short of its potential. While there are certainly city control
arguments for expanding the GMA even further east of 1-25, there needs to be a better
effort by the city in demonstrating its ability to create public policy for properties already
within the GMA east of 1-25 before more land is added.
Steve Nester, 531 Del Clair Road passed out a letter from a property owner at
Mulberry and 1-25 that was not able to make the meeting tonight. Mr. Pfiester stated
that he moved to Fort Collins in 1978 because it was one of the most beautiful towns
that he had ever seen at that time. Since that time he has been in business here and
has worked with hundreds of people every year, and every year since 1978 people
continue to tell him that they move here because it is a very beautiful town. He talked
about the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and that it described East Prospect as being a
major gateway to the community and the primary entryway to CSU. He drew some
comparisons between East Prospect and East Harmony Road, from the urbanized point
of view, has become more the gateway to Fort Collins. The Harmony Corridor Plan
calls for a variety of mixed uses, unlike the 1-25 Corridor Plan. It does have 1.5 million
square feet of retail spaces planned. He did not do an exact study, but he thought that
was less than 20% of the land area. In comparison, East Prospect has less than 7% of
the amount of retail development that Harmony Road has. The really only opportunity
for retail development on Prospect is at the interchange, simply because of the
floodplains and the way East Prospect has already developed.
40
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 10
He was told that there was some concern by the city about the cost of the overpass for
East Prospect, and because he does understand that it is a major concern, he wanted
to point out something. When he first came here he was connected to the Foothills
Fashion Mall and the additional development there and he is very familiar with the
project and the kind of revenue it generates for the city of Fort Collins. Last year in
2000, the mall for the sales tax collections generated sales tax in the amount of 11.5
million. The type of project that has been discussed at the Prospect interchange is not
bigger than Foothills Fashion Mall, in fact, it is about half that size. Because of that the
sales tax collections would be in the 5 to 6 million dollar range. The interchange is
expected to cost 12 to 14 million. If you could divert two years of sales tax, off of one
center at that interchange, you could pay for an entire new interchange.
He put together some numbers of the E, Employment and the I, Industrial space. His
company, Realtec, over the last 10 years, has made a presentation at the Lincoln
Center each year, and they have kept statistics on how much land is actually used each
year for industrial and office. The average has been under 20 acres for industrial and a
little over 30 acres for office and approximately 40 acres for retail. Using those numbers
and using the ones that came from the city of Fort Collins 2000 buildable land inventory
study, and does not include the land we are talking about adding under the Corridor
Plan, we already have a 54 year supply of industrial land. By adding the additional land,
it is well over 60 to 70 years. He feels like that is a lot more than we need. Also
Employment land, according to the city's study, and according to the amount of land
actually used, we have a 48 '/z year supply. Again, he feels that it is a lot of land, and
that is without the additional E, Employment land we would be adding in the 1-25
Corridor Plan. He thinks that there are several situations where you could create more
residential land along the open space and along the creek and natural areas. He thinks
that is a very friendly area for residential and housing. He recommended taking a
harder look at the possibility of creating more places for residential.
Ken Benetti, 1316 N. Jefferson Avenue. Loveland, gave comment to the Board. He
stated that he has been a resident of the Fort Collins area since 1974. He recently
moved to Loveland, but cares a lot about this plan, especially from the Fort Collins
perspective. It is a regional plan and what happens here will affect the region for at
least 32 miles. He submitted some written arguments yesterday, but an attachment he
wanted to forward, but was too big, was a report that came out of the National
Governors Association study on growth and sprawl and set a number of
recommendations and examples around the world that they use of beneficial policies to
deal with growth and sprawl. It annunciated several principles concerning land use
planning and those principles are worth looking at in considering this plan. Basically,
the Governors Association study talks about the feathering out of communities and firm
growth management areas and growth paying its own way. This plan puts density out
on the edge of the community and really what it will do is facilitate the consolidation of a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 11
large number of communities into one sprawling suburban development over time,
centered by a grid locked strip of the 1-25 Corridor. He did not think that is what people
want. There has been surveys over many years that have shown that people do not
want this kind of development.
Developers want this kind of development, whether it be Industrial, Employment,
Residential or Commercial, because they benefit from the implicit subsidies that are
inherent in inadequate impact fees and some of the direct subsidies that occur when
corporations are lured into the area to provide jobs. He urged the Board to take a look
at that and to also reject the Corridor Plan and begin a new. Fort Collins is the lynch pin
in this plan because we have the population and tax base to support the rest of the
towns that don't pay for their portion of the infrastructure. He felt that the first thing that
should be eliminated from the plan is the parallel road structure and other road
infrastructure and development that is planned for the area. It will ruin the gateway to
the community and suck revenue from the center of the city. One other thing that really
bothers him is the assumption that there will be a net gain in revenues to communities
from the taxes generated from development. He did not think that there is any way you
can assume that. The costs and the benefits should be looked at in community terms
as well as financial terms and do a fiscal analysis of whether this is really going to result
• in some kind of net gain. He thinks that the kind of road structure that is going to be
proposed is very expensive and he does not really see any way that tax revenues cover
it unless you totally dedicate those revenues to the roads. That is not really fair to the
rest of the city.
Nancy York, 130 S. Whitcomb stated that she is a native of Fort Collins and she is very
well informed about this plan because she is on the Air Quality Advisory Board. She
has gone to several of the Open Houses, and one of the interesting things about it is
that every time the Plan is presented, it changes. Even tonight, it has changed from last
Thursday when she saw it at the Air Quality Board meeting. She thinks that this plan is
in trouble and she is really glad. As a native, she has been emotionally involved in the
plan because she loves farmland, and the mountains beyond it. She likes productive
farm lands and she loves to see it in its various stages of growth and harvest. It seems
like this Plan would ruin that for Fort Collins, and the 1-25 Corridor Plan is going to do
serious damage for the 32 miles. She believes that this plan is really a road plan and it
is only going to mean widening roads, paving, re -paving throughout the rest of that
roads life. She was very much against the parallel road system.
The idea of the industrial, employment strip along the highway is only going to be a
magnet for people. People coming in from the sixteen miles from Ault and Erie and Fort
Collins, and it is going to spawn enormous vehicle miles traveled with the air pollution.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 12
One reason she says it is an unhealthy plan is because she has read a study that has
identified that children that live within 1500 feet of a heavily traveled road of 20,000
vehicles a day or more, are six times more likely to have childhood cancer, including
leukemia. She thinks that that should become some kind of standard. 1500 feet is
further away than the'/4 mile setback for the family housing that is being proposed all
along the Corridor, but if it is bad for children to be that close to a heavily traveled street,
it can't be good for the people who have to work in this industrial employment sector.
She believes in regional planning and she thinks that we should have a true regional
plan. She thinks that we should think beyond the box and take it back to the start. She
would like us to join hands with Weld County and Timnath and Windsor and that the
whole area of land is looked at and the areas identified that would best remain as
agricultural zone, so you don't have the problem of residential areas engulfing you. She
would like to see us have an inter -city transit plan. New communities could develop off
of that. She thanked the Board.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked staff to address questions presented to the Board.
• The gray area between County Road 50 and 52, what is staff proposing for that
area?
Mr. Waido replied that one option is a GMA boundary expansion into the area that is
shown in gray. The gray area delineates property within the study area that is currently
outside of the GMA boundary. The difference between the two plans would be if the
option to stay within the GMA boundary were made, the properties outside that
boundary would stay outside of the GMA boundary and outside of the city limits. The
development potential of those properties would be governed by County zoning. If the
GMA boundary were to expand, then the properties would be under city zoning, which
E, Employment and LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood are proposed.
• What would annexation mean for an established neighborhood?
Mr. Waido replied that the intent of the GMA boundary was for the governments to
agree upon an area that would eventually be urbanized and provide urban services.
The County has decided that the County does not want to get into the urban service
provision. They believe that is what municipalities are for. The boundary was also to
mean future annexation area. Upon annexation, the only utility that changes upon
annexation is who provides light & power services. The city's position is that we would
provide the same level of road maintenance that the County provides. In some cases
that is zero. We would be obligated to do health and safety corrections, but we would
not take over routine maintenance, nor would we do reconstruction of roads in existing
County subdivisions until those roads are brought up to city standards. The mechanism
the city would use to bring the roads up to standards is a Special Improvement District.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 13
Annexation would mean higher level of police protection and patrol. Upon annexation,
the County Assessor will apply the city's mill levy, but will drop off the PFA mill levy, so
there would be a slight increase in taxes. The major tax impact to a resident in a county
subdivision would be the requirement to pay city sales tax on large ticket items.
Member Craig asked about the amount of changes to the Plan. She asked Mr. Waido
to review some of the changes and why they were made.
Mr. Waido responded that the reason staff made the changes was a function of citizen
input. In fact the Board's role tonight is to advise the Council on how the plan could
change again. Some of the changes have dealt with conversion of some former
industrial areas to residential areas, particularly in the northeast quadrant of Vine Drive
and the Interstate. There also have been changes_made in the northeast quadrant of
Prospect Road and 1-25. Doing some different things with the Medium Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhood, Commercial and Employment Districts there. There has not been
any changes made to the westside that he is aware of. Everything else has basically
remained the same throughout the process.
Member Craig asked about two areas that she felt was significant. One area that is
• already in the city and is currently zoned industrial that is located on the eastside, south
of County Road 50. In the August 15t version of the plan, it shows that the upper portion
was being change to half Employment and half Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood,
and now it has gone back to Industrial. The other is the Mulberry and 1-25 Corridor at
the northwest corner that has been carried as Industrial all along and now the change
has been made to Commercial.
Mr. Waido explained that the answer to question about Mulberry and 1-25 is that staff
went back and looked in great detail at what was being shown on the west side of the
Interstate at the inception of the process and was the existing Structure Plan
designation for those areas. When the county zoning was looked at in great detail for
the area, staff discovered that we were showing the area on the eastside of Mulberry as
Commercial, when it was actually zoned Industrial. The area on the westside of the
Interstate shown as Industrial, is actually zoned Commercial. Those changes were
made so the plan would be consistent with existing zoning in the area.
Regarding the Industrial area around County Road 50, the portion south of the Medium
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Center was shown as LMN.
Staff was trying to keep the extent of Industrial uses within '/< mile. Based on comments
that staff heard throughout the process, that we should respect existing Industrial zoning
in the Corridor, staff changed it back from LMN to Industrial. The property south of that
is zoned the same way. It is currently zoned Industrial, but independently, the property
• owner has come in and talked with staff about wanting to do some residential
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 14
development on the eastern portion of his property. He was unaware of the plan going
on at the time that staff talked to him, and staff was quite pleased that he was interested
in doing that, because that is exactly what we are talking about doing in our plans.
Member Colton asked at how we got to the point where we decided that we just wanted
to look at existing zoning on this as opposed to taking the 1-25 Corridor as a vision and
saying, "what would we need to do to make the vision occur"? There was a "natural
space" option at one point in time, that was thrown out, which he felt was much closer to
the 1-25 Corridor vision that this plan is. He thought that if Fort Collins is trying to be a
lead in a Regional Corridor Plan, that we would try to be a lead in the development of
our own Corridor according to that vision; throwing out old rules and zoning to try and
make that happen. He asked Mr. Waido to explain that.
Mr. Waido replied that as we went through the process, staff heard fairly strong
consistent support for the existing levels of Industrial, Commercial and Employment
designations in the Corridor. It was not unanimous, but there was a fairly consistent
support for that. Regarding the "Open Space Acquisition Option and Alternative", that
we had laid out as one of the three Alternatives, and even in looking at that and having
comments, the comments that we received was that there are properties that have been
committed and have been zoned and annexed as Industrial. They don't really have a
high resource value, their prices would be extremely high, and therefore they should be
accepted and not be considered for purchased for open space. It would be way too
expensive.
Member Colton commented that the 1-25 Corridor Plan did say that we would have
compact Activity Centers, with retail and commercial only in those activity centers, and
then employment and industrial either included in or adjacent to those. Yet, in his mind,
this was nothing close to that. It was mentioned at worksession that the design
standards for the Corridor would take care of that, which is an 80' setback for industrial
and employment. He thought that was inadequate to maintain an open and natural look
as shown in the plan. In the January version of the design guidelines, there was a 1/8
mile recommended setback for employment and industrial. The latest draft only has an
80' setback, which is a huge change. What happened to the setback?
Mr. Waido addressed the Corridor. The Activity Center concept is exactly what we are
showing. We are showing commercial development being restricted to Activity Centers.
We have talked about prohibiting commercial development outside of the Activity
Centers, as a design guideline and land use policy. We have also talked about
clustering, it is not just an 80' setback, we have talked about a minimum 80' setback,
maybe more depending on building height. In addition the clustering of buildings.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 15
Ben Hermann, Consultant on the project added that when we first wrote the standards,
keeping in mind that the standard we are talking about is not for this project, it was part
of what was proposed for the regional baseline standards for the whole 1-25 Corridor.
When the Plan was first written, it was a 1/8 mile setback that was what was being
recommended outside of the Activity Centers. What happened to it? It was shot down.
The communities both at the staff level and at the political level could not live with that
and instruction was given to take it out or the draft would not move forward. The 80'
setback would apply when you have a Harmony Road type situation. By contrast
Anheuser Busch is'% mile, they are building a setback of'% mile from the interstate.
What they are suggesting is that Fort Collins would write a standard that would only
apply to Fort Collins that would be a sliding scale, the metric would be how big is the
building in terms of square feet, how tall is it. The larger and taller the building the
larger the setback would have to be.
The second aspect is if you look at the horizontal length of property along 1-25, we are
proposing a standard, that has not been written yet because the uses are still being
looked at, that there would be a maximum of 50% of the frontage along the Interstate.
The standard would encourage clustering toward the Activity Center.
• Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the property that the School District owns at
Prospect and 1-25, and since they have decided to build the 2004 High School at Fossil
Creek, could he share what the District has decided to with the 100 acres it owns.
Mr. Waido replied that the District has decided to do nothing with the Prospect site.
Based on his conversation with District staff they will be retaining ownership of the
property in addition to a parcel they own in the Mountain Vista area that has potential for
future facilities.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the Resource Recovery Farm south of Prospect on
the westside of 1-25 and the possibility of leaving that parcel POL, Public Open Lands.
Mr. Waido responded that if the Board were to recommend that this property have its
designation changed from Commercial and Employment to Public Open Lands, it would
need to be associated with a recommendation in terms of funding or purchasing that
property.
Member Craig asked what restrictions would be put on property owners that might want
to make changes on their property, who own land on the east side of the Interstate that
are currently in "UE", because it is county development, and that are proposed to
change to LMN.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 16
Mr. Waido replied that existing subdivisions would not be put into LMN, they would be
put into the RL, Low Density Residential Zone. We would look at the subdivision and
look at its density and lot size pattern with the appropriate city zoning. The only
properties in the city that are zoned LMN, were the vacant properties at the time that we
adopted City Plan. If a property owner wanted to remodel, or add onto their home, we
would look at the setback requirements that are within that zone, if those zones created
a hardship on the property, they would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance to the requirement.
Member Craig asked Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater Department about the Boxelder
Floodplain. She asked about the development of a Master Plan and could he give the
Board an idea of the options the Master Plan is looking at.
Mr. Schlueter spoke about the floodplain in the area and gave the Board an idea of what
the plans were to divert water to help with flooding in the area and reduce the floodplain.
Member Colton asked about the numbers that Mr. Pfiester quoted during his public
participation regarding the number of years worth of land that is available for Industrial,
Employment and Commercial and did the city have any numbers like that.
Mr. Waido referred the Board to page 6 of their staff report. He stated that the second
paragraph of that page refers back to a study that the City Plan Monitoring Project has
done, 2001 Indicator Report. The calculations he quoted from that study is a 10 to 12
year supply of land for employment uses and a 10-15 year supply for housing based on
the growth rates listed.
Member Colton asked if he was saying that with the existing GMA with existing zoning,
we have a pretty good balance of employment and housing.
Mr. Waido stated that he did not have the data in front of him of how much employment
ground we have and how much ground we have and what the ratio is between the two.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Waido about the staff recommendation to not expand
the GMA boundary, and that the issue needs to be discussed in greater context of the
City Plan update. He asked how long the City Plan update would last.
Mr. Waido replied 18 months.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked to understand the positives and the risks with not going
with an expansion recommendation.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 17
Mr. Waido replied that there are some listed in the staff report that we do recognize that
there are some risks in not considering a GMA boundary at this time.
• Properties that would be outside the GMA boundary that we may want to eventually
expand the GMA boundary into could receive development approval in the County.
• Development may not be of sufficient density to support neighborhood type activity
centers like are shown on one of the options.
• The GMA expansion option would help achieve a tool to help preserve some open or
agricultural land north of the study area in the community separator area. We may
lose that sometime in the future.
Member Torgerson asked if we opted to expand the GMA boundary and the additional
housing units above and beyond what County would allow — we have talked about
increasing the density through TDU's. The descending area, we are hoping to create a
greenbelt area between Fort Collins and Wellington — how much area was it that we
thought we could preserve?
Mr. Waido replied that the calculation that came from Steve Rider, who is now the
former Director of the County TDU Program, is around 1,800 units. Those units would
• be looked at for transferring in and if we were only able to preserve 1 acre of ground for
each one of the units, that would be 1,800 acres of land, which is between 2 % and 3
square acres of land. That is an extremely conservative estimate in terms of the
potential benefit from that program.
Member Torgerson asked if there was any plan to acquire or preserve the land
independent of the GMA expansion.
Mr. Waido replied that the TDU Program is just one tool. There are monies available for
the purchase of conservation easements; there is a conservation development process
available to property owners in the County. By using a combination of techniques, we
could probably get a fairly substantial separator between Fort Collins and Wellington.
Member Torgerson asked how much property were we "upzoning" from what it is now.
Mr. Waido responded that basically we would be "upzoning" all the land in the County
because they don't have a Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood designation. About
950 to 1,000 acres of ground, and another 60 to 85 acres as Medium Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood. Under the two options, Commercial is about 160 acres in both,
Employment is a little over 600 with the expansion of the GMA about 550 without it.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 18
• Question 1: 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?
Member Colton moved to recommend that the Plan should be developed for areas
within the existing GMA boundary. He referred to City Plan Policies GM1.2 and
GM1.3.
Member Colton commented that regardless of where you stand on whether ultimately
Fort Collins should expand or not, he thought that it was only prudent for making this
determination to wait until the City Plan update.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Meyer commented that the failure to pursue annexation or increase the GMA
makes this whole exercise an exercise of futility for the staff. The city has no authority
to do any zoning out there. Much of the property already has development on it. If you
go down Vine Drive, if it is not developed, it is for sale. If you go down Mulberry, if it is
not developed, it is for sale. If you go down Prospect, if it is not developed, it is for sale.
It appears that the city is willing to let others determine how the areas directly
surrounding Fort Collins is going to look. If we are going to stay within the existing
boundary, she did not think the staff should put anymore staff time or resources into this
project. She thinks that it is a waste of money and an exercise of futility for the staff.
The entire Corridor Plan was a good place to start, but now there has been a decision to
say that we don't support it. Her concern is that we are going to waste more time and
more money on something that is not going to happen, and she does not believe that is
a good use of staff time.
The down side to this is that when Fort Collins decided that they wanted to have the I-
25 Corridor Plan, which they went to the table and asked everyone else to join them,
then decided to "bow" out of their leadership role in the Northern Front Range. To some
people, that does not count but the other communities "will not" ever again invite Fort
Collins to the table after they get done doing this to this Plan. Whether it was a good
Plan or a bad Plan, you, Fort Collins, invited those people to the table, made them put in
their time and effort, and now are saying, "it isn't worth out time". Whether or not Fort
Collins supports this Corridor is of no consequence to her, but for us to bow out and
give up our leadership role is a very sad state of affairs for a community that has
normally lead this area. She would also like to say to the farmer that came tonight, that
farmers should be able to do whatever they want to with their land. Farm land is not a
god given right to the rest of us; it is "private property". Cornfields do not belong to the
public. Open space is not going to be cheap when you go out to buy farmers land.
Most of the farmers would prefer to farm, but if they can make more money selling their
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 19
property than the farm has ever turned, that is just common sense. When their land
becomes more valuable as something else, they are not stupid, they move on. She
thinks that the people in this community need to sit back and stop complaining about the
farm land being developed, if they want to buy the farms, "pony up", but don't complain
when the farmers sell. She is tired of listening to people complain about the cornfields
being developed. That is the cost of allowing people to know that this State exists. She
does not think that we can stop it.
Member Torgerson commented that he thinks that a Growth Management Area is a little
more honest than an Urban Growth Area. "Urban Growth" sort of indicates that this
area is going to be urban growth, but the County is developing lots of "urban growth"
outside of our area. The reason that he thinks that we should be expanding our GMA
boundary is that we can manage that growth. The County growth that we see on
Mulberry and the areas that we see outside of our growth area to the east, aside from
being ugly, is also costly to the city. All the people out there use city services, and if we
bring them into the GMA, not only do we make them less ugly, but we also get more
inter -connected urban fabric. Ultimately, regardless of how anyone wants this to
happen, the city of Fort Collins will grow out there and we will either annex "ugly" or
'.poorly planned" growth and deal with it and those costs. It is more honest to say
• "Growth Management Area", and he advocates reaching out and actually managing that
area rather than just seeing it develop in the County. He feels that it is irresponsible on
our part.
The other reason is that he is a big fan of the TDU Program, and he felt that it was a
way for growth to pay even more of its way in terms of bringing in open space that we
otherwise would not have as a city. All the area that would otherwise be brought in as
open space in the TDU Program will also be developed in the County. For those
reasons he would not be supporting the motion.
Member Craig stated that we have a lot of GMA land that Council is going to be looking
at. There is a huge parcel that most likely we will be bringing in, in the southeast. We
have to take on the burden of bringing them up to speed, infrastructure, and police and
so forth. Right now she is serving on the Mulberry Corridor Plan, a huge area, when
putting in new infrastructure, bringing it up to city standards. Great cost and it will be a
long time before we see — and now we are turning around and we are talking about
another piece. She feels that we need to handle some of the older pieces and bring
them on board, instead of putting us in a financial burden that will be a long time before
we get out of it. There is a lot out there that is in our existing GMA right now that we are
going to have to face in the future anyway.
One issue she believes had not come up yet with expanding out there is Boxelder
• Sanitation. Right now they are running below par, because they are a special district,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 20
they say you want to build, they say they we will serve. They are not really looking at it
properly, so when all of this does come into the city, we will have a sub -standard that
we are eventually going to have to take over. We will have to face Boxelder Sanitation
facilities that right now are down on the river. They could go into condemnation in some
of the natural areas that we have worked hard to purchase and there is a value on
them. Because they are a service, they can expand at will. These are things that she
thinks about and bother her when we talk about expansion. She feels that we need to
get some of our "ducks in a row" before we add onto it.
Chairperson Gavaldon commented that there are a lot of questions that need to be
addressed and specifics. He would agree with the comments and concerns. When
looking at the risks, they are pretty big risks. When staying with the existing GMA, he
sees a lot of "chopiness", and contiguity and feathering is going to be a "joke", because
we won't be able to control it, and because we have to pick up the pieces and clean it
up. He hears people "calling down" county services saying "substandard". He feels as
though the county has some pretty good roads, he does not think that we are going to
have a mess dropped in our laps. What it comes down to is that we have mechanisms
in place to improve the roads. Would it be a total city thing? No. He would like to see
us expand the GMA, one for "feathering", two because of the risks, and that we will be
in worse shape than we are now, and because of the TDU Program. He feels that this
is an investment in our future.
Member Torgerson asked to add another comment in support of expanding the GMA.
He stated that the effect of expanding the GMA boundary has on affordable housing is
dramatic. If we increase the housing capacity of our city, by 5,000 to 8,000 units,
obvious laws of supply and demand apply. He is increasingly concerned, as we
become more restricted; we are going to have Ault and Eaton as our affordable housing
zoned areas of our greater city. He would like to see affordable housing included within
Fort Collins property.
Member Bernth was concerned from this Board and from some of the people talking
today, that developers are demonized to everyone who considers themselves a would
be developer. We sometimes forget that people who consider themselves "developers"
redevelop our downtown. It is annoying to him when we constantly "demonize' one
class of people, whatever that class is. He has an issue with the statistics, certainly
there is a disjoint between what Realtec's statistics reflect and what the city's statistics
reflect, so those do not seem to go together. Second, he thought that we forget that
there is a monetary inducement to develop in the County versus developing in the city.
We move our GMA out three miles; there is still an inducement to develop in the
County, because there are different requirements and fewer fees. Moving the GMA
boundary out further just means we have more people looking further out to develop to
develop in the County. It is like we are "chasing" our tail all the time trying to catch up
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 21
and he was not sure we ever do. It was really up to the County to make the
determination if they do not want developments with high level of urban design, then
they probably should not approve those developments. They are stuck with it and if
they don't want it, they should not allow that level of development. It is a very difficult
issue for him, but he will be supporting the motion. Until there can be a correspondent
economic issue between the city and the County, he did not think it made any difference
whereever the GMA boundary is. He thinks that we will still have the issue of it costs
less in the County and it is easier in the County.
The motion to not expand the GMA boundary is split 3 to 3 with Members Meyer,
Torgerson and Gavaldon voting against the motion and Members Colton, Craig
and Bernth voting for the motion.
Question Two — 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?
Member Colton stated that he and Member Craig spent some time yesterday going over
• the map in detail and they have some proposals and ideas that they would like to run by
with the Board's indulgence. Member Colton presented a visual map and stated that
the map shows some recommended changes to the existing Corridor Plan with the
existing GMA boundary.
The first area that they questioned was the Resource Recovery Farm at the southeast
corner of Prospect and 1-25. The city owns it and it is zoned E, Employment at this
time. That intersection is very constrained and there would only be one way into that
area down there and that is off of Prospect. There is no southern access. They felt that
there was no reason to zone this property Employment, which would cause a great
need for housing out there. He suggested to the Board that the zoning be changed to
POL, Public Open Lands.
Member Craig added that the "node" by the interchange, a frontage road "node", we
would leave that C, Commercial, because they understand the need for Commercial
there. They also feel like, by leaving it C, Commercial, that the Utilities could sell that
and "recoup" or "reimburse" the rate payers for the cost of the land that they are
changing to POL.
Member Colton stated that he would suggest that the Natural Resources Board and the
Utilities figure out exactly how this transaction would happen. He felt that they should
just recommend the best zoning. He thought that in terms of maintaining some view
• corridors and agriculture that it would fit into the view of the Corridor Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 22
Chairperson Gavaldon and the Board had discussion regarding the need for public input
on new information being provided to the Board. The Board concurred that public input
was necessary for new information.
PUBLIC INPUT
Les Kaplan, citizen, stated that he did not have any vested interest in this property, and
might not in any of the other properties that may be discussed. He felt that for the
Board to be speaking specifically about making rezoning recommendations to the City
Council without having notified the property owners that they would be discussing, and
without giving them the benefit of input is inappropriate. If they were talking about the
Plan and what was presented to the public, in terms of what the land uses were, and
that notice went out, they would come here knowing what they could address. Now the
Board is coming up with recommendations to something, which is different than what
was on the Plan. He felt that there are people who are involved with ownership on
some of these properties and he questioned how a discussion could take place and a
recommendation be made on changing the land use without having the benefit of
having notice and coming here and commenting.
Steve Pfiester, citizen, commented that he concurred with Mr. Kaplan, and he pointed
out that there are a couple of properties that have rezoning requests in the process and
this was pre-empting that. It eliminates and makes it unfair to those who are in the
process and trying to get their particular properties reviewed, this way bypassing that.
He did not feel this was the right process.
James Day, property owner, reiterated the same thing. To present changes without
public knowledge, and he knows the owners of these properties — he is overwhelmed
with the entire process. Comments about making people rich — he watched a huge
factory be built across the street from his property, he is surrounded 60% by the city,
and you are saying that you are stopping in the middle of a field. It wasn't addressed
and he felt that the Board needed to look at each individual portion — throw it all out or
not. Staff has told him repeatedly, until tonight, that they supported the expansion. He
is discouraged with the process and he wanted to make it publicly known, and he really
did not know what to do next.
Mr. Waido spoke about the process. He stated that staff was looking for direction and
he thought that the type of information that the Board is talking about is a
recommendation to the Council. The Council will give staff direction based on the
various points that staff has asked for direction on. Staff will prepare a single plan again
and it will be put through a public process, including open houses. Another public
hearing will occur in front of this Board. We are not adopting a Plan and we are not
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 23
recommending adoption of a Plan now. This is a step in the process to attempt to get
down to some specific issues, so we know how to go and develop a Plan to bring before
the Board and Council. There will be an opportunity to view the next version of this Plan
and more opportunities for people to comment on that version.
Discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of presenting this new information at
a Board meeting and should the item be delayed for a worksession item. Mr. Waido
reminded the Board of the deadline staff has with Council. If this Board cannot yet
provide the direction that it wants to to the Council, should the process be delayed?
More discussion was held and Member Torgerson reminded the Board that this is not
the first time the Board has seen this and many iterations of the Plan. Although small
changes have been made, the substantial changes that the Board is proposing now are
in response to a plan that the Board has been looking at for a long time. It would not be
responsible to say to City Council that the Board could not get their act together and
make a recommendation. The Board has been looking at this for quite some time and
at the very last minute, they come up with totally new proposals. He suggested they
proceed and see what they come up with.
Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council that the Resource Recovery
• Farm land use option be changed to "Rural Open Lands and Stream Corridors".
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The Motion was approved 6-0.
Member Colton presented the second proposal. He discussed the eastside of Prospect
and 1-25, the northeast corner and the land use option being proposed in the Plan being
Commercial (but current zoning is Industrial), in addition, the southeast corner that is
zoned Commercial in the County. He stated that he has heard from other Boards
(namely T-Board) that the interchange is not a State Highway, and it will not be funded
by State improvements, like the Mulberry Interchange. The T-Board recommended,
and he and Member Craig concur, that it would be better to have a less intense use in
this area, like Industrial, to cut down on the VMT, and possibly delay and maybe stall for
many years, the need for a new interchange at Prospect. They are recommending a
change from the proposed Commercial, and to put more Commercial up around the
Mulberry exchange, where the land use option is proposed as Industrial.
PUBLIC INPUT
Steve Pfiester, citizen, commented that he has spoke earlier about the two-year sales
tax a shopping center would generate that would pay for the interchange. He did not
40
think land use decisions should be made based on existing road conditions. If it were
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 24
done that way, nothing would ever get built. Existing road conditions would not allow
anything. He stated that the C, Commercial zoning has been there for 11 years. The
zoning to the south has been there for 15 years. There have been many private sector
decisions made based on the existing zoning.
Les Kaplan, citizen, commented on the previous proposal because he felt that public
comment was not offered on the previous item. He wanted to ask a question on Public
Open Lands because he was not allowed public comment on the last item. He asked if
Public Open Lands was a zoning district classification, or is it a land use that has an
underlying zoning classification. He understood from speaking previously with staff that
Public Open Lands is not a zoning, but a land use classification that has an underlying
zoning classification.
Mr. Waido responded that the Land Use Code has a zoning district called Public Open
Lands, and we apply that zoning district to publicly purchased natural areas and
community parks. They are "publicly owned" open lands. The Structure Plan
designation that was made — he thought the intent of the Board, is to have that be a
publicly purchased open space area as the implementation devise of the land use
designation that the Board is recommending to the Council.
Member Torgerson commented that the reason he supported the last suggestion and
the reason he is "not' supporting this suggestion is that the last suggestion did seem
consistent with the "Corridor Visions" in the 1-25 Subarea Plan, which he believes is
relevant to this subarea. The "Corridor Vision" talks about nodes and keeping
secondary uses in nodes and making them industrial seems to go contrary to one of the
primary goals of the 1-25 Corridor Plan. He was opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Waido understood the recommendation to be the areas that are being shown as C,
Commercial be changed to I, Industrial. And that the northeast corner of Mulberry and
1-25, that is shown as Industrial be changed to Commercial.
Member Craig stated that was correct. She stated that the largest activity center they
would like to see would be at Mulberry and 1-25. That was because there is State
funding of Mulberry and we already have an interchange that is in the process, we have
an access plan, and it is in the Transit Plan. That to them, seemed more appropriate for
the "big" commercial activity.
Member Craig moved to recommend that the interchange at Prospect and 1-25 in
the northeast quadrant, where the City now has it zoned Industrial, that the land
use option remain as Industrial. In the southeast quadrant, the land behind the
commercial, even the commercial that goes down into the County along the
Interstate, the land behind that to the GMA, except for the "notch out' of
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 25
residential, be made Industrial. In addition, at the Mulberry and 1-25 interchange,
the northeast quadrant, from the edge of the commercial, to the edge of the
Activity Center, the proposal is to change the land use option from I, Industrial to
C, Commercial.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson stated that he was a fan of the Corridor Vision that was in the 1-25
Corridor Plan, and it talked about creating nodes of secondary uses with Employment
on the fringe of that. This seems 180 degrees from that. For that reason, he would not
be supporting the motion.
Member Colton felt that there was entirely too much Commercial at Prospect and 1-25
and he felt that it would hurt our Downtown.
There was board and staff discussion regarding adequate public facilities, funding of
road improvements, using the transportation corridors efficiently, primary and secondary
uses.
• The motion for recommendation was split 3 to 3 with Members Meyer, Torgerson
and Bernth voting against the motion and Members Colton, Craig and Gavaldon
voting in favor of the motion.
Member Colton presented the next proposal (but was done visually on the map).
unable to transcribe description.
Member Craig moved to recommend to Council that the northeast quarter section
(which is currently being shown as E, Employment and LMN) north of County
Road 50 be taken out of the GMA boundary and leave it under County jurisdiction
as O, Open. Along with the recommendation, she wants to send the suggestion
of it being used (by the City and County) to detain Boxelder, so we can get
Mulberry out of the Boxelder floodplain.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Craig asked Stormwater to look at going in with the County and doing
something like what was done on West Vine or at Hughes Stadium as far as using that
area to work as a detention pond, so we could get the Mulberry area out of the
floodplain. One because it is already developed, and two because we are looking at it
as being one of our major Activity Centers. If the water were put back into Boxelder
Creek we would have to remap all of the new floodplain along the creek. We would
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 26
have to go all along the creek and put in new easements and buy land and there is
already a lot of existing development along there.
Member Torgerson's concern was that all the housing, whether it is LMN or developed
in the County — if we did not make a small node of a commercial center there, they
would be forced to drive into the Mountain Vista or other areas further to do their
shopping.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Day, property owner, highly recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board that
they find out more of what the property owners are suggesting. Doing public open lands
there, you would be grid locking him and other property owners. Before that wide and
strong of a recommendation is made, that there be more feedback.
Member Torgerson commented that he also disagreed with this proposal for similar
reasons. The vision talks about major nodes and minor nodes. He viewed Prospect
and Mulberry being major nodes and this piece struck him as a minor node, completely
consistent with the 1-25 Corridor vision. City Plan itself has a lot of these concentric
nodes, this one seems to make sense for that area of residential around it, if the GMA is
expanded.
Member Colton stated that there really is not a commercial center being shown in that
E, Employment area.
Member Torgerson stated that he supports expanding the GMA boundary and feels that
it would be important to have a commercial center out there.
The motion to recommend was split 3 to 3 with Members Meyer, Torgerson and
Gavaldon voting against the recommendation and Members Colton, Craig and
Bernth voting for the motion.
The next proposal was for the southeast corner of that same area, which is currently,
zoned FA-1 in the County, that the land use designation be changed to Urban Estate.
This was another section that they did not believe a big portion should be "upzoned"
next to a node. If the GMA is not expanded there is no need for a major Employment
and LMN node there.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 27
PUBLIC INPUT
Les Kaplan, citizen, responded that it was his understanding from the Regional Plan is
that single family is not allowed within a quarter mile of 1-25, and he wondered if the UE,
Urban Estate would contradict that.
Member Colton responded that they could cluster and set it back a '% mile there. That
is one of the ways that the Corridor was supposed to be saved, was to zone some of it
residential and have it set back. That is what it shows in the Corridor Plan as the
preferred vision and locational criteria that — there would actually be compact nodes of
retail and commercial surrounded by Employment at those nodes, and then in between,
to the extent possible, there would be residential set back '% mile.
Member Craig commented that the advantage of this, especially being up in that area, is
that if the Employment does happen around Anheuser Busch, that would give another
close section of close housing.
Member Colton moved to recommend that the land use designation on the
southeast corner of 1-25 and County Road 50, that quarter section be changed
• from LMN and E, Employment to Urban Estate on the Structure Plan.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Colton stated that the reason he was recommending the Urban Estate, was
there was a lot of County, Low Density development out there. A good chunk of it
already has approved development plans on it for 2 units per acre, which is about the
same as our Urban Estate.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked to see what development was coming up in that area.
Mr. Waido replied that there were some projects east of County Road 5. Using the
development map, he reviewed for the Board what development plans were in the area.
The motion was approved 4-2, with Members Meyer and Torgerson voting against
the motion.
The next proposal was to reconsider all LMN zoning east of 1-25. In looking at the
already planned developments in the County, probably 90%, with exception of the
school site, already have some sort of County development on it. The majority of the
area already has 2 to 2.5 units per acre development on it in the County. For us to zone
it LMN, did not seem appropriate. The suggestion was that all the areas east of the
• Interstate that are shown as LMN as Urban Estate to get the "feathering" in with the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 28
County. The only area that was being suggested to be left as LMN was the mobile
home park.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Les Kaplan, strongly disagreed that everything east of 1-25 between Mulberry and
Prospect be zoned Urban Estate. The premise of it is incorrect. He owns one of those
properties. His property adjoins a 6 to 7 acre development called Sunflower, and it
adjoins a 3 to 4 acre development called Clydesdale, and it adjoins the commercial area
to the north of the Industrial area that was suggested to be changed to Commercial.
The property that he has, has three properties north of it, which are intensely developed
from urban land uses. Additionally, his property is zoned Commercial in the front and
multi -family in the back. For the city to be considering rezoning the property to Urban
Estate is inappropriate and the rational is wrong. If you look at the principles of City
Plan, just in their own right, you do not want to put an Urban Estate zoning next to a
commercial area.
Steve Pfiester, citizen, commented that in addition to the existing densities being 5 and
6 units to the acre to the north and northeast, there have been substantial
improvements that have been acquired in the area by the County because of the
anticipation of high density in the area. There are traffic signals that have already been
funded, the McDonald's going in and other commercial development. He stated that
they were trying to eliminate housing next to the Activity Centers in the area, which is
already compatible.
Member Craig asked for information on existing development in the area and would
Urban Estate fit those developments, or are they higher density.
Mr. Waido replied that Mr. Pfiester was correct in his density numbers that were given to
the Board regarding the developments south of Mulberry.
Member Craig asked if Sunflower and Clydesdale would fit under Urban Estate.
Mr. Waido replied that they would not, they are different than an urban type of
neighborhood.
Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council that they reconsider all of the
LMN zoning on the east side of 1-25, specifically the land above the mobile home
park, as well as the school property. She thought that all along County Road 5,
that would make the feathering out to the County in that area.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
0 •
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 29
Member Torgerson stated that he would not support the motion. He felt that LMN is a
more appropriate buffer or "feathering" next to Employment, Commercial and Industrial
than Urban Estate. There would not be the housing density to support the Commercial.
Member Bernth concurred with Member Torgerson.
The motion to recommend was denied 4-2 with Members Meyer, Torgerson,
Bernth and Gavaldon voting against the motion.
The last proposal deals with the amount of Industrial in the area. He stated that unless
there are some strict design standards or change the zoning to another use, as it stands
now, with an 80' setback, it would become "strip" industrial. He felt that was
unacceptable with the vision of the Corridor. Another option would be to zone it
residential to get the '% mile setback. This property would be located south and east of
Vine Drive.
Member Torgerson asked if the area in question is'% mile wide. And if so, proposing
residential with a % mile setback did not make sense.
• PUBLIC INPUT
Steve Pfiester, citizen commented that as much as he thinks that we have too much
Industrial land, this was a good place for it. There is a railroad spur right through there,
and you don't want to put housing next to a railroad spur next to the Interstate. If there
was a place to put Industrial, this would be the place to put it.
Les Kaplan, citizen, stated what he currently has shown on the property he has is,
within a '% mile, there is a Public Open Lands area and right behind it, to fill in the'/<
mile, is an E, Employment area. During his presentation he tried to make a general
argument to eliminate the Employment area and put it into residential. He would hope
that in making a sweep of the Plan and making recommendations, the Board might
consider some other properties, like the one he tried to address in his presentation. Mr.
Kaplan pointed out his property for the Board.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Waido to comment on Mr. Kaplan's property.
Mr. Waido responded that staff has had a lot of discussions with Mr. Kaplan and a lot of
internal discussions regarding the proposed change. He stated that staff was opposed
to breaking our policy of allowing LMN zoning within a'/< mile of our LMN designation.
Staff is looking at what the options are regarding a small sliver of ground and staff will
• be sitting down with Mr. Kaplan and try to see if we can come up with a mutual
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 4, 2001
Page 30
agreeable solution. Staff is still against having a LMN neighborhood designation
penetrate that % mile of the Interstate.
Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council that they give staff direction
to look at the Industrial strips that are between the Activity Centers. This is one
of those huge pieces of zoning that the Board is asking be relooked at. The
Board does not necessarily have solutions, but feel as though the vision is being
missed. Possibilities are design standards or other zoning ideas.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson shared the concern about strip development that might occur. He
felt that it was all in the details, and hoped that we could achieve something more
consistent with the Corridor Plan in the design standards that are implemented in that
area.
Chairperson Gavaldon would support the motion and felt there were some good
intentions and good directions.
The motion was approved 6-0.
• Question Three — Should urban density residential neighborhoods be provided
in close proximity to industrial and shopping areas to allow people the
opportunity to live, work and shop in their own neighborhoods.
The Board believes they have addressed this question in the previous discussion of
Question Two.
Member Torgerson commented on the process that just occurred. He stated that he
appreciated all of Glen and Sally's work in developing a map. He does feel that what
they have just voted on is whether or not the rest of the Board agrees with Sally and
Glen's vision, and he thinks that is an unfortunate procedure. The process is off , and
this would have been more appropriate at worksession. The Board has been looking at
this Subarea Plan for a really long time and it seems inappropriate that this came up at
the last minute. What the Board essentially just did, was vote on whether or not the
Board agrees with their suggestions. He was sure that the rest of the Board has a lot of
other small areas that he would have liked to discuss.
Member Meyer agreed with Member Torgerson.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• October 4, 2001
Page 31
Chairperson Gavaldon felt that this was not the best way of doing business, and he
struggles with it. He asked staff for a better window between when the Board sees the
item and the Council date.
Member Craig wanted to make another recommendation to City Council regarding a
portion of the property that is in the proposed GMA expansion area. In would be in the
area of the Gray Lakes. The Division of Wildlife has considered that area a wildlife
impact area. It is being suggested by the NRAB that they would like to see the City and
County join and possibly put together a "Management Area". She would like to send
that, to get some seeds going if Council decides not to expand the GMA boundary.
PUBLIC INPUT
James Day, citizen, asked Member Craig to elaborate on what a "Management Area" is.
Member Craig responded that it would be an area where the City and the County would
sit down and cooperate what they felt was appropriate in that area. They might have
more stringent buffers around the lake. The Division of Wildlife has stated that there
would be wildlife impacts in that area.
• Mr. Day responded that because of all the trees along the Boxelder Creek, there is
more birds in there. They have expanded the wildlife area, but it does not matter now
because it's right next to the Public Open Lands. This is on his property and if the City
and County want to buy the area, that may be appropriate.
Member Craig recommended to City Council that staff look at the area of the Gray
Lakes to see if it does have some value that we don't realize.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion with an amendment that staff work with
the landowners.
Member Craig accepted the amendment.
The motion was approved 6-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Jim Mokler
255 E. Monroe 9 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 229-9900
October 3, 2001
Planning Department and Planning & Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
Gentlemen:
As an owner of Interchange Business Park I ask that you consider several existing
conditions at the SEC of I-25 and Mulberry.
The development work for Interchange business Park has been completed, however
your proposed I-25 sub area plan shows some of the already platted lots as being Open
Space. Since these lots are platted, developed and ready for building permits, they cannot
be open space.
I understand an assumption has been made that all land within the 100 year flood plain
will become open space. This is a poorly conceived assumption. Interchange Business
Park has already recovered a large portion of the 100 year flood plain and is filling in
building and parking areas as necessary to obtain building permits. We intend to
continue converting flood plain land to buildable lots on unplatted portions of our
property located to the east of Boxelder Creek.
If the City wants this flood plain land to be open space, the City may of course purchase
the land. OR the City may want to consider placing this land in an LMN zone which
will allow this land to still have an economic value by allowing residential density to be
transferred.
I believe the City will be greatly complicating the possibility of preserving this land for
open space IF the city designates this land as E employment or I industrial, as that would
in effect be a "taking" of all economic value of the land. I especially urge the City to
check with legal council on this matter.
There are many other reasons why this land should be planned for LMN, however I
have heard that several other land owners will be presenting the practical reasons why it
should be LMN.
We are all hoping for mutual cooperation. Thank you.
9
1-25 Sub Area Plan
• October 4, 2001 Presentation to P&Z Board
(By Les Kaplan)
I have come here this evening to express some concerns about the land use
element of the Plan and to offer some suggestions for improvement. I am also
here to support the open space objectives of the Plan and to offer some
suggestions on how these can be better realized in the course of modifying the
land use element.
(Show Slide). As you can see the draft Plan shows on both sides of 1-25 a band
of commercial land uses, namely "Commercial Corridor", "Employment', and
'Industrial' that stretch over a four mile area. The combined land area for these
commercial land uses is nearly 3 square miles. This is enough land area for 42
Foothill Fashion Malls. The "Employment' district alone represents over 400
acres, itself a 60 year inventory. This not only creates non -viable land uses but,
more importantly, it misses opportunities for land uses that would actually
advance the public interest, such as land uses supporting affordable housing.
One wonders why an expansion to the UGA would even be considered, if
properties already in the UGA are assigned land uses relegating them virtually
unusable and opportunities to promote public interest objectives are ignored.
Additionally, the repetition of commercial land uses on both sides of 1-25 sets the
• stage for an undesirable image of Fort Collins along this corridor, an image which
the current planning process should be discouraging, not promoting.
Such an expanse of commercial land uses is certainly inconsistent with the 1-25
Regional Plan as already adopted by most of the participating jurisdictions and
as currently before our City. There are repeated statements in the Regional Plan
attempting to discourage the very type of "linear pattern" of development along
frontage roads depicted in the Sub Area Plan. The Regional Plan calls for
employment and industrial land uses to be clustered in campus like settings
adjacent to activity centers. The configuration of the Employment district in this
draft is neither clustered nor is the majority of the Employment land use
adjacent to activity centers.
A second concern is that the draft offers no suggestion on an implementation
strategy for acquiring the limited lands designated as Rural/Open Lands. (Slide
enlargement). I am both a supporter of the Open Lands component of this plan,
and a representative of one of properties where an Open Lands designation
appears in the draft.(Show). I have heard from staff that a possible strategy for
achieving the Open Lands objective could simply be for the City to prohibit
development in the floodplain, where most of the Open Lands are indicated. As
you will see from the next slide, this floodplain has been routinely modified by
FEMA, most recently less than one year ago. Relying upon a federal floodplain
0
designation as a tool for acquiring Open Lands could be legally questionable and
is unreliable at best. (Slide of alternative) (Show floodplain & Interstate. Bus. Pk.)
My recommendation to the P & Z Board addresses the excessive amount and
strip configuration of commercial land uses in this draft. It also offers an
opportunity for achieving the Open Lands objective for this portion of the corridor.
As you can see from this slide, this alternative land -use arrangement interrupts
the continuous strip of commercial land uses along the east side of 1-25 and
replaces it with a residential land -use buffered by open lands. The beauty of this
lies not only in interrupting the strip, but also in creating a vehicle to achieve the
open lands objective. Let me explain: An Employment zoning district underlying
the Open Lands, as the draft intends, would not allow the transferring of any
development value to elsewhere on the property. Residential zoning would,
thereby reducing the likelihood that public dollars would be necessary to pay for
taken value.
The east side of 1-25 represents excellent opportunities for affordable housing.
The Sunflower Subdivision adjoining this property is an existing example.
Certainly, the City should use land -use designations to advance identifiable
public needs and not as a means to inventory land for the next 60 years and
beyond. This location provides easy access to 1-25 for family members working in
the Tri-City area, proximity to shopping and employment, access to Transfort and
the trail system, and would have little impact on the worsening traffic problems in
town. While promoting land use efficiency is a hallmark of City Plan, it seems to
be of little importance in this draft.
Visibility and readable access are important locational criteria for the placement
of Employment land uses. It makes no sense to place such uses along 1-25 at a
location that is setback 1000 ft. and screened from view (Slides). While this
landscaping is the death knell to Employment land uses at this location, it would
serve as an ideal, natural buffer and a significant amenity to residential uses
adjoining Open Lands to the east, as shown on the previous slide.
Hopefully, the information and recommendations I have presented this evening,
will assist this Board in making this draft more consistent with the goals of the
Regional Plan and in improving it as a planning tool for the future. Thank you for
your time.
September 28, 2001
• Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
I would like to enter the following comments concerning the I-25 Corridor Plan and the
staff -selected revision of the I-25 Corridor Sub -area Plan into the public record. I
prepared these comments as a long time resident of the Fort Collins area, who deeply
cares about its future.
• The basic premises of these Plans are that current growth rates are inevitable and the
development will happen anyway, with or without a plan. These assumptions are
false and seemingly meant to squelch any discussion of alternatives to whatever plan
takes shape. The current abnormally high rate of population growth in this region
(2.5% to 4% compared to the US growth rate of .9%) is in large part the result of a
long history of local subsidies for development. These subsidies come in the form of
`incentive' packages to corporations wishing to locate in the area, inadequate impact
fees that effectively result in taxpayer subsidization of most development -related
infrastructure and public services, and failure to account for the environmental
impacts of development. It is well known to freshmen in economics that more of any
product will be produced the more it is subsidized. The assumption that development
will occur anyway is partially true. Some development will occur, but not on the
massive scale envisioned by the Corridor Plans. The County and individual
communities do not have the funds to build the massive road system envisioned in the
• Plans. Without the planned roads the scale of development envisioned by the Plans is
not possible. The I-25 gridlock argument is specious also, unless local governments
are so incredibly irresponsible that they would knowingly "cause" gridlock along the
Interstate by approving excessive development there.
• The Corridor Plans violate the City's Land Use Plan, which among other laudable
goals, mandates policies to encourage development within a well-defined and
enforceable GMA, preserve community separators, encourage development in the
urban center, reduce auto -dependence, preserve open space and critical wildlife
habitat and improve air and water quality. Now city staffers are leading people to
believe that the Corridor Plan is not only consistent with the Land Use Plan, but
arose because of the Land Use Plan. The cynical gall of this kind of representation
of the relationship between City Plan and the Corridor Plans is remarkable. All of
you know quite well that the Corridor Plan represents a fundamental breach with the
City's Land Use Plan, Air Quality Plan, Master Street Plan and other plans aimed at
preserving community identity, assets and values that most residents support.
Recommendation: Do not approve a plan that negates approved city planning
documents.
• The Corridor Plan, breaches accepted land use planning principles aimed at
promoting distinct, efficient and attractive communities, including those principles
accepted by the National Governors Association (see the attached NGA report). To
• represent these Corridor Plans as `regional planning' is an insult to anyone with even
a modest knowledge of what the term `regional planning' implies. The Plans are the
result of an instance of regional cooperation whose central purpose is to provide
developers with the road infrastructure that they want. Faint lip service is paid to
transit and open space and design standards are optional. The Corridor Plans seem to
exist primarily to secure public support for a new taxing authority that will enable,
facilitate and fund open-ended development along the Interstate. Recommendation:
Develop a corridor plan that conforms to good planning principles not to the desires
of developers and out -of -touch city staffers.
No cost -benefit analysis has been developed for the plan. The assumption is that
there will be a net positive revenue growth from the development. Where are the
figures? It is well known that the kind of speculative annexation and development
that the Corridor Plans envision have had mixed results in terms of tax revenues and
net fiscal benefits to communities. Recommendation: Do not approve a massive plan
such as this until you show the people the figures and analysis in clear language.
The Corridor Plans imply the intention to make massive public expenditures for
roads and other infrastructure. One basic planning principle is to make growth pay
its own way (see the attached National Governor's Association report). Under the
Corridor Plan, developers and local landowners will effectively receive tens of
millions of dollars in subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Additionally, larger
communities such as Fort Collins will subsidize smaller communities such as
Johnstown and Berthoud, whose tax bases are too small to cover their share of the
proposed road network. Also, communities with traditionally higher land use
standards and impact fees structures will subsidize communities with lower standards
and fees. Development subsidies are unfair, fiscally irresponsible, encourage faster
population growth, accelerate sprawl and benefit one business sector (those around
the interstate) at the expense of others (those in the city center). Recommendation:
Any plan should incorporate a development fee structure that makes development
pay its own way.
The Corridor Plan `activity centers' do not remotely resemble the land uses that
many communities, most notably Loveland, have already approved. How can
Council members support a so-called Plan that does not resemble what is happening
on the ground and contains no provisions to make individual cities conform to the
plan where such differences exist. This fact, lends to the appearance that the
Corridor Plans are relatively meaningless in terms of land use, and are more likely
intended to provide a vehicle by which developers can secure public subsidies for the
road infrastructure they need to realized their business plans. Recommendation: Any
plan should reflect reality and propose policies that will meet broad community goals
rather than to simply accommodate irresponsible past planning decisions.
• The proposed road infrastructure is the antithesis of what the `region' should be
doing to facilitate quality land use planning, particularly on the edges of communities
and with regard to future transportation systems. Some of the likely impacts of the
proposed road system will be to increase traffic congestion around the Interstate,
I'1
u
damage or destroy valuable natural and agricultural assets, drain public revenues for
• expensive improvements, result in increased taxes, negatively impact the quality of
public services, accelerate regional population growth, threaten large rural areas with
more sprawl, reduce housing affordability and increase air and water pollution,
among others. Recommendation: The parallel road plan has to be eliminated and
replaced with a detailed multi -modal transit plan (with specified funding
mechanisms) to restore any resemblance of the Corridor Plan to a quality 21 st
century land use plan.
In summary, I strongly urge you to vote against the 1-25 Corridor Plan and the I-25 Sub-
area Plan. I urge you to begin anew and adopt quality and effective planning for the
corridor area. For additional specific recommendations refer to the matrix attached to
this message. It is not for lack of alternatives that citizens expressing serious concerns
about the I-25 Plans have had little impact on this process. I urge you to pay attention to
your constituents and act in the public interest rather than on behalf of a tiny well-to-do
minority who stands to gain substantially from the irresponsible and incompetent
"planning" that the I-25 Corridor Plan and its companion Sub -area Plan represent.
Sincerely,
Ken Bonetti
•
is