HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work SessionPlanning & Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
Friday, June 5, 2015
281 N. College Ave – Conference Room A
12:00 – 5:00 pm
Policy and Legislation:
• Water Efficiency Plan (Davis)
• CSU Annexation Map (Kadrich)
1:15 pm: Introduction of Ray Martinez to the Board (Carpenter)
Board Topics:
• Old Town Neighborhood Plan Update (Wray)
• Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rural Assessment (Holland)
• Downtown Plan Update (Gloss)
1
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Assessment of Alternative Rural Scenario
May 2015 DRAFT
2
This page intentionally blank
3
i Executive Summary
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Assessment of Alternative Rural Scenario
May 2015 DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Plan Fort Collins, and the corresponding Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, identified that the City’s
northeast quadrant would provide long-term community growth opportunities due to a limited supply
of buildable vacant land available throughout the balance of the Fort Collins’ Growth Management
Area (GMA).
In response to potential concerns regarding the cost to provide the full range of urban services to the
Mountain Vista area, the City of Fort Collins has evaluated a hypothetical rural development scenario
(Rural Scenario) that considers the environmental, economic and social outcomes to develop at a lower
intensity. Particular focus has been provided on effects to transportation infrastructure.
The Rural Scenario demonstrates potential outcomes with limited development. The Rural Scenario
contained in this assessment will affect approximately 70% of the Mountain Vista Subarea and is an
illustration of one of many rural alternative permutations that could occur.
Overview of Potential Outcomes of the Rural Scenario
Land Use
• Land available for housing and employment would decrease. Residential and employment
growth would most likely be shifted to surrounding communities and unincorporated areas,
and within the few remaining “greenfield” sites in Fort Collins.
• The decrease in land area for housing would affect housing diversity, availability and affordability
Citywide.
• Availability of land for potential oil and gas development in the Subarea would increase.
• The Rural Scenario provides more flexibility for large-scale food production.
Transportation
• Volumes on area roadways increase regardless of the scenario. Although the Rural Scenario will
‘generate’ significantly fewer trips than the adopted plan, many of the planned infrastructure
improvements will be needed to some degree.
Services and Infrastructure
• Stormwater infrastructure in the area would still be necessary and is independent of development
in the Mountain Vista Subarea since it is part of a regional system.
• The 110-acre community park planned for the Subarea would not be needed with the Rural
Scenario.
• Utility service providers that have extended services into the Mountain Vista Subarea will see a
reduction in planned expansion.
4
Executive Summary ii
Carbon & Habitat
• CO2e emissions (all greenhouse gas) at 2040 would increase regionally while decreasing within
the GMA, resulting in a net increase regionally of 79 mt CO2e by 2040.
• Reduced land development preserves habitat, wildlife corridors, possible recreational
opportunities, plant and animal population numbers and biodiversity, and natural/scenic vistas.
Revenue & Jobs
• City fees collected will decrease significantly with a Rural Scenario, and fewer fees would be
needed to serve the Mountain Vista area. Because fees such as Street Oversizing can be applied
to improvements needed City-wide, a reduction in fees could affect available funding in other
areas of the City.
• The reduction in households and retail expenditures will result in significant reductions in
projected City sales tax and property tax revenues.
• With the current Mountain Vista Subarea containing a significant portion of the City’s Employment
and Industrial zoning, the Rural Scenario will significantly reduce the land capacity available
for new employment in the community and future City-wide revenue loss would be significant.
Rural Scenario Sustainability Performance
Environmental Economic Social
Decrease in Mountain Vista Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT) but substantial
increase in regional VMT due to
housing units located further from
jobs and services.
Decreased housing affordability as
fewer acres within Fort Collins are
available for development and less
opportunity for a range of more
affordable housing types.
Decrease in potential Mountain Vista
population.
Regional increase in CO2e emissions
at 2040 of 94 metric tons (mt) and
Mountain Vista decrease of 15 mt.
Significant loss of jobs within
industrial/employment lands
surrounding ABI and within
Community Commercial district.
Land supply for affordable housing
options originally anticipated in
Mountain Vista likely shifted to
surrounding communities and
unincorporated areas.
Increased regional air pollution
associated with increase in vehicle
transportation.
Many of the planned transportation
and stormwater improvements are
regional and still needed to address
existing deficiencies.
Social impacts of higher housing
prices within the City, including
increased pressure to gentrify existing
neighborhoods.
Increase in large scale agricultural
production opportunities.
Decreased one-time fees due to
development (sales/use taxes; capital
expansion fees for street oversizing,
parks, fire, general govt. and police
services; utility investment fees; and
1
BACKGROUND
The Mountain Vista subarea is located in the northeast quadrant of Fort Collins, bordered by Richards
Lake Road to the north, Interstate 25 to the east, Vine Drive to the south, and Turnberry Road and
Lemay Avenue to the west. Historically agricultural in use, a large portion of the subarea remains
undeveloped, with the exception of four residential neighborhoods and the Anheuser- Busch InBev
(ABI) brewery. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was originally adopted with the intent that the
northeast quadrant of the City would provide the long-term growth area of the community due to a
limited supply of buildable vacant land available throughout the Fort Collins’ Growth Management
Area (GMA). Most of the land within the subarea was annexed in the 1980s, but a few parcels remain
outside of the City limits. These parcels are expected to annex at the time of development or as part of
an enclave annexation.
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, originally adopted in March 1999 and subsequently updated in
September 2009, lays a community development framework for a large, primarily undeveloped area
of northeast Fort Collins. The 2009 update was responsive to the ideas and concerns of the many
stakeholders involved, including area property owners, residents, the City of Fort Collins, and the
broader community.
In response to potential concerns regarding the cost to provide the full range of urban services to the
Mountain Vista area, the City of Fort Collins has evaluated a hypothetical rural development scenario
(Rural Scenario) that considers the environmental, economic and social outcomes to develop at a lower
intensity. Particular focus has been provided on effects to transportation infrastructure. A working
group consisting of City personnel from various departments was established and tasked with assessing
the environmental, economic and
social outcomes between the currently
proposed 2040 Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan and the Rural Scenario.
This white paper was developed with
the intent of providing a preliminary
evaluation of potential outcomes of a
Rural Scenario in the Mountain Vista
Subarea. The information and data
presented is based on discussions with
City personnel and meetings of the
working group assembled to develop
and evaluate the Rural Scenario. The
demographic and transportation
models completed for the purpose of
this white paper are based on readily
available information. Further study
may be necessary to provide more
detailed data and evaluation of the
Rural Scenario.
Vicinity Map
6
2
PURPOSE AND GOALS
The purpose of this effort is to assess potential outcomes of a Rural Scenario on the Mountain Vista
Subarea with regard to transportation, stormwater, parks, infrastructure needs and associated fees,
community demographics, and oil and gas development. The Mountain Vista Subarea is planned
for Fort Collins’ future growth and calls for development of multiple residential neighborhoods,
community parks and trails, a neighborhood commercial center, a K-12 school campus, and additional
industrial uses associated with ABI. Using a demographic model based on land uses determined through
working group sessions, an assessment of what services might be impacted by limited development,
and incorporation of a transportation model, the City can estimate potential outcomes of the Rural
Scenario on the Mountain Vista Subarea, the City, and surrounding areas.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan established baseline demographics for the year 2012, and modeled
projected demographics for the subarea for the year 2040 and at build out. These three scenarios serve
as the baseline existing conditions for the analysis of the Rural Scenario. Demographics for the 2012
base year, 2040 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and build out are presented in the table below. The 2040
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan demographics are used in comparison to the Rural Scenario in order to
evaluate what the potential outcomes would be of the Rural Scenario. The 2012 baseline and the 2040
demographic projections serve as reference points for the comparison.
Adopted Conditions in the Mountain Vista Subarea
Model/Scenario Homes Employees
2012 Base Year 1,405 882
2040 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 8,856 14,552
Mountain Vista Subarea Build Out 9,539 26,618
7
3
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE RURAL SCENARIO
The Rural Scenario was developed based on a set of assumptions limiting development options for the
Mountain Vista Subarea.
Rural Scenario Assumptions
• For the purpose of this analysis, properties that do not have a vested development plan are
modeled with residential densities based on the Rural Lands District (RUL) zone district which
assumes a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per ten acres.
• RUL - The Rural Lands District is intended for privately owned lands that are planned as a
rural edge to the community. Rural lands include, but are not limited to, community separators,
clustered residential development, large lot residential, agriculture, natural area buffers and
corridors and other open lands of similar character and purpose.
• All existing houses are incorporated into the 10 acre development pattern with a maximum
density of 1 household for every 10 acres.
• Plans that are excluded from RUL because they are already approved/vested include:
□ Storybook, (including the 3rd filing to the east)
□ Maple Hill
□ Waterfield, except for the area zoned MMN that is not yet planned. The analysis
assumes 200 dwelling units to be developed on the MMN-zoned portion.
• Half of the 87.6-acre Poudre School District site remains planned for a school; the other half is
modeled at an RUL density and pattern.
• For the Anheuser-Busch/InBev properties:
□ All land east of the rail line remains Industrial; all other Industrial and Employment
lands will be developed at RUL densities.
□ West of the rail line, the existing facility at 3515 Richards Lake (parcel 8833005001)
remains Industrial zoning and the remaining land currently zoned Industrial is
modeled as RUL.
• All remaining areas that are undeveloped and currently zoned NC or MMN are also developed
as RUL.
• The regional and subregion control totals, as defined by the North Front Range Metropolitan
Organization (NFRMPO) in the 2040 Economic and Demographic Forecast, will remain the same
for the transportation model.
• RUL zoning for the Rural Scenario assumes 3 employees per 10 acres in 2040.
8
4
Comparison with 2040 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Demographics
With the implementation of the Rural Scenario, demographics in the Mountain Vista Subarea will change
from what the Mountain Vista Plan predicted. The number of houses and jobs in the subarea will be
reduced in most areas, primarily those areas that are re-zoned to RUL. These changes in demographics
will have an effect on transportation patterns in the area, as well as in Transportation Analysis Zones
(TAZs) outside of the Mountain Vista Subarea. A comparison of the demographics under the 2040
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the 2040 Rural Scenario are presented in the table below. The Rural
Scenario would result in approximately 6,300 fewer households, and 12,700 fewer employees in the
subarea. These demographics are also shown in the maps on the following pages.
Rural Scenario Comparison
Model/Scenario Households Employees
2040 Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan 8,856 14,552
2040 Rural Scenario 2,539 1,898
Difference between
Subarea Plan and
Rural Scenario
6,317 12,654
9
Maple Hill
Subdivision
Storybrook
Subdivision
Waterfield
Subdivision
Waters Edge
Subdivision
I-25
Giddings Rd
Mountain Vista Dr
Timberline Rd
Turnberry Rd
Richards Lake Rd
Busch Dr
Vine Dr
Lindenmeier Rd
Wetland
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
Trailhead
Subdivision
Waterglen
Subdivision
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
KEDERIKE
LEMAY LLC
GRAHAM
JOHN C
(.50)
KEDERIKE
LEMAY LLC
WEISS
DONALD
D (1/2)
HOLTER
GEORGE A
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
CITY
OF FORT
COLLINS
K AND
M CO
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
WATERS EDGE
WEST LLC
WATERS EDGE
WEST LLC
POUDRE R-1
Maple Hill
Subdivision
Storybrook
Subdivision
Waterfield
Subdivision
Waters Edge
Subdivision
I-25
Giddings Rd
Mountain Vista Dr
Timberline Rd
Turnberry Rd
Richards Lake Rd
Busch Dr
Vine Dr
Lindenmeier Rd
Wetland
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
Trailhead
Subdivision
Waterglen
Subdivision
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
KEDERIKE
LEMAY LLC
GRAHAM
JOHN C
(.50)
KEDERIKE
LEMAY LLC
WEISS
DONALD
D (1/2)
HOLTER
GEORGE A
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
CITY
OF FORT
COLLINS
K AND
M CO
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INC
WATERS EDGE
WEST LLC
WATERS EDGE
WEST LLC
POUDRE R-1
7
This page intentionally blank
12
8
Number of Households by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
2.0 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 300.0
300.1 - 942.0
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/20/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan:
Total Households at 2040
8,856
13
9
Number of Households by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
0.5 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 300.0
300.1 - 694.0
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/20/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Rural Scenario:
Total Households at 2040
2,539
14
10
Number of Employees by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
0 - 3
4 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 135
136 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 3500
3501 - 6500
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/18/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
14,552
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan:
Total Employees at 2040
15
11
Number of Employees by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
0 - 3
4 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 135
136 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 3500
3501 - 6500
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/18/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
*All Jobs
in School
Rural Scenario:
Total Employees at 2040
1,898
16
12
The Rural Scenario will affect approximately 70% of the Mountain Vista Subarea. Areas currently
zoned as community commercial, employment, industrial, low and medium density mixed-use
neighborhood, and public open lands, will be re-zoned to RUL, with a maximum density of 1 residence
and 3 employees per 10 acres. The table below shows the acreage that will be converted to different
zoning under the Rural Scenario, as well as developable acreage after taking into account oil and gas
buffer and City stormwater areas in which no development can occur.
Change in Zoning Acreage - Rural Scenario
Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan Zoning Rural Scenario Zoning
Total Zoned Acres
(Rural Scenario)
Rural Scenario Acres
(with Oil & Gas setbacks)
CC RUL 28 5
E I 0 0
E RUL 589 465
I I 216 216
I RUL 226 148
LMN LMN 472 456
LMN RUL 754 686
MMN MMN 29 29
MMN RUL 111 87
POL RUL 106 106
PSD RUL 62 43
PSD PSD 44 44
T T 5 5
E (stormwater) POL (stormwater) 92 92
LMN (stormwater) POL (stormwater) 52 52
Total Acres 2786 2434
The Rural Scenario includes oil & gas buffer. This table shows the total acres of zoning, and also the acres taking into account the 1,000
ft. setbacks.
Transportation Model
A transportation model was used to model the potential impacts to transportation based on the Rural
Scenario. The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Travel Model (NFR
RTM) was used to forecast traffic volumes as part of the Rural Scenario. The model uses a four-step
process to forecast travel in the subarea, Fort Collins as a whole, and the North Front Range region. The
regional model includes the communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Timnath, and Wellington.
The NFR RTM is calibrated further to Fort Collins and the Mountain Vista subarea.
The projected demographics for the Rural Scenario were used as a basis for the transportation model.
The Subarea was divided into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) for the model. Potential outcomes
are presented in the outcomes section of this paper and are shown within the Mountain Vista Subarea
as well in TAZs within the Growth Management Area but outside the Subarea that might be affected.
Transportation model results were used to determine vehicle miles traveled and estimate potential
GHG emissions under the Rural Scenario.
17
13
Maple Hill
Subdivision
Story Brook
Subdivision
Water Field
Subdivision
Water's Edge
Subdivision
¦¨§I-25
Turnberry Rd
CR 52
Lindenmeier Rd
200%
MVP
180%
Rural
8
4
0
%
M
V
P
5
5
0
%
R
u
r
a
l
190% MVP
170% Rural
200% MVP
180% Rural
2
1
0
%
M
V
P
1
9
0
%
R
u
r
a
l
1
6
0
%
M
V
P
14
!? !?
!?
Maple Hill
Subdivision
Story Brook
Subdivision
Water Field
Subdivision
Water's Edge
Subdivision
¦¨§I-25
Turnberry Rd
CR 52
Lindenmeier Rd
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
N TIMBERLIN
E
RD
R
EALIGNED VINE
E VINE DR
S
S
UMMIT VIEW DR
DUFF D
R
E LINCOLN AVE
GR
E
ENFIELDS CT
A
I
RP
ARK DR
S TIM
B
E
R
LINE
R
D
JEFFERSON ST
E MULBERRY ST
INTERSTATE 25
E WILLOX L
N
LINDEN
ST
S LEMAY
A
V
E
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
BUCKINGHAM S
T
WILLOW ST
N LEMAY AVE
15
Oil & Gas
The Rural Scenario accounts for the four existing oil and gas well sites that are located within the
Mountain Vista Subarea. Three of these well sites are identified in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) database as drilled and abandoned and one of the sites is identified as plugged
and abandoned. Land use impacts for the Rural Scenario were modelled based upon a 1,000 foot buffer
zone from these existing oil and gas wells. State and City setbacks within this zone include the following:
• State-adopted uniform 500 foot setbacks from new wells to existing residences.
• State-adopted 1,000 foot setback for specified “High Occupancy Buildings”, including schools,
day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities.
• City of Fort Collins minimum setback of 350 feet from new residences to adjacent wells provided
a landscape buffer and fencing are included.
• City of Fort Collins disclosure requirement for new residential development planned within
1,000 feet of existing well sites.
In 2013 the City of Fort Collins voters adopted a moratorium ordinance that prohibits hydraulic
fracturing and the storage of its wastes within the City and on City-owned lands for a five-year period.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) filed a lawsuit in 2013 challenging this moratorium.
This lawsuit is now pending on appeal before the Colorado Court of Appeals and the moratorium is
currently unenforceable. Additional information regarding the lawsuit is provided at the following
link: http://www.fcgov.com/cityattorney/status.php.
As of May 24, 2015 the COGCC database shows no applications for permits to drill or location
assessments in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Depending on legal outcomes, oil and gas development
could occur in the Subarea in the future, however at this time it is not known where any future wells
would be located.
Potential Outcomes of the Rural Scenario
Potential outcomes of the Rural Scenario are based on the demographic and transportation models,
discussions of the working group, and input from the City. They represent an initial review of
implementing the Rural Scenario and do not represent a definite course of action. These outcomes can
be viewed as beneficial or detrimental, depending on the goals for growth within the City.
General
• Approximately 70% of the Mountain Vista Subarea will be affected by the Rural Scenario.
• The Rural Scenario will affect vehicles miles traveled (VMT) within the Fort Collins Subregion
and the larger region. Under the Rural Scenario, VMT for the Fort Collins Subregion will
decrease, however VMT for the larger region will increase.
Land Use
• The Rural Scenario could result in approximately 6,300 fewer households in the Mountain Vista
Subarea.
• The Rural Scenario could result in approximately 12,700 fewer employees in the Mountain Vista
Subarea.
20
16
• The City’s potential population and employment would decrease. Projected population
and employment would most likely be shifted to surrounding municipalities, towns and
unincorporated areas.
• The loss of housing opportunities could cause a net increase in vehicle trips into Fort Collins.
• The result would expand the Northeast Community Open Space between Fort Collins, Timnath
and Wellington.
• The result would provide additional open space buffer to ABI; however, it would remove their
additional proposed complementary industrial land.
• The Fort Collins growth area would be built out by the year 2040. Under the Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan, a few isolated areas would still be available for development.
• A narrower range of permitted land uses and density are available with the Rural Scenario than
with the current subarea plan. Because City oil and gas buffers apply to new housing and do not
apply to agricultural production, implementation of the Rural Scenario could potentially result
in expanded interest in oil and gas development in the Subarea.
Transportation/Infrastructure
• The Master Street Plan in the Mountain Vista Subarea shows Lemay, Mountain Vista, Timberline,
and Suniga as ultimate 4-lane arterials. The Master Street Plan shows three grade separated
railroad crossings (Lemay, Timberline, and Mountain Vista), and identifies general alignments
for several lower classification roads that currently don’t exist (extensions of Conifer and
Country Club Road, etc.). The Master Street Plan includes an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC)
in the Mountain Vista Subarea.
Traffic Volumes
• Volumes on all roads increase significantly from current volumes (anywhere from 50% to 800%)
regardless of the scenario. When comparing estimated 2040 traffic volumes between the Rural
Scenario and the Mountain Vista Plan as adopted, the following observations are made:
□ Regional roads at the periphery of the Mountain Vista Area (SH1, Mulberry, etc.) will
see higher volumes in the Rural Scenario than in the Mountain Vista Plan scenario
□ Roadways internal to Mountain Vista Subarea (Timberline, Mountain Vista, New
Vine) will see lower volumes in the Rural Scenario than in the Mountain Vista Plan
scenario
Improvement Needed in Rural Scenario
• The following improvements are estimated to still be needed even with the Rural Scenario:
□ Completion of Suniga (even in the Rural Scenario sections of Suniga are expected to
carry more than 30,000 vehicles/day)
□ Widening of Timberline and Mountain Vista to four lane sections
□ Lemay realignment and widening in the Vine Street area
□ Some sort of railroad solution on Lemay and on Timberline. This could be improved,
relocated at-grade crossings, or grade separations.
21
17
Master Plan Items that May Not be Built in Rural Scenario
• Extension of Conifer to Timberline.
• Internal connector/collector roads shown on Master Street Plan.
• Mountain Vista Railroad grade separation may not be needed.
• Far North Lemay may not need to be four lanes.
Travel Patterns
• The Rural Scenario will ‘generate’ significantly fewer trips in/from the area. There will however,
be more travel through the area (and likely longer trips) as residential areas are built around
Mountain Vista, and commercial centers are further away.
Stranded Assets
• There are a few improvements already built that may not be needed to the same extent with
the Rural Scenario. This includes ROW dedicated for the Conifer extension, and parts of the
Turnberry Road construction such as the frontage road.
Transit
• Under the Rural Scenario the City could lose the ability to provide transit to the Subarea due to
the low density.
Roadway Classifications
• General roadway classifications as shown in the current Master Street Plan will predominantly
remain the same. Although some buildout volumes will decrease in the Rural Scenario compared
to the Mountain Vista Plan, the function of the roadways will be the same and overall volumes
increase enough from existing counts to justify the classifications. The low density land use and
lack of commercial amenities in the Rural Scenario may precipitate removal of the Enhanced
Travel Corridor (ETC) from this area.
Funding
• Much of New Vine is planned to be built as development occurs. The same is true for the widening
of Timberline and Mountain Vista. If development is limited, then alternative funding will be
needed to construct Suniga and widen these other streets. Without planned development in the
area, there will be significantly less street oversizing funding available to fund transportation
improvements.
Housing
• Growth that would have occurred in the Mountain Vista Subarea will likely be transferred to
other areas within the City of Fort Collins and shifted to Timnath, Wellington and areas east of
I-25.
• A Rural Scenario will put additional pressure on attainable housing options in the City. The
average home price in Fort Collins is $430,332, with an average sold price in Fort Collins of
$327,757. Under a Rural Scenario, the transfer of housing to other areas of Fort Collins may
22
18
cause additional demand for infill and redevelopment within the City, where new housing will
likely be less attainable for average income purchasers.
• There will be a loss of opportunity for increasing the supply of diverse housing choices in the
Subarea such as single-family attached and multi-family dwellings.
• In addition to attainable housing constraints, opportunities for affordable housing that is publicly
assisted will also decrease. The ratio of affordable housing units to market rate units is currently
at about 5%. Using this ratio and with an overall reduction of 6,302 households in the Subarea,
the Rural Scenario would reduce the total number of affordable dwellings by 315 units.
Economic Outcomes
• A Land Demand Analysis was completed in 2009 with the current Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
which includes data that provides a snapshot of potential economic outcomes with the Rural
Scenario.
• The following figures are provided with the 2009 Land Demand Analysis:
□ Average household income was calculated at $66,802.00
□ Using the average household income, total personal income (TPI) for the subarea
was calculated for current and projected households (through 2030), with a total
TPI in 2030 listed as $500,000,000 in the subarea, based on a projected 7,385 total
households in 2030.
□ The TPI was used to analyze the potential net new retail expenditures in the subarea
from 2008-2030, with a total new retail expenditure of $135,300,000 based on 6,300
additional households projected in the subarea.
□ Total square feet of retail/commercial buildings was projected to be 205,000 square
feet on 22 to 31 acres in the Subarea.
• Based on the figures provided in the 2009 analysis, the reduction in retail expenditures and
reduction in households will result in significant reductions in projected City sales tax and
property tax revenues with the implementation of the Rural Scenario.
• The 2009 land demand analysis also outlined that the Mountain Vista Subarea represents one of
the few remaining places in the City with large developable Employment and Industrial parcels.
The parcels also have immediate access to Interstate 25 and rail service suitable for large campus-
style office and industrial development.
• At the time of the 2009 study, total land capacity in the City for Employment-zoned land was
1,143 acres, with 912 acres of Industrial-zoned land. Of this total, the Mountain Vista Subarea
represented 661 acres (65%) of the total City employment land and 457 acres (50%) of the total
Industrial-zoned land in the City.
• With the current Mountain Vista Subarea containing a significant portion of the City’s
Employment and Industrial zoning, a rural model will significantly reduce the land capacity
available for new employment in the community and future City-wide revenue loss would be
significant.
23
19
Fees
• With developments that have already occurred in the Mountain Vista Subarea, City of Fort
Collins Parks has already collected fees for future parks in the Subarea. These funds would need
to be re-appropriated.
• Fees collected by the City with new development are intended to fund utility and transportation
expansion, costs related to the continued maintenance of utility infrastructure, and costs related
to the expansion of parks and other services.
• A summary of the fees due with new development in the Mountain Vista Subarea include:
□ City and County Sales/Use Tax
□ Larimer County Transportation Expansion Fee
□ Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee
□ Capital Improvement Expansion Fees (Community Parkland, Neighborhood
Parkland, Fire, General Government Services, Police)
□ Poudre School District Impact Fee
□ Electric Service Fees
□ Stormwater fee (due monthly)
• All residential and commercial fees described above vary depending on a number of factors such
as type of use, lot area, amount of open space within the development, size of the structures, size
and scope of utilities required, irrigation needs, and other factors. Because the fees are based
on use and development intensity, a detailed site development plan model for both the Rural
Scenario and the adopted Mountain Vista Plan would be needed to provide a comprehensive
comparison. A comprehensive comparison would also need to predict how fees and building
valuations might change over time.
• The City Wastewater Plant Investment Fee Water Plant Investment Fee would not be required
because in the majority of the Mountain Vista Subarea is in the ELCO district.
• Overall, City fees collected will decrease significantly with the Rural Scenario, and because the
fees collected are tailored to serve the scope of the development proposed, fewer fees would be
needed with the Rural Scenario. Because some of the development fees such as Street Oversizing
can be applied to improvements needed City-wide, additional outreach would be needed to
determine whether City-wide services or improvements would be affected, or whether fee rates
would need to be adjusted with the Rural Scenario, as well as determining the potential effects
to service providers other than the City.
Utilities
• Service providers that have extended services into the Mountain Vista Subarea will see a
reduction in planned expansion.
Stormwater
• Stormwater infrastructure in the area would still be necessary and is independent of development
in the Mountain Vista Subarea since it is part of a regional system. However, there will be a loss
in fees if the Mountain Vista Subarea is not developed as currently planned.
24
20
Electric
• Electric transmission utilities would remain unchanged under the Rural Scenario; however the
amount of anticipated local distribution lines would decrease.
Water, Sewer and Energy
• Regional sewer infrastructure would remain unchanged under the Rural Scenario, however the
amount of anticipated local connections would decrease
• Anticipated City water and energy demand would decrease, however this most likely would
not affect regional demands.
Agriculture
• The area is currently used for large scale crop production including corn, with production based
on availability of raw water, changing market demands and individual farming practices.
• Various levels of agricultural production are possible with both the Rural Scenario and adopted
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The Rural Scenario allows for more flexibility for general large
scale agricultural production to continue based on market demand, as well as flexibility for
other uses that require large land areas such as large-scale solar facilities.
• Section 3.8.31 the Land Use Code defines the general requirements for Urban Agriculture which
are permitted within any zone district in the City. These standards do not limit the size of an
urban agricultural operation, provided that potential impacts to the surrounding community
are mitigated. The rural model allows more flexibility for large scale food production in the
future if demand for community or regional food production cannot be met by other urban
agricultural facilities within the GMA.
Environmental
• The analysis of the transportation model comparing the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projected
the following results at 2040. The Region includes Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and Timnath.
The Subregion is Fort Collins only (boundaries of the City Growth Management Area).
• 2040 VMT with current Mountain Vista Subarea Plan:
□ Region: 23,134,856
□ Subregion: 5,324,197
• 2040 VMT with Rural Scenario:
□ Region: 23,303,136
□ Subregion: 5,297,659
• VMT Change:
□ Region: 168,280 additional VMT
□ Subregion: 26,538 fewer VMT
• The impact of an increase of 168,280 VMT with the rural model projected regionally would
result in an increase of 94 metric tons of CO2e emissions (all greenhouse gas) at 2040.
• The impact of a decrease of 26,538 VMT within the GMA would result in a decrease of 15 mt
CO2e with the rural model in 2040.
25
21
• The net impact to the City of Fort Collins GMA of both the regional and subarea changes in VMT
to implement the Rural Scenario would result in an increase of 79 mt CO2e by 2040.
• The total GHG emissions from community VMT were 636,101 mt CO2e and this comprises 27.8%
of total GHG emissions for 2014 within the City GMA.
• Other GHG impacts related to implementing the Rural Scenario:
□ Less retail and industrial buildings and 6,000 fewer households will result in
lower GHG emissions in the Mountain Vista Subarea due to lower electricity and
natural gas usage and generation of solid waste vs. the proposed rural alternative
development plan. The emissions associated with electricity and natural gas usage
are 68.5% of City total GHG emissions for 2014.
• Reduced building density can positively impact ecosystem functions by:
□ Preserving impervious surfaces maintains the ability of soil and vegetation to clean
groundwater
□ Continued carbon sequestration in soils from reducing soil disturbance
□ Maintain ecosystem nutrient cycling
• Reduced land development preserves habitat, wildlife corridors, possible recreational
opportunities, plant and animal population numbers and biodiversity, and natural/scenic vistas.
• The Rural Scenario would likely result in less generation of new waste products (including
hazardous wastes) that may contaminate the soil, surface and groundwater, and outdoor air
because of the absence of any commercial or industrial businesses and fewer residences. This
waste reduction would occur within the boundary of the Mountain Vista Subarea.
• The projected increases in ground travel in the region, outside of the GMA, would result in
increases in air pollutants associated with vehicle transportation: NOx, SOX, CO, SO2, and
particulate matter. Reductions in emissions within the Mountain Vista Subarea Rural Scenario
may be offset by the transfer of growth to these nearby areas outside of the City GMA.
Zoning Considerations
• Rezoning the Mountain Vista Subarea is expected to be highly controversial due to the significant
reduction that alternative zoning will have on current land values and anticipated expectations
under the current plan.
• If the subarea is not developed as currently planned under the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and
is eventually de-annexed, another city might acquire and develop the area. This would create
fragmented jurisdictions in which new IGA’s would be needed in order to provide adequate
services including police, fire and utilities.
External Entities
• With the Rural Scenario, the planned school in the Mountain Vista Subarea will be a middle
school within Poudre School District (PSD). The school will be located on approximately half
of the acreage originally planned under the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. This middle school
will be within the Poudre School District. Since this is a School of Choice district, residents in
Wellington and Timnath could attend the middle school
26
22
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis is an initial, high-level look at what a Rural Scenario might look like in the Mountain
Vista Subarea and what potential outcomes could result from this limited development option.
Implementation of the Rural Scenario will limit development in the Subarea; and this development
will be shifted to surrounding communities and unincorporated areas beyond the GMA. The decrease
in housing density will affect housing diversity and affordability within the City GMA. Residents
currently living in the Mountain Vista Subarea will drive farther for services. Many of the planned
improvements to existing roadways and intersections are estimated to still be needed under the Rural
Scenario. The Rural Scenario will ‘generate’ significantly fewer trips in/from the area. There will be more
travel through the area (and likely longer trips) as residential areas are built around Mountain Vista,
and commercial centers are further away. Stormwater infrastructure in the area will still be necessary
and is independent of development in the Mountain Vista Subarea since it is part of a regional system.
The Rural Scenario will affect the transportation network, infrastructure, housing options for residents,
and travel times to services. The redistribution of housing and employment will reduce fees and taxes
collected by the City. The Rural Scenario could result in an increase in agricultural production in the
area within the RUL zoning.
MOUNTAIN VISTA ASSESSMENT WORKING GROUP
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
Jason Holland, City Planner
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer
Shane Boyle, Civil Engineer III, Utility/Water Systems Engineering
Dan Mogen, Civil Engineer I, Utility/Water Systems Engineering
27
23
Appendix 1
Glossary of Terms
Term Definition
Zoning District Districts as defined by the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
RUL Rural Lands District
CC Community Commercial District
E Employment District
I Industrial District
LMN Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District
MMN Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District
T Transition District
POL Public Open Lands
PSD Poudre School District
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone
GMA Growth Management Area
28
24
Appendix 2
Density Requirements for Rural Scenario Districts
District Description/Density Requirements
RUL Single-family detached maximum residential density - 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres
CC
All residential permitted uses, except mixed use dwellings in multistory mixed use
buildings, for projects containing 10 or more acres, together may occupy no more than 30
percent of the total gross area of any development plan.
E Overall minimum average density - 7 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
I All new structures greater than 50,000 square feet in gross leasable area are subject to
Planning and Zoning Board review.
LMN
• Overall minimum average density - 4 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
• Residential developments containing 20 acres or less - overall minimum average
density of 3 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
• Maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole - 9 dwelling units per
gross acre of residential land.
• Affordable housing projects containing 10 acres or less - 12 dwellings units per gross
acre of residential land.
• Maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan - 12 dwelling
units per gross acre of residential land.
• Maximum density of any portion of a phase containing a grouping of 2 or more multi-
family structures - 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
MMN
• Overall minimum average density - 12 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
• Residential developments containing 20 acres or less - overall minimum average
density of 7 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
• Minimum residential density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan - 7
dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
T The Transition District is intended for properties for which there are no specific and
immediate plans for development.
POL
The Public Open Lands District is for large publicly owned parks and open lands which
have a community-wide emphasis or other characteristics which warrant inclusion under
this separate designation rather than inclusion in an adjoining neighborhood or other
District designation.
29
25
Appendix 3
ALL OTHER MAPS
30
26
Number of Households by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
1.0 - 2.0
2.1 - 4.0
4.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 200.0
200.1 - 555.0
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/20/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Existing Conditions:
Total Households at 2012
1,405
31
27
Number of Households by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
2.0 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 300.0
300.1 - 942.0
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/20/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Build Out: Households
9,539
32
28
Number of Employees by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
0 - 3
4 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 135
136 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 3500
3501 - 6500
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/18/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Existing Conditions:
Total Employees at 2012
883
33
29
Number of Employees by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZs)
0 - 3
4 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 135
136 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 3500
3501 - 6500
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Date: 5/18/2015
1 in = 2,200 feet
L O G A N S I M P S O N
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Build Out: Employment
26,618
34
30
> >
>
Maple Hill
Subdivision
Story Brook
Subdivision
Water Field
Subdivision
Water's Edge
Subdivision
¦¨§I-25
Turnberry Rd
CR 52
Lindenmeier Rd
N TIMBERLIN
E
RD
R
EALIGNED VINE
E VINE DR
S
S
UMMIT VIEW DR
DUFF D
R
E LINCOLN AVE
GR
E
ENFIELDS CT
A
I
RPARK DR
S TIM
B
E
R
LINE
R
D
E MULBERRY ST
INTERSTATE 25
E WIL
LOX L
N
LINDEN
ST
S LEMAY A
V
E
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
BUCKINGHAM S
T
WILLOW ST
N LEMAY AVE
TERRY LAKE R
D
GIDDINGS RD
STOVER ST
INTERNATIO
71
736
VU68
College
4
2
371
58
661285
12
8
13
Cache La Poudr
e
River
Horsetooth Re
s
ervoir
N COUNTY HWY 9E
COUNTY HWY 50
N COUNTY HWY 19
COUNTY HWY 40
STATE HWY 14
COUNTY HWY 44
COUNTY HWY 13
COUNTY HWY 19
STATE HWY 392
E PROSPECT RD
W MULBERRY ST
COUNTY HWY 34
COUNTY HWY 21
COUNTY HWY 17
S COUNTY HWY 9E
JEFFERSON ST
W VINE DR
N DRAKE DR
I 25
LINDENMEIER DR
AIRPORT DR
COUNTY HWY 11
9TH ST
COUNTY HWY 38W
S COUNTY HWY 11
COUNTY HWY 9E
LEMAY AVE
N OVERLAND TRL
S 9TH ST
E COUNTY HWY 44
STATE HWY 1
N COUNTY HWY 17
N LEMAY AVE
RAMP
S LEMAY AVE
CORD 19
N TAFT HILL RD
SW FRONTAGE RD
COUNTY HWY 48
S OVERLAND TRL
N SHIELDS ST
TIMBERLINE RD
§¦¨25
£¤287
UV1
UV68
Bu
c
h
a
nan
56e
54g
Eisenhower
Cleveland
College
Garfield
607
380
4
43
183
1
121
129
23
35
12
1
35
25
56
173
36
66
53
134
40
20
3
55
42
39
123
40
478
70
38
736
441
2457
1546
753
18
197
90
186
11
39
298
6
2
Sai
nt
V
rain
8th
14
2nd
Cleveland
18th
36
56e
Mountain
Oak
1st
Hill
54g
Main
Ei
s
enhower
Garfield
Fall
Rive
r
8
5
34
Lincoln
College
VU37
VU56
VU392
VU60
VU1
VU14
VU257
VU7
VU402
VU256
VU68
¤£34
¤£36
¤£85
¤£287
¦¨§25
¦¨§76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Fort Collins
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
1 - 100
5000 - 8000
VU68
College
18
6
11
8
70
213
157
143
2
7
170
6
136
849
144 62 5
1630
5
2
18
6
430
47
8
16
17
32
3
1377
51
8
1
21
12
3
1
3
3
4
13
1
1
2
2
2
4
29
12
8
138 13
40
4
18
3
4
4 2
22
5
3
3
88
478
255
323
283
53
20
25
4
18
18
8
19
6
64
6
248
563
406
6
11
37
1744
8
70
213
157
1
3
40
88
4
1
50
2
143
52
246
302
48
67
107
629
310
737
8
857
2
7 170
109
99
6
935
1977
935
788
136
849
8
Sai
nt
V
rain
8th
14
2nd
Cleveland
18th
36
56e
Mountain
Oak
1st
Hill
54g
Main
Ei
s
enhower
Garfield
Fall
Rive
r
8
5
34
Lincoln
College
VU37
VU56
VU392
VU60
VU1
VU14
VU257
VU7
VU402
VU256
VU68
¤£34
¤£36
¤£85
¤£287
¦¨§25
¦¨§76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Fort Collins
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
Areas with Available Employment in the NFRMPO Region 2040
1 - 100
DATE:
STAFF:
June 9, 2015
Jason Holland, City Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Dir
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Alternative Growth Model for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to potential concerns regarding the cost to provide the full range of urban services to the Mountain Vista
area, the City of Fort Collins has evaluated a hypothetical rural development scenario (Rural Scenario) for the
adopted Mountain Vista Subarea Plan that would reduce the density/intensity of planned development. The evaluation
of the alternative considers a broad range of topics that fall under environmental, economic and social outcomes.
Particular focus has been provided on effects to transportation infrastructure.
A summary of potential outcomes is included on the first two pages of the attached report.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Should staff move into a second phase of the analysis, including outreach to Mountain Vista property owners and
the public?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Mountain Vista Subarea is located in the northeast quadrant of Fort Collins, bordered by Richards
Lake Road to the north, Interstate 25 to the east, Vine Drive to the south, and Turnberry Road and Lemay Avenue to
the west. Historically agricultural in use, a large portion of the subarea remains undeveloped, with the exception of
four residential neighborhoods and the Anheuser- Busch InBev (ABI) brewery. Plan Fort Collins, and the
corresponding Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, identified that the City’s northeast quadrant would provide long-term
community growth opportunities due to a limited supply of buildable vacant land available throughout the balance of
the Fort Collins’ Growth Management Area (GMA).
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, originally adopted in March 1999 and subsequently updated in
September 2009, lays a community development framework for a large, primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort
Collins. The 2009 update was responsive to the ideas and concerns of the many stakeholders involved, including area
property owners, residents, the City of Fort Collins, and the broader community. Most of the land within the subarea
was annexed in the 1980s, but a few parcels remain outside of the City limits. These parcels are expected to annex at
the time of development or as part of an enclave annexation.
Since additional background information may be helpful, the adopted Mountain Vista Subarea Plan document can be
found in this direct link:
<http://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/mvsp-doc.pdf>
No public outreach has been conducted with this phase of the assessment. An additional phase could be provided
that includes a more detailed sustainability assessment and extensive public outreach. Due to the complexity of the
subject, City costs, scope and timing for an additional phase would need further evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mountain Vista Assessment-5-28-2015 (PDF)
42
5000 - 8000
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
8000 - 14000
41
144 62 5
1630
45
1781
5
514
7
3369 555
4
2
2
40 2
39
182
4
11
2
53
84
202
18
152
6
254
62
5
6
73
231
10854181
30 974 8 24
5216
4
259
237
190
42 377
306
40
2533
2478
3861
495
256
319
3087
1082
430
47
8
16
192
35
47
17
32
3
1377
3
51
8
1
21
12
3
1
3
3
4
13
1 1
2
2
2
4
44
29
12
8
138
179
13 40
4
18
3
4
93 4 2
22
5
3
6
1
6
41
7
10
111 74
11
32
1459
125494
171
1150
2
153
24
553
214 6
15
69
4
1597
60
1016
2355
2798
534
27
1971197
222
770
164
1084
814
525
1414
995
1662
1490
171
602
490
26
1543
1771
362
1183
478
9
117 255
21
323
283
53
550
1184
42 20
1400
1573
949
136
190
230
7
7
73
52
7
2951225
1830
19
3
70
6187
3674 858 38
1886
5341
372 1229
22 10
42
1
4
9
1
1
26
233
121
2
Horsetooth Reservoir
C
ac
h
e L
a
Poud
r
e R
i
v
e
r
STATE HWY 392
N COUNTY HWY 9E
STATE HWY 14
COUNTY HWY 50
N COUNTY HWY 19
COUNTY HWY 40
COUNTY HWY 13
E PROSPECT RD
STATE HWY 257
I 25
STATE HWY 1
W MULBERRY ST
COUNTY HWY 34
COUNTY HWY 21
COUNTY HWY 17
S COUNTY HWY 9E
7TH ST
N DRAKE DR
US HWY 287
COUNTY HWY 9
AIRPORT DR
6TH ST
9TH ST
COUNTY HWY 44
US HWY 34
LEMAY AVE
S 9TH ST
N COUNTY HWY 17
COUNTY HWY 24E
FRONTAGE RD
E 29TH ST
N LEMAY AVE
RAMP
S LEMAY AVE
CORD 19
MADISON AVE
WILSON AVE
COUNTY HWY 3
COUNTY HWY 48
N COUNTY HWY 11C
S OVERLAND TRL
N SHIELDS ST
TIMBERLINE RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
COUNTY HWY 50E
S TAFT HILL RD
E DRAKE RD
W 29TH ST
COUNTY HWY 7
SW FRONTAGE RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
W DRAKE RD
COUNTY HWY 28
COUNTY HWY 64
W PROSPECT RD
COUNTY HWY 100
COUNTY HWY 74
S SHIELDS ST
COUNTY HWY 38
14
Buchanan
56e
Clev
e
land
Lincoln
54g
Eisenhower
287
34
College
Garfield
VU14
VU257
VU1
VU392
VU68
£¤287
£¤34
§¦¨25
§¦¨76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Cities
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
Areas with Available Employment in the
Fort Collins Region 2040
1 - 100
5000 - 8000
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
8000 - 14000
40
6
1
6
41
7
10
111 74
11
32
1150 24
6
15
7
73
1
4
9
1
1
26
233
121
2
Cache La Poudr
e
River
Horsetooth Re
s
ervoir
N COUNTY HWY 9E
COUNTY HWY 50
N COUNTY HWY 19
COUNTY HWY 40
STATE HWY 14
COUNTY HWY 44
COUNTY HWY 13
COUNTY HWY 19
STATE HWY 392
E PROSPECT RD
W MULBERRY ST
COUNTY HWY 34
COUNTY HWY 21
COUNTY HWY 17
S COUNTY HWY 9E
JEFFERSON ST
W VINE DR
N DRAKE DR
I 25
LINDENMEIER DR
AIRPORT DR
COUNTY HWY 11
9TH ST
COUNTY HWY 38W
S COUNTY HWY 11
COUNTY HWY 9E
LEMAY AVE
N OVERLAND TRL
S 9TH ST
E COUNTY HWY 44
STATE HWY 1
N COUNTY HWY 17
N LEMAY AVE
RAMP
S LEMAY AVE
CORD 19
N TAFT HILL RD
SW FRONTAGE RD
COUNTY HWY 48
S OVERLAND TRL
N SHIELDS ST
TIMBERLINE RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
COUNTY HWY 50E
S TAFT HILL RD
E DRAKE RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
US HWY 287
W DRAKE RD
W PROSPECT RD
S SHIELDS ST
COUNTY HWY 38
14
Garfield
287
College
VU14
VU392
VU1
VU68
£¤287
§¦¨25
§¦¨76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Fort Collins
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
Areas with Available Employment in Fort Collins 2040
1 - 100
5000 - 8000
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
8000 - 14000
39
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
Areas with Available Housing in the NFRMPO Region 2040
38
100
92
144
2
9
22
2
19
22
19
13
88
81
148
2
8
5
35
162
120
25
20
12
16
59
8
69 76
69 12
85272 61
146
66
35 32
13 3
76
53
2
24
71
1 1
371
58
661285
9 25
4
16
125
2778
86 499
175
1291
453
68
366193
749
412
341
424
510
11
265
709491
246
16
525
105
1056
5
10
1
6
6
198
2580
5
17
14
344
41
1278
594
2580
618
1084
4
4
82
337
253
469
581
270 1009
386
681150
772
1316
501
2366
593
406
528
317266
30837
164
507 119
1761128
4630
192
1049
144
549
12
182
116
93
12
8
13
Horsetooth Reservoir
C
ac
h
e L
a
Poud
r
e R
i
v
e
r
STATE HWY 392
N COUNTY HWY 9E
STATE HWY 14
COUNTY HWY 50
N COUNTY HWY 19
COUNTY HWY 40
COUNTY HWY 13
E PROSPECT RD
STATE HWY 257
I 25
STATE HWY 1
W MULBERRY ST
COUNTY HWY 34
COUNTY HWY 21
COUNTY HWY 17
S COUNTY HWY 9E
7TH ST
N DRAKE DR
US HWY 287
COUNTY HWY 9
9TH ST
COUNTY HWY 44
US HWY 34
LEMAY AVE
N COUNTY HWY 17
COUNTY HWY 24E
FRONTAGE RD
N LEMAY AVE
RAMP
S LEMAY AVE
CORD 19
MADISON AVE
WILSON AVE
COUNTY HWY 3
COUNTY HWY 48
N COUNTY HWY 11C
S OVERLAND TRL
N SHIELDS ST
TIMBERLINE RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
COUNTY HWY 50E
S TAFT HILL RD
E DRAKE RD
W 29TH ST
COUNTY HWY 7
SW FRONTAGE RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
W DRAKE RD
COUNTY HWY 64
W PROSPECT RD
COUNTY HWY 100
COUNTY HWY 74
S SHIELDS ST
COUNTY HWY 38
14
56e
Clevela
n
d
Lincoln
54g
E
isenhower
287
34
College
Garfield
VU14
VU257
VU1
VU392
VU68
£¤287
£¤34
§¦¨25
§¦¨76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Cities
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
Areas with Available Housing in the
Fort Collins Region 2040
1 - 100
5000 - 8000
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
37
E HORSETOOTH RD
COUNTY HWY 50E
S TAFT HILL RD
E DRAKE RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
US HWY 287
W DRAKE RD
W PROSPECT RD
S SHIELDS ST
COUNTY HWY 38
14
Garfield
287
College
VU14
VU392
VU1
VU68
£¤287
§¦¨25
§¦¨76
0 50 100 200 Miles µ
Interstate
Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Cities
Subregion
Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan
Rivers
Lakes
FORT COLLINS
Areas with Available Housing in Fort Collins 2040
1 - 100
5000 - 8000
3000 - 5000
2000 - 3000
1000 - 2000
500 - 1000
100 - 500
0
36
N
AL BLVD
E ELIZABETH ST
COUN
TRY CLUB R
D
E LAUREL ST
REALIGNED TIMBE
R
LI
N
E
S
LINK LN
REDWOO
D
ST
RIVERSIDE AVE
GR
E
G
O
R
Y RD
E DOUGLAS RD
H
E
A
R
T
H
F
I
R
E
W
A
Y
AB
B
OT
S
F
O
RD ST
N COUNTY ROAD 9
TURNBERRY RD
SUNIGA RD
CONIFER ST
Master Street Plan and Current Conditions 12015± Date: in = 2,5/718 27/feet
Not Built to Current Standards for Number of Lanes
Does Not Exist
> Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossings
35
TERRY LAKE R
D
GIDDINGS RD
STOVER ST
INT
ERNATIO
N
AL BLVD
E ELIZABETH ST
COUNTRY CLUB R
D
E LAUREL ST
REALIGNED TIMBE
R
LI
N
E
S
LINK LN
REDWOO
D
ST
RIVERSIDE AVE
GR
E
G
O
R
Y RD
E DOUGLAS RD
H
E
A
R
T
H
F
I
R
E
W
A
Y
A
B
B
OT
S
F
O
RD ST
N COUNTY ROAD 9
TURNBERRY RD
SUNIGA
R
D
CONIFER ST
Rural Scenario Roadway Improvement Needs 12015± Date: in = 2,5/716 27/feet
Improvements Still Needed with the Rural Scenario
Roadways that May not Need to be Built in the Rural Scenario
!? Railroad Crossing Solution Needed
19
1
7
0
%
R
u
r
a
l
2
3
0
%
M
V
P
1
4
0
%
R
u
r
a
l
360%
MVP
300%
Rural
620% MVP
600% Rural
2
0
%
M
V
P
3
0
%
R
u
r
a
l
900% MV
P
400% Rur
al
300% MVP
400% Rural
N TIMBERLIN
E
RD
R
EALIGNED VINE
E VINE DR
S
S
UMMIT VIEW DR
DUFF D
R
E LINCOLN AVE
GR
E
ENFIELDS CT
A
I
RPARK DR
S TIM
B
E
R
LINE
R
D
E MULBERRY ST
INTERSTATE 25
E W
ILLOX L
N
LINDEN
ST
S LEMAY A
V
E
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
BUCKINGHAM S
T
WILLOW ST
N LEMAY AVE
TERRY LAKE R
D
GIDDINGS RD
STOVER ST
INTERNATIO
N
AL BLVD
E ELIZABETH ST
CO
UNTRY CLUB R
D
E LAUREL ST
S
LINK LN
REDWOO
D
ST
RIVERSIDE AVE
G
REGORY
R
D
E DOUGLAS RD
H
E
A
R
T
H
F
I
R
E
W
A
Y
AB
B
OT
S
F
O
RD ST
N COUNTY ROAD 9
TURNBERRY RD
SUNIG
A
RD
CONIFER ST
Initial Estimate of Potential Traffic Volume Changes Between 2015 and 2040 12015± Date: in = 2,5/718 27/feet
Traffic increase is greater with the Rural Scenario Plan
Traffic increase is greater with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
18
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
K AND M
COMPANY
WEISS
DONALD
D/BEVERLY A
Date: 5/27/2015
Cityfeet Limits 1 in = 1,750 ±
Stormwater
Detention
Industrial
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Medium Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Parks
Rural Lands District
PSD School Site
Transition District
Drilled & Capped Oil/Gas Wells
1000' Oil & Gas Buffer
Rural Scenario Land Use
11
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
K AND M
COMPANY
WEISS
DONALD
D/BEVERLY A
Date: 6/1/2015
Cityfeet Limits 1 in = 1,750 ±
Stormwater
Detention
Community Commercial
Employment
Industrial
Transition District
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Medium Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood
Park
PSD School Site
Drilled & Capped Oil/Gas Wells
1000' Oil & Gas Buffer
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Land Use
10
electric service fees.
Greater traffic congestion on local
roads due to associated regional traffic
increase.
Decrease in solid waste generated. Fewer City facilities, services and
programs needed to serve Mountain
Vista.
Lack of transit opportunity linking
the Mountain Vista Community
Commercial Center/school/park to
central Fort Collins.
Greater opportunity to preserve
natural habitat, wildlife corridors,
plant and animal population numbers/
biodiversity and natural/scenic vistas.
Reduction in sales and property tax
revenues relative to reduced number
of households.
Lost opportunity of a Community
Park site, recreation center and trail
system.
Additional land will be available
for oil and gas development in the
Subarea.
+- 50% of acquired PSD school site
becomes a stranded asset.
5