HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Futures Committee - 05/09/2016 -
City Manager’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FUTURES COMMITTEE MEETING
Date: May 9, 2016
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent:
Wade Troxell, Chair
Kristin Stephens
Gino Campana
City Staff: City Staff Absent:
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability
Darin Atteberry, City Manager Officer
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Tim Kemp, Civil Engineer III
Dan Woodward, Civil Engineer II
Dean Klingner, Manager of Capital Projects/City Engineer
Community Members:
Andrew Schneider, Create Places
Dale Adamy, citizen
Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Ben Mozer, Lyric Cinema Cafe
Wade Troxell called meeting to order at 4:02pm
Approval of Minutes:
Gino moved to approve the March minutes as presented. Wade seconded. Motion passed
unanimously, 2-0-0. Kristin arrived after vote.
Think Tank Item 5-2016: Mountain Vista Land Use and Transportation Vision —
Cameron Gloss & Tim Kemp
• Focus is on next steps/implementation of vision that has been evolving for 20+ years.
• Subarea Context: achieving long term growth needs for housing and development.
o Greater detail than City Plan. One level higher than Neighborhood Plans.
Next level: Overall development plan for developer concept of road
networks, etc.
• Greatest area of vacant land in Fort Collins.
o Color codes on map show areas for employment, industrial, residential, open land,
etc.
• Updating prior plans
o Rural scenario assessment shows housing becomes less
affordable, wouldn’t have density to support transit, have
school site and community park site that would not be used to potential with low
density.
TBL analysis—supports same amount of development previously planned.
If downzoned to low density, would have greater development east of Fort
Collins, increasing in-commuting.
Council direction to maintain numbers, incorporate Nature in the City,
urban agriculture, etc.
o Design Charrette—2-day charrette with follow up meeting.
Preserve rural character—aggregate development in clusters, maintain
open lands
Living corridor—ditches/drainage—open space areas.
Overall Infrastructure Needs
• Master Street Plan, grade separated crossings, storm drain projects, regional detention
ponds. Some storm-sewer infrastructure is starting next year.
o Opportunities for Council to discuss in near term.
• Vine and Lemay—have been studying for 30 years—$23-27M
o Deficiencies: Congestion, train delays, access issues, lack of connectivity.
400 trains/mth.
Delays impact larger system.
Planning overpass for rail crossing.
o Talking with neighbors in Andersonville, Alta Vista.
o Constrained intersection—no room for additional turn lanes/widening.
o Realign Lemay to east as 4-lane arterial; Suniga east-west. Downgrading existing
Lemay to local street standards.
o Working on preliminary design, right of way, public outreach, alternatives
analysis for grade separated crossing.
o Broader study of all rail crossings.
Mountain Vista Open Lands Preservation Scenario
• Open space network including #8 ditch, existing detention. Additional spurs of open
space, trails, agriculture production and habitat protection.
o Multi-use/multi-function.
o Take principles and apply to property in play.
• Met with major developer. Idea: developers can dedicate open land on property, then re-
assess to write off value (economic incentive).
o Local food production to nonprofits—HOAs would not have burden of
maintenance.
o Instead of golf course, have agriculture and habitat preservation.
o Development clusters—open land preservation amid employment clusters.
o Different than standard conservation easement. Complicated.
o Positive comments on concepts.
o Examples:
Ex: Agritopia (Gilbert, AZ)—Single family housing, assisted living, open
farm fields, greenhouses and more intensive agriculture integrated into
neighborhood. Successful financially.
Ex: Harvest Park (FC)—Most successful market driven project before
recession. Network of open space.
Ex: Greenwood Cottages (WA)—Small homes, 10d/u/acre, shared
community greens.
• Community park site ties to future PSD site (K-8 or K-12)
2
o Trail access to school.
o Opportunity for lab for agriculture innovation.
• Redesign of ditch #8—expensive, but creates north-south spine
that ties all area together.
• Kederike Property Concept
• Incorporating Agriculture
o Multiple scales—neighborhood farm level, rooftop garden, personal garden.
o Sensitive to stormwater concerns
o Greenhouses and aquaponics—high value crops, water efficient, fish production
o Community gardens
• Density and Rural Character
o Lighting—dark sky promotion
o Trail system in lieu of some sidewalks—strong pedestrian network.
• Next Steps
o Analysis—current LUC?
o Capital projects needed
o Design guidelines
Incentives
Create vision with development
Overlay? Guidelines? Third party to maintain open lands?
Dedicate open land?
o Partnerships
Comments/Q & A:
• Is switching yard causing delays?
o Realigned Lemay will be at edge of switching yard.
o At-grade crossing not likely?
True. Railroad, property impacts, neighborhood impacts to enhancing
current intersection.
• If didn’t have houses would be able to enhance Vine-Lemay intersection?
o Can’t widen. PUC.
o Looking at Prospect and College with similar situations.
If do $25-35M must be convinced that enhancement is not possible.
Should exhaust option before looking at overhead structure.
• Changes community.
• Having impact on residential at Remington and Prospect.
• Number of units impacted matters, as well as history of
neighborhood. May have federal implications. Social impacts.
• Don’t like idea of aerial structure on east side either.
• Mitigation to make bridges more attractive. Concern especially for
impacts on low income neighborhood.
• Timberline and Vine?
o On future capital needs list as well.
o Behind Vine-Lemay on traffic count; development active in that area.
• Council thoughts on nonprofits holding open spaces?
o Model is in alignment.
o Investor/conservation easement project happening now. Complicated. Slow
moving. But, want to bring urban agriculture into urban area. Would like CSAs in
communities.
40-60 acres. Need to be prepared to take over land if nonprofit fails.
Nonprofit with experience. Financial stability.
3
o Concerns from Councilmembers about conservation
easements in general as opposed to fee-simple ownership.
Different philosophies.
Find out why model has failed in other areas.
Also challenged by seasons here.
• Scales: Greenhouse is viable way to have agriculture production in urban areas. More at
subdivision level: ½ acre, small lots, larger production on multiple residential lots.
o Have for-profit on larger farm in urban setting.
o Lease is up on sod farm. Pivot irrigation in place. Opportunity to move to food
production.
• Urban agriculture in conflict with fugitive dust ordinance?
o Legitimate concern.
o Scale is break point. Incorporate different models of practices as well.
• Similar to Bucking Horse.
o Taken to next step. Bucking Horse is test case. Doable. Have weekly visitors from
around world wanting to take to next level. Subdivisions being designed now to
do this—market, lifestyle, value proposition.
o Hard to put monetary value on management—hasn’t been done before.
• Talked to CSU?
o Yes.
o College of Business and College of Agricultural Sciences—relationship to
leverage on this vision.
Could tie in animal agriculture.
One Health Initiative.
• Opinion on changing light standards in some areas—only at intersections and curves in
road?
o Great idea.
o Easier to develop that way than to change after.
• Have to inspire with action, not just guiding document.
o Build trails in advance of development.
o One exceptional project would lead to more.
DO: Next Steps
• Exhaust Vine-Lemay at-grade crossings options
• Meet with developers on operationalizing vision
• Consider transfer of open space to third party
• Dark skies right away—don’t wait for pilot project
Think Tank Item 6-2016: Scope of Work for Mulberry Corridor Fiscal Impact Analysis —
Cameron Gloss
Subarea—Land subject to redevelopment. Encumbered by stormwater and other issues.
Steps
1. City Plan Update—recast in different pattern—affordable housing, etc.
2. Amend IGA (Timnath, County, FC)—determine boundary
a. Timnath would like land east of I-25.
b. Hang ups with Larimer County. City is making progress.
3. Create Enclave—must be completely enclosed 3 years for annexation to occur
a. Have gaps. Open on east end. Don’t have interest of all property owners at this
time. Could annex through two separate parcels—railway right-of-way and east-
west of Clover Leaf mobile home park.
4
b. Annexation Agreement gives City power of attorney to
annex. Map of properties. Have subdivisions with
agreements.
4. Fiscal Impact Assessment—expensive to take over for full range of services.
a. Detailed impact analysis after enclave is complete.
b. Police services, transportation, light and power, roads, stormwater, parks and
trails, administrative services, fees and sales tax.
i. Property owners would have stormwater fees they do not currently pay.
ii. Potential for greater residential.
iii. Capstone Cottages project—coordination with Transit
iv. Stormwater— Floodplain; Dry Creek Drainage through airpark, Cooper
Slew, Boxelder improvements
c. Beginning to upsize some services now.
5. Corridor Plan Update & Property Owner Coordination
6. Annex
Comments/Q & A:
• Potential for URA new plan area. Important redevelopment tool for this corridor.
• Preliminary conversations with Linda Hoffman—County thought would have $12M hit,
turns out have $3M net gain to County. Still analyzing indirect costs-benefits. Cost of
service in transitioning to annexation—County would benefit from lowering cost of
service. Cost-sharing conversations to come. Will cost Fort Collins more due to urban
level of service.
o Fairway Estates neighborhood meeting—really happy about service getting from
City. Good data to capture.
o Suggest post-annexation surveys to learn more/gather data.
• Stormwater buildout?
o Investing money right now to help with issues in area.
Helps with argument for stormwater fees.
Properties become developable.
Mountain Vista improvements positively impact this area.
• Show how fits into rest of city.
• Show before and after stormwater improvements.
• Increases land values.
• CRS rating is good.
• Enhancing natural features. Making more accessible.
• Work on Mountain Vista subarea plan is great. Has Planning given Mulberry that level of
vision?
o Not even close. Last plan was more of an inventory. Was not visionary.
o Do once enclave formed, or start now?
Big picture of City Plan. Have partnership with County on City Plan. Look
at how Mulberry fits in and provides greater opportunities for affordable
housing. Owners know area will be annexed.
o When does deeper level planning happen?
With City Plan update recast big framework of land use plan.
If Council adopts the vision, that is what will happen. Takes decades of
commitment to the plan. Design the vision and go after it. Ex: Harmony
Corridor.
Not greenfield. Lot of existing issues. More complicated, but can still be
visionary.
5
Encourage thinking big.
• Resolve issues with Timnath sooner than later. Will become more
challenging.
• Need visioning document on Mulberry Corridor. Work on Mountain Vista is really good.
Mulberry—see where opportunities align with community values. Triple Helix
opportunities—office/warehouse/lab space/residential.
o Abandoned Lincoln Ave. as gateway in the past, but have be funky-cool river
north/industry dynamic. Opportunities along river.
o Seeing that in Airpark area—incubating small businesses. Vibrant.
o Economic clusters.
o Affordable housing.
Net out more floodplain—have a lot of acreage.
In next 25-32 years population to 250K. Most will happen in Mountain
Vista and this area. If building new community of 100K, what amenities
do you have for residents and businesses?
DO: Next Steps
• Mulberry—discuss revenue sharing with County
• Post annexation survey work
• Develop graphics and maps for impacts of stormwater improvements
• Triple helix model for Mulberry
Future Agenda Items
• June: Unscheduled
• July: 21st Century Materials Management—Vision and Framework
• August: Community Architecture
Unscheduled:
• Look at all land owned by City. Highest and best use? Land banking.
o Most of assets are around future right-of-way and open space.
o What should City own? Doing good job from Parks perspective.
Need Strategic Plan for that.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45pm.
6