HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/04/2004 - RESOLUTION 2004-058 REPEALING AND READOPTING CITY ITEM NUMBER: 24
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May 4, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Joe Frank
SUBJECT
Resolution 2004-058 Repealing and Readopting City Plan as the City's Comprehensive Plan, and
Repealing Certain Other Obsolete Plans.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to
recommend adoption of the update to City Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The adoption of this Resolution will complete a 20 month long process to update City Plan, the
City's Comprehensive Plan. City Plan was initially adopted in 1997, along with a commitment to
periodically review, and if necessary, update the document. The update results in revisions to the
vision, goals, principles and policies, and Structure Plan map of City Plan related to the City's
growth management area, redevelopment and infill development, the City's role in the region's
economy, open space and community separators, transportation, and neighborhoods and housing.
The update to City Plan was conducted in collaboration with the Transportation Master Plan update,
which was adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2004. The update to City Plan received input
from the Council, the Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, City advisory boards, key
stakeholders, and the general public throughout the planning process.
The revised City Plan Document distributed on Thursday,March 25,included a cover page with two
different dates. Several of the documents were dated October 15,2003,and the rest were dated April
6, 2004 (the correct date). The date is the only difference between these distributed documents.
A new graphic has been added to the City Plan Document - Community Vision and Goals:
Transportation,page 27. This image provides an update to the original graphic by incorporating the
latest components of the street system such as transit, bike and pedestrian options for travel and
streetscape design.
BACKGROUND
City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were both originally adopted in 1997, with a public
commitment that both plans would be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, modified to ensure
that they remain capable of achieving their respective goals and objectives. City Plan embraced the
concepts of new urbanism,including mixed land uses,multi-modal transportation options,fostering
May 4, 2004 -2- Item No. 24
pedestrian friendly environments,compact urban form,sustainable economy,and being a responsible
steward of the natural environment. The Transportation Master Plan introduced new directions for
the City's long-range transportation planning and funding.
For the past 20 months,a planning process has been followed designed to address local and regional
changes, incorporate other plans adopted since 1997, and to test the City's progress in successfully
implementing each plan's vision. The updates to City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were
conducted in parallel with one another because land use and transportation issues are so closely
related.
Key issues were reviewed in the City Plan update process including analyzing the City's growth
management strategies and examining what other communities are doing,examining the boundaries
of the Growth Management Area (GMA), looking at Fort Collins' relationship in the context of
regional growth,examining the relationship between housing density/compact urban form and traffic
congestion, exploring more housing options, examining infill and redevelopment policies, and
looking at the community's jobs/housing balance.
Key elements reviewed and integrated into the Transportation Master Plan Update included the
Master Street Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, Transfort Strategic Plan, Mason Transportation
Corridor,and SmartTrips Transportation Demand Management programs. Regional travel patterns
and impacts into and out of Fort Collins were also addressed.
Part I of the planning process to prepare updates of City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan was
to develop a list of characteristics that describe the future size and character of the City of Fort
Collins. The list of characteristics was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003. The
planning process continued with a Part H where revisions to specific vision statements, goals, and
principles and policies were developed, including changes to the City Structure Plan map and the
Master Street Plan map. The Transportation Master Plan update used the community land use and
size information from the City Plan process to conduct a focused analysis of transportation needs,
trade-offs, and relative costs.
Part 11 of the planning process culminated with the release of a revised version of the City Plan
document dated October 15,2003. This document was made available to the City Council, general
public and distributed to key boards for their review and comment. On October 20, 2003, the
Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated a recommendation to the City
Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan,along with their suggested changes. The Board's
vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update. Other key boards have also forwarded their
comments on the 10/15/03 version of City Plan to the Council.
The City Council conducted four study sessions during the City Plan update process. Two critical
study sessions were conducted on October 28,2003,and on January 13,2004. The October 28 Study
Session allowed Councilmembers to submit their personal comments and suggested changes to the
10/15/03 version of City Plan. Staff then organized Council's comments and suggested changes,
along with all comments and suggested changes received from the CAC and City advisory boards,
into a matrix table that formed the basis for the January 13, 2004 Study Session. At the January 13
Study Session Council gave direction on final changes to the City Plan document.
May 4, 2004 -3- Item No. 24
The update to City Plan is, thus, the product of the City Council, the concentrated work by the
Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, staff and the consulting teams, interviews with
stakeholders, City advisory boards, a community survey, and numerous public meetings.
Throughout the process issues were grouped and discussed in the following major categories:
• Region and Economy
• Open Space and Community Separators
• Transportation
• Development and Redevelopment Patterns
• Neighborhoods and Housing
Region and Economy
Policies in this group provide direction as to the role Fort Collins will play in the region's economy
and the City government's future fiscal health.
Open Space and Community Separators
Policies in the initial City Plan called for the preservation of natural areas and maintaining open
space corridors that separate Fort Collins from surrounding communities. Most of the policies for
the preservation of natural areas were retained, or only needed minor wording changes. A new set
of policies were developed and added into a new community separator section. Policies were revised
to add clarification of what was envisioned for the edges of the GMA,new policies were added for
the Boxelder drainage basin, and policies acknowledge that natural resources protection should
include a regional strategy.
Transportation
Policies in City Plan promoting mobility and safe and efficient multi-modal transportation choices
are the focus of the transportation policies. These policies are the same policies included in the
Transportation Master Plan.
Development and Redevelopment Patterns
Throughout the planning process a great deal of discussion focused on the GMA size and boundary.
Policies in the update to City Plan indicate the GMA boundary is to be retained as it is generally
presently configured,except forthe potential additions of the CSUFoothills Campus,the Wildflower
Area, and the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). Criteria and procedures for GMA
boundary amendments in the future have been defined and established.
Neighborhood and Housing
Policies here deal with infill and redevelopment and minimizing the impacts of character changes
within neighborhoods. Additional policies deal with the provision of affordable housing.
May 4, 2004 -4- Item No. 24
Public Outreach
As indicated, a Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee was very instrumental in helping
develop the update to City Plan. In addition,City advisory boards,key stakeholders,and the general
public were all involved in the process and had many opportunities to provide input. A resident
survey was conducted in December 2002 as another tool to involve the general public and obtain
opinions on some of the major issues being addressed in the plan updates. The survey contained
questions about the Growth Management Area boundary,transportation,infrastructure,development
and redevelopment, housing, and open space. Four general public meeting/work shops were also
conducted during the planning process.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
On October 30, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated
a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan, along with their
suggested changes. The Board's vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update.
The negative votes expressed serious concerns with the fundamental issue of not expanding the
GMA; not cooperatively planning the area outside the GMA; infill and redevelopment would
become more difficult because everything would need to be consistent with subarea plans, and the
length of time it takes to complete subarea plans would be an effective moratorium; and acquiring
open space and increasing fees will force growth outside the GMA that will increase traffic and
pollution.
ATTACHMENTS
Minutes of the October 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Attachments Previously Delivered to the City Council
• City Plan update documents (April 6, 2004).
• Change Matrix Table summarizing changes made since the October 15,2003, version of the
City Plan document.
RESOLUTION 2004-058
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING AND READOPTING CITY PLAN
AS THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND
REPEALING CERTAIN OTHER OBSOLETE PLANS
WHEREAS,the City Council,working in cooperation with various boards and commissions
of the City and with citizen task forces and committees during the period of 1996 and 1997,
developed and adopted "City Plan" as the comprehensive plan of the City, culminating in the City
Plan document dated February 18, 1997; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of City Plan, a public commitment was made that
the plan should be periodically reviewed and,if necessary,modified to ensure that it remains capable
of achieving its respective goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, a process for updating City Plan was established in 2002 to address local and
regional changes and to incorporate other plans that have been adopted since 1997 and also to test
the City's progress in successfully implementing the vision of City Plan; and
WHEREAS,the process for updating City Plan was divided into two phases with the purpose
of the first phase being to develop a list of"characteristics"that describe the future size and character
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the characteristics were adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the second phase of the planning process was to review and revise the vision,
goals, principles and policies of City Plan to assure their conformance with the adopted
characteristics; and
WHEREAS, staff and the consulting team, working with the assistance of a Council
appointed Citizens Advisory Committee,produced a draft update to City Plan on October 15,2003,
which was subsequently reviewed by the City Council,advisory boards,and the general public;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted two study sessions to provide final direction as to
changes to the October 15, 2003 draft document; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 2, 2004, adopted the update to the Transportation
Master Plan, essentially the transportation element of City Plan; and
WHEREAS,because of the adoption of the updated"City Plan"and"Transportation Master
Plan" as well as changes which have been heretofore made to other plans of the City, the following
plans have become obsolete and should be repealed:
Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan
Downtown Parking Plan
Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
Poudre River Trust Land Use Policy Plan
Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the"City Plan"as adopted on February 18, 1997 and amended from time
to time thereafter is hereby repealed and rendered null.
Section 2. That the updated "City Plan," dated April 6, 2004, which is available for
inspection in the office of the City Clerk,is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Section 3. That the following plans:
Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan
Downtown Parking Plan
Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
Poudre River Trust Land Use Policy Plan
Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study
have become obsolete and are hereby repealed and rendered null.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
4th day of May, A.D. 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council on the
Revision of City Plan.
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for
adoption of update of City Plan, the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, and Bruce Meighen, Lead Project Manager, gave the
staff presentation. They highlighted both what is changing and what is not
changing in the first update of City Plan since its initial adoption in 1997. Staff,
consultants, and a Citizen Advisory Committee have been working on the Update
for about 18 months. The final step in the process before submitting the City Plan
Update to City Council for adoption is to gather input from City Boards and
Commissions.
Consultant Meighen explained the major changes in City Plan and the two-part
process used to update it. The first part focused on answering one question:
What is the future size and character of our community?This produced a number
of characteristics, adopted by City Council in March 2003. The second part,
which is where we are now, updated principles and policies in City Plan to
support those characteristics. The large public involvement included a public
survey, six pubic meetings, and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as well as
working with various Boards and Commissions and City staff.
In the first phase, staff and consultants found that our citizens want a compact
community, with a Growth Management Area (GMA) very similar to what it is
today with some flexibility; our undeveloped lands will continue to urbanize;
existing areas should be renewed through redevelopment; neighborhood
character should be preserved at all costs; our community should have a healthy
economy, good regional cooperation, a balance of jobs and housing, a high level
of city services; an active land acquisition program for open lands; and that our
community should be served by a multi-modal regional and interregional
transportation system.
The second phase, updating the City Plan document, was a five-step process.
Consultants went through the existing document and, in light of the adopted
characteristics, found places where changes were needed. They recommended
changes to the CAC, who provide initial feedback on those changes plus
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 3
additional areas in need of change. Based on those recommendations,
consultants reworked the changes and return to the CAC with final changes. The
CAC then gave final recommendations on whether the changes were
appropriate, and those recommendations were used to update the entire
document. Additional input on parts of the document was provided from City
departments and other Boards and Commissions, for example the National
Resources Advisory Board, to ensure requirements of other plans, such as the
newly revised Natural Resources Policy Plan, were consistent with the language
of City Plan.
Consultant Meighen presented changes to the document in five categories:
Development Patterns, Region and Economy, Open Space and Natural Areas,
Neighborhoods and Housing, and Transportation. He noted that most of the
document did not change, and the process served to reconfirm the original vision
of City Plan. Some of the changes that did occur were major, and these are the
ones he outlined.
In Development Patterns:
• the GMA is to remain essentially as it is today, with some flexibility to be
amended in the future. Two potential inclusion areas are the CSU Foothills
Campus and Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), which the
document says will be investigated.
• Because they no longer make sense in light of the GMA remaining at its
current boundaries, references to maintaining a 20-year supply of land have
been removed from the document, as has the definition of a CPA as an area
of potential future city growth. City Council did not adopt a characteristic
calling for a CPA.
• Criteria and procedures for amending the GMA in the future were defined. In
Appendix C, the process for a comprehensive update of City Plan is outlined.
That is just one way of updating City Plan; there are also procedures for
minor amendments.
• City Plan calls for using subarea plans to focus on planning and
redevelopment. The Subarea Plan Map includes a proposed subarea plan for
the northwest area of the city, because it contains vacant lands, and is
expected to feel some growth pressure with the CSU Foothills Campus
adjacent. Staff feels a subarea plan will be warranted there in next five years.
• City Plan also calls for targeted redevelopment in areas where the community
in general agrees redevelopment is appropriate, not everywhere throughout
the city, and for infill to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
Redevelopment Map shows targeted redevelopment areas; areas covered by
existing subarea plans, and areas where existing zoning as well as City Plan
allows for greater intensification than current use.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 4
• The Structure Plan has been modified to take a more regional look at both our
immediate community and what is happening on the edges of our GMA. It
acknowledges the growth plans of surrounding communities and what we
would like to have happen on the edges of our community, including
anticipated county development and where we would like to see community
separators and open lands acquisition The Structure Plan Map has been
updated to more accurately reflect existing and proposed future land uses.
• The Action Plan, which addresses the question what are we going to do to
make City Plan a reality, has been refined, and is now a five-year plan. It
includes amending the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), evaluating the
two GMA amendments outlined in City Plan, development of a northwest
subarea plan, evaluating the targeted redevelopment areas for appropriate or
whether a new subarea plan is required as well as for any limitations, and
additional refinements to the Land Use Code identified through the City Plan
Update process.
In Region and Economy, consultants found a number of policies addressing the
health of the Fort Collins economy. The updated City Plan contains additional
policies:
• Related to attracting and retaining employers.
• Ensuring our community has a strong revenue base.
• Strengthening our retail base.
• Promoting regional strategies, not only in terms of economic growth, but for
land use, development and transportation as well.
• Addressing when public investment strategies are appropriate and how to
evaluate when to use them, and different ways to expand the city's revenue
given that the GMA will not be increasing.
In Open Space and Natural Areas, City Plan was modified to be consistent with
the updated Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP) and Air Quality Plan (AQP), In
addition:
• A section on Community Separators was added.
• What we envision for the edges of the GMA was clarified.
• New policies for protecting Boxelder Creek were added.
• Acknowledgement was made that protection of natural areas should require a
regional strategy beyond our GMA.
In the Action Plan, City Plan assumes the NAPP and AQP are the primary
implementation tools.
In Neighborhoods and Housing, the original City Plan was very strong. Updates
include:
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 5
• Additional refinements directed at providing stability to existing neighborhoods
while offering opportunities for infill and redevelopment.
• Conducting redevelopment and infill according to subarea/neighborhood
plans.
• Enhancement of policies related to development of affordable housing.
• A new policy on providing housing with basic access and functionality for
personas of all ages and abilities.:
• The Action Plan recognizes that further work beyond the City Plan update is
necessary to ensure the goal of neighborhood preservation is met. It calls for
modification of the Land Use Code and design guidelines to avoid
incompatible infill and redevelopment; updates to the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhood Plans; modification of zoning where intensification is
incompatible with existing neighborhoods, and new zoning to preserve very
low density (rural) neighborhoods.
In Transportation, City Plan policies were modified to be consistent with the
update to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which will be presented later in
the meeting. Modifications include:
• A clarification and refined definition of transportation corridors.
• Additional policy on content-sensitive design.
• A new policy for transportation corridors within open lands
• Policies supporting a multi-modal transportation system and regional
transportation connections.
• The Action Plan recognizes that the TMP defines improved strategies to
implement the City Plan vision.
PUBLIC INPUT
David Wright with Citizen Planners spoke to add to the e-mail he sent the Board
prior to the meeting. Some of the changes he encouraged have been made, but
City Plan needs a statement that growth needs to pay its own way. We're in a
very unusual circumstance and will be for some time. Federal funds are
extremely limited. When she was in Denver, Gale Norton said the future of
federal funding is most likely in the past, and will likely stay restricted. State
having a hard time coming up with funds, with TABOR holding back generating
new funds even if the economy picks up. Citizens seem quite unwilling to dish
out new tax funds —we've had transportation issues defeated, and now a jail
issue —there's a consistent pattern of not wanting to pay more taxes. Our
population is expanding at a fairly rigorous rate, maybe over 3 percent. If growth
is not paying its way, the state and federal government is not providing money
and the public is not willing to dish out more taxes, the amount of money being
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 6
spent on infrastructure per person will be decreasing. California is the extreme
case -- in 1978 they passed Prop 13, and the people refused to pay any more
taxes. The population skyrocketed and growth was not paying its way, so now
hospitals are closing, roads are falling apart, schools are deteriorating, and police
services are not adequate. Colorado is close to being in a very similar California
Trap: People are reluctant to pay taxes, growth does not pay for itself. According
to Dr. Sieidel of CSU, for every $1 spent by developers, the people pay $1 in
taxes; for rural development the ratio is $3 of taxes for every$1, In that situation,
we start running a deficient, and pretty soon we are unable to provide
infrastructure. I hear Fort Collins alone has $500 million of deferred road projects,
things that need to be done. We have a county jail that needs improvement, but
that issue is not likely to pass. I would like to see this document ask all growth to
pay for itself. This is a very critical issue. The other item I want to talk about is
economic development. California has discovered they can't develop themselves
out of the problem. Frequently new development doesn't pay its full way, and the
situation deteriorates. Then new development actually contributes to the
problem. Economic development has to be a sustainable sort of development.
This document needs to address sustainable economic development, not just
passing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses that when they come
don't cover the cost of infrastructure. The importance of economic sustainability
and development paying for itself cannot be overstated. I'm hoping such a
statement will show up in this document so it is there for future reference. This is
a great City Plan, and a great City. I want to make sure it stays that way. Thank
you for a great job.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member Schmidt agreed that economic sustainability is very important, and she
didn't see anything in the Economic Development Action plan that deals with
sustainability.
Consultant Meighen said that CAC had made recommendations for a new policy
on sustainability at its last meeting, after October 15 when the draft document
was last updated. No direct feedback on adding anything to the Action Plan has
been received yet.
The Board discussed process for communicating recommendations to Council.
Member Craig suggested voting on specific policies and sections rather than
giving general recommendations. Chairman Torgerson had more general
comments. Planner Waido requested a formal vote on issues to get the Board's
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 7
position to effectively communicate to Council. Member Gavaldon suggested that
while members may be OK with an overall section but have concerns about
issues within the section. He proposed voting on any issues members have
within each section then moving on the next section.
Member Colton agreed, and suggested voting on topics and ideas first, then
going back to develop the speck wording of alternatives. The wording could be
distributed between this and the next meeting for review.
Member Meyer agreed with developing speck language of line, saying she
didn't want to spend the next three hours wordsmithing the document. She added
that any issues addressed in the section-by-section review should be things that
are unacceptable, not just little irritations. That way everyone can say what they
need to say, and the Board can move on to the Transportation Master Plan,
which is just as important if not more so..
Member Carpenter agreed, asking members not to beat dead horses, and to
concentrate on issues of concern to the entire Board rather than individual issues
that members can address before Council as citizens. We need to come to a
consensus of what we have problems with.
The discussion started with Member Colton proposing the same updated wording
for the Community Vision he had suggested as a member of CAC. This
rewording did not appear in the draft document.
Planner Waido explained that the draft City Plan document reviewed by P&Z has
not been changed or rewritten since October 15, so that all Boards and
Commissions can respond to the same document.
Chairman Torgerson said he would rather not vote on speck paragraphs.
Planner Waido suggested the Board vote on more general issues, such as
Member Schmidt's concern about the lack of principles and policies dealing with
economic sustainability. Staff could take that sort of useful direction and work on
the issue between now and when the final document is submitted to Council, to
develop language Council can decide whether to incorporate. He did not have a
firm date for when Council will consider adoption of City Plan.
Member Carpenter felt submitting items already voted on by the CAC didn't make
sense.
Member Gavaldon said all input should be incorporated, whether it is on a
concept or a text issue. Individuals have to have the same weighted input as the
I
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 8
Board. He asked Planner Waldo how all the input will be presented to Council so
individual comments don't get lost.
All input will be compiled by staff, without analysis or commentary, on two lists
that will be forwarded to Council with the October 15 draft. One list will contain
changes that are either editorial in nature or where there is no disagreement.; it
can be thought of as similar to a consent agenda. The other list will contain items
where there is sharp disagreement either between different Boards and
Commissions or between Boards and Commissions and staff; similar to a
discussion agenda. This will allow all perspectives on key issues to come before
Council equally. He added that if Council members want to pull items from the
consent list, they can do so. The discussion list currently contains a manageable
amount of issues, according to Planner Waldo, and the key issues to go before
Council should be just a handful.
In response to a question from Member Gavaldon, Planner Waldo confirmed that
this process applies to anyone who submits comments, individuals, Boards, or
outside groups, such as Homebuilders. In response to a question from Member
Schmidt, Planner Waldo explained that all comments will be given equal weight
and no Board or Commission has seen or been asked to comment on the
comments of other Boards and Commissions to avoid becoming trapped in an
infinite loop of comments on comments on comments. He emphasized the
Board's role as that of giving advice to City Council, which will ultimately be
responsible for weighing and reconciling the differing perspectives.
Chairman Torgerson asked the Board to start with discussing The Big Issue, the
GMA boundary, then work toward specks. Member Carpenter suggested
confining the discussion to content and the bigger issues, the ones the Board will
actually be advising Council on, rather than try to change the documents at the
level of wordsmithing. Member Craig agreed, as long the Board is not giving up
its right to set policy.
Member Gavladon said he was OK with the GMA, but had some specific areas of
concern. He would like to see analysis done on alternatives to make sure any
acquisition is cost-effective for the city. If the cost of bringing infrastructure
improvements for the CSU Foothills Campus up to city standards is too high, he
doesn't want that piece of property in the city. He's uneasy dealing with CSU.
Planner Waldo said that a future expansion of the GMA sets the stage for
potential annexation, which requires an annexation agreement, a negotiated
thing. The City is the logical provider of needed utilities, but that's down the road.
Intensification of use in the area will have an impact outside CSU's property, and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 9
the University is sensitive to the issue. Lately there has been good cooperation.
Betweent he City and CSU, but Member Gavaldon still expressed nervousness
about dealing with CSU.
Member Craig said we should use the pre-established criteria in City Plan to
evaluate the two potential expansions. Chairman Torgerson countered that he
had a problem with those criteria, because bulleted Item 3 says expansion can
only occur if the activity cannot be accommodated on lands within the GMA. It
may require drastic measures, but all uses can be accommodated, and the item
does not say "reasonably accommodated." Member Schmidt noted that the word
"reasonable" appears in the title of item 3, and the CAC, of which she was a
member, thought it redundant to include it again. Consultant Meighen pointed out
there are two versions of this item; among other small differences, staff
recommends adding "reasonably" into the body of item 3, to emphasize that due
diligence must be performed. Member Schmidt explained CAC wanted to be sure
that in the future there was a very specific reason to expand the GMA, not just an
arbitrary decision. Planner Waido explained that both versions appear because
prior to October 15, this was the only issue on which CAC and staff could not
come to agreement.
Member Craig moved to recommend the CAC version of City Plan Policy
GM 1.3. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-3,
with Meyer, Carpenter, and Torgerson voting no.
The Board discussed the issue of requiring a 20-year supply of buildable land,
which was removed from the updated document. Chairman Torgerson disagreed
with the change. Member Craig suggested that with increased density and
increased intensity of use, there might be a 20-year supply within the GMA.
Chairman Torgerson said that according to the Redevelopment Map, there isn't,
especially in light of proposed down-zoning and a moratorium on infill and alley
houses in Old Town. Member Craig asked for staff input.
Consultant Meighen explained that the supply of buildable land depends on the
growth rate. Previously, City Plan was written so that the GMA would be sized to
accommodate everyone who wanted to come to Fort Collins, with a sustained
growth rate over 20 years of 2 percent. Now we will be at capacity within the
current GMA boundary in approximately 10-15 years. Chairman Torgerson
pointed out that 40 percent of the growth rate is internal, which means in 10-15
years, our kids can't stay here. Planner Waido added that an analysis of the
capacity of the current GMA performed by staff and consultants based on
available vacant lands, economic studies, and figures from the state
demographer, assuming 10 percent of the expected population increase can be
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 10
accommodated through infill, gives a total population of approximately 190,000.
Once that is reached, the community must make a decision on whether there
should be more infill and redevelopment like that 10 percent. Future updates of
City Plan may have to address the question, if you don't grow up and you don't
grow out, what do you do?
Member Colton said the basic question was do we want the GMA to grow? It is
consistent with the current plan to remove references to a 20-year supply of land.
The CAC and public input gave support for community separators and
maintaining the rural character of lands outside the GMA, and such references
would be in opposition to the adopted characteristics. He felt it was a major issue
at the heart of the document.
Chairman Torgerson said he disagreed with those characteristics as much as
Member Colton disagreed with the Community Vision. Member Carpenter noted
that outside the GMA we have no control, and these policies will push growth
outside the GMA into surrounding rural lands, which is incongruous with
preserving the rural character of those lands. The whole document is based on
the first philosophical decision made at the beginning of the process, and we
have to look at the document in that light. Removing the references only makes
sense, whether we agree with it or not. Chairman Torgerson said that would be
the key issue why he will vote against the document as a whole, because limiting
the GMA is fundamental to the document.
Member Colton pointed out that allowing 50 percent more population is not no-
growth, and the CAC did not discuss growth caps, preferring to limit the physical
size. Member Schmidt added that the CAC expects nearby communities to
continue to grow and take responsibility for some of this growth, as embers of a
neighborhood of communities, and felt it would be better for Fort Collins to say
this is the area we are comfortable taking care of, rather than assuming control
and responsibility for infrastructure in an ever-expanding area.
The discussion returned to Member Colton's issue with the Community Vision
and Goals. He read his suggested wording, but the consensus of the Board was
members needed more time to digest it before voting. Planner Waido confirmed
that this change is already included on the consent list of changes for Council.
Member Colton felt more than one Board supporting the change sent a stronger
message, but Member Schmidt pointed out staff will be compiling all comments
with equal weight. Chairman Torgerson felt in light of stopping cooperative
planning and limiting the GMA, it is disingenuous to include maintaining rural
character of the area outside GMA control. Member Craig said she liked the new
community separators acknowledged on the Structure Plan, and those, in
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 11
essence, are our cooperative planning areas, where other communities have
agreed to clustering and other methods to keep the communities separate
entities. Chairman Torgerson disagreed, pointing out that the Timnath separator
is controlled by Larimer County which has agreed to no such thing and would
approve a subdivision in that area. The program is only voluntary, not a legal
agreement. Member Schmidt agreed that separators are not immune from
development, and she recapped the CAC discussion on this point, which hinged
on the definition of lands inside the GMA being destined for urbanization. The
City can own parcels of land outside the GMA to protect their character.
Members will review the wording of Member Colton's version of the Community
Vision during the next break, and vote on it later.
Member Craig asked to take up the issue of economic development and
sustainability, as presented on Page 117 for the document. She felt that while it
is referred to throughout the document, sustainability isn't stated in the Policies
and Principles at the level that it should be, and suggested that a new Policy
ECON 2 with two or three supporting Principles be added. In response to a
question from Member Carpenter, Member Schmidt read the definition from
Appendix G-9 of the document:
Sustainability refers to the long-term social, economic and environmental health
of a community. A sustainable community thrives without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their meets. Sustainable cities use resources
efficiently and effectively. They conserve, reuse and recycle. The use local
resources where the can, they minimize exportation of environmental risk.
Sustainability requires integration of goals and policies. For example, economic
development, afford housing, public safety, environmental protection and mobility
are interrelated ad should be addressed in a holistic way. Similarly, the city's
future is intrinsically linked to that of the region, state, nation and the world.
Sustainability depends on inclusion bringing together different stakeholders to
identify common values and goals and to work to achieve them. Sustainability
means thinking long-tern. Meaningful solutions to challenges transcend calendar
year and electoral cycles. All decisions about how to meet the present needs of
the community should take into consideration potential impacts on the ability of
future generations to meet their needs.
Member Craig would like this to be the basis for the new Policy ECON 2.
Member Schmidt moved to recommend that the City Plan document
include more definite policies, principles and action items in the Action
Plan related to economic sustainability. Member Craig seconded the
motion.
i
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 12
Member Galvaldon asked if sustainability is included throughout the Economic
section. Planner said that if it is a duplication, it's a good duplication. Member
Meyer pointed out that while she had no problem adding such a policy, the City's
has no economic development policy, which would be more important. Member
Colton felt it was important to start talking about how the City will achieve
sustainability.
The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Torgerson voting in the
negative.
Member Colton asked why Policy ECON 1.1 was rewritten by staff. Planner
Waido replied that it was in support of the adopted characteristics. Consultant
Meighen added that it was added through the CAC consensus and compromise
process, to be truer to the characteristics and provide a higher level of emphasis,
as with the sustainability policy just added. Member Colton wanted to know if it
implied the City will be giving financial incentives to companies. Planner Waido
and Consultant Meighen replied no, since the wording is not"will" but will be
"strategic" and working with employers and use other mechanisms. Member
Colton was concerned it would be expanding the City's involvement in economic
development. Quality of life is the economic engine of the community, and he
doesn't want to see the City start wooing new businesses. A supermajority of the
CAC did not instruct staff to reword it or strike it. Member Gavaldon asked for
clarification of why It was rewritten if the CAC was split on the issue. Consultant
Meighen pointed out that the CAC was split on most issues on which they voted,
and very little in the City Plan document received unanimous support. Without
the meeting notes in front of him, he could not say exactly what the vote was, but
if it was reworded, staff and consultants had received direction to do so from
more than 50 percent of the CAC.
Member Colton moved to keep existing wording of Policy ECON 1.1. Motion
seconded by Member Craig.
Member Carpenter would not support the motion, because she saw nothing in
the rewritten version implying incentives. She asked rhetorically, if our kids won't
have anyplace to live, they wouldn't need jobs either? She expressed concern
that the Board was pulling out anything and everything having to do with the
basics of life. It's part of the City's job to make sure the community has a good
economic environment. Member Craig said the old policy said the same thing in
fewer words. Member Carpenter asked why change it back?That's
wordsmithing.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 13
The motion was defeated 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members
Meyer, Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting in the negative.
i
Member Gavaldon wanted to make clear that he felt ECON 1.2 would be
sufficient to prevent incentives for being used, but he didn't want to see an
expansion of them. More words were better for him. Member Colton said
incentives were bad policy and didn't want to support them.
Member Schmidt brought up the criteria and procedures for GMA modification.
While the criteria are stated on Page 148, procedures are contained in Appendix
C. She would like to see the procedures moved up with the criteria, and focused
much more on what is required for a GMA expansion. She felt the procedures in
Appendix C dealt mostly with procedures for updating City Plan as a whole, of
which GMA modification can be a part.
Member Schmidt moved to recommend specific procedures for updating
the Growth Management Area become part of Policy GM 1.3, right below
the criteria, and refer to what is required for a review of the GMA. Member
Colton seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon asked if we move this, shouldn't we move other items too? He
asked for staff input. Planner Waido pointed out that the GMA couldn't be
modified outside a comprehensive update of City Plan, but a comprehensive
update does not necessarily involve a GMA boundary change. If a GMA
boundary change is proposed, it automatically kicks in a cover-to-cover review of
City Plan. It's not a minor amendment.A comprehensive update of City Plan is
the only one way to change the GMA. Chairman Torgerson asked if a
comprehensive update of City Plan just for a minor expansion of the GMA would
be a good use of staff and city resources. Planner Waido replied that while the
size of a GMA expansion may be minor, the implications of expanding it are far-
reaching, and those implications need to be considered fully. Member Colton felt
adding the procedures under the criteria would add clarity to the document.
The motion was defeated 4-3 with Chairman Torgerson and Members
Meyer, Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting In the negative.
Member Carpenter respectfully requested that the discussion remain focused on
content, not items like organization of the document more appropriately handled
by staff.
Chairman Torgerson addressed Policy HSG 1.6 on page 121. He read it:
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 14
Housing units, including single-family houses and multiple housing units, shall be
constructed with practical features that provide basic access and functionality to
people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory-related abilities.
He said what that means is that we'll all have handicapped ramps in our homes.
Visitabilty is a movement afoot in the Building Department, to make is possible
for handicapped folks to be able to visit every home in Fort Collins. He personally
feels he has a problem with this because he doesn't need ramp into his home.
Every seventh apartment built in Fort Collins is fully accessible, and that makes
sense for rentals, but not for individual homes. Member Gavaldon added that the
Fair Housing Act has specific requirements for accessibility, and he agreed with
Chairman Torgerson that he didn't want a ramp in his home. Chairman
Torgerson said that the reality is that he's never had this problem at his home so
he doesn't see the need to cause extra expense. Member Craig asked what
practical features meant. Planner Waido explained the policy came from staff and
the Commission on Disability and grew out of the Practical Housing for All
projects. Director Gloss added that some of the requirements include wider door
openings, bathroom dimensions to allow wheelchair access, walls constructed to
be able to support grabbers in the bathroom but not the grabbers themselves, as
well as one accessible entrance. Member Craig pointed out that minor
modifications made at the time the house is built are much less expensive than
retrofitting should the need arise in your family or you want to sell your house in
the future. She recalled the Practical Housing presentation to the Board and
thought it made some valid points. She suggested giving staff general direction
on this point rather than voting on including or not including it, and have staff
check if it would mean ramps or an extra stud or two in the wall. Chairman
Torgerson said adding handicapped accessibility upfront still adds significant
expense to construction. Member Gavaldon said his remodeling of his 1940s
house was made accessible through means other than a ramp at the front door.
He didn't want to be micromanaging design issues that are better dealt with by
consumers, builders and neighborhoods. The rest of the document isn't
micromanaging, why is it here? Member Carpenter felt the wording was so
undefined, it wasn't clear if it meant wheelchair ramps or extra studs, so she was
uncomfortable approving it. Member Colton suggested changing the wording to
encourage not mandate accessibility. Member Meyer added that another
question was who is going to be in charge of deciding what you have to do, and
who will administer it. It can be interpreted to mandate a ramp.
Chairman Torgerson moved to recommend striking Policy HSG 1.6,
Accessibility. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 15
Member Craig said she would hate to lose the thought behind this, and though
she will vote to strike it, she would like to add the caveat that staff should look at
the wording as Member Colton suggested and rework it before it gets to Council.
The motion carried 6-1 with Member Schmidt voting in the negative.
BREAK
As the final item in the section of City Plan dealing with Policies and Principles
Communitywide, discussion returned to Community Vision.
Member Colton moved to replace the second paragraph of the Community
Vision section on page 7 with new wording:
Fort Collins' transformation from a small city to a larger urban center will continue
within its growth management area. To protect the desirable attributes of the city
and its surroundings which we have inherited, the geographical area of the city
will be limited. Our vision is that growth and change will continue within the
growth area, affording new opportunities for us and for future generations. Areas
between Fort Collins and surrounding communities and in the areas immediately
outside the GMA will be managed to preserve the existing rural character.
Neighboring communities will continue to develop and maintain their own
identities and character. Fort Collins will become part of a neighborhood of
communities, each separate and identifiable.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter said she would not support the motion, being more
comfortable with the currently wording than with this change.
Motion defeated 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer,
Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting in the negative.
Member Colton brought up the issue touched on by David Wright in his
testimony, of development paying its own way, specifically Policy GM6 and its
related principle GM 6.1 on page 154.
GM6
Development will pay he "fair share" of the costs of providing need public facilities
and services.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 16
GM 6.1
The City will have an efficient and fair system of fees and development
requirements that assess s the costs and benefits of financing public facilities
and services the need for which is generated by new development.
Member Colton recommended strengthening the requirement, to ask
development to pay its full cost, not just a "fair share." Fair is ambiguous and
public facilities are becoming inadequate because we have not been aggressive
in charging an adequate level of fees to new development.
Member Colton moved to recommend changing "fair share" to "full share"
in Policy GM 6. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon agreed, wanting to send the message that there is a full share
of costs that should be charged to new development for public facilities and
services. The public school district, university and public sector should be
included, since we pick up the cost for that, too.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that courts usually interpret the fees
needing an impact-related connection or nexus. He suggested wording such as
"full legally permissible share of services."
Member Colton amended his motion to substitute `full legally permissible
share" for "full share." Member Gavaldon accepted the friendly
amendment.
Member Schmidt asked who determines what is legally permissible. Attorney
Eckman confirmed that developers would have the right to have that determined
by the courts.
Chairman Torgerson asked Transportation Planning Director Mark Jackson if a
high proportion of the transportation deficiencies were attributable to out-of-
community trips into town, and what percentage of the deficiencies could be
attributed to development, the school district, the university and government not
paying its own way. Director Jackson did not have those percentages in front of
him, but did confirm that the deficiencies are a combination of all those factors.
He said through the Master Transportation Plan Update process, staff had found
a marked increase in the willingness of people within Northern Colorado to live
further from their employment and increase their travel times as a result. He
added that the newer development coming in is being built to our current-day
standards and pays impact fees proportionate to the impacts they generate.
Chairman Torgerson asked if restricting growth within our community would
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 17
increase the regional transportation problems. Director Jackson replied that
traffic does not respect lines on a map, and as long as there is growth in
surrounding communfties, and Fort Collins remains a center for employment,
shopping, culture and entertainment, he would have to agree that there would be
a remarkable increase in the regional travel shed. Member Colton disagreed with
the characterization of new development paying its own way outside of the
immediate area surrounding it. His point is that the impacts of new development
on the greater community have not been covered. Rather than a Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA)that would collect taxes, he would prefer charging
regional impact fees. Member Schmidt suggested using creative ways to come
up with development fees to cover parks and other services as well, and maybe
broadening the scope of the Land Use Code to gather it more effectively.
Member Carpenter has a problem with anything other than fair fees. Blaming
development is easy, but the changing nature of the community itself is part of it,
as kids grow up and start driving. Fort Collins can't solve this problem alone, it
needs regional cooperation, and simply raising our impact fees won't solve it.
Chairman Torgerson added that raising our fees might exacerbate the problem.
Motion carried 4-3 with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer and
Carpenter voting in the negative.
Member Gavaldon asked if the reference to special support for low-income
housing in GM 6.2 on page 154 should be changed to affordable housing.
Planner Waldo said the terms are interchangeable and both refer to housing
affordable to families making less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income.
Member Gavaldon suggested combining the terms with a slash. He asked about
"special support." Planner Waldo said it includes programs that waive or delay
collection of certain development fees, federal grants and subsidies of impact
fees.
In the Neighborhoods section, there were no concerns raised.
In the Districts section, Member Craig asked about building heights on page 199,
and wanted to be sure that the references correspond with the requirements of
the Downtown Strategic Plan. Planner Waido confirmed that when the Downtown
Strategic Plan is adopted, if the requirements of Principle DD3.4 are inconsistent
with it, this section of City Plan would have to be amended.
In the Corridors section, there were no concerns raised.
In the Edges section, there were no concerns raised.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 18
In the Appendices, Member Colton addressed the characteristic concerning
jobs/housing balance: The ratio of jobs to housing must be considered in
determining planning policies so that a balance between employment and
housing can be maintained as well as a balance between basic jobs and non-
basic jobs,
and it's supporting Policy ECON 1.4 on page 118: The City will strive to ensure a
reasonable balance between housing demand and residential development
capacity.
Member Colton wanted to know what was wrong with using the wording of the
characteristic in the policy. He saw a difference between planning for right
amounts of employment, commercial and residential and trying to balance
housing demand and residential development capacity.
Member Colton moved to recommend that staff reword Policy ECON 1.4
more closely to conform to the characteristic. Member Craig seconded the
motion.
Planner Waido explained that staffs intent was to have the types of housing
available for the types of wages being paid. The scope of the policy was
expanded to focus on all types of housing and employment, not just low-income.
Member Carpenter clarified that the intent was to have a match between the
various types of housing and the types of employment available. What would be
the mechanism to ensure that. Planner Waido said the emphasis is on workforce
housing because they are the one usually squeezed out of the market.
Consultant Meighen confirmed that the change under consideration would not
change the intent of the policy.
Motion carried unanimously.
In Appendix C-3, Member Schmidt asked staff if there could be a requirement
that the area to be affected by any modification of the GMA be represented on
any future CAC, even though they would most likely be County residents..
Member Gavaldon moved for recommendation affirmative to the City
Council regarding the revised version of City Plan, the City's
comprehensive plan, and to include the specific votes and Items that were
identified by the Planning and Zoning Board and Planning and Zoning
Board comments to be forwarded as well to City Council for their
consideration. Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 19
Member Gavaldon observed that lots of good work has gone into City Plan, even
if it is not what everyone entirely agrees with. He thanked everyone who
participated in it. Member Carpenter felt there were lots of good things in City
Plan that she could agree with, but she disagreed with the basic premise to limit
the GMA. She said she realizes that she'd lost that fight a long time ago. She will
support the motion for all the good in it overall. Member Meyer said the GMA limit
is the reason she will not be supporting the motion. The basic premise gives her
chills. She cannot live with that premise, which lets the whole world decide who
we are. Once we close the gate, the rest of the world can do what they want and
they won't be asking us for recommendations on how to us their land. She
thanked staff for all their hard work. Member Colton said he would be supporting
the motion. He recognized the long process that produced the document, and
that it addresses hard questions. Communities all over the country are dealing
with landlocked situations and are deciding to limit their area. City Plan gives us
pragmatic tools, like open space, low-density zoning and community separators,
to protect our lands and the character of our community. He praised the Structure
Map for showing Fort Collins' intent to protect areas between communities, and
to work with Larlmer County to maintain their rural character. He called it a big
step forward. By not addressing the GMA sooner than every five years, we can
give the City Plan vision a chance to work. Member Schmidt observed that the
differences of opinion on the Board and the CAC reflect the opinions of the
community. Staff worked hard to reconcile the opposing views. Sooner or later
the City will run out of space, and we're trying to address that sooner to find the
most effective ways to deal with it in the long term. We've got a plan in place for
how to make the best use of resources so we have our options open in the
future. She urged continued public outreach so the citizens can continue voicing
their opinions. Chairman Torgerson had serious concerns with the fundamental
issue of not expanding the GMA and not cooperatively planning the area around
us. This document makes infill redevelopment more difficult. Everything going
through the subarea plans is an effective moratorium, because we can only do
subarea plans so quickly, and downzoning limits development within the city
even further. Aggressively acquiring open space while hiking impact fees sounds
like Boulder. He feared we'll have a lot of the same consequences, including a lot
of growth just outside of the GMA, increased traffic and pollution. Capital projects
will rise as everyone drives in to use our facilities but not providing any funding
for them through taxes. Growth will continue but we can't control it, and there
could be nasty unintended consequences. This is not a good direction for the
city, and he won't be supporting the motion. Member Craig said it was time for
the other communities to build communities, build their own parks and libraries
and cultural facilities. They don't want to be just bedrooms for Fort Collins. I
strongly support the characteristic that says we go out into the region and partner
with the other communities. We respect they want to be their own entities, which
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 30, 2003
Page 20
1. requires physical separation, and 2. we look at things like fiscal sharing on
regional roads. She didn't feel we have to be the leader, but that we can be part
of the neighborhood of communities. Let's let them build what they want to build
and don't think everyone is coming to Fort Collins. When it come to appropriate
regional commercial investment, like the lifestyle center, we're here and we're
• ready to support that out of the appropriate funds. She will be supporting the
motion.
The motion carried 5-2 with Chairman Torgerson and Member Meyer voting
in the negative.
Project:1 Recommendation to City Council on the
Transportation Master Plan Update.
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for
adoption of update of the Transportation
Master Plan.
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Mark Jackson, Director of Transportation Planning Services, and Consultant R.A.
Plummer gave the staff presentation. They said the updated Transportation
Master Plan (TMP)final draft document is the result of two years of work, and
has been developed in close collaboration with the City Plan Update, especially
in the areas of goals, principles and policies. Staff and consultants have also
worked with the P&Z Board in study sessions to shape the document. It is also
an analytical and forecasting document, a long-range vision document, and an
implementation document that deals with the City's Master Street Plan and
develops a fiscally constrained capital improvements plan. Some parts are an
update, some have been completely rewritten, and some items are completely
new since the original document was adopted in 1997, including traffic signals
and the traffic management system. It's a comprehensive look at transportation
in Fort Collins, both within the City and how we connect to the rest of the region.
Included as an intellectual exercise is the Enhanced Fiscal Capital Improvement
Plan, which looks beyond the stark picture presented by our current financial
situation to ask "What if?" It outlines what hypothetical additional funding would
buy. This will be moved to an appendix in the final document. Current fiscal
restraints have limited the number of projects that can be considered now. The
document is definitely a step up from the 1997 document, especially in the way
THIS DOCUMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Agdk
41
t:
Fort Collins, Colorado
Comprehensive Plan
April 6, 2004
'.�Iry� i.:r;.!'tip.; {lf.'I• illyUl
7fI'"i'
I,
4�d ^I '
id.,.
Coffins
=CITY PLAN