Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/16/1999 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MOUNTAIN VIS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 33 A-C DATE: March 16. 1999 . FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Pete Wray/ John Daggett SUBJECT: Items Relating to the Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, as an Element of City Plan, Including the Following Key Plan Components:Vision and Goals,Framework Plan,Transportation, Principles and Policies,and Implementation Recommendations. Implementation Recommendations Include Changes to the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map,and Master Street Plan Map. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions to adopt the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan, making amendments to the Structure Plan Map, and the Master Street Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 on March 4, 1999 to recommend adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related implementation actions. In addition, the Citizen's Advisory Committee forwarded a recommendation for adoption(See Attachment). FINANCIAL IMPACT: 1. Mountain Vista Subarea- Public Amenity Projects The Implementation Recommendations of the Plan identify projects requiring public funding including parks and trails, police services, and certain public amenities. A separate Agenda Summary Item (Item No. 34 on this agenda) addresses costs of projects associated with parks and trail development. The remaining list of identified projects within the subarea requiring financing strategies to cover costs above what development would pay for include future police substation ($200,000), branch library ($2,000,000), and Interstate 25 interchange landscaping improvements for Mountain Vista Drive and East Vine Drive($800,000). All of these projects listed are identified as long-term, between 10-20 years. It appears that there will need to be substantial public investment in new infrastructure and municipal services to make the Mountain Vista plan a reality. While developers will be expected to finance the infrastructure improvements necessitated by their proj ects,and some ofthose improvements such as roads will be very costly,it appears that traditional funding mechanisms like street oversizing fees and impact fees will not be adequate to pay for all of the street improvements and community amenities that the Plan envisions. This situation suggests that the City should consider the full range of infrastructure financing mechanisms available to a home-rule city in Colorado. i i 2. Mountain Vista Subarea- Transportation Related Projects The total transportation cost for the Mountain Vista Subarea is $176 million. Private development f should pay approximately $110 million of the total with an identified funding gap over the current street oversizing fees of$66 million. DATE: March 16, 1999 2 ITEM NUMBER: 33 A-C Three grade separations at intersections with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,the moving of an historic structure, and a new interchange at Vine Drive comprise $37 million of the $66 million. The remaining $29 million is directly related to the build-out of the street network. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 99-35 Adopting the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. as an element of City Plan, including the following key Plan components: Vision and Goals, Framework Plan, Transportation, Principles and Policies, and Implementation Recommendations. B. Resolution 99-36 Adopting an Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map, based on the future land use classifications and transportation network described on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan—Framework Plan Map. C. Resolution 99-17 Adopting an Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan to delete all existing streets within the subarea, and add the new street network) described in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan—Proposed Master Street Plan Map. BACKGROUND: Mountain Vista Subarea Plan City Plan establishes the foundation for this Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Specific City Plan Principles and Policies (LU-4 and LU-4.5) name the Mountain Vista area as a priority for subarea planning efforts. This Plan is needed to help implement City Plan by tailoring general, citywide policies to this distinct geographic area in northeast Fort Collins. City Plan, with its City Structure Plan map and the related Zoning Map,provided a strong head start for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process. Building on the head start, the planning process addressed a full range of issues including land uses, housing, transportation, utilities and capital facilities, economic development, public safety, environment, appearance and urban design, and open space. This Mountain Vista Subarea Plan will be adopted as a related element of City Plan. It was developed within the context of other existing plans as well,most notably the Master Street Plan, the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan,and the Land Use Code. These plans and documents will be updated with any changes resulting from the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Many citizens have wondered why the City of Fort Collins would do a plan for the Mountain Vista area when little development has occurred to date.This subarea plan for the northeast area of the city provides an important opportunity to prepare for future neighborhoods, recreation, transportation networks, and work and shopping destinations from the ground up—ahead of growth and before the opportunity is gone. City Council provided general oversight. City staff and a planning consulting team (Balloffet & Associates, Clarion Associates, and Civitas) formed a technical team, aided by citizens' advisory DATE: March 16. 1999 3 ITEM NUMBER: 33 A-C committee. Together, these groups developed this Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, along with extensive public review. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan -Transportation The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan proposes future land use in the subarea. This action would 1) ensure that the subarea would eventually contain a transportation network sufficient to meet demand at levels of service consistent with City plan for all modes of travel and 2)ensure that adequate right- of—way is preserved through the development process. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process began approximately one year ago. As a part of that process, staff and consultants working on the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Project were charged with developing a transportation plan for northeast Fort Collins (Mountain Vista). Staff worked closely with the staff, consultants, technical advisory committee, citizens' advisory committee, and the public. The primary goal of the project was to develop a transportation network that both supported the proposed land uses and limited the impacts on existing developments bordering the subarea. This was an iterative process that included many land use alternatives. The land use plan went through approximately 10 versions. As the land use plan was refined, a new iteration of street network was built and modeled to ensure its adequacy and consistency with City Plan. I. Implementation Recommendations A key aspect of Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is how it gets implemented. The implementation recommendations of the Plan include how best to implement the Vision & Goals, Principles & Policies, and Framework Plan. Several implementation strategies were considered and evaluated during the initial stages of the planning process. These strategies ranged from those that were regulatory to those that emphasized capital investments, incentives, and market measures. After considerable analysis and discussion, City Council determined that in general, a regulatory strategy was more appropriate than public outlays to stimulate the development market. The implementation recommendations include a variety of changes in ordinances, standards and requirements, policies, and capital improvement programs that need to be considered to make the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan a reality. These actions draw on a diagnosis of the City's recently adopted Land Use Code,a review of City Plan,examination of City policies regarding infrastructure improvements and financing, and consultation with City staff. The Implementation Recommendations also include a detailed listing of projects and improvements needed to support development of the area,including transportation improvements,parks and trails, natural areas, stormwater drainage, police services, and public amenities. DATE: March 16, 1999 4 ITEM NUMBER: ;; A-C The following implementation actions are included with Plan adoption: Changes to the City Structure Plan Map: In adopting the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, as an official element of City Plan, specific amendments need to be made to the City Structure Plan Map. In summary the changes are as follows: • Adjusting the size and locations of land use classifications for Low Density and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, Employment, Industrial, Community Commercial. • Adding a community park and new trail corridors to the Public Open Lands classification. • Realigning the location of the enhanced travel corridor and high frequency transit route. Changes to the Master Street Plan: • Timberline Road (County Road 9E) will be expanded to four lanes and will travel to the north then northeast to align with Mountain Vista Drive. An underpass will be built at Timberline Road and the Burlington Northern- Santa Fe Railroad. • Lemay Avenue will be expanded to a four-lane arterial. Lemay Avenue's alignment remains consistent with the current Master Street Plan(1/99). A new arterial to arterial intersection(Vine and Lemay)will be built at the junction of the new Lemay Avenue and the realigned Vine Drive. An underpass will be built at Lemay Avenue and the Burlington Northern- Santa Fe Railroad. • Mountain Vista Drive will be expanded to a four-lane arterial from the interchange at I-25 and travel west and southwest to align with Timberline Road.An underpass will be built at Mountain Vista Drive and the Burlington Northern- Santa Fe Railroad. • A new interchange will be constructed at Vine Drive and I-25. • County Road 9E(Timberline Road)from Mountain Vista Drive north will be expanded to minor arterial status and align with the enhanced travel corridor along the extended alignment of Conifer Street. • Conifer Street will be constructed as an enhanced travel corridor. It will include two automobile travel lanes, one bi-directional transit lane, attached bike lanes, and detached sidewalks. The corridor will provide enhanced porosity into neighborhoods for bicyclists and pedestrians. • County Road 11 is recommended to be a minor arterial street extending north from Vine Drive to State Highway 1. • The I-25 Frontage Road will be expanded to a two-lane collector street, with appropriate turn lanes at development access points and at cross-streets. The frontage road is recommended to be realigned to the west at its intersection with Vine Drive and Mountain Vista Drive. The frontage road will be extended north from Vine Drive to Mountain Vista Drive. DATE: March 16, 1999 5 ITEM NUMBER: 33 A-C • A new minor arterial is recommended between Vine Drive and Mountain Vista Drive east of the • Burlington Northern - Santa Fe Railroad. a • Other collector streets are presumed to be two-lane streets with turn lanes as appropriate at intersections with minor arterial and other collector streets. The street alignments shown on the plan are to indicate the approximate location of collector and the exact locations of arterial streets. The collector will be designed to fit the character of the neighborhood, the projected impact of the proposed travel behavior, and any existing conditions that will affect the construction of the roadway. More detailed evaluation will be required as specific development areas are designed. Street cross-sections can be selected at that time based on Fort Collins standards and decisions about inclusion of on street parking on particular streets. Project Schedule Phase 1: Analysis, Planning, and Design (January-September, 1998) During this phase,information was collected and analyzed. Then,with the assistance of the advisory committee, the technical team developed a list of issues that influenced development of the Plan. The Plan was developed in a sequence of steps from general to specific, with a Vision and Goals leading to Framework Plan map alternatives and written Principles and Policies. Phase 2: Implementation Recommendations (September, 1998-February, 1999) During this phase of the planning process, the technical team, consultants,and direction from City Council,identified strategies for implementing the Plan. Short-term measures center on changes and enhancements to existing Plans and Documents. Longer-term implementation opportunities include measures to assist trail/park acquisition and improvements, and other public amenities. As development occurs over time, City Council is j encouraged to consider a variety of suggested funding mechanisms to ensure that adequate infrastructure accompanies the growth of Fort Collins. Citizen Participation The City is committed to a participatory planning process. Citizens were invaluable in contributing to the success of this Plan. Many people made suggestions, offered input and raised concerns that significantly changed each initial component of this Plan. IThe public involvement process for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was designed to be comprehensive and interactive. A variety of communications techniques were used to maintain two- way dialogue with key stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum from the Transportation Board,Recommendation to Support Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Amendment to the Master Street Plan, dated March 1, 1999. DATE: March 16, 1999 6 ITEM NUMBER: 33 A-C 2. Memorandum from the Natural Resources Advisory Board, Recommendation to Support Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, dated February 10, 1999. 3. Memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,Recommendation to Support Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Amendment to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan dated March 5, 1999. 4. Summary of Minutes from the Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting held on February 22, 1999, Supporting Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. 5. Memorandum from the Mountain Vista Citizen's Advisory Committee (MVAC), Recommendation to Support Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan,dated March 5, 1999. 6. Memorandum from Georgiana Deines, Administrative Support Supervisor, Planning and Zoning Board Motion on March 4, 1999. RESOLUTION 99-35 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,on February 18, 1997,the Council of the City of Fort Collins,by Resolution 97- 25, adopted the Community Vision and Goals 2015, City Structure Plan, and City Plan Principles and Policies as elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City,to be known as the"City Plan";and WHEREAS,the City Plan in its principles and policies identified the Mountain Vista Area as a priority subarea for planning efforts; and WHEREAS,to help develop the Mountain Area Subarea Plan,the City engaged a planning consulting team and established a citizen's advisory committee to work with the staff in developing the plan; and WHEREAS, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been developed to assist in the implementation of City Plan by tailoring city-wide policies to the Mountain Vista Area of Fort Collins by addressing issues concerning land use, housing, transportation, utilities and capital facilities,economic development,public safety,environment,appearance in urban design and open space; and WHEREAS,the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been recommended to the Council by the Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board,Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board,as well as the Mountain Vista Citizens Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is in the best interest of the citizens of the City. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated herein by this reference be, and hereby is adopted as a element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 16th day of March, A.D. 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • RESOLUTION 99-16 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DESCRIBED IN THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN - FRAMEWORK PLAN MAP WHEREAS, by Resolution 99 35, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, by reason of the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, certain amendments need to be made to the City Structure Plan vlap, including certain adjustments to the size and locations of land use classifications, the addition of a community park and new trail corridors to the Public Open Lands classification and the realignment of the enhanced travel corridor and high frequency transit route; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the City Structure Plan Map have been recommended to the Council by the Planning and Zoning Board. the Transportation Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Parks and Recreation Board and the Air Quality Advisory Board, as well as the Mountain Vista Citizens Advisory Committee: and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the said amendments to the City's Structure Plan Map are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Structure Plan Map as it applies to the Mountain Vista Subarea be, and hereby is,amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit"A",attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 16th day of March, A.D. 1999. Mavor ATTEST: City Clerk E`CHIBIT A Mountain Vista Subarea Proposed Structure Plan Mountain Vista StJi3AREA PL�� L;r C�IL�.-� O.�Lwf. Ci.YR'rtlu1Ws I S4 V III LEGEND: i Commercial/Town Center 9"ig* plan Boundary Employment Industrial City Owned Natural Areas(as of 612SM) ZCCC 0 loco 4000 =eet LION / / Feeder Transit Mar'N!Gpe::apace / V =nhanc& 'ravel Corridor(Transit) }/arci 15.1939 N Y V • RESOLUTION 99-37 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER STREET PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING ALL EXISTING STREETS WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA AND REPLACING SAID STREETS WITH THE NEW STREET NETWORK DESCRIBED IN THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN - PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN NL-�P WHEREAS, by Resolution 99-35, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,by reason of the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan,certain revisions need to be made to the Master Street Plan in order to conform said \faster Street Plan to the Transportation objectives of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan by deleting of all existing streets within the Mountain Vista Subarea and replacing them with the new street network described in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan- Proposed Master Street Plan Map; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan have been recommended to the Council by the Planning and Zoning Board,the Transportation Board,the Natural Resources Board,the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Air Quality Advisory Board as well as the Mountain Vista Citizens Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the Cite. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City's Master Street Plan as it applies to the Mountain Vista Subarea be, and hereby is, amended as to appear a shown on Exhibit"A". attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 16th day of March, A.D. 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • 1 I 1 1 A '! _ .yq . •i N 'ti EEO SM Legend "Arterial /VRaj1I PLAN BOUNDARY Nimh I-- "Highway M Water Features CC-Street Standards Transportation Services A'1iTACH ENT# I Administration Citv of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Azad and City Council Members From: Randy Hensley, Policy and Budget Manager, Transportation bo Thru: John Fischbach, City Manager 910-4.41;.0" Ron Phillips, Executive Director, Transportatio Date: March 1, 1999 Subj: Transportation Board endorsement of the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan At the regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board on February 17, Pete Wray and John Daggett made a presentation to update the board about the transportation aspects of the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan, proposed modifications to the Master Street Plan, and the relationship of the proposals to the Northeast Truck Route project. . After a question and answer period, the board unanimously passed a motion to endorse the sub-area plan and approve the amendments to the Master Street Plan as proposed. cc: Pete Wray, Planning John Daggett, Transportation Tim Johnson, Chair, Transportation Board 210 E. Olive • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins,CO 805E-0580 • (970)221-6608 • Fax (970)2-11-6239 Transportation Board Excerpt from full minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Note: these minutes are in draft February 17, 1999 and are not yet approved by the board Page 4 ACTION ITEMS: III. Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan Update— Wray/Daggett Mr. Wrav said that the Plan is entering its final phase and will be presented to the City Council for approval on March 16. He stated that he would like the Board to review the proposed transportation network, reach an agreement with the amendments to the Master Street Plan and submit a written recommendation addressed to Council for their consideration. Mr. Wray then reviewed the proposal with the Board, using colored displays for reference. Mr. Daggett added information on how the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan relates to the Northeast Truck Route project. Upon conclusion of the review, there was a question/answer period. Chair Johnson asked for board member's comments on the proposal: Ricord: It's a good plan. The land use/transportation integration is especially good. Trantham: The plan is good. Frazier: It's good to do planning before they get there. I like the multi- modal approach. Thordarson: Good planning. Hanna: I see a problem in getting to College. Why not make Conifer a 4- lane arterial? Daggett: We wanted to use it for a multi-modal corridor instead. Henderson: I think it's exciting and looks great. If this is approved, does it impact the truck route alternatives? Daggett: No. There was a motion and a second to approve the amendments as proposed The motion carried by a unanimpus vote. Hensley said that staff will provide Wray with a letter of recommendation on behalf of the Board and will include a copy of the minutes. ATTACEMENT# 2 Community Planning and Environmental Services Natural Resources Department City of Fort Collins MEMO DATE: February 10, 1999 TO: Mayor and Council Members John Fischbach, City Manager FROM: Phil Murphy, Natural Resources Advisory Board Chair ` RE: Recommendation to Support Adoption of Mountain Vista Subarea Plan At its February 3 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board(NRAB) had the opportunity to look at the Mountain Vista Subarea plan again(a first presentation was made October 7). Our discussion focused on concerns for protecting wildlife habitat associated with two natural areas located in the subarea: Cooper Slough and the wetland in the center of the Waterfield project. Cooper Slough in particular is an extremely critical and rare part of Fort Collins' natural ecosystem; as a warm stream, it often stays free of ice in the winter and provides forage and refuge for migrating waterfowl. The NRAB agreed that when the Bikeway Plan is amended to reflect future development of the Mountain Vista community, we would urge the Council to carefully consider the location and structure of all new trails. By paying very close attention to trail placement, the City can work towards goals for both alternative transportation and for minimizing human impacts on wildlife. We appreciated the early and comprehensive information that we received throughout the project. On a unanimous vote, NRAB approved a motion to recommend to Council adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Please let me know if you would like further information about our recommendation. 281 N. College Ave. • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)2?1-6600 • FAX(970)224-6177 Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services ATTACHMENT#3 Citv of Fort Collins DATE: March 5, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Council Members THRU: John Fischbach, City Manager FROM: Lance Freeman, President, Parks and Recreation Board RE: Recommendation to Support Mountain Vista Subarea Plan At its meeting of February, 24, the Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and how it relates to parks and trails. Staff pointed out a 100 acre proposed community park and four neighborhood parks of six to ten acres, along with three areas that will connect the Poudre trail system. The Parks and Recreation Board unanimously supports the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as presented by staff. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (970) 221-6640 • FAX (970) 2-11-6586 ATTACHMENT #4 The following excerpt from the minutes of February 23, 1999, has not yet been approved: NIINUTFS CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Board Members Present Harry Edwards, Tim Dennison, Mandar Sunthankar, Raymond Sons, David Gallup, and Steve Perich (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Brian Woodruff, Sally Maggart, Sarah Fox, Lucinda Smith, and Aaron Fodge Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan—Pete Wrav Brian Woodruff, Senior Environmental Planner, said that Pete Wray, City Planner, would explain changes that have occurred in the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan since his last presentation. Woodruff explained that staff is struggling with the Board's request for an air quality analysis that would speak to the benefits of the plan and is exploring how to do it properly. He suggested that boardmembers form a subcommittee to work on the issue • of future preparation of air quality information. Wray said that since his last presentation, the final framework plan and the transportation network for the northeast part of the City has been developed. He explained that the City's Structure Plan is the basis for the effort. Wray identified the major activity centers and said that the existing Transportation Plan identified a need to look at existing street patterns and determine how to integrate it into future planning for a more connected system that incorporates all modes of travel and links destinations. He noted that this is the first time that transportation and land use have been considered from the ground up. Wray said that this is a 20-year plan that, at full buildout, will have a higher density than the rest of the city. Wray said that one change incorporates a more centrally located primary activity center surrounded by residential. He identified trail connections, future industrial use areas, future employment areas, high school and elementary school sites. Wray noted that there will be a community park and three or four neighborhood parks. Wray explained the future transportation network and the proposal for amending the Master Street Plan. He said that the intent is to better connect existing development. Wray said that no other part of the City compares to this area. He noted that the proposal achieves the policies of City Plan established for a more compact urban pattern and • provision for a better connected transportation network incorporated into 3,100 acres and with a projected population of 12-15,000. David Gallup asked why there is no high density designation. Wray explained that City Plan allows some flexibility by not placing a cap on medium density. Harry Edwards asked if City Plan is providing for an increased acquisition of buses to serve the area. Wray responded that additional transportation funding will be requested in the proposed April tax ballot, but this area is not included because there is no development yet, per se. Edwards said that, with regard to an air quality analysis, a simple box model could be constructed that addresses the question of whether or not expansion would have an impact on air quality. Woodruff asked what is the question to be answered by such a model. Edwards responded that it would measure whether expansion makes air quality better or worse and does it satisfy the mission of striving for continual improvement of air quality in the community. Woodruff said that there will be more pollution at Mountain Vista than there is now. Edwards said that with the bigger box the real issue is not the absolute amount,but the density of pollution going into the air. Wray said that with the increase in traffic over the next 20 years, emissions will increase. He said that if City Plan's goals of better links, enhanced transit and alternative modes are met, the goal to reduce single-occupant-vehicle trips by 10 percent in the next 20 years will take a big financial commitment. David Gallup asked why an elementary school is planned along the proposed truck bypass. Wray explained that two development projects, Waterglen and Waterfield, were approved before there was a discussion of a truck route. He noted that the location could be changed. Edwards asked when the Vine Drive and I-25 interchange will be developed. Wray said that it will probably be 10-15 years from now. Gallup asked if there is any chance of integrating a pedestrian only mall or is everything designed around cars. Wray said that there has been some discussion that supports a pedestrian system with public plazas and mini park areas. Raymond Sons made the motion to recommend to Council adoption of the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan. Mandar Sunthankar seconded the motion. After the following discussion, the motion passed unanimously (6-0). Mandar Sunthankar said that if the area is going to be developed, this seems to be one of the better plans. Raymond Sons said that this plan is basic to City Plan, and the Board approved City Plan. He added that this is the first large scale implementation of City Plan in a large area. Steve Perich suggested that the whole board be involved in future discussions concerning appropriate air quality analysis. ATTACHMENT # 5 Community Planning and Environmental Services 4a Advance Planning Department Citv of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1999 TO: Mayor and Council Members THRU: John Fischbach, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director of CPES Joe Frank, Director of Advance Plannin i FROM: Pete Wray, City Planner 1 l RE: Mountain Vista Citizen's Advisory Committee(MVAC) Recommendation to Support Adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The Mountain Vista Citizen's Advisory Committee assembled on February 25, 1999 for the last time to review the final draft of the Plan Document. This final meeting completed a twelve month commitment of the committee to provide feedback to staff and consultants throughout the planning process. The committee members expresse4 support for the final Plan Document, and importance of implementation as an integrated effort. A primary concern was raised for the need for a unique approach for"making the Plan happen," that may include proactive long-term funding strategies with a mix of options. If piecemeal development without sufficient infrastructure support is allowed, it could create serious negative impacts on existing neighborhoods. Another element considered vital to the Plan was the inclusion of the two-story building height requirement for the Community Commercial District. The Plan should be rewritten to include this if they are deleted from the Block Standards. Finally, every effort should be made to develop the new"Conifer" to incorporate multi-modal design. There is some concern raised that it could be pressured to become the"car route" used as an alternative to East Vine Drive if designated as a State Highway and truck route. Based on the discussions and request by Mr. Wray, the members agreed to forward a recommendation to City Council to support adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Implementation 40 Recommendations. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) '?1-6376 FAX (970)224-6111 • TDD(970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplanningCaci.fort-collins.co.us ATTACIEW(ENT# 6 MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Georgiana Deines, Administrative Support Supervisor Subject: Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan Date: March 10, 1999 The Planning and Zoning Board on Thursday, March 4, 1999 heard the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and made the following recommendation and final comments: Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt the Mountain <rsta Sub Area Plan, and implementation action items to amend existing Plans including City Structure Plan, Zoning Map, Master Street Plan, and Parks and Recreation Policy Plan with noted comments and observations made by the Board. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat had concerns that the commercial has only been considered in terms of economics of the area and workability. She felt it was highly restrictive and doubts that it can succeed. The economic policy addresses employment only, it does not look at sustainability for this area, much less being part of the community. She does not know how commercial can succeed as restrictive as this is with access and limits on where it can be located. Member Davidson agreed with the plan for restricting direct access, so not to have another South and North College. He felt that direct access causes grid lock, not to mention the visual aesthetics of the whole thing. 'He felt that this makes more sense. He felt that Vine Drive could serve as another gateway into the community in the future when it develops out. He felt it was logical and that mixed use makes sense. Member Craig commented that this was a good plan. She felt that we all realize that it was going to be a long time before it is implemented. There is a lot of constraints with the railroad and finding the capital money to make the improvements that need to be made. She thought that this was going to be a challenge for Council to try and decide how and what we are going to do for this. She thinks that this is an area, because of all of the constraints, that we might have to look at differently than we have in some other areas. She hopes that creativity is used so the plan does not sit on the shelf because we cannot afford to implement it. She felt that the Main Street is important and she would like to stay restrictive on the block standards. She felt the two-story look that is starting to be taken out of other pieces of the block standards should be looked at again for this sub area plan, specifically the Main Street part of this, to keep the community look that is trvins to be created in this area. Member Craig highly recommended that Council adopt the plan! . Member Weitkunat commented that she believes in sub area plans, and she felt it was essential for development in this area. She believes in the transportation corridor views and she felt that the road alignment was a wonderful idea. However, when she read through this she did not have good feelings about it. She sees a plan that is clinical, sterile and that came out of a computer. She had such a sense of disengagement and isolation from the community of Fort Collins, she never once sensed that she was in Fort Collins. She sees this as an experiment. She knows that this takes all the things we learned in City Plan, and all the planning concepts of neo-traditional neighborhoods and all the things that we say. She had no sense of Fort Collins community in this. She senses it in the transportation corridor and in the commercial district. She does not feel good about it, she felt very negative overtones, she saw pessimism and was disappointed in the way things were worded. She does not feel a connection to Fort Collins, she felt totally isolated. Member Gavaldon commented that there are some good points in this plan, some good opportunities. He felt that the transportation should be worked on more. He felt that all this comes down to is where are we going to get the money for this. He would like to know how this is going to be paid for. He agreed that it is very sterile, but hopefully when the details are filled in, we could bring some harmony to it. Chairperson Colton felt there was a lot of good effort that went into this plan. He agreed that the plan would look sterile until the details are filled in. He felt it would work fine and appreciated all the work. • The motion was approved 6-0.