HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/09/2009 - MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE DATE: June 9, 2009
STAFF: Pete Wray WORK SESSION ITEM
Matthew Wempe
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available at
fcgov.corn/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session item is to seek direction from Council on the update of the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan(Plan)prior to formal Council consideration on September 15,2009.
This discussion is a follow up to the previous Council work session,held on December 9,2008. The
update is needed to adjust and refine particular aspects of the Plan, while retaining the essential
vision and policies.
The centerpiece of the Plan is a map diagram titled the Framework Plan, which shows an integrated
pattern of future land uses and a street network in a new sector of the City. This Plan update mostly
involves adjustments to the Framework Plan.
Current issues involve these following general topics:
• Street network adjustments, especially the extension of realigned Vine Drive to Timberline
Road
• Land use designation adjustments
• Coordination of the proposed street network and land use adjustments with affected property
owners to serve existing and future land uses
• Costs street infrastructure, particularly costs related to the three grade-separated crossings
• Costs of required regional drainage infrastructure in the subarea
• A specific request for lower residential density on a particular property
Over the past 14 months,the project team(staff and consultants)has facilitated an extensive public
process involving area land owners, neighborhood interests, civic organizations, boards and
commissions, City Council, and the general public. This process has explored the key issues and
alternative solutions with supporting project team analysis.
Throughout this process, the project team has worked towards developing a new Framework Plan
map with corresponding information,to be reviewed at the work session. The Framework Plan map
is the centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and this proposed 2009 version will be the
basis for the complete Plan document update and revisions to the Master Street Plan,to be presented
to Council on September 15, 2009.
June 9, 2009 Page 2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the street
network shown on the proposed Framework Plan, and "Realigned Vine" in particular? If
not, what additional information is needed?
2. Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the request
for reduced residential density in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zoning on the
Moore property? If not, what additional information is needed?
3. Is there any additional information that is needed prior to, or along with agenda materials
that would be presented at the time a decision is considered by the Council on September 15,
2009?
BACKGROUND
I. 1999 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN
The existing Plan was adopted by Council in 1999 as an element of the City's overall
Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan. The Master Street Plan was concurrently updated to
reflect the street network in the existing Plan.
The Plan tailors city-wide goals and policies to unique circumstances in the subarea, particularly
those related to growth and development. The centerpiece of the Plan is a Framework Plan map
showing an integrated pattern of existing and future land uses,transportation system, and a network
of various open lands—establishing a guide for growth in the northeast part of the city.
The main concepts of City Plan used as a foundation are:
• Compact development pattern
• Interconnected transportation system
• New activity centers in areas to be well-served by transit
• Interconnected system of various open lands
• Multiple means of travel
• Varied housing developments
• Community identity and civic enhancements
• Balanced economic development opportunities
• Growth Management Area boundary
The Plan is Fort Collins' unique opportunity to prepare for a future extension of the City ahead of
growth and development. The subarea is the last significant new growth area in the City where
development can implement City Plan's vision. Over 1,500 acres of land remain undeveloped, out
of a total of about 3,000 acres in the subarea. With this update,the proposed 2009 Framework Plan
has the potential for approximately 5,700 dwelling units accommodating a population of about
13,000; and the potential for about 15,000 jobs.
June 9, 2009 Page 3
II. CURRENT ISSUES
The existing Plan generally emphasizes opportunities presented by the undeveloped land in
Mountain Vista. However, while the significant opportunities for development are clear, they are
accompanied by constraints and issues needing more attention.
Over the ten years since the existing Plan was adopted, a handful of issues have guided discussions
and efforts that finally led to the Plan update process. These issues will be the main policy points
when Council holds a hearing on the Plan update on September 15, 2009.
Street network adjustments
The project team has been analyzing ways to refine the existing street network in the Mountain Vista
subarea. This includes the location and overall number of arterial and collector-level streets. The
adopted Plan included an extensive street network, particularly collector-level streets (see
Attachment 2). Travel demand modeling has indicated that the projected traffic volumes can be
accommodated on the proposed street network: Additional local streets constructed at the time of
development are not included in the travel demand model or Master Street Plan.
The refinements attempt to maintain multi-modal connectivity, access, and capacity while
responding to land use and other proposed changes. The analysis has included travel demand
modeling, review by Engineering and Transportation staff and consultants, and extensive public
input.
Land use designation adjustments
A number of particular questions and suggestions have arisen for adjustments to land use
designations. Key topics include:
• The appropriate amount of Industrial and Employment uses to provide for future growth
The proximity of future residential Neighborhoods to the Anheuser-Busch InBev plant;and
the related extent of Employment designation as a buffer and transition between those two
land uses
• The size and location of the Community Commercial District designation (a key focal area
of the Framework Plan)
• The relationship of the future Community Park to the commercial district
• The implications of all changes upon the jobs/housing balance
Property owner coordination
Since the existing Plan was adopted, major property owners have worked with the Plan's
recommendations and found aspects of the Plan that need further coordination with the City and
other owners. New information and ideas have come up on a handful of large properties in the area,
mostly involving adjustments to land use designations,the proposed street network, and residential
density. The Plan will be much more effective if this update process can build unified support and
coordination on adjustments to the land use pattern and street network.
June 9, 2009 Page 4
Infrastructure Costs—Arterial Street Access
Street access between the subarea and the rest of the city currently consists of two-lane roads with
varying levels of pavement quality with some stretches in the City and some in the unincorporated
County. In order to meet requirements for Adequate Public Facilities to serve City development,
the Plan identifies a need to widen Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, Vine Drive, and the
Lemay/Vine and Timberline/Vine intersections. It also identifies a need for up to three grade-
separated crossings. These bridge structures have raised questions about the adequacy of typical
development funding methods.
Infrastructure Costs—Drainage Infrastructure
The Northeast College Corridor Outfall Project (NECCO) drainage project is required if
development is to occur in the western portion of the subarea. That project involves storm flows
from a larger upstream area, and the needed facilities pose questions about the ability of any
development project in the area to pay the costs; and how to coordinate multiple property owners
affected by the project.
Residential Density Request
A major owner has requested a reduced density requirement in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood designation on its property, to allow for development of larger lots than the current
density requirement (5 dwelling units per acre average) would allow.
III. RESPONSE TO ISSUES
Proposed 2009 Framework Plan
As part of the update process, a number of adjustments to the Framework Plan map are proposed
in a 2009 Framework Plan map. This proposed Framework Plan map represents a refinement of the
currently adopted Framework Plan. Proposed adjustments include modest shifts in land use
designations and an updated street network.
The adjustments result from comparing and analyzing numerous alternative ideas for the future
pattern of streets and land uses. This included market analysis,traffic modeling,other staff analysis
of all aspects, and public discussion.
Shifts in land use designations include:
• Additional acreage for Employment and Industrial Districts (+279 acres.) Besides
providing more land for growth in employment and industrial uses, the increased
designations would add to transitions and buffers along I-25 and Anheuser-Busch InBev
property.
• A smaller commercial core area. The Community Commercial District was originally
projected to contain community and region-serving commercial uses in addition to
neighborhood-oriented services and retail. That idea was summarized as a "mini-
downtown." Property owner input and updated market analysis have led to the proposed
June 9, 2009 Page 5
smaller area intended to emphasize mainly neighborhood commercial uses. For example,
the emphasis would be on a supermarket, neighborhood retail, offices, civic services such
as branch library or police substation, and gathering places. A few mixed use residential
units would also be encouraged in multi-story buildings in this core area.
• Less acreage in Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Neighborhood designation, partly
corresponding to the increase in Employment and Industrial acreage.
• Minor adjustments to the way new neighborhoods, schools,and a large community park are
centered around the commercial core and future transit corridors.
Specific changes to land use designations are shown in the comparison tables below.
Table 1 - Framework Plan Comparison
Land Use 1999 Framework 2009 Framework Change
Plan (Acres) Plan (Acres) (Acres)
Community Commercial 78 30 -48
Employment 530 661 131
Industrial 309 457 148
Low Density Mixed Use 11480 1,298 -182
Neighborhood
Medium Density Mixed Use 145 144 -1
Neighborhood
Park 110 110 0
School 108 108 0
Water Features/Ditch 229 101 -128
Corridors/Natural Areas
Regional Detention Pond (inside 0 80 80
MVSB)
Total 2,989 2,989
Note: While the table above shows a decrease of 128 acres in the new draft 2009 Plan for water
features,ditch corridors and natural areas from an initial total of 229 acres shown in the adopted 1999
Plan,no natural areas or other natural resource lands were removed;the mapping boundaries for each
land use were recalculated to more accurately compare both Plan maps.
June 9, 2009 Page 6
Table 2 - Framework Plan Comparison: Jobs/Housing/Population
1999 Plan 2009 Plan Change
Jobs 11,725 15,065 3,340
Mt. Vista Housing Units 7.374 5,735 -1,639
Subarea Population 17,161 13,347 -3,814
Jobs/Housing Balance 1.59 2.63 1.04
Jobs 142,699 146,046 3,347
Fort Collins Housing Units 95,031 93,444 -1,587
GMA Population 229,792 226,104 -3,688
Jobs/Housing Balance 1.50 1.56 0.06
Prominent street network changes include:
• Refined street network. The proposed street network would streamline the number of
collector streets and serve both existing and planned development in northeast Fort Collins.
As part of the Plan update, City Council will be asked to update the Master Street Plan to
reflect the new street network and classifications to match the proposed Framework map.
• Extend adopted realignment of'Vine Drive. The proposed Framework map would realign
Vine Drive between Lemay and Timberline. The proposed extension allows for a new
intersection with Timberline Road that would relieve capacity problems at the existing
Timberline and Vine intersection, in the same way that the currently adopted configuration
would relieve capacity problems at the existing Lemay and Vine intersection.
• The location of the future enhanced travel corridor originally shown along Conifer Street is
now recommended to be located along realigned Vine Drive.
• Elimination of Turnberry Road extension south to Vine Drive. The adopted Plan included
an extension of Turnberry Road south to Vine Drive. A parallel collector street was also
proposed in the adopted Plan in an effort to reduce traffic along Turnberry Road. This road
has partially been constructed through the Lind and Maple Hills developments,and has been
incorporated into preliminary planning by Poudre School District.
Request for Reduced LMN Density (Moore Property)
Representatives of the Thomas Moore property have asked the City to consider a reduced density
standard from 5 to 3 dwelling units (DU) per acre for the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
designation on 173 acres of their property. The justification for this request by the owner,with staff
comments, is attached as part of this work session packet.
Thomas Moore representatives requested that staff bring this issue forward for direction from
Council.
June 9, 2009 Page 7
Realigned Vine Drive and De Facto Truck Route Concerns
The project team has examined a number of potential alignments for East Vine Drive between
Lemay and Timberline. A realignment would be potentially more cost effective than expanding the
existing 2-lane street to a future 4-lane arterial street and delay the need for expensive grade-
separated railroad crossings. Expansion of the existing Vine Drive to the south is limited due to the
BNSF railroad tracks and switching yard. The Andersonville and Alta Vista neighborhoods also
prevent expansion of the constrained intersection at Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue. In addition,
several existing homes and the historic Plummer School are located on the north side of East Vine
Drive near Timberline Road. The magnitude of these existing conditions and input from area
property owners and the general public provides support for realignment of this important east/west
street connection. The existing Vine Drive would be maintained to provide local access to homes
and businesses.
The adopted Plan included a realignment of Vine Drive between College and Lemay. This
alignment was coordinated with development, existing neighborhoods, and existing and planned
utility corridors. The draft preferred framework plan extends this realignment one mile east to
Timberline Road. The project team has examined this alignment and determined that there would
be no physical impact to the wetlands natural feature and existing residences.
There is some continued concern from the Lindenwood neighborhood about the realigned Vine
Drive arterial, and potentially Conifer Street extended, becoming a de facto truck route between
College Avenue and I-25. An analysis of the SH 14 / US 287 truck route and the draft preferred
framework plan is attached. The project team does not believe that the proposed realigned Vine
Drive or any other street will function as a de facto truck route.
Conifer Street Extension
The project team has heard input both in favor and opposed to extending Conifer Street east to
Timberline Road. This has recently included concerns about designating the street as a two-lane
arterial instead of a collector or local street.
Travel demand modeling has projected average daily trips(ADT)of 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles for the
portion of Conifer Street between Lemay and Timberline. The Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards indicate a traffic volume capacity of 3,500 to 15,000 ADT for a two-lane arterial, and
2,500 to 5,000 ADT for a collector.
The difference in right-of-way between a two-lane arterial and a collector is 18 feet. This includes
a 12-foot center turn lane, 10-foot parkways (collector is 8 feet), and 6-foot sidewalks (collector is
5 feet).
IV. INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND FUNDING
At a work session in December 2008, City Council asked the project team to analyze infrastructure
costs and implementation strategies for key infrastructure projects that would help remove
impediments to development as envisioned.
June 9, 2009 Page 8
There is presently limited ability to develop land in the subarea due to lack of Adequate Public
Facilities (APF), as required by the Land Use Code. This is largely due to constraints surrounding
the Lemay Avenue/Vine Drive and Timberline Road/Vine Drive intersections. These constraints
include existing neighborhoods,businesses,residential properties,Plummer School, and the BNSF
rail tracks and switching yard. These constraints combine to limit the ability of the City to widen
these intersections to increase traffic capacity.
The project team had originally thought that a large number of capital projects would be required
to alleviate the APF issues. However, after clarifying and analyzing needed transportation and
drainage projects, only a handful must be completed to allow development to proceed. These
projects include the following (in order of importance):
1. Realigned Vine Arterial (College to Lemay): This project would reduce traffic volumes at
the existing Vine/Lemay intersection and provide additional street and intersection capacity
to and from the Mountain Vista SulJarea. This project is also under review as part of a North
College Capital Improvements Funding Plan.
2. Realigned Vine Arterial(Lemay to Timberline): Construction of the Vine Drive realignment
between Lemay and Timberline would allow development in the Mountain Vista Subarea
to comply with APF requirements. Over time,the existing Timberline and Vine intersection
will become more congested. This project would have the same benefits of reduced volumes
at the existing intersection and creating new street and intersection capacity.
3. NECCO Storm Drainage Project: A portion of Dry Creek floodway remains in the west part
of the Subarea,limiting developability. This floodway results from a combination of factors
associated with partially built systems. The City's Stormwater Department has final design
of needed improvements to remove the floodplain. Partial improvements are possible within
the western portion of the subarea, but to ultimately remove the floodway, significant
drainage facilities are needed upstream as well, west of Lemay Avenue to North College
Avenue.
4. Grade-Separated Crossings: BNSF will ultimately require grade-separated crossings at
Lemay and Vine and Timberline and Vine when traffic volumes warrant a four-lane street
crossing. This requirement would likely occur first at the Lemay and Vine crossing, and
then at Timberline and Vine. The realignment of Vine Drive from College to Timberline
would delay the need for the crossings in the short-term. These projects would also allow
a substantial amount of development to occur in the long-term.
Funding Options
There are several funding options available for these projects. Multiple funding options can work
for each project. The project team is continuing to analyze infrastructure funding opportunities and
will present recommendations as part of the draft plan document. A summary of the funding options
is below.
• Continue to Utilize Development Impact Fees: This approach would rely on development
impact fees to fund the four projects listed above. This can include both existing and new
impact fees. Due to development restrictions related to APF requirements,this may require
June 9, 2009 Page 9
many years of collecting funds. If all of these funds are directed towards the Plan area, this
could result in less available funding for other parts of the community.
• Capital Funding Request: The projects could be funded as part of a citizen-supported sales
tax initiative. This has been proposed for the grade-separated crossings in the past, but was
rejected due to the opportunity cost of the projects.
• Collective Funding Strategy: The City could initiate a special assessment, additional
property tax,or similar process to provide funding. This approach is currently under review
by the City and North College Avenue business owners for the North College Improvements
Plan. Several property owners in the Mountain Vista subarea have expressed an interest in
developing a similar plan.
V. NEXT STEPS
• A fourth public open house will be held on July 23, 2009 to present the updated key
elements of the 2009 Plan document, and supporting information.
• Various boards and commissions have or will be formulating recommendations to Council
regarding the Plan in advance of Council's consideration of the adoption of the Plan.
• The Transportation Board is scheduled to formulate a formal recommendation on August 19
and the Planning and Zoning Board on August 20, 2009.
• Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the Plan on September 15, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Schedule
2. 1999 Framework Plan Map
3. Proposed Framework Plan Map (May 2009)
4. Truck Route Analysis Summary
5. Summary of December 9, 2008 Council Work Session
6. Summary of Moore Property Request and Response to Issues
7. Minutes from May 27, 2009 Parks and Recreation Board Meeting
8. Minutes from May 7, 2009 Affordable Housing Board Meeting
9. Powerpoint Presentation
Attaclunent 1
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Project Schedule
tv NName March Apnl klay June July Aucust Septemcer� Octccer Neverr.cer' Cecemcer January Facruary March April May June July August September October
Boards and Commissions
Bicycle Advisory Committee 7r Oro9
Parks Board • 2125/09 Q 5l27/09
Land Conservation Board
• 3/11/ 9 �`• 7/8/0
Affordable Housing Board
Air Quality Board • /23109 • a 0/09 7/ 0/09
Public Outreach
Property owner Meeting ---
`a 9129108. • 12/4l08 /0 3/09 0 /24109 0 7/16109
• 3/30/09
Anheuser-Busch Meetings 7/29/08 • 19/09 • 4(7109 • TBD
Public Open House 8 1213/08
• 19/09 0 4130/09 40 /23/09
Community Group Meetings •12/ 9108(LLAG
5/1/09 ( LAC)
• 1/28109(N CBA
Individual Neighborhood Meetings : Lindenmier, Adriel • 117/09• 2/3/0g
Hills,Alta Vista/BuckinghamNia Lopez/Andersonville, • 2/ 7/09
Richards Lake, Country Club, Maple Hills • j 8/0-9613/og
• •4109
3/5/09
,Preferred Framework Plan Development
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 4008 • 5;9/08 • 6;13108. 7/11/08 • 8/1 /08 •10/10/ a. •11/14/08.12/1211 0 119/09 • 2/1309 • 3/13109 4/3/09 • 5/8/09 • 6/1 9
Development Lead Team • vvo • 3/9r09 0 4/1309. 5/11/ 9• 6/810
Transportation Coordination 1/29109 a 4/2109
Transportation Board Updates •1119/oa • 3! a/09 • 5 0/09
Transportation Board Recommendation O a/ 9/og
Infrastructure Funding Committee • 3n0/ 9 • 4/91051
• kl23/09
Planning&Zoning Board Worksession • 3/14 oe • 611308 • 811 108 •i 1/1 Ica 1/9/0
• 0 2/13 09 0 3l13 9• 4/10119 0 5/1 09 0 8/14 09
Planning&Zoning Board Recommendation O e 0/09
City Council Worksession • 12/9/0 • 6/90
City Council Adoption O 9/1 V09
Project start-up
Existing conditions assessment
Develop Plan objectives
Discuss vision, goals and principles
Framework Plan alternatives
Transportation-initial base model assassin Legend
Preliminary market analysis
• Boards and Commissions
Final Transportation modeling
Final market analysis • Public Outreach
Preferred Framework Plan • Preferred Framework Plan Development
Implementation strategies Recommendation Meeting
Plan document revisions
® Planning Process Tasks
I September October November December January February March April May June July August September October
C
Framework Plan -FortCotllns
Adopted October, 199960
�
w
-- �
r t'�• RQ
6 t
V V,`�, l �� 4•, 'fit, it n P1 `A. 1�rll
l it 1,
R4chards LakeTRd, 'I�1
•
1 IT� 9
}� ljConntry 1i
4tt � E!
I
lub Rd
r � l
Mountain Vista Dr o l"
-im
A 7,�,�"11'^X P..I� �.`i�—' _ —�f�—CJ1�l'��4 _ J"_"L3_ I •''� I�
Conifer St
� It
7F
QE ItIfine Dr i
r
�-r�•�-,-ram �. � ' I
•,... �m� �i: ,� 4 •era
�* p
. ' jLL
M_n Plan Boundary Street Network land Use low Density Mixed Use ---
1 City Limits �Meriel Community Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use �3 •^
OUrban Growth Area Boundary —Collector Employment ® Natural Area
—f-- Railroad Lines — Highway Industrial Pubic Open Lands i L ----
OParcels Mnor Arterial r.....,a IrwtHutionellSchod
"Wer Features -
-- Trails
1 inch = 2,500 feet
_a
G
A
N
ATTACHMENT a
Draft Framework Plan a=y �f
Mountain Vista Fort Collins
SUBAREA PLAN May 2009
I
d
-
4r' l dN=
s
,��a� arL.L �� v`s'Q�j�ce�-',• III I li
Richards Lake d
ra:.�eocEyasev�i:cs�--
. p
Long Pond
l�KAIT11H"I
� �L'
y MEOW MEN
81,
zOU
i L
j � � r it i.• HET
a. 4(/ s<P\�p� r Lial N
ode -
V.
It
a
eir
t4 "4� irPi � � •+ �a
11
Z — — - — �a.Conifer St
c -
-EFlu E
Vine Dr L
jiH
tIL.: nA.n lltitt-. � satm�rt-aY+ nflf r
Legend
Zones Streets Other Features r
Community Commercial (CC) Local Road - ' ` Mountain Vista l�l Grade Separated Rail Crossing
. • Subarea Boundary ✓.,
1 inch = 2, 500 feet ❑ Employment (E) Collector _
• • Power Line �j Regional Detention Pond
Industrial ( 1)
0 2,500 51000 Low Density Mixed � 2-Lane Arterial Trail Water
Feet Use Neighborhood (LMN)
Medium Density Mixed �4-Lane Arterial ++H Railroad
Use Neighborhood (MMN) Natural Areas/ Ditch Corridors
School (PSD) 6-Lane Arterial
Enhanced Travel Corridor
a .,.owa .•. Community Park (CP) —_ Interstate 25 Q Park and Ride
M® qm�pma, ^^❑,',_,�, �°,�,, = Growth Management Area
Planning, Development & Transportation
^C-7 yt
O Transportation Planning&Special Proji
250 North Mason Street Attachment 4
Fr ' Collins P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 ----- ------ -
970.224.6058
970.221t6239-fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan Update
Truck Bypass Route Analysis
Analysis Elements Summary
June 9, 2009
The variety of commercial, industrial, employment; and residential land-uses proposed.is one
aspect of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update that has widespread support..The.project team
has been planning for a street network that will provide access and mobility.to current and future
land uses. A safe and effective transportation network is vital for all modes of travel including
automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. It is;the responsibility of the project team to
ensure:these land uses are provided with a street network to serve them,successfully from a
safety, operational, and multimodal connectivity perspective.
Over the past year, the project team has examined six land use and transportation alternatives.
The streets on these alternatives have ranged from a series of sharp 90 degree turns to an almost
straight connection from I-25 to College Avenue to the same streets proposed in the adopted plan
as shown on the current Master Street Plan; Each alternative has been reviewed by City staff,
project consultants, various Boards and Commissions, City Council, and hundreds of Fort
Collins residents. As part of this planning process, some residents of the Lindenwood
neighborhood have expressed concerns about realigned Vine Drive acting as a de facto-truck
bypass route alternative to.the SH,14./US 287 truck route. The project team has, and will
continue to, address this concern.
This memo has been prepared to address these concerns about a de facto truck bypass route. The
project team has examined the different elements that may make a street attractive to truck
traffic. This analysis compares the existing SH 14/US 287 truck route to the proposed realigned
Vine Drive/Mountain Vista Drive streets. The analysis starts at the intersection of Mulberry/I-
25 and ends at the intersection of College Avenue and SH 1. Please see the attached
transportation-context map..
What is a "truck bypass"?
A truck bypass is a means to allow truck traffic an appropriate route though a community. .This
does not always mean completely circumventing a community, such as the LaPorte and Berthoud
bypasses. In many instances, this means avoiding residential, environmental, and other sensitive
areas that may be damaged by extensive truck traffic::The current primary truck route through
Fort Collins is SH 14 /US 287 (Mulberry, Riverside, Jefferson, and College).
Fort Collins
Shared characteristics of a truck bypass route include.
■ Higher Speed Limits: The speed limit on the LaPorte and Berthoud bypasses are both 65
mph. This speed limit is similar to the interstate highway system.
■ Weight Allowances: As part of the state highway system, the maximum permitted vehicle
weight is approximately 30,000 pounds more than on Fort Collins streets.
■ Limited Access: CDOT typically provides limited access points and requires access
spacing in accordance with an access control plan or the State Highway Access Code.
This ensures that an efficient traffic flow remains the highest priority along a bypass.
■ Highway Design Standards: There is often no landscaping or center median along a
CDOT bypass. These roads are typically designed to highway standards rather than to
local multimodal street standards.
■ Surrounding Development: In instances where a bypass circumvents an entire
community, there is often no adjacent development. This creates a street where the sole
purpose is traffic movement. In instances where there is development, it is largely
commercial and office uses (Berthoud is currently reviewing 24 projects, most of which
are commercial).
Truck Route Analysis
Speed Limit Analysis
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) specify design speed limits for
each type of street:
Four-Lane Arterials: 35-45 mph
(realigned Vine Drive, Mountain Vista Drive, Timberline Road, Lemay Avenue)
Two-Lane Arterials: 30-45 mph
(Conifer Street, Giddings Road, Turnberry Road)
Collectors: 25-35 mph
(Country Club Road, existing Vine Drive)
The speed limit analysis presented at the March 18, 2009 Transportation Board meeting by the
Lindenwood neighborhood has been reviewed and revised by staff to address the existing
northeast street alignments and accurately reflect posted speed limits. The average posted speed
limit between the Mulberry/I-25 intersection and the College/SH 1 intersection are below.
Please see the attached map and document for additional detail.
SH 14 /US 287: 42 mph
Existing Northeast Streets: 52 mph
Draft Plan (Vine @ 35 mph) 45 mph
Draft Plan (Vine @ 40 mph) 47 mph
Draft Plan (Vine @ 45 mph) 50 mph
FF6rt Collins
Travel Time Analysis
There are many factors that may impact travel time including traffic volumes,.the number of
intersections and driveways, and traffic signal timing. Many of these factors are dependant on
the extent of development along a street.
The travel demand model has estimated an average travel time for the draft preferred framework
plan of 12 minutes. Traffic Operations has also completed actual travel timing.runs,for SH 14/
US 287. These runs took an average of 9.5 minutes (I-25 to SH 1) and 11 minutes (SH 1 to I-
25), with a range from 9 to 13 minutes. The travel demand model estimated a current afternoon
peak travel time.of 10 minutes for SH 14/US 287.
Weight Limitations
The maximum permitted vehicle weight on Colorado state highways is 85,000 pounds and
80,000 pounds the interstate system. Local Fort Collins streets have a maximum permitted
weight of 54,000 pounds. Freight carriers are expected to use the higher weight allowances to
maximize shipments..
The project team has contacted the Colorado Motor Carriers Association with no success to date.
The CMCA has access to industry surveys and other information that would provide.local and
state truck traffic estimates that could be used in this analysis. Staff will continue to seek input
from the CMCA.
Street Classification and Character
Additional street character examples are attached. The intent of these images is to show how
public infrastructure and private development create the character of a street. While not all
streets in,the City are the same, the intent is to show how public infrastructure and:private
development create street character. The more development and greater mixture of development
types will create a more urban street character.serving all-travel modes.
Access Control
The City and Colorado Department of Transportation have an adopted Access Control Plan for
SH 14/US 287. This document specifies the location and type of all access points along the
corridor. Any amendments to the plan must be jointly approved by the City and CDOT. All of
the streets in the Mountain Vista area, with the exception of 1-25, will be under Fort Collins
jurisdiction. Access along these streets is determined by Section 9.2 of the Larimer.County
Urban Area Street.Standards. These standards allow for more frequent access points and turning
movements along a street as compared to the state highways within Fort Collins.
Intersections
The SH 14/US 287 Access Control Plan identifies 16.existing plus two future signalized
intersections: The project team estimates there are 12-13 potential signalized intersections along
the realigned Vine Drive, Mountain Vista, and College arterial streets.. This does not include any
additional controlled intersections that may be required at the time of development. There will
likely be many more controlled and uncontrolled intersections along the local streets.
Cfty of
�F6rt Collins
Railroad Crossings
The Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad lines serve the northeast portion of Fort
Collins. This includes a shared railroad switching yard along the existing Vine Drive between
Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road, and a Union Pacific switching yard along Riverside Drive
between Mulberry Street and Lincoln Avenue. Both are secondary lines that provide additional
capacity to other BNSF and UPRR facilities in east Larimer County. The majority of train traffic
has been shifting to this main line in recent years.
Trains still create a negative impact to several intersections, including Mulberry and Riverside,
College and Willow. There is also an impact to intersections along Vine Drive, including
Linden, Lemay and Timberline. However,the realigned Vine Drive and grade separated
crossings at Lemay and Timberline will mitigate this impact in the long-term.
Why realigned Vine Drive is NOT a de facto truck bypass route
The project team has been planning for a street network that will provide access and mobility to
current and future land uses. This includes all modes of travel,including trucks, that will need
access to the commercial, industrial, employment, and residential land uses proposed in the
proposed Framework map. Realigned Vine Drive would provide a key arterial street connection
for northeast Fort Collins and the Mountain Vista subarea. It would be irresponsible of the
project team to not provide a safe and efficient transportation network.
Based on this analysis, the project team does not believe that realigned Vine Drive will be a de
facto truck bypass route. There is not a large enough speed,travel time, or safety efficiency
gained for truck traffic to discontinue use of the SH 14/US 287 truck route. The existing truck
route provides a safe and predictable travel environment for trucks including CDOT controlled
access, signalized intersections, and smooth traffic flows. In addition, the SH 14 /US 287 truck
route permits vehicle weights up to 30,000 pounds more than on Fort Collins streets.
There are also several street design elements that can be included to create a more context
sensitive design to achieve a multimodal street character. These include the following:
■ Travel Lane Width: The City street standards include a 12-foot lane width for four-lane
arterial streets. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that an 11-foot travel lane would
be acceptable from a safety perspective.
■ Intersection Controls: City policy states that all types of intersection controls, including
roundabouts, must be considered and evaluated. The preferred intersection control is
based on providing a safe and efficient transportation network to serve surrounding
development and traffic volumes.
■ Street Design Speed: The design speed of a street can be adjusted with,the posted speed
limits. Portions of realigned Vine Drive may have different posted speed limits which
would have an impact on street design. However, these must be an adequate street design
speed to ensure traffic safety.
In the event that through truck traffic does begin using realigned Vine Drive instead of the SH 14
/US 287 truck route, the City would have several options:
City of
F6r� C�5
■ The City can work with local and state law enforcement agencies to enforce weight
restrictions on local roadways.
■ CDOT and the Colorado State Highway Patrol will occasionally conduct mobile truck
weigh stations to ensure compliance with weight restrictions. This approach would be
similar to speed limit enforcement within school zones.
■ The City can also post weight restriction and other signage to increase awareness of local
and state truck traffic regulations. This could be done along both the SH 14/US 287
truck route and realigned Vine Drive.
■ The project team has been asked if all truck traffic could be banned along realigned Vine
Drive. The local street network is intended to serve adjacent commercial, industrial,
employment, and residential land uses and all vehicle types, including trucks. The
project team cannot responsibly support prohibiting trucks on local streets.
In summary, the project team believes that long haul and inter-regional truck traffic will continue
to use the existing SH 14/US 287 truck route as the preferred route through Fort Collins.
Note: The project team is currently working on an air quality and noise analysis for the draft
preferred framework plan. This information will be available at the June 9, 2009 City Council
worksession and online at fcgov.com/mountainvista.
F Fort Collins
0 4 u§nki Fwv F
Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan Update
Transportation Context Map
Dou las Road
v
0
0
rn
c
V
Terry l7
Lake
eon
9,0
o°a A-B
Brewery
n
-/
ry
Oor
n
� a4P
c
Q I
w
v I
Proposed Extension of
Realigned Vine Drive
Vine Drive I
I
I
Master Street Plan- c I
Realigned Vine Drive
F=e
Airpark
"Old
Town" I
I
Mulberry Street;SH 14 /
N
5
Six-Lane Arterial Street Interstate 25(four-lane) 0 Low-Density Mixed Use 0 Employment
Four-Lane Arterial Street Realigned Vine Dr.Extension 0 Med.-Density Mixed Use OCommunityPark
SH 14/US 287 Truck Route
Two-Lane Arterial Street _ _ Draft Plan Streets Community Commercial ® Institutional
Collector Street(two-lane) Existing Vine Dr.Alignment 0 Industrial
Attachment 5
City-of
' O i Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
F6rth0 Fort Collins,PO Box 580
C ot970.21.6376 O 80522
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.com/ad vanceplanning
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 10, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Pete Wray„Senior Planner .
Matt Wempe,,Transportation Planner
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager-
Jeff Scheick, Executive Director, Planning Development and Transportation
Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning
RE: December 9, 2008, Work Session Summary—Mt. Vista Subarea Plan Update
1. What feedback does Council have regarding the options presented on the Plan
alternatives?
Staff was not asking Council to select a preferred alternative, but rather to offer general
comments on the Plan options presented. The following Council comments were heard by staff:
• Supporting market and transportation modeling analysis to justify changes to land use
and street network is important to document in preferred plan.
• Concerns of interface between existing County development and planned City growth.
Clarification on criteria to support expansion of Industrial and Employment land uses
and impacts on amount of residential, and jobs/housing balance community-wide
Coordination with property owners is important, but focus on providing best planning
options for City of Fort Collins
Why are some of the street alignments shown to connect and others are not in the
alternatives such as Conifer Street and Turnberry Road?
Make sure that existing natural areas and wetlands shown on the 1999 Plan are identified
in Plan update
What is the street classification of Conifer if the Enhanced Travel Corridor designation is
moved to the realigned Vine Drive?
Make sure transit elements are fully integrated into Plan
of
Fort Collins
• What types of retail and services would be a part of the Community Commercial
District?
• How will the grade separated crossings affect the timing of future development?
• Clarification if the residential land use densities are consistent with City Plan.
• What are the criteria and policies for determining regional trail alignments?
• The new Gateway design standards are important and staff is encouraged to bring this
implementation item to Council for consideration at time of Plan adoption if possible.
• Staff may need to consider an additional work session for preferred plan.
2. Are there other issues not mentioned that staff needs to address?
Staff received general direction from Council that we are on track on working towards a
preferred Plan. No further issues were identified to include in the process.
3. Is there any additional information that is needed prior to or along with agenda
materials that would be presented at the time a decision is considered by the Council?
The following specific requests for additional information were received:
• Data to support appropriate Jobs/housing balance.
• Need to explore potential funding options for future public infrastructure improvements.
2
ATTACHMENT 6
Summary of Moore Property Request and Response to Issues :
Request for Reduced Residential Density, Moore Property
The City ' s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) lays out policies for new "Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods" (LMN development), which prominently emphasize a
density of at least five (5) dwelling units (DU) per acre, to be achieved with a mix of
different types of housing.
Those policies are implemented by Land Use Code standards -- legally binding
requirements for development projects . Code standards include a provision for
"Modifications" of the standards to provide flexibility in a given development project if
the project meets qualifying criteria.
About 173 acres of property known as the Moore property are designated LMN on the
proposed 2009 Framework Plan. (The currently adopted Framework Plan also designates
significant acreage of the Moore property as LMN — this issue is not related to the
proposed 2009 Framework Plan.)
Representatives of the Moore property have requested a reduced density standard from
five to three DU/acre for future LMN development on their property. The request is to
amend the Land Use Code to allow the lower density specifically on the Moore property.
A statement of justification for this request provided by the owners is shown below,
followed by staff comments . A location map of the property is included at the end of this
attachment.
1
Moore Justification for Reduced Density in LAIN Zoning
(As provided by owners)
• LMN: 5 DU/acre is too dense
o Concerns
■ To reach 5 DU/acre, multi-family projects need to be planned
within the LMN
• As currently planned, 37 acres of MMN should supply
plenty of multi-family projects and affordable housing
options
■ Encourages poor quality housing by national builders
• Large national builders make the majority of their money
off of bonds and mortgages rather than building quality
homes
• They are not invested in our community and use outside
labor and suppliers
o Type of Development we would like to see in LMN :
■ Eco-friendly
• Utilizing Passive Solar Orientation
• Large Backyards for gardens and clotheslines
• Pedestrian and bike friendly
■ Local Builders/Designers
• Quality homes with character and sufficient room for
backyards and play areas
• Larger lot sizes allow for variation of design and a more
unique neighborhood
• Keeps the money in Fort Collins
■ Downtown Atmosphere
• Downtown Fort Collins Density--Approximately 3DU/acre
2
Staff Comments
Staff has discussed this request with representatives of the Moore property and
considered the various aspects . Staff has not found an adequate basis to recommend the
change. The Moores would like Council to hear and consider the request, and staff offers
the following comments to aid Council ' s consideration.
- It appears to staff that most of the Moore ' s concerns, and the things they would like to
see, could be met in a creative development project using current Land Use Code
standards. The main exception would be the desire for larger lot sizes. Also, if there is a
desire to avoid any two-family or multi-family housing types in a mix of housing, that
would be very difficult to meet under current standards .
- There is a degree of flexibility in current Land Use Code standards that should be kept
in mind. First, Modifications of standards are allowed as noted at the beginning of this
attachment. Second, standards allow a developer to set aside parks and landscaped
outdoor spaces outside of density requirements, if desired, to have fewer dwelling units
and more landscaped area.
- The density policy of five DU/acre is a major overriding policy in the City ' s
Comprehensive Plan ( City Plan) . The policy reflects wide, deep, extensive public
discussion and exploration of issues . It implements numerous points of the vision and
goals of City Plan .
- The points in the Moore property request are very similar to the points that were
evaluated when the density policy was developed. In staff s opinion, there is not
adequate new information or circumstances in this case to warrant the requested change.
- Staff considered another way to allow larger lot single family housing at lower
densities : re-designating the area as Urban Estate . This would allow for low density
single family subdivision development. Urban Estate policies and standards would allow
for only two DU/acre rather than three as requested; however, Urban Estate would seem
to be a way to satisfy the many aspects of the request. Staff considered whether the
circumstances and vision for the area could fit with the purposes of the Urban Estate
designation, and finds circumstances much more appropriate for LMN designation.
- LMN density standards, in combination with other LMN standards, are particularly
well-suited to the strategic location near a future transit corridor, commercial core area,
park, schools, and large employment center.
- A numerical observation: regarding the idea that a density of three DU/acre would
create a Downtown atmosphere, staff has measured the density of two representative
samples of downtown neighborhoods and found densities of 3 . 5 and 3 . 8 DU/acre, and not
the three/acre cited in the request.
3
- Additional numerical information: the estimated number of potential housing units at
build out with the current standard is 629 . Using a lower average density of three
DU/acre yields 378 housing units, with a reduction in potential housing units of 251 (see
Comparison Table below) .
Tables 1 & 2 - Moore Property LMN Density Comparison
Table 1 - Moore Property Land Use ( LMN 5 DU/AC)
Housing
Land Use Acres Units Jobs
Community Commercial 30 111 372
Employment 72 43 11200
Industrial 0 0 0
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood @ 5du/ac 173 629 77
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood 39 340 17
Public Open Lands 27 0 0
Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas 6 0 0
Total 1 348 1 11123 1 11666
Table 2 - Moore Property Land Use ( LMN 3 DU/AC)
Housing
Land Use Acres Units Jobs
Community Commercial 30 ill 372
Employment 72 43 17200
Industrial 0 0 0
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood @ 3du/ac 173 378 77
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood * 39 340 17
Public Open Lands 27 0 0
Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas 6 0 0
Total 1 348 872 1 11666
Housing Unit Difference between 5 du/ac and 3 du/ac = 251
4
Draft Framework Plan F crcr
Mountain Vista Off CO��It15
WBARE P1AN Moore Property
i
Z4 II i
•r94�`{.
�� :,: .� '.r ma's® i■ Irai � �
.aim
Mal
I Saw
dF
o Richards �ake Rd
a.7trlrep— Mid
rueu.w•nr....r..�q �� _
I
p� •1
"s a -.rr. Lo Pond
` .p�e��� ►►9 I a>
a.nnlnu �naTr� -'�: ii d
/miit
cif a•{: nR ie cR�� - I q
I ;�, •{e - '✓ .. [f tea, ♦0�ar• Wz :i= .lylr N
1 •r/rt new a A: �.
`,.,o•v�;; ;;:i+' :i'c''_ .� P - Mountain
-
�V \ gyp,� irrur aia';
1'
ft. n•q
J Conifer St
z
E Vine Dr z
d � I
1
Legend
Zones Streets Other Features
■ Community Commercial (CC) Local Road : ' Mountain Vista Grade Separated Rail Crossing
• r Subarea Boundary
1 inch = 2.500 feet Employment (E) Collector -Power L meO Moore Properly
rtY
❑ Industnal (1)
O 21500 5 OI.Xt �-I Low Density Mixed �2-Lane Arterial aTrail LMN within Moore Property
4et Use Neighborhood ILMN)
Med ppe� kMt'� e�dd E Regional Detention Pond
❑ Use weighborilt0j&%N) W4-Lane Arterial }}{} Railroad
Water
School (PSDI 6-Lane Arterial [ is Enhanced Travel Corridor
_ - _ _ —_- _ ❑ Community Park 1CP) Interstate 25 Natural Areas' Ditch Corridors
Growth Management Area 1. Park and Ride
5
Moore Property ' rV(
Mountain Vista p y _Fort Collins
vI SI ' BAFXAPUN Request to Reduce Density in LMN Lr,
a a
IY �
rn
i
fi
Mountain
� ryry'-�ry'��� Vista Dr
IJl'WiJ
;u
_� I •yll11J � o 0 0 0
Conifer St
a
W
a
�J �7 �'..
E Vine Dr
Legend
Zones Streets Other Features
■ Community Commercial (CC) Local Road : • Mountain Vista Q Moore Property
. r' Subarea Boundary
1 inch = 770 656594 feet Employment (E) Collector _
• -Power Line LMN within Moore Property
Mixed
0 8. 0 1 .7Qeet ❑ Use Neighborhood LMN a Trail
F r (LMN) �2-Lane Arterial Regional Detention Pond
❑ Medium Density Mixed WS-Lane Arteral
Use Neighborhood IMMN) }}♦} Railroad Water
-- School (PSD) S-Lane Arteral
Natural Areaw Ditch Corridors
E] Community Park (CP) • • Enhanced Travel Corridor
6
Attachment 7
AND RE CREATION BOARD a" '
�����"•q '�. �+xx -.��+si /r1,7 /5�,d..�r -- v'd -5uzry 4'a�s�p5�� a��i�'sue." 'Kti`a sY x' '�5Au0� r�a a`r �.� r l�� '��t�S``a �
'sro +'�51"�: a
3 t„
t #g'�}i,,:wi..i-e���" '��iy.� ,emu t,� i ., RS§•"2 x R°` +� ��� z"�y�.`*x+ b 3`�+ � x �� i,•Fh �
fi fi a Y .iiS rtra' k }k -f'rr �� � S-•�
Regular
h x., t�k -"3yR ,•y,,2, T1'i 5 s +1r r5y- ``"*a�if,s?u a` k "^4 r1,M :T' i..." `:'pNYi41 Fk Xi's N ✓ 5S �z as i �'t.e
W ediiesday;lYlayr2
;
an BryoXvenue
x�e.
{ '
• ����� ;; .,3sd 53'.&' d f yik P7 i� 2�e Aa r a �i �lun`�9 6'4�ya "'�' is h,
R.W
h . t { .? Mf% L �.�+F.{[� <F!' le.;3X• � hb Y".tT'?.NtN �'n�i.�Y� '"b.
Couneil Liaison Kell Ohlson ` ° + r
.may y :� .�, � (Staff Liaison n Crug Foreman 221 '6618t g2 r. �'�`
�.'l"" '��` 2� xiP"3�W'` r S�,''S,�.a -a,+��r ��'§ .�Sx���'�7 ,�" r �+*,• r + ,yy N � e a km a"w t +"�"i
-. lVt'.n��tt �'n5' �� 'ri� �.3'tki+'k. �.��t�i ::L.hµ! ..$�.,3 ?4'} Y4��h ������+'.t4�Y`AN• 9 bN���J��d�?fP�S �� �'{y'�"i�r�^�"i. p.J•
President ,Michael;Clalona $ sPhone`490 2335`(liome) 472 8954 (work) s Y
.5�a`� a.�'f _ � �'1:,6,"s.-('aglx�' t f � - u ^ s 3, �-frd��Tv�+y,`ar�".rt G ✓s >.s4T. 'Y'1v'Y7w{ � FSu,�'r��R"2f3 s }E=F '� -,�
Call Meeting to'Order:•6reg Miller called the meeting to order at 5:40pm.
Agenda Review& Items of Note: Agenda was reviewed, no change.
Welcome to Danna Ortiz, the newest P&R Board Member. Danna is a Land U Planner. She was the primary
author of the 2008 Dacono Parks, Trails'and Outdoor Recreation Master PI and the Johnstown/Milliken .
Parks, Trails, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. She is currently t, project manager for.the design and
construction of Frederick Recreation Area, a 50-acre regional park. Sh as written well over$2 million in
successful grant applications for parks,'trails and open-•lands` For se v ral years she was a Great Outdoors
Colorado'grant reviewer.
Citizen Participation:
ista Carlman, Rolling Spokes Bike Tours, spoke about th ckstands and Cornstalks bike'tour taking place
. a July 11, 2009.
Kickstands and Cornstalks is a leisurely bicycle tour signed to build awareness and excitement around
bicycling and local:agriculture.Rolling Spokes..Bi Tours will lead participants to 5 agriculture models in Fort
Collins, Wellington-and Laporte. Twenty.percen f the profits from the tour will benefit the Garden's`on Spring
Creek. This is a family oriented recreational ri e.
The tour will begin at the Gardens on Spri Creek with the first stage of riders leaving at 8am. Participants will
have staggered start times, with the•fast folks leaving first'and slowest leaving last, to prevent congestion on
trails and streets. The last folks will le e no dater than 9am: We have designed the route to use the bicycle
trails during the start of the ride in o er to maximize rider safety'in that area as well as to'.build awareness of
the great cycling.resources Fort C ins has to offer. Riders will use the trails as a throughway.
Approval of Minutes: Discu ion: None
Motion to approve the minu s of March 25, 2009, by William Pickering, seconded by Michael Chalona—
Minutes approved 7:1 —a ained 1 - Danna Ortiz
Updates from Previo Minutes:
Push Buttons on wrg
jffg side of post at bike crossing: Craig did not have an opportunity to look into this yet.
Dogs off Leash at ora: Craig talked with the Humane Society and they are helping out with this issue.
Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27,2009
Page 1 of 13
DRAFT
N2.enda Items
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update—Pete Wray, Senior City Planner- Advanced Planning
The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan was adopted in 1999. Since adoption, staff has
responded to numerous requests for changes to the Plan. The timing was right to have another look at the Plan
and assess what refinement is supported. The process to begin this update began in March 2008, with an
anticipated completion in early July, 2009.
This Plan is projected to accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth with approximately
1500 acres of vacant land. While the City Structure Plan, Master Street Plan, and current Zoning establish a
foundation and direction for future development decisions, the need to reevaluate the Plan to assess potential
changes is warranted.
The update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan will determine potential refinements to the land use, streets,
drainage ways, parks, open lands and trails within the study area. The process will update the adopted vision,
goals, and policies in the original document, based on new information. Finally, this process will include a
reassessment of the implementation actions identified to achieve the Plan in the future.
A.centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is the Framework Plan map. This "Framework"represents
an integrated pattern of existing and future land use, streets, trails and network or open lands—establishing a
guide for growth in this northeast part of the City(See attached 1999 Framework Plan map). ,The Framework
Map provides more detailed policy directives, than what is described in the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan
map,part of City Plan, the community's Comprehensive Plan. In comparison, the Structure Plan represents a
community-wide vision for the long-term growth of the City as a policy directive. The Structure Plan map is
more "broad brush"in its delineation of existing and future land use, streets and open lands, than the Mountain
Vista Plan Framework map.
Key building blocks incorporated into the Framework Plan map, or"pieces of the puzzle", include new
residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial center, employment and industrial districts. These
destinations will be linked by a system of transportation corridors serving vehicular, transit, bicycle and
pedestrian travel that provide a high level of connectivity, internally and to other destinations throughout the
community.
Staff has been working with a consultant team to assess market support for various land use scenarios and
traffic forecasting of the proposed street network options. Staff developed six framework map alternatives
between December, 2008 and February, 2009 to test options for land use and transportation. Based on public
input to date and consultant analysis, staff has developed a preferred Framework Plan map (See attached Map).
The draft Framework Plan map incorporates certain elements from map alternatives that staff determined best
reflected the project objectives.
Since the original Plan adoption in 1999, City staff has been in the process to coordinate the location of the
future community park. The land area needed to accommodate all park program elements including active
recreation fields, access, parking, passive recreation, recreation center and drainage facilities is between 110—
120 acres. The 1999 Plan shows the park location both north and south of Mountain Vista Drive. This
recommendation allows for agreements with Poudre School District to share facilities and locate the future park
and school adjacent to each other.
Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27,2009
Page 2 of 13
DRAFT
l
Recent discussions between City staff and representatives of Anheuser-Busch and adjoining land owners, has
formulated a similar arrangement that includes approximately 80 acres on AB property north of Mountain.Vista
Drive and 30 acres south of the existing street, totaling 110 acres.
ne extension of Country Club Road, as a future collector street is important in providing access, both east/west
between neighborhoods, school, park, and employment areas. The alignment of the street bordering the park
and connecting further south on Giddings reflects a more efficient travel route to Mountain Vista Drive and
access to I-25.
The proposed trail network described in the 2009 Framework Plan Map is consistent with the updated Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan. The trail system reflects both study area connections and links to community or
regional trail connections that are off-street in most cases.
Discussion/Questions:
Do you feel.the truck traffic will increase along Vine? We do not anticipate the truck traffic moving from the
current route utilizing highways 14 and 287. There are traffic control measures that can be implemented if
truck traffic becomes an issue.
Will property have to be purchased for Vine Drive to be realigned? Yes, if the draft is accepted by Council, it
will then become a part of the Master Street Plan. Landowners would have to comply and allow the City to
purchase land for the new road.
What is being done in that area currently, is it part of this project? No it is not part of this project. The Greeley
waterline is under construction, and the North County waterline will follow in about 2-3 years.
Recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Board
After reviewing the information presented by Pete Wray regarding the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan at the both
'',e March 27,.2009, Parks &Recreation Board meeting and the May 27, 2009, Parks.&-Recreation Board
Feting; Greg Miller moved to recommend the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
as presented. William Pickering seconded the recommendation. There was no further discussion.
The Parks & Recreation Board voted 7:1 in favor of recommending the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
Board Member.Jessica MacMillan voted not to recommend the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan due to the Conifer Street expansion. With Vine Drive being realigned to the North, she does
not feel that affected neighborhood wants Conifer to be expanded, as they are highly dissatisfied with how close
Conifer will be to their homes.
NOTE: The May 27, 2009 P&R Board Minutes have not been approved by the Board. The P&R Board
approves minutes from their previous meeting at the current meeting.
BFO Update
We are currently working on offers. With the budget constraints, the enag-Ka f p�r�ions wr be wor ing
on creative ways to do more with less. Each de aLiw cmg on ways to be sustainable, innovative and
customer service oriented. The fi - r need to be the results teams by Friday, June 5. The result teams
will review each offe necessary, will ask the sellers to clarify or provide more information.
The gene epartments are all competing for the same pot of money, so it's difficult to have offers
fun
Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27,2009
Page 3 of 13
DRAFT
Parks does include information from the.Community Scorecard in the BFO offers. The Community Scorecard
combines information from the 2008 Citizen Survey, ICMA and data from other City departments. arks has
one of the highest ratings. It also shows that we operate efficiently at maintaining our parks at $5 2 per acre
when the average cost to maintain a park in the region is around $5,700 per acre.
Please see the attached slides from a PowerPoint Presentation detailing the Culture & Recre ' ional Results
Team purchasing indicators and strategies.
Updates
Park Updates:
With Phil Carpenter retiring in February 2010 and the Golf Directors' position vacan we are working on a
couple of organizational chart variations which allow for succession planning.
The maintenance of the 180 medians and streetscapes is handled through a contr ctor that Parks supervises.
Korby's had the contract for 5 years and the contract was up for renewal this y r. CoCal came in $30,000 less
with the low bid and has the contract. However, it is now costing Parks mo y because they are not abiding by
the contract. We are aware the medians and streetscapes are not up to s `Fdard and are meeting with CoCal to
discuss their contract and what is expected.
Parks is helping to decrease the carbon footprint by utilizing a b' cle with a cart in the downtown area to work
in, and among, the medians downtown, Oak Street Plaza and ' Old Town Square. There will be an article in
the Coloradoan.
Fort Collins Parks are finalists for a gold medal from A. We are submitting a 12 minute video highlighting
our parks, created by Channel 14, and our new polic plan. The video will be done so that it can be used in
other capacities to highlight our City and its park
Discussion/Questions:
What about the new bike racks downtown? arks was not a part of the decision or discussion about placing the
bike racks downtown. This was done thr gh the Transportation Department.
They take up so many parking places; ill they be there in the winter? As far as JR is aware the bike racks will
stay up year round.
Recreation Updates:
City Park Pool opens for the s er on Friday, May 29. The drains/grates have all been updated to meet the
new code, so we're in comp ance.
Discussion/Questions:
With budget problem will EPIC be closed as planned? Yes, Recreation is still on track to close EPIC pool in
August for about 4 weeks for some repair work. This will also be the time that they upgrade the drains/grates
to.become comp ' nt.
Pro'ect U tes
Collindal eck expansion will be completed the first week of June. This was done to provide tournaments with
additio seating.
T skate park at Spring Canyon Community Park has two areas. The current skate pad is being redone with
"type mounds and curves, and the new area is a "pool" for skaters. It is a 70's style rectangular pool that
Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27, 2009
Page 4 of 13
DRAFT
Affordable Housing Board May 7, 2009 ATTACHMENT 8
Minutes (Draft)
Update on Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Pete, what I'm passing out here a copy of our latest draft framework plan in comparison
to the original adopted plan from 1999, so we're on the ten year cycle for updates. The
goo last time we came to the board, two months ago, we were still developing or assessing
various plan alternatives to test the land use and transportation options. The difference
now is we have a consolidated draft plan so share with you tonight. This is the same plan
that we presented at the public open house a little over a week ago.
Ben: It this A, B, or C.
Pete:" We have six alternatives over the past 4 or 5 months. We're pleased to be out of
the alternative plan-phase. You can see the land use table comparison of acreage. What
we're looking at with the new plan for residential, which is the focus of our discussion
today. We have a little overl500 acres of low density mixed use neighborhoods, the,
yellow on the plan which is consistent with the city plan, community wide: We have
about 150 acres of medium density which is predominately multi-family; this is the
orange addition to the commercial center in the middle of the plan. We also have
strategically located the MMN, multi-family adjacent to key intersections that are also in
alignment with future enhanced travel corridors which are a planning description for
potentially high frequency bus service similar to what you've probably heard on Mason
Corridor. Our structure plan,there's four future enhanced travel corridors throughout the.
community. Mason is one of them. We have always shown on our structure plan map
one connecting the downtown transit station up to this northeast area. And, the original
plan showed it on Conifer Street,but our new.recommendation is to shift that further to
the south along the realigned Vine and Cherry connecting up to the center and
employment and I-25 and park and ride facilities out here.
So, we are showing higher density residential along this north enhanced travel corridor
and also along Timberline is one of those other enhanced travel corridors from Harmony
up to this northeast area. Those both bisect at a new intersection, north of the existing
Vine Drive and now on up to this larger northeast area.
As far as housing units, we are looking at approximately 5700 housing units which is a
combination of calculations with the low density residential,which Ken described at our
last meeting, really allows quite a bit of flexibility for not only housing types, but density
aswell, because we require a minimum of 5 units per acre within the LMN,.but that can
range all the way up to 8 or 12 for a single phase of the development. So, there is quite a
range within this LMN. Within the orange, it's a minimum of 12 units per acre with
mostly attached product housing type. Typically, what we've seen throughout the
community over the years, 12 to 16 units per acre with no cap. Typically, what we've
seen throughout the community over the years is 12 to 16 units per acre. We haven't
really seen a lot of high density residential. We created anew HMN, but we haven't seen
any projects come forward that would reflect that vision for that area.. Perhaps in our
downtown area, with some of these loft projects, we eventually might see some higher
11
end of that range. Typically for apartment complex, condo, townhome kind of projects,
it's close to 12. Isn't that right Ken?
Ken: There's still a range, what we use to call the standard FC 2 %z story apartment is in
the range of 14 to 18, something like that.
Pete: All of our land use designations provide some sort of mixed use. Even within the
community commercial district, there is allowance for some mix of residential within
that. And, typically with employment in other areas of town along Harmony Corridor, as
an example, and adjacent to some of our east prospect area, there is a provision for
secondary uses within the employment up to 25% of project. For typically multi-
family/residential. Just south of Harmony, south of Intel,just north of the new Fossil
Creek HS and Observatory Village area, a lot of that multi-family housing is within the
employment Harmony Corridor zoning, and that came in as a 25% secondary use. For
that larger and that came in as a 25% secondary use. For that large Harmony technology
park that includes Intel on that corner of Ziegler and Harmony. As an example, they
calculated the large employment tract and figured out how much residential would be
allowed. And that came in first, so, we still would expect the employment parks and
things like that to fill in the rest of that because they maxed out their 25%.
Anheuser Busch has been I think we mentioned this at the last meeting, has been very
clear that they really don't support residential within their buffer area and transition
between residential and the more industrial brewery operation. So, they are looking at
roughly a little more than a mile buffer. If they ever market any of their property, they
have made it pretty clear, that they are not interested in that 25%provision or any other
kind of residential.
I think at the last meeting that we talked about this plan provides a lot of options for
potential AH projects based on the private market coming forward and looking at some of
our incentives and existing programs. But, we don't have specific provisions as part of
this framework plan as far as identifying land bank properties or other incentive measures
that are different than our existing programs. Again, I think roughly half of this study
area we are showing as residential. We still think we are maintaining an appropriate
jobs-to-housing balance, and we're comparing that citywide as we move forward with
our analysis. But, the other part for discussion and in your packet, we do have a request
by the second largest land owner in this study area. Anheuser Busch, as you probably
know, is the largest land owner. They own about 1200 acres. The Moore family owns
two quarter sections, which is about 340 acres. It's larger than two quarter sections, and
it includes a majority of LMN. They are kind of the hole in the middle of doughnut. We
have a lot of our key land uses on this property. LMN, we show about 40 acres of LMN
adjacent to the community commercial center, which is about 30 acres and a portion of a
future community park: And, consistent with the original plan and policy language that
we have in the city plan, envision higher density residential adjacent to employment
areas, adjacent to commercial destinations and kind of a new concept that we're trying to
implement along Mason Corridor. Along this future enhanced travel corridor, some
higher density residential with perceived, future transit stations and things like that to
12
better support transit along those corridors. And, their request is to have the city consider
a provision within-the low density mixed use neighborhood, and again, remember I
mentioned we have a requirement for a minimum 5 units per acre, they are looking at a
minimum of 3 throughout their property.
Demise: Just the LMN portion of their property?
Pete: Right. The first table, option 1, is what we show with our plan. The second table,
and that produces about, that's about 250 acres is what we're talking about here on their
property. Without a potential change, would generate about 900 housing units at 5 units
per acre. We're just looking at the LMN right now. If you look at the second table, that
is with that assumption of a 3. This is similar to what we agreed to with the joint plan
that we developed down in southeast in the Fossil Creek area with the county about ten
years ago, where we had around Kechter Road and North we had our typical
designations, but as we got closer to the reservoir we agreed with the county that it made
sense to feather the residential density lower as we got closer to the reservoir which the
city and county really recognized as a high natural resource area, and we didn't have. It
was quite a different position than all the other lakes around the region that are private
and surrounded by expensive homes on the water. We really wanted to set a new vision
for that southeast area, so it really made sense to come up with a modified LMN north of
the reservoir down to urban estate and then down to the county's FA1 zoning. Hopefully,
protection, conservation easement, acquisition and really try to reduce development
around the reservoir.
Obviously, this is quite different. I think their reasons. We've heard several initial
justifications and we are still trying to get confirmation in writing. They think that it's
more marketable for larger lots and a variety of housing types with that lower density.
They showed some examples of some projects that were done in the Timnath area and in
Windsor that are 2-4 units per acre. They think it provides more opportunities for
families and they think it's actually a better arrangement next to a commercial center, a
park, and a high school. Compare that to what I just mentioned about this is our long-
term future growth area and since the original plan and the original city plan in 1997, we
have recognized this area as a large employment center and pretty sizeable commercial
district to serve this northeast area, and we have two enhanced,travel corridors merging in
this area to connect it to other parts of the community,and from the staffs perspective
we think that the densities that we have had in place and what we are showing with our
new draft plan are consistent with city plan intentions. This counters that to some extent.
We don't have a zoning district that reflects this specifically.
Ben: This would be a new zoning basically.
Pete: It's one of the things that we are going to be asking council for direction on June
91h. There are really three choices: (1) to come up with a new zoning district, but we
really don't think that's appropriate for an individual property; (2) to wait for a future
development project, and we have provisions in the Land Use Code to allow a
modification to our development standards and they could provide justification for
13
change based on that specific development proposal and try to get approval that way. I
think that's probably something we would recommend. The third option is what they are
suggesting is that we actually put language in the plan and we change the LUC to put
new language in the LMN, Article 4 Zoning District, like Fossil Creek, where it says
instead of a minimum 5, it says for this property the city would agree to a minimum of 3,
etc.
Ben: Would it be 3 to 8 still?
Pete: It would still be to 8 except the lower end minimum would.be changed from 5 to 3.
And again, that's similar to what their county put in their supplemental regulations for the
Fossil Creek area. N
Ken: I don't think Pete's last statement really needs to be blasted. Pete was one of the
project managers for the southeast area north of Fossil Creek area. Let me back up.
When we did city plan, which went through a tremendous citizen participation process,
looked at all kinds of issues, housing, relationships to commercial development, types of
housing, all these different ratios and stuff, and the idea to increase the overall density in
the community to promote alternatives modes, deal with air quality and other
environment issues. Then we got into the Fossil Creek Area Plan, and because of that
unique environmental asset to the community, he did.not mention, they do not mention
the bald eagle roosting on the trees on the north shore of that, so there was a reason to
look at doing something different than the minimum of 5 units per acre. He didn't
mention the county's transfer development units program which this area was a receiving
area for in an attempt to help create more open space in the FC/Loveland corridor. That
was a receiving area. And developers north of Fossil Creek had to go south of Carpenter
Road,buy those development rights there and transfer them to the north side of the
reservoir. So, it was a pretty complex implementation strategy for that whole area. None
of that exists here. There's no extreme environmental issue that needs to be phased to
buffered against. At five units per acre, you can still do a half acre lot in five units per
acre. It just means you've got to make the trade off, that another part of the property
made need to have a higher density to get those half acre lots. So, it's not prohibitive
against doing larger lots. And, in my background memo, I said this is somewhat unusual
because the board doesn't get into land use planning. Your purview is for affordable
housing. As I mentioned at the last meting, the minimum density requirement, the mix of
housing type requirement that we have in a land use code basically requires LMN ground
to develop some type of attaching dwelling. Attached dwellings are typically cheaper,
more affordable than detached housing. You can have your$3 million dollar condos.
There are exceptions. So, again, my recommendation to the board in supporting or
making a comment about the Moore's thing, you're interest is in preserving the potential
for the development of AH. Now, when we had our luncheon with Mike Sollenberger, he
said,hey, cut a deal, for three units an acre maybe you come back in and Pete mention
the HMN zone,maybe there's a trade off that will give you the 3 if you go to 20 on
another part of your property so that the net number of units that are going to developed
is going to be zero. You are not going to lose the potential number of units.
14
Denise: We want to get something. If we just ask us.for a recommendation that would
lower it to three, the answer is no. FC, the thing that really constrains FC in terms of
affordable housing, is land. This is the only place that's really left for the city to grow.
And when you close off options to AH in the only part of town that's left to grow, you
just kill us.
Ken: You look at the significant areas of employment; those aren't all going to be
$100,000 scientist/engineering positions. There's gong to be support staff. There's
going to be lower paying jobs up here too, particularly in the retail sector, so there's
going to be a need for affordable housing.
Pete: In the information that we put in your packet here, that if it was 3 units per acre, it
would reduce the percentage of potential multi-family housing. Some recent examples
that are close to 3 units per acre, are Stan Everitt's Fossil Lake Ranch, south of Kechter
in that middle part, because that was part of that reduced density there, and the value of
those homes, are up there. I think the Ponds Development off of Overland is just a little
over 3, but again, I think the cost of those homes are more than you're typical.
Denise: I'm not opposed to housing for rich people. I'm just saying that this is one of
the only areas that we have left. We close off the option, or we reduce the possibility of
affordable housing development being developed.
Pete: We do have urban estate along our edges and things like that.
Denise: How many times have we talked about the importance of developing AH near
transportation, near employment, near services? I really don't want to see AH developed
away from bus lines. We can't guarantee that AH is going to be developed on that land,
but if we say, sure, go ahead, reduce it 3, we really close the door to the future.
Pete: As Ken said, this is not something we're by any means forcing you guys for a
recommendation. It's up to you. We're going to be asking council for direction at the
June 9`h work session. The representatives of the property have consistently requested
this change.
Ken: I had a talk with Larry Kendall, used to be president or guru, whatever. We talked
about the exodus of large, more expensive homes out of FC. Part of the reason is, we're
fresh out of golf courses and we're fresh out of lakes. These are amenities that the people
who want to live in that type of housing. With one exception being the Moore property,
with the way the land is laid, and it sort of rises up, through design, you can get some
excellent views of Long's Peak from that property. But,again, we're not prohibiting
larger lots. You want to build some large lots, go ahead. It's just that you need to
compensation in another place.
George: I don't know where the seven parcels are you are holding for the Land Bank.
15
Ken: They are scattered through the community. We don't have a land bank property in
this property. The closet one would be on West Vine, west of Taft Hill Road.
George: Is there any sort of a map that shows where they are.
Denise: Board members, do we have a suggestion on how you would like to frame our
response.
Ben: I think we are all on the same page.
Denise: As a board, we would like to support the current proposed framework plan, and
we would oppose any plan to lower the density in those LMN portions of this plan. And
then, for the following reasons, land is scarce within the City of FC, the scarcity of land
makes it more difficult to develop AH, the open land that we have available, and
lowering density requirements would make it more difficult to develop multi-family
housing within the plan area.
Ken: Was that like a motion or just a consensus.
Pete made the motion. George seconded.
Discussion: All those in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Update on the Affordable Housing Agreement
Megan: We met with some local nonprofit and for-profit developers with the intention of
going over the agreement in detail. It was a great discussion, lots and lots of issues, b
we didn't necessarily really talk about the agreement all that much.
Ken: But, it was a great meeting, and Megan tried to bring the agreeme ound. We
just kept going around, it was great, we shared a lot of good inform J n, a lot of insight.
We need to meet again.
Megan: We had lots of discussions, kind of about de v ' pment incentives in general that
we have. In sitting around with builders and deve ers, the question came down to, you
know, who are we really incentivizing to buil . The ones that we have in place are
designed for develops, the commVentsca up that really it's the builders that takea big
brunt of the cost for trying to buiable housing. It really brought up more of an
issue of how our incentives are, king and whether or not they are working.
Issues around home owne p and how to keep home ownership affordable for the long
term. We had good c ersations and ideas about that. Candice Mayo from Habitat
wasn't at that ng,but I met with her separately. Kind of a big part of the agreement
was the is f the fees or the penalties. If they say they are going to so many units and
then ve them a delay of fees or we reduce their fees and they decide not to build it,
much should we be asking back? So, it's a matter of quantifying those incentives
and how.much should we expect to get back should they not follow through.
16
ATTACHMENT 9
City Council Work Session
June 9 , 2009
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan = Update
1 `rt�olUns
Questions for City Council :
1 . Does Council have all of the necessary information to
make a decision regarding the street network shown on
the proposed Framework Plan , including " Realigned
Vine"? If not, what additional information is needed?
2 . Does Council have all of the necessary information to
make a decision regarding the request for reduced
residential density in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zoning on the Moore property? If not,
what additional information is needed ?
3 . Is there any additional information that is needed prior to
or along with agenda materials that would be presented
at the time a decision is considered by the Council?
1 `rt Collins
1
or
_ Purpose of
Plan Update
An 8lemcnl of
Fort Collins
CITY PLAN atyof
Fort Collins
►.
Context Map
a
Y
I l - ax Om Rd -
HwI�aa
nET
HAr
2
r;
1999
�-
Ir'Frarnewot* Plan M
r—..._:...� . _---....._.. _ '
5 apt -� -�. , �� � r•
1999 Framework
Residential Land Uses
Low Density
Neighborhoods ` , � 25
N
R,
'. ' Richards Lake Rd.
vv ;
��r � Medium Density
Neighborhoods
, y I
e 7
Low Density � � East Vine Dr.
Neighborhoods
• • Uns
s
. . . Framework
Non-Residential Land Uses
Community Park ' '_ . � •
C~ Auheuser- Busch
' ` _ Richards Lake Rd. � Brewery
Industrial
Future PSD Site `� �'� ,
c ` Employment
d
J _ Community
Commercial
a:: n
CItyOf
Fort Collins
I AAA
Master Street Plan
Conifer Street Grade-
(EnhancedIA 7t7
Separated
Travel Corridor) - . Crossings
VOTA
L AAA
East Vine � �
Dgive � �� I-25 and Vine
Reali nment � Interchange
: .
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Public Process
1 , Phase I - Project Start Up
(March — June , 2008)
2 , Phase II - Framework Plan Development
(July, 2008 — March , 2009)
3, Phase III - Implementation
(April , 2009 — August, 2009)
`rt othns
Framework Plan Development
- r - - - ,
� Mnunp'nV'stz
SUBAREA PIAN L ���
Update !
- L -
1999 2008 2008/09 2009 2009
Framework Plan Update process 6 Framework Plan Proposed Council
adopted by initiated in Alternatives Framework Adoption
Council March, 2008 tested Plan Map (May) Hearing
(September)
Fort Coltins
City of
' m
WOMMal Ea
. •` � �; �QYOfa YRY � � a;. v
Proposed 2009 : , to gPOW z
Framework Plan
9P ,Jeff
n , o
C
a F Land Uses
. „ � r
`v
C:��
f '� .'�` r• ' Mountain
\^ _ Vista Dr
40
EI- = ate. ^�•.,, :,ff, -
- - 4= C_ onifer_St1104
C \
-_ E Vine Dr
_ v
F 1 fir III 111k
®pia '
is ard�s��Lak d
iy yr � i
i t rl
t9
Mountain
VISta Dr 1�
Il r I i i E V f.n ,
Non -Residential Uses
E 16
11 ] fill
III -
I I r 1 I � iii •O
01 III momil (I
ai
Non -Residential Uses Mount nVista Dr '
I •
■
rose►
� .1
\ �•YN . . •J 1�
1
�..`..., a LIMN
Y-�
Residential Uses 4; ry
^; ;. ;
'• 1 ^ � ^ .1 .� Mountain
Vista DLMN
QI�• �i\
LLLL
Conifer st
} - — —
LM�I
EVine Drmo L
ai
F
7
• 1 I 1 I
• 1111 1111
1 I
Residential Uses
• \` � r a ttlwp ` -•
It
so
t , : .
�`
pol40
i tI - MMN
J - Conifer St
E� -ine Dr
-»
MMN �
low
N - -
n
Storm Drainage,
Plain
� ■
♦ CRP n.:. •...�
Flood •• =« lerva[ Ea ement
4 . II em�M tion i.•ml �I
Natural Areas
■
Map ` • ' 11 I
t I �
1 i I I I rA_ x . •
1
1
• ' 1 I I
4�+ I
I,.
11 1 • t e l+vld.
I I 1 1 I
y �
� Not- � a
. . �_.
g
Mountain Vista
SUBARF•A PLAN
Framework Plan Map Comparison
? �. i !l�rQ3l9'rt4■
It
�v L,�''
lid
1999 Plan 2009 Plan
City0Fort Collins
SO
7 5 %W low BE
4i P I 1 -0 ISC�01iYi�
1
�, d1.
' III a Lake Rd .
Moore Property
P KY N
tong PoM ''. . . m
Context ` I z _
a _ 'ut
J ` <y 1 - Mountain J
Vista Dr
v <
Conifer St +
w
� : • n
9
P=c
i� '=
03
Moore Property
Conifer 5t
L
K�
W.
C'
IWWN ~ I�lY4N
s=
E Vine Dr
r,
rose►
is ard�s �Lak d� �
Proposed 2009jLeP,f ~
Framework Plan
•E
Transportation E _ °• �.
M Ii ae� a t-�
L. \ � • ` • rr
Mountain
JL Vista Dr � E;
� n � 't
it
tL - '- Conifer m
/ c R
�- I E Vine Dr —
`m
E
iw tiny '
L■
10
u
Arterial Street . ,
Connectivity
Maintain Extension of
Conifer Street
Proposed Extension of
Realigned Vine Drtve
2 • �
Minor Arterial Streets -
(2 — travel lanes)
u
North/South -
Connectivity
Brewery
— '
Extension of
Realigned East Vine
(Enhanced Travel Proposed Extension of
RealignedVine Drive
Corridor)
22 Master
. i
Master Street Plan
140 A 4
1!
11 � Grade-
Separated
I 11 u Crossings
I
J
I
wrwu vrtA o
I '
,dins
Comparison of Existing/Proposed Street Network
h
Z, 1
jcharciis Lake Rd_. —
a _
1 e.%% .,
J L
N
i tolive 11
E ..
EM
"Copifer t. g z viW 1. m-nM
s; We Drive
Existing Master Street Plan
Proposed Master Street Plan
`' Collins
12
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Concerns About De Facto Truck Route
• There is continued concern from some residents of the Lindenwood
neighborhood about realigned Vine Drive becoming a de facto truck
bypass route.
• The project team does not believe that realigned Vine Drive creates
enough operational efficiencies for trucks to discontinue use of the
SH 14 / US 287 truck route .
• Attachment 4 of the Council worksession memo contains an analysis of
this issue including :
What is a "truck bypass route"
Technical analysis
Multi-modal street design options
1 `Y Owns
SH 14 / US 287 Truck Route
Terry:eke
a
sA
�d A2
MM+q'
� 1 U
Vine Dow
I —
Arromi
row �
town•
NIMW,gfirY t J,
13
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Infrastructure Cost and Funding
Adequate Public Facilities Standard (APF) :
• Adequate Public Facilities requires all new development to ensure that
public facilities and services are available to mitigate development
impacts
• There is currently limited development ability within the Subarea due to
APF issues
• Existing constraints (i . e . existing development, topography) limit
improvements to enhance traffic capacity at key intersections including
Lemay/Vine , Vine/Timberline areas
1 `Y olUns
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Infrastructure Cost and Funding
Several projects that can alleviate APF issues :
1 . Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay) - $6 million
2. Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) - $7 million
3. Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) Storm Drainage Project - $4.5 million
4. Grade-Separated Crossings:
—Vine & Lemay ($32. 1 M )
—Vine & Timberline ($26.6M)
—Mountain Vista ($23.6M)
city
dilns
14
Key Infrastructure Projects Map
l�
� i
r
Mount in VistApr
yU rasa^^—^^ , • • , • i
Extensi f Re-Aligned Vine
--jct ------- 71 - - - -
� � � � Existing ne Dr
1 � .
City of
Fort Collins
om`
1
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Potential Funding Options
1 . Continue to Utilize Development Impact Fees
2 , Capital Funding Request
3, Collective Funding Strategy
cRt lies
15
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Plan Implementation Actions Since 1999 Adoption
Completed Implementation Actions :
• Existing Land Use Code Standards :
- Residential setbacks from 1 -25 ( 1 ,320 feet from centerline 1-25)
- Employment Zoning , Secondary uses setback from 1-25 ( 1 ,445 feet)
• Update of the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin Master Plan
• Krumb regional detention pond
• Poudre School District acquisition of future school site
• Regional Trail underpass ( Richards Lake Road )
-- - - `Y othns L
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Plan Implementation
I . Implementation Actions with Plan Adoption :
• City Structure Plan Map Amendment
• Zoning Map Amendment
• Master Street Plan Map Amendment
II , Future Implementation Actions :
• 1-25/Mountain Vista Gateway Standards
• Northern Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan
• Infrastructure Project funding plan y .
c ty Collins
16
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update
Public Process
Summary of Public Meetings to date :
7 — Property owner Meetings
3 — Anheuser-Bush Inbev Meetings
6 — Individual Neighborhood Meetings
3 — Public Open House Meetings
9 — Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Updates
3 — Transportation Board Updates
5 — Other Board Updates
2 — Council Work Sessions
City0- Fort Collins
Next Steps in Planning Process
June 9 - City Council Work Session
July 16 - Property Owner Meeting
July 23 - Public Open House
Aug. 19 - Transportation Board Recommendation
Aug. 20 - Planning Et Zoning Board Recommendation
Sept. 15 - City Council adoption Hearing
Fort Collins
17
Questions for City Council :
1 . Does Council have all of the necessary information to
make a decision regarding the street network shown on
the proposed Framework Plan , including " Realigned
Vine"? If not, what additional information is needed?
2 . Does Council have all of the necessary information to
make a decision regarding the request for reduced
residential density in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zoning on the Moore property? If not,
what additional information is needed ?
3 . Is there any additional information that is needed prior to
or along with agenda materials that would be presented
at the time a decision is considered by the Council?
City othns
Any Questions?
`rt 1ins
18