Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/11/2009 - MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE DATE: August 11, 2009 STAFF: Pete Wray WORK SESSION ITEM Matt Wempe FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session item is to seek comments from City 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 June 9, 2009. The project team has provided additional information per Council's request. Over the ten years since the existing 1999 Plan was adopted, a handful of issues have created the need for the Plan update. 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 update planning process has included extensive public participation beginning in March 2008, and continuing through July 2009. Public outreach has included numerous property owner and neighborhood meetings, regular updates to boards and commissions, three Council work sessions, four open house meetings, and regular project updates on the project web page. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a .decision on the following transportation issues: (a) the proposed street network, particularly the extension of realigned Vine Drive to Timberline Road; (b) grade-separated crossings at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive; and (c) de facto truck route concerns, street design and enforcement options? 2. Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the request for changes for 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? August 11, 2009 Page 2 BACKGROUND I. RESPONSE TO.CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS The project team has prepared responses to questions raised by City Council at the June 9, 2009 work session (see Attachment 10). The following issues have been addressed as part of these responses. • Unintended consequences of the extension of realigned Vine Drive, specifically the de facto truck route • Phasing and funding of the transportation network • Preparation of a set of fiscally-constrained development scenarios • Clarify function and justify need for the existing Vine Drive, proposed extension of realigned Vine Drive, and Conifer Street, and need for having three streets so close to each other • Requirements for the grade-separated crossings • Vehicle weight limits on local streets • Specific details and information on the Moore property request for lower development densities • Data on the appropriate city-wide jobs/housing balance. De Facto Truck Route The project team has continued to hear concerns about the extension of realigned Vine Drive acting as a de facto truck route. City Council asked for additional information on this issue, particularly street design and enforcement options. The project team researched truck route issues in other communities, including Loveland, Greeley, Colorado Springs, and Boulder. A revised truck route analysis has been prepared to address why the project team believes realigned Vine Drive will not be a de facto truck route and the project team's suggestions for street design and enforcement options. Additional information is included in the response to City Council questions from the June 2009 work session. Please see Attachment 6-8, and 10. Infrastructure Funding Scenarios The project team has prepared a set of infrastructure funding scenarios as requested by City Council, as well as an overall capital project list. As part of this list, projects that address Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements have been identified. The scenarios address phasing and funding issues for these APF projects, including the grade-separated crossings. Please see Attachment 10 and the taped presentation for additional information. Moore Property Request At the June 9, 2009 work session, City Council asked for a letter from the Moore property owners outlining justification for their requests. The Moore family has several concerns including: • Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive as shown on the proposed framework plan map bisects their property. Staff has not found a need to significantly adjust the original adopted 1 August 11, 2009 Page 3 alignment for this arterial street connection. The engineered alignment will be determined at the time of development. • An overabundance of the Community Commercial and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods land use designations shown in the updated Plan. This is based on their desire to develop mostly single-family detached homes on their property. The proposed framework plan map has reduced the area of the Community Commercial and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designations on the Moore property based on the latest market analysis recommendations. • Excessive density requirements in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designation. City Plan requires a density of at least ,five dwelling units per acre to achieve the compact urban form envisioned by the community. The Moore family has requested a minimum density of 3.5-4.0 dwelling units per acre on lots 7,000-8,500 square feet in area. The project team has not found an adequate reason that the existing density standard should be modified on the Moore property. Further,staff continues to support the land uses,densities, housing mix, and acreages shown in the proposed framework plan map. Please see Attachments I 1-13 for additional information. Citywide Jobs/Housing Balance Based on the proposed land use adjustments, City Council requested additional information on the impacts to the citywide jobs/housing balance. Current City Plan policy provides a basis for determining a reasonable balance of jobs and housing citywide. This issue is also addressed in the 2007 City Plan Monitoring Program. Historically the City has maintained close to a 1.5 jobs/housing balance between 1997 and 2009. The adopted Mountain Vista Subarea Plan would result in a jobs/housing balance of 1.5 at full build-out. The proposed Plan update would have a jobs/housing balance of 1.56 at full build-out. This is due to an expansion of Industrial and Employment land use designations supported by the latest market analysis. Please see Attachment 14 for additional information. Additional Information Requested The project team appreciates the opportunity to address any questions that Councilmembers may have about the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update. Any additional information will be provided on September 15, 2009 when City Council formally considers the Plan. II. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE There were a total four open house meetings throughout the planning process. The final public open house was held on July 23, 2009 at the City Streets facility. The open house was attended by 45 people who reviewed the proposed Plan vision, implementation, and land use and transportation elements. A summary of the public input received at the open house is attached (Attachment 5). August 11, 2009 Page 4 III. NEXT STEPS Recommendation hearings for the Transportation Board and Planning and Zoning Board are scheduled for August 19 and 20, respectively. City Council is scheduled to formally consider the Plan on September 15, 2009. The recommendations of other boards and commissions will be included in the September 15, 2009 City Council packet. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary of December 9, 2008 City Council Work Session 2. Summary of June 9, 2009 City Council Work Session 3. 1999 Mountain Vista Framework Plan Map 4. 2009 Proposed Mountain Vista Framework Plan Map 5. July 23, 2009 Public Open House Summary 6. Revised Truck Route Analysis 7. Air Quality Analysis 8. Noise Analysis 9. EPS, Inc. Market Land Demand Analysis Executive Summary 10. June 2009 City Council Questions—Project Team Response 11. Moore Property Letter 12. Project Team Response to Moore Request 13. Moore Request—City Plan Density Policies 14. Land Use Adjustments Rationale, Impacts to Jobs/Housing Balance 15. Powerpoint Presentation Handout ATTACHMENT 1 �'�" O� Advance Planning F 281 North College Avenue PO Box 58 6rt Collins 9Fort 70.221.6 37 6 CO 80522 970.224.6111-fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Pete Wray, Senior Planneer Matt Wempe, Transportatio Planner THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Jeff Scheick, Executive Director, Pi. i(ngg Development and Transportation Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planm` 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? 13 Make sure that existing natural areas and wetlands shown on the 1999 Plan are identified in Plan update 13 What is the street classification of Conifer if the Enhanced Travel Corridor designation is moved to the realigned Vine Drive? 13 Make sure transit elements are fully integrated into Plan - 1 t Collins • What types of retail and services would be a part of the Community Commercial District? • Now 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 2 City of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue F6rt Colh 97 Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522 970.221.63.6376 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/advancep/anning MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 2009 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 Mark Jackson, Transportation Group Director Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning & Special Projects RE: June 9, 2009 Work Session Summary—Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Council members present: Doug Hutchinson, Ben Manvel, Aislinn Kottwitz, Wade Troxell, Kelly Ohlson, and David Roy. Staff members present: Pete Wray, Matt Wempe, Joe Frank, Mark Jackson, Diane Jones, Kathleen Bracke, Matt Baker and supporting staff team. L. 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? ■ More information is needed regarding the unintended consequences of extending the Vine realignment as shown, specifically related to the de facto truck route issue. Staff should research street design alternatives and enforcement options (look to other communities for ideas) that would mitigate the effects of through truck traffic on existing neighborhoods (Follow up Item). ■ Concerns arose regarding the phasing and funding of the street network and related infrastructure, especially the three proposed grade-separated crossings. Staff should create a constrained model analysis that would highlight the impacts on future development and traffic if the City was unable to fund those big-price items (Follow up Item). City of / FNo Collins ■ Questions were raised about the proximity of existing Vine Drive, the proposed extension of re-aligned Vine, and Conifer Street. Staff should clearly explain how each roadway would function and justify the need for having the three so close to each other (Follow up Item). ■ Is the PUC requirement for grade-separated crossings legislative or bureaucratic? It seems unreasonable and is there any way to influence a change in policy (Follow up Item)? ■ Is it possible to change the weight restrictions on local streets? Why is the current limit 54,000 lbs? How do the weight restrictions influence street construction methods (Follow up Item)? 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? ■ The Moore request for reduced density clashes with the tenets of City Plan. Are there ways to use the existing development review process rather than making the policy change through the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update? ■ More information is needed from the property owner that clearly outlines their reasoning/justification for the request (Follow up Item). 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? ■ Staff should provide additional information related to the various schedule changes for the planning process and any/all meetings that have been canceled. How was the public notified of these changes (Follow up Item). ■ The jobs/housing balance for the subarea needs further explanation regarding the increase and staff s reasoning for why it is acceptable (Follow up Item). ■ Clarify the acreage calculations for water features/natural areas/ditch corridors (Follow up Item). ■ Explain the timing of infrastructure improvements and when development can be expected in the area(Follow up Item). ■ More information is needed regarding the statement that the NECCO project will have no negative environmental impacts. Staff must be accurate when describing the effects of the project on floodways vs. floodplains (Follow up Item). 4. Additional comments/information needed and next steps: ■ Great planning effort. It is important to keep in mind that this is a long-term Plan and one that will involve public-private partnerships to share the costs of infrastructure improvements. ■ There was support and direction given to staff that an additional work session would be helpful (Staff will coordinate August schedule to add meeting). ■ Staff must be conscious to remove any value-laden language from the Plan document in order to respect the public's differing viewpoints. Note: Responses to requests for additional information will be sent at a later date. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 Mountain vista SUBAREA PLAN Framework Plan FUfj CoI (IIIS Adopted October, 1999 y �b 1- INS • I l i\L\`\ � I d � 1 0 1 (Ito IF rM n ----=— �4 Richards I f7Zun 1 . N - I7' n tr)/ I Club� d - I I ` AN c ` Mountain Vista Dr H 1 O � � r Conifer St - ✓_ 1 ------ k MCI n r — E Vine-Dr f ------------� j oRan Boundary Street Network - Land Use Low Densely Mixed Use _ - -- - - - �- — City Limits Arterial , community commercial Medium Density Mixed Use Urban Growth Area Boundary Collector Employment Natural Area t Railroad Lines Highway Industrial ' Public Open Lands Parcels Minor Arterial Institutional/School Water Features m ---- Trails 1 inch = 2,500 feet _ r ATTACHMENT 4 SMouUBAREA PLAN Proposed Framework Plan t�i�5 May 2009 _ I 711171 1► ��qII � Id RFD IF e• - � �s� arLeii �� v`s'Q�j ceo ',• I� I II lIn n ' OFF Richards Lake d ra:.�eocEyasev�i:cs�-- . p 14 RI1111011e . Long Pond 14) Kew IN j � � ✓• it i.� T OEM ,e1 Mountain a. �� s<6% r i Lial y� j ! ode �*"� �a>:err � a Vista Dr - - 7 ¢ q looms (59 e,Nt" eit i Z — — - — �a.Conifer IS c � - E Vine IFlu E L jiH tIL.: nAm lltitt-. � satm�rt-aY+ nflf r ae—mOl: FFIF FFI R Legend Zones Streets Other Features r Community Commercial (CC) Local Road - ' IF Mountain Vista l�l Grade Separated Rail Crossing . • Subarea Boundary ✓., 1 inch = 2, 500 feet ❑ Employment (E) Collector _ • • Power Line lj Regional Detention Pond Industrial ( 1) 0 2,500 51000 Low Density Mixed Illg2-Lane Arterial Trail Water Feet Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed IlWl4-Lane Arterial }+-H Railroad Use Neighborhood (MMN) Natural Areas/ Ditch Corridors School (PSD) 6-Lane Arterial so so Enhanced Travel Corridor a .,.owa ... Community Park (CP) —_ Interstate 25 Q Park and Ride = Growth Management Area ATTACHMENT 5 kelty of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Collins Fort Collins, 6 80522 F6rt 970,224.6111 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/advanceptanning Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update - Summary of Public Comments Public Open House - Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. City of Fort Collins Streets Facility Attendees City Staff Pete Wray, Advance Planning, Project Manager I Matt Wempe, Transportation Planning, Project Manager Megan Woodman, Advance Planning Matt Baker, Engineering Mt. Vista Area Property Owners and Residents Event Description This was the fourth and final public open house that the City hosted for the Mt. Vista Subarea Plan Update. Area residents and property owners were invited to attend an informal meeting where project information was presented on boards and citizens could learn at their own pace and ask questions as they felt necessary. There was no presentation given; staff was spread throughout the room to answer questions and record public comments. Approximately 45 citizens attended and shared their comments on the proposed Framework Plan that will be presented for City Council adoption in September, 2009. Comments • Grade separated crossings should be a higher priority on the Capital Improvement Project table. • Adequate Public Facilities (APF) relief at Vine and Lemay - how does it impact "upstream" streets and neighborhoods? • Would Lemay need to be widened when Realigned Vine between College and Lemay is constructed? ■ Traffic calming needed along the new NS collector. ■ Is the new Greeley water line (GWET) under the pavement of realigned Vine Drive? ■ Specify what the "T" in "ETC" could mean. ■ It seems like there is a healthy mix of Industry, Residential, Recreational, Natural, and Municipal in the planning. ■ I am not excited about (old) Vine being segmented, but I do see that it is currently inadequate or will become so soon and that there is little room for expansion as it is. Otherwise, I like the general plan. ■ Looks good - fewer streets, more defined grid. ■ Greatly prefer the Community Commercial District, Industrial and Employment from the 1999 plan - the current plan extends the district too far south and east. Too small of a buffer between Industrial and Residential. r Frof t Collins ■ Don't want Conifer to be two-lane arterial - should be collector street (too many E-W corridors in small distance). ■ Still very concerned about re-aligned Vine becoming a de facto truck by-pass, and 1-25/Vine interchange would virtually guarantee it. Adamantly opposed to such an interchange. ■ It would be better if all of the Community Park was north of Mountain Vista Dr. • It would be more professional if the projected costs of all the infrastructure changes were shown as a cost/acre for industrial and commercial development and a cost/unit for residential development. It would give the City an idea of how practical the plan is (or is not). ■ Despite the noise study, I am still concerned about the increase in traffic noise this plan would produce. It would have helped if the noise report would have showed the increase in noise to existing residential areas. ■ A realistic financing plan that supports construction of grade reparation must be formulated. The grade separation points are "choke points"/bottlenecks which otherwise threatens the viability of all the proposed arterials and future residential and commercial construction. Impact development fees are inadequate to meet the long term/future construction costs because inflation will greatly out strip fund reserves from impact fees. ■ The "feasibility" of an 1-25/Vine interchange must be removed from any consideration or citizens will reject the entire Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. ■ There is only so much land. You can always get more people. Small is beautiful. ■ Turnberry Rd. should extend south to realigned Vine Dr. (1) • Very well done. Info was clear. I hope it comes to pass! ■ The plans look absolutely great! When will development materialize? ■ The light rail system/bus rapid transit is absolutely necessary. 2 ATTACHMENT 6 City Of Planning , Development & Transportation Transportation Planning & Special Projects Fort Collins 250 North Mason Street P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970,224,6058 970.221 .6239 - fax fcgov. comAransportation Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan Update Truck Bypass Route Analysis Analysis Elements Summary Revised: August 11, 2009 The variety of commercial, industrial, employment, and residential land uses is one aspect of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update that has widespread support. The project team is planning for a street network that will provide increased access and mobility to serve current and future land uses. A safe and effective transportation network is vital for all modes of travel including automobiles, trucks, 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 street classifications and alignments 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 currently shown on the 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 . The project team has brought forward a framework plan map that balances all of the input received. 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 City is not planning for a new truck route. City staff supports continued use of the existing SH 14/US 287 truck route. The project team has examined the different elements that may make a street more or less attractive to truck traffic. There are also recommendations on street design and enforcement for the extension of realigned Vine Drive so that it does not attract increased through 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 / 1-25 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 a designated 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 1 ATTACHMENT 6 ,.Fort Collins areas that may be negatively impacted by extensive truck traffic. The primary truck route through Fort Collins is SH 14 / US 287 (Mulberry, Riverside, Jefferson, and College) . Trucks are also permitted to use Harmony Road as a connection from I-25 to College Avenue/US 287 . Truck bypasses are often part of the state or federal highway system. Shared characteristics of a truck bypass 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. The speed limits on SH 14/US 287 range from 50 mph on Mulberry to 30 mph on North College. ■ Weight Allowances : As part of the state or federal highway system, the maximum permitted vehicle weight of 80,000 — 85 ,000 pounds is approximately 30,000 pounds more than on local Fort Collins streets . The higher weight limits allow freight carriers to maximize shipment amounts . ■ Limited Access : CDOT typically provides limited access points and controlled 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 : 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 often designed to take advantage of higher volume vehicular access. Truck Route Analysis The following street design elements can determine whether or not trucks will choose a specific route. The intent of this analysis is to determine if there are enough operational efficiencies for truck traffic to discontinue the SH 14/US 287 truck route in favor of other streets . Based on this analysis, the project team does not believe the extension of realigned Vine Drive will become a de facto truck route . Speed Limit Analysis The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) used by the City specify design speed limits for each type of street: Street Classification Design Speed Street Examples Limit Extension of Realigned Vine Drive Four-Lane Arterial 35 -45 mph Lemay Avenue Mountain Vista Drive Timberline Road Conifer Street Two-Lane Arterial 30-45 mph Giddings Road Turnberry Road Collector 25 -35 mph Country Club Road Existing Vine Drive 2 ATTACHMENT 6 Fort Collins 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. At the request of the Lindenwood neighborhood, the project team has also included a Timberline Road route. Please see the attached map and document for additional detail. Street Route Average Posted Speed Limit SH 14/US 287 42 mph -Existing Northeast Streets 52 mph Draft Plan (Vine g 35 mph) 46 mph Draft Plan Vine g 40 mph) 49 mph Draft Plan (Vine @ 45 mph) 52 mph Timberline Vine g 35 mph) 41 mph Timberline (Vine @ 40 mph) 43 mph Timberline (Vine @ 45 mph) 44 mph 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 . The City' s Traffic Operations department has also completed actual travel timing trips for SH 14 / US 287 . These trips took an average of 9 . 5 minutes (1-25 to SH 1 ) and 11 minutes (SH 1 to 1-25 ), 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 . Please see the attached documents for additional details on the Traffic Operations timing analysis . Weight Limitations The maximum permitted vehicle weight on Colorado state highways is 85 ,000 pounds and 80 ,000 pounds for the interstate system. Local Fort Collins streets have a maximum permitted weight of 54,000 pounds . Freight carriers, especially long-haul truck companies, are expected to use the higher weight allowances to maximize shipment amounts . Street Classification and Character Streets do not exist and operate in a vacuum. Surrounding development (i . e . commercial, residential, parks, etc . ) can impact how a street is designed, who uses the street, and the speed limit and number of access points . The more development and greater mixture of development types will create a more urban street character serving all travel modes . Air Quality The project team prepared an air quality analysis of the updated framework plan based on the adopted and proposed street networks . This analysis included estimates of the annual amount of 3 ATTACHMENT 6 Fort Collins greenhouse gases and ozone generated within the Mountain Vista Subarea, Fort Collins, and the North Front Range. The estimated amount of greenhouse gases and ozone generated at all three levels is the same between the two plans . The analysis does not distinguish air quality impacts by vehicle type. Noise The project team prepared an analysis to determine noise impacts of arterial streets, particularly the extension of realigned Vine Drive. Truck traffic is factored into the analysis as part of the projected traffic levels for the subarea. Two different standards were used in this analysis : a 55db U. S . Environmental Protection Agency standard and a 66db Colorado Department of Transportation standard. Please see the attached map highlighting the areas that would exceed these standards. It should be noted the analysis is based on a "flat earth" assumption (i . e . no topography, no development, no landscaping, etc) . Fencing, development patterns, and landscaping would all work to reduce the noise impact. Access Control The City and Colorado Department of Transportation have an adopted Access Control Plan for SH 14 / US 287 (available at fcgov. com/transportatioulanniniz/downloads) . 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 I-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 . The standards allow for more frequent access points and turning movements along a street as compared to the state highways within Fort Collins . This can slow traffic and vehicles turn in and out of developments and requires additional awareness of traffic conditions and delays for through truck traffic . 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 (see attached map) . 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 . Railroad Crossings The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) 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 UPRR switching yard along Riverside Drive between Mulberry Street and Lincoln Avenue . Both are secondary lines that provide additional capacity to other BNSF and UPRR railroad facilities in Weld County. The railroad tracks along Riverside / Jefferson are owned by the UPRR and operated by the Great West Railway (GWR) . GWR provides train car switching between UP switching yards 4 ATTACHMENT 6 Fort Collins north of Fort Collins and in south Fort Collins . The typical train traffic is one car per day with a limited number of train cars, five days per week. The railroad tracks along Mason Street/Vine Drive are owned by the BNSF and operated by GWR and BNSF . The line operates seven days per week and the number of daily trains has fluctuated with the economy. Approximately 6- 8 trains per day are utilizing the railway currently, with a high of 10- 12 trains per day in the past. The mainline UPRR/BNSF line through Greeley serves upwards of 40 trains per day serving users in Cheyenne, Denver, and eastern Colorado . Although there is minimal train traffic along these lines, trains can still create a negative impact on several intersections along the SH 14/US 287 truck route . This includes the Mulberry and Riverside (UPRR railroad tracks) and College and Willow (BNSF railroad tracks) intersections. Travel times can be longer and speeds can be lower if traffic has to wait at a railroad crossing. Despite this negative impact, the project team does not believe there is significant enough delays for truck traffic to abandon the SH 14/US 287 truck route . There are many positive aspects of the existing truck route that will provide greater operational efficiencies . Analysis and Street Design Supports the SH 141US 287 Truck Route The project team is planning for a street network that will provide access and mobility to current and future land uses . The street network will serve all modes of travel, including trucks, that need access to the commercial, industrial, employment, and residential land uses proposed in the framework plan. The extension of realigned Vine Drive will 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 to support the existing and future land uses in the Mountain Vista subarea. Based on this analysis, the project team does not believe that realigned Vine Drive will be a de facto truck bypass route. There are not large enough speed, travel time, or safety efficiencies 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 local Fort Collins streets . As part of the Plan update, the project team is suggesting several street design elements that can help discourage long-haul through truck traffic along the proposed arterial streets. Final street design and a traffic impact study occurs concurrently with the development review process . This would give both the public and the City the ability to comment on the street design. The recommended design elements would not compromise the function and efficiency of the overall street network. ■ Travel Lane Width : The City street standards include a 12-foot travel lane width for four- lane arterial streets . The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that an I I -foot travel lane would be acceptable from a safety perspective. A narrower travel lane would encourage lower speeds and a safer travel environment. 5 ATTACHMENT 6 Fort Collins ■ 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 . A roundabout would be designed to accommodate all types of traffic, including trucks . However, the slower speeds and traffic movements associated with a roundabout would help discourage through truck traffic . Cheyenne is currently planning a roundabout on an arterial street, though it will accommodate trucks . ■ Street Design Speed: The design speed of new streets can be adjusted in conjunction with the desired posted speed limits . Portions of realigned Vine Drive, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive could have lower posted and design speed limits. However, there must be an adequate street design speed to ensure traffic safety as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Lower speed limits are recommended along the Community Commercial District, Community Park, Poudre School District site. Other locations may be determined as development occurs based on traffic impact studies. ■ Local Street Traffic Calming: The City already installs a significant amount of traffic calming devices on collector-level and local streets including raised crosswalks, stop signs, and pedestrian crossing signage. Traffic calming devices are intended to reduce cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets. ■ Signage: The City and CDOT have the ability to post truck route and vehicle weight limitation signage. The project team recommends posting truck route signage along SH 14/US 287 , and vehicle weight limitation signage along major arterial streets off of I-25 . 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 : ■ 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 . There is not enough operational efficiency for trucks to discontinue use of the existing truck route in favor on realigned Vine Drive . 6 ATTACHMENT 6 Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan Update Truck Bypass Route Analysis Truck Route Comparison Revised: August 11, 2009 SH 14/US 287 Existing Northeast Streets Draft Preferred Plan Mulberry/Timberline/Vine Route 6.1 miles 8.4 miles 7.7 miles 6.7 miles Mulberry 1-25 1-25 Mulberry (1-25 to Link) 2.7 mi x 50 mph = 135 (Mulberry to Mountain Vista) 2 mi x 75 mph = 150 (Mulberry to Mountain Vista) 2 mi x 75 mph = 150 (1-25 to Timberline) 1 .7 mi x 50 mph = 85 Mulberry Mountain Vista Realigned Arterial Timberline (Link to Mountain) 1 .2 mi x 35 mph = 42 (1-25 to Timberline) 1 .5 mi x 50 mph = 75 (35 mph) 4.5 mi x 35 mph = 157.5 (Mulberry to Realigned Vine) 1 .3 mi x 40 mph = 52 Distance Jefferson Timberline Realigned Arterial Realigned Vine - 35 mph (Mountain to Cherry) 0.6 mi x 30 mph = 18 (Mountain Vista to Vine) 1 mi x 45 mph = 45 (40 mph) 4.5 mi x 40 mph = 180 (Timberline to College) 2.5 mi x 35 mph = 87.5 College Vine Realigned Arterial Realigned Vine - 40 mph (Cherry to Vine) 0.2 mi x 35 mph = 7 (Timberline to College) 2.5 mi x 45 mph = 112.5 (45 mph) 4.5 mi x 45 mph = 202.5 (Timberline to College) 2.5 mi x 40 mph = 100 College College College Realigned Vine - 45 mph (Vine to SH 1 ) 1 .4 mi x 40 mph = 56 (Vine to SH 1 ) 1 .4 mi x 40 mph = 56 (Realigned Vine to SH 1 ) 1 .2 mi x 40 mph = 48 (Timberline to College) 2.5 mi x 45 mph = 112.5 College (Realigned Vine to SH 1 ) 1 .2 mi x 40 mph = 48 Average M.P.H 25816.1 mi = 42.3 mph 438.5 / 8.4 mi = 52.2 mph 355.5 / 7.7 miles = 46.2 mph 272.5 / 6.7 miles = 40.7 mph (Total/ Distance) 37817.7 miles = 49. 1 mph 285 / 6.7 miles = 42.5 mph 400.5 / 7.7 miles = 52 mph 297.5 / 6.7 miles = 44.4 mph 7 ty of ♦ Mountain Vista Cirt . ' ATTACHMENT ort Collins SUBAREA PLAN Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan Update Truck Route Analysis Context Map Dou las Road 0 zs c Terry La ke �0 0�a A-B Brewery w �I Ln V1 D Ph or � dkP c � Q � v v � o U Realigned Vine Drive a, c v Airpark "Old Town " Mulberry Street / SH 14 Al S�k Six-Lane Arterial Street Interstate 25 (four-lane) 0 Low-Density Mixed Use 0 Employment Four-Lane Arterial Street SH 14/US 287Truck Route Med .-Density Mixed Use 0 Community Park Two-Lane Arterial Street Draft Plan Route 0 Community Commercial 0 Institutional Collector Street (two- lane) Timberline Road Route 0 Industrial 8 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 PC- Travel for Windows Reports for study: FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to I-25 Report Name Paae Study Summary 2 Overall Output Statistics 3 Fuel Consumption & Emissions 4 Detailed Statistics By Run - Travel Times 5 Detailed Statistics By Run - Stops - 6 Detailed Statistics By Run - Average Speed 7 Detailed Statistics By Run - Total Delay 8 Speed/Distance Profiles of All Runs 9 Time/Space Trajectories of All Runs 10 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Study Summary Page No . : 2 Runs Used in This Study Node Info Run Title Start Start Length Before/ Run # Len Name Date Time 9 After Type S001 RO02-TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 12 : 09 27602 Before Primary 1 0 Highway 1 2 1994 Willox 3 2791 Hickory/Conifer S001R002-TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 : 11 27556 Before Secondary 4 2476 Vine 5 1409 Cherry/Willow S001 RO04-TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 12 : 30 27556 Before Secondary 6 492 Jefferson 7 1028 Linden S001R004-TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 : 37 27502 Before Secondary 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln S001 RO06-TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 12 : 52 27522 Before Secondary 9 3105 Mulberry 10 1770 Lemay 11 1832 Link Lane S001R006-TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 : 59 27582 Before Secondary 12 4847 Timberline 13 1532 Summit View Notes: 14 I 3320 I Greenfields 3-31 -09- Fort Collins Truck Route . (College , Jefferson/Riverside , and Mulberry) Length of Study Route = 27 , 602 feet 10 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Overall Output Statistics Page No . : 3 Node Length Node Travel # of Avg Total Time <= Time <= Time <= # Time Stops Speed Delay 25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 1 0 Highway 1 2 1994 Willox 59 . 5 1 .0 22 . 8 25 . 5 27.3 38.0 59 . 5 3 2791 Hickory/Conifer 50 . 3 0.0 37 . 8 2 . 5 0.0 10.0 50 . 3 Il 0 0 5 I 1409 Cherry/Willow I 60 . 3 100 15.9 I 362 422 4702 I 60 . 3 6 492 Jefferson 40 .2 0.7 8.4 31 . 5 36.7 40.2 40 .2 7 1028 Linden 26 . 5 0.2 26.4 8. 5 8.8 26.0 26 . 5 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 23 . 8 0 . 2 28.8 6.3 5.0 19.7 23 . 8 I 9 I 3105 Mulberry I 122.5 0.8 17.3 I 69 . 5 71 .3 89.3 I 122.5 I 111 I 1832 Link Lane I 36 . 5 0 . 22 34.2 I 5.3 4.2 14.7 I 36 . 3 I 12 I 4847 Timberline I 74 .2 0.0 44.6 I 0.0 1 .3 4 .2 I 32 . 8 13 1532 Summit View 24 .2 0.0 43.2 0.2 0.0 0 . 3 16 . 3 14 3320 Greenfields 48 . 7 0 . 2 46 . 5 2 . 0 5.0 5 .2 9 . 7 Total 27,602 674.8 5.2 27.9 223.3 236.8 355.3 586.5 Stats based on 6 BEFORE runs. Stops based on a Stop Speed of 5 MPH . Total Delay based on a Normal Speed of 40 MPH . 11 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Fuel Consumption & Emissions Page No . : 4 Node Length Node Name Fuel HC CO NOx # (gal) (grams) (grams) (grams) 1 0 Highway 1 2 1994 Willox 0.0243 2 . 5547 23 . 5026 1 .6937 3 2791 Hickory/Conifer 0.0242 2 . 1946 26 . 3666 1 . 3342 I 4 I 2476 Vine I 0.0199 1 .4723 17 . 5374 I 0 . 7193 5 1409 Cherry/Willow 0.0183 1 .6903 1302556 0 . 8115 6 492 Jefferson 0.0102 1 . 0727 7 . 7970 0 .4846 7 1028 Linden 0.0110 1 .2667 11 . 0601 0 . 9098 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 0.0093 0 . 9222 8 . 8086 0 . 5700 I 9 I 3105 Mulberry I 0.0373 3 . 3901 33 .2096 I 1 .4032 I10 I 1770 Lemay I 0.0251 2 . 9331 26 . 8600 I 2 . 0170 11 1832 Link Lane 0.0174 1 . 8352 21 . 1569 1 .2427 I 12 I 4847 Timberline I 0.0431 3 . 3079 45 . 9628 I 1 . 9144 13 1532 Summit View 0.0141 1 .2796 18 . 5412 0 . 8007 14 3320 Greenfields 0.0313 2 . 1915 33 .2228 1 .2253 Total 27,602 0.2855 26. 1109 287.2813 15. 1263 Stats based on 6 BEFORE runs. 12 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 5 Travel Time (sec) by Section 1 1 1 01�0p2 ���R002 ��vG0 R�A �R�ROO� ��vG R�6SG ���R006 ��vGKR� G SG SO S00 S0 S00 SOO SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Highway 1 I2 1994 I Willox I 61 I 57 64 49 I 57 I 69 I 4 2476 I Vine 40 I 40 I 40 41 43 I 49 I 49 I5 1409 I Cherry/Willow I 47 I 57 107 47 I 39 I 65 6 492 Jefferson 40 39 17 77 51 17 7 1028 Linden 23 23 22 32 22 37 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 24 20 20 23 22 34 9 3105 Mulberry 59 224 59 108 121 164 10 1770 Lemay 66 64 61 50 69 77 11 1832 Link Lane 36 32 35 45 31 40 12 4847 Timberline 74 80 72 72 67 80 13 1532 Summit View 27 26 25 22 22 23 14 3320 Greenfields 48 46 42 45 42 69 Totals 27602 593 758 612 664 642 780 13 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 6 Number of Stops by Section 1 1 1 01�0p2 ���R002 ��vG0 R�A �R�ROO� ��vGO R�6SG ���R006 ��vGKR� G SG SO S00 s0 S00 SO SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Highway 1 I2 1994 I Willox I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 76 I Hickory/Conifer 4 24 Vine I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I5 1409 I Cherry/Willow I 1 I 1 2 1 I 0 I 1 6 492 Jefferson 1 1 0 1 1 0 7 1028 Linden 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3105 Mulberry 0 2 0 1 1 1 10 1770 Lemay 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1832 Link Lane 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 4847 Timberline 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1532 Summit View 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3320 Greenfields 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals 27602 4 6 4 6 4 7 Stops based on a Stop Speed of 5 MPH . 14 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 7 Average Speed ( MPH ) by Section 1 1 1 01�0p2 ���R002 ��vG0 R�A �R�ROO� ��vG R�6SG ���R006 ��vGKR� G SG SO S00 S0 S00 SOO SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Highway 1 I 2 1994 I Willox I 22 .2 I 24.0 21 . 6 28 .2 I 24 .0 I 19 .7 I 4 2476 I Vineory/Conifer I 42 .4 I 411 .7 411 . 7 39 . 7 I 34 .7 I 34.9 I 5 1409 I Cherry/Willow I 20 .4 I 17.2 8 . 7 20 .2 I 24 .2 I 14.3 6 492 Jefferson 8 .5 8.3 19 . 6 4 . 3 6 .6 19.8 7 1028 Linden 30 .4 30.6 32 .2 22 . 1 31 .6 19.2 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 28 .5 35.0 35. 0 29 . 8 31 .0 20 . 1 9 3105 Mulberry 35 .7 9.4 35. 7 19 .6 17 .5 12 .9 10 1770 Lemay 18 . 3 19.0 19 . 9 24 . 0 17 .9 15.9 11 1832 Link Lane 34 .7 38.4 36 . 3 27 .4 39 .7 30.9 12 4847 Timberline 44 .8 41 .6 45 . 5 45 . 9 49 .3 41 .7 13 1532 Summit View 38 .7 40.8 42 . 8 47 . 1 47 .8 45 .7 14 3320 Greenfields 47 . 1 48.6 54 . 0 49 . 8 53 .2 32 .6 Totals 27602 31 . 7 24.8 30 .8 28.3 29.3 24.2 15 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 8 Total Delay (sec) by Section 1 1 1 01�0p2 ���R002 ��vG0 R�A �R�ROO� ��vG R�6SG ���R006 ��vGKR� G SG SO S00 S0 S00 SOO SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Highway 1 I2 1994 I Willox I 27 I 23 30 15 I 23 I 35 I 4 2476 I Vineory/Conifer I 0 I 0 0 0 I 6 I 6 I5 1409 I Cherry/Willow I 23 I 32 83 23 I 15 I 41 6 492 Jefferson 32 30 9 68 42 8 7 1028 Linden 5 5 4 14 4 19 8 1006 Mountain/Lincoln 7 2 2 5 5 17 9 3105 Mulberry 6 171 6 55 68 111 10 1770 Lemay 36 33 31 19 38 46 11 1832 Link Lane 5 1 3 14 0 9 12 4847 Timberline 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1532 Summit View 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 3320 Greenfields 0 0 0 0 0 12 Totals 27602 142 299 168 216 203 312 Total Delay based on a Normal Speed of 40 MPH . 16 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street , PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1 -25 Study Date : 4/ 1 /2009 Speed/ Distance Profiles of All Runs Page No . : 9 Distance Speed (MPH ) Scale : 1 in . = 4000 feet 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Highway 1 0 Willox 4 , 000 Hickory/Conifer Vine 8 , 000 Cherry/Willow Jefferson Linden Mountain/Lincoln 12 , 000 Mulberry Lemay 16 , 000 ■ Link Lane 20 , 000 Timberline Summit View 24 , 000 Greenfields 28 , 000 32 , 000 17 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- Hwy 1 to 1-25 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Time/Space Trajectories of All Runs Page No . : 10 Distance Time into Run (secs) Scale : 1 in . = 4000 feet 180 / (3 min . ) 360 / (6 min . ) 540 / (9 min . ) 720 / ( 12 min . ) 900 / ( 15 min . ) Highway 1 0 Willox 4,000 Hickory/Conifer Vine 8,000 Cherry/Willow Jefferson Linden Mountain/Lincoln 12 , 000 Mulberry Lemay 16 , 000 Link Lane 20,000 Timberline Summit View 24 , 000 Greenfields 28,000 32 , 000 Solid Line is Normal Speed of 40 MPH 18 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 PC- Travel for Windows Reports for study: FC Truck Route- 1=25 to Hwy 1 Report Name Paae Study Summary 2 Overall Output Statistics 3 Fuel Consumption & Emissions 4 Detailed Statistics By Run - Travel Times 5 Detailed Statistics By Run - Stops - 6 Detailed Statistics By Run - Average Speed 7 Detailed Statistics By Run - Total Delay 8 Speed/Distance Profiles of All Runs 9 Time/Space Trajectories of All Runs 10 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Study Summary Page No . : 2 Runs Used in This Study Node Info Run Title Start Start Length Before/ Run # Len Name Date Time 9 After Type 1 0 Greenfields S001 RO01 -TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 11 : 59 27573 Before Secondary 2 3455 Summit View 3 1522 Timberline S001RO01 -TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 : 00 27481 Before Secondary 4 4830 Link Lane S001 RO03-TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 12 : 20 27575 Before Secondary 5 1855 Lemay 6 1730 Riverside 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln S001R003-TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 : 25 27486 Before Secondary 8 1017 Linden S001 RO05-TRTSG - 1 03/30/09 12 :42 27576 Before Primary College 9 9 930 930 Cherry/Willow 11 1443 Vine S001R005-TRUCKRTC- 1 03/31 /09 12 :49 27482 Before Secondary 12 2671 Hickory/Conifer 13 2603 Willox Notes: 14 I 1889 I Highway 1 3-31 -09 Fort Collins Truck Route. (Mulberry, Riverside/Jefferson , and College) Length of Study Route = 27 , 576 feet 20 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Overall Output Statistics Page No . : 3 Node Length Node Travel # of Avg Total Time <= Time <= Time <= # Time Stops Speed Delay 25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 1 0 Greenfields 2 3455 Summit View 49 . 8 0.0 47.3 0.5 2 .5 4 . 5 9 . 7 3 1522 Timberline 26 . 7 0.0 38.9 2 .8 4.3 7 . 3 16 . 8 I 5 I 1855 Lane 0 Lemay I 51 . 7 0.5 24. 5 I 202 2108 3205 I 48 . 7 6 1730 Riverside 36 . 3 0.0 32 . 5 6.3 4.8 23.0 36 . 3 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 60 . 3 0.2 35. 1 7 .0 4.5 14.7 60 . 3 8 1017 Linden 25 . 3 0.3 27.4 7 . 7 5.7 25.0 25 . 3 I 9 I 930 College I 23 . 5 0.0 27.0 I 7 . 5 6.2 23.5 I 23 . 5 ICherry/Willow 111 I 443 Vine I 33 . 5 0.0 29.4 I 8.5 5?0 30.2 I 33 . 5 I 12 I 2671 Hickory/Conifer I 51 . 5 0.0 35.4 I 5.5 0.7 17.3 I 51 . 5 13 2603 Willox 57 . 0 0.3 31 . 1 12 . 7 12 . 8 17.7 57 . 0 14 1889 Highway 1 31 . 5 0 . 0 40 . 9 0 . 3 0 .0 1 . 3 30 . 7 Total 27,576 574.0 2.5 32.8 124.3 120.5 253.2 478.0 Stats based on 6 BEFORE runs. Stops based on a Stop Speed of 5 MPH . Total Delay based on a Normal Speed of 40 MPH . 21 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Fuel Consumption & Emissions Page No . : 4 Node Length Node Name Fuel HC CO NOx # (gal) (grams) (grams) (grams) 1 0 Greenfields 2 3455 Summit View 0.0316 2 . 1171 30 . 5105 1 . 1649 3 1522 Timberline 0.0134 0 . 9729 11 .6252 0 . 5213 I4 I 4830 Link Lane I 0.0424 3 . 1474 44 . 3040 I 1 . 7733 5 1855 Lemay 0.0197 1 . 7043 16 . 3293 0 . 9106 6 1730 Riverside 0.0149 1 . 3903 15 .4112 0 . 8127 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 0.0279 2 . 5016 27 . 5613 1 . 5140 8 1017 Linden 0.0091 0 . 7788 6 . 5340 0 .4048 I 9 I 930 College I 0.0075 0 .6302 6 .2397 I 0 .2628 I10 I 523 Cherry/Willow I 0.0146 1 .6623 11 .6675 I 0 . 8859 11 1443 Vine 0.0132 1 . 3482 13 . 3284 0 . 8456 I 12 I 2671 Hickory/Conifer I 0.0226 1 . 9930 22 . 9806 I 1 . 1305 13 2603 Willox 0.0237 1 . 9642 21 . 3935 1 . 0290 14 1889 Highway 1 0.0148 1 . 1918 14 . 9443 0 .6490 Total 27,576 0.2555 21 .4023 242.8294 11 .9044 Stats based on 6 BEFORE runs. 22 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 5 Travel Time (sec) by Section 001��vG��o 3 �R�s 003��vC��o S ���S 005��vGKR� G.1 S00 S001R S00 S001FL S00 SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Greenfields I2 3455 I summit View I 45 I 49 45 49 I 62 I 49 I Timberline 4 4830 I Link Lane I 65 I 71 77 70 I 74 I 78 I5 1855 I Lemay I 31 I 118 30 47 I 48 I 36 6 1730 Riverside 40 34 38 39 36 31 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 75 59 58 56 57 57 8 1017 Linden 34 33 21 21 21 22 9 930 College 22 26 21 25 25 22 10 523 Cherry/Willow 60 70 55 67 11 63 11 1443 Vine 33 33 42 34 29 30 12 2671 Hickory/Conifer 47 53 51 52 55 51 13 2603 Willox 42 46 44 101 49 60 14 1889 Highway 30 30 31 33 32 33 Totals 27576 546 646 535 617 527 573 23 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 6 Number of Stops by Section 001��vG��o 3 �R�s 003��vC��o S ���S 005��vGKR� G.1 S00 S001R S00 S001FL S00 SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Greenfields I2 3455 I Summit View I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I Timberline 4 4830 I Link Lane I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I5 1855 I Lemay I 0 I 1 0 1 I 1 I 0 6 1730 Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1017 Linden 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 930 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 523 Cherry/Willow 1 2 1 1 0 2 11 1443 Vine 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2671 Hickory/Conifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2603 Willox 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 1889 Highway 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 27576 3 4 1 3 1 3 Stops based on a Stop Speed of 5 MPH . 24 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 7 Average Speed ( MPH ) by Section 001��vG��o 3 �R�s 003��vC��o S ���S 005��vGKR� G.1 S00 S001R S00 S001FL S00 SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Greenfields I 2 3455 I summit View I 53 .2 I 48.0 52 . 2 48 .6 I 37 .9 I 48 .0 I 4 4830 I Link Lalne I 50 .3 I 46.3 42 . 7 47 .2 I 45 . 1 I 42 .7 I 5 1855 I Lemay I 40 .6 I 10.6 42 . 2 26 .6 I 26 . 1 I 34.6 6 1730 Riverside 29 . 1 34.9 30 . 9 29 . 9 32 .6 37.5 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 28 .2 36.0 36 . 8 38 . 0 37 .3 37.4 8 1017 Linden 20 . 1 21 .2 32 .2 33 . 0 31 . 1 31 .6 9 930 College 29 .0 24.4 29 . 6 25 .2 26 .2 28.4 10 523 Cherry/Willow 5 .8 5. 1 6 . 6 5 . 7 30 .5 5.7 11 1443 Vine 30 . 3 29.7 23 . 1 28 . 8 34 .0 33.0 12 2671 Hickory/Conifer 38 .8 34.7 36 . 0 35 . 3 33 .0 35.9 13 2603 Willox 42 .8 38.8 40 .2 17 .4 37 . 1 29.9 14 1889 Highway 1 43 . 3 41 .0 41 . 1 37 . 9 39 .0 37.3 Totals 27576 34.5 29. 1 35. 1 30.4 35.7 32 .8 25 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Detailed Statistics By Run Page No . : 8 Total Delay (sec) by Section 001��vG��o 3 �R�s 003��vC��o S ���S 005��vGKR� G.1 S00 S001R S00 S001FL S00 SU3 Node Length Node Name Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run #4 Run #5 Run #6 1 0 Greenfields I2 3455 I Summit View I 0 I 0 0 0 I 3 I 0 I Timberline 1 4 4830 I Link Lane I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I5 1855 I Lemay I 0 I 86 0 15 I 16 I 4 6 1730 Riverside 10 4 8 9 6 1 7 3108 Mountain/Lincoln 22 6 4 3 3 4 8 1017 Linden 17 15 3 3 4 4 9 930 College 6 10 5 9 9 6 10 523 Cherry/Willow 51 61 46 58 2 54 11 1443 Vine 8 8 17 9 4 5 12 2671 Hickory/Conifer 1 7 5 6 9 5 13 2603 Willox 0 1 0 56 4 15 14 1889 Highway 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Totals 27576 115 198 88 169 62 114 Total Delay based on a Normal Speed of 40 MPH . 26 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Speed/Distance Profiles of All Runs Page No . : 9 Distance Speed (MPH) Scale : 1 in . = 4000 feet 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Greenfields 0 Summit View 4,000 Timberline 8,000 Link Lane Lemay 12 , 000 Riverside Mountain/Lincoln 161000 Linden College Cherry/Willow Vine 201000 Hickory/Conifer 24 , 000 Willox Highway 1 28 , 000 32 , 000 27 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 626 Linden Street, PO Box 580 , Fort Collins , CO . 80522-0580 Study Name : FC Truck Route- 1 -25 to Hwy 1 Study Date : 4/1 /2009 Time/Space Trajectories of All Runs Page No . : 10 Distance Time into Run (secs) Scale : 1 in . = 4000 feet 120 / (2 min . ) 240 / (4 min . ) 360 / (6 min . ) 480 / (8 min . ) 600 / ( 10 min . ) Greenfields 0 Summit View 4,000 Timberline 8,000 Link Lane Lemay 12 , 000 Riverside Mountain/Lincoln 161000 Linden 1 4� 7 College Cherry/Willow Vine 201000 - 7A Hickory/Conifer 24 , 000 Willox Highway 1 28 , 000 32 , 000 Solid Line is Normal Speed of 40 MPH 28 ATTACHMENT 6 Figure 3 . Calculated Residential Set Backs for Major Mountain Vista Subarea Roads Uri Fri ' I � . '. • ► 8//Sw� IJ Mountain Vista Drive y y�) Conifer Street 74 New Vine Drive a OId Vine Drive _ A Legend woo Noise Analysis Road CDOT ( & HUD ) Set Back Area Lil4 �r ', 0 11500 3 , 000 y: N Feet . EPA Set Back Area ICI " - 7 41 t. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 7 29 ty of ♦ Mountain Vista Cirt . ' ATTACHMENT ort Collins SUBAREA PLAN Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan Update Existing and Planned Controlled Intersections Dou las Road 0 zs c Terry La ke �0 0�a A-B Brewery 00 N cle 7 sP,P�`dkP C�v Q N Q N Vine Drive a, c N !_ Airpark "Old Town " Mulberr r et / SH 14 Six-Lane Arterial Street Interstate 25 (four-lane) C) Low-Density Mixed Use O Employment Four-Lane Arterial Street Railroad O Med .-Density Mixed Use O Community Park Two-Lane Arterial Street SH14/US 287Truck Route 0 Community Commercial O Institutional Collector Street (two- lane) Draft Plan Streets 0 Industrial I Control leAptersection Attachment 7 S ALSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BERKELEY IRVINE ROCKLIN 132 MOUNTAIN AVENUE 970.494.1568 TEL CARLS BAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 970.494.1579 FAX FRESNO POINT RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEMORANDUM DATE. June 9,2009 TO. Matt Wempe FROM. Sean McAtee ` SUBJECT. Mountain Vista Plan: Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions At your request, LSA has compared the 2035 greenhouse gas(GHG) impacts of the previous (1999) Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the current Preferred Draft Plan. The comparison was performed using a version of the North Front Range Regional Travel Model(NFR RTM) that has been modified based on input from the City. The modified model uses citywide socioeconomic data inputs that have been provided by the city. Representation of the Mountain Vista subarea has been adjusted to be consistent with the current preferred draft update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Greenhouse gas emission rates were computed based on the lasted draft version of the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator(EPA MOVES). These emission rates are sensitive to vehicle speed as shown in the figure below. The rates include Carbon Dioxide(COA Methane(CH4), and Nitrous Oxide(N20)in units of equivalent CO2. COZ Equivelant Emission Rates zsaa , � , f �i ..i.. 1 .. 2000 I_ ..... _. .._. I ! ! 1 4 3 I 1500 1 ; E W ! 3 ! —Surface Street m 1000 Freeway i 500 i i i 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average Vehicle Speed LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. These emission rates were used to compute GHG emissions for the land use and transportation system defined by the previous Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as well as the current Preferred Draft Plan. Because greenhouse gas emissions contribute to a global problem rather than a localized problem, Emissions were computed for three different subareas as shown in the table below. A discussion of the results follows. CO2 Equivalent Irevious,`' ,Updated." Tons/Day Plan .Plan Mountain Vista Subarea 93.7 93.7 Fort Collins and Vicinity 1,662 1,671 North Front Range 7,867 7,860 1. Subarea GHG Emissions:This measure considers emissions from all passenger vehicle travel occurring in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Because the updated plan includes roughly the same amount of activity as the previous plan,the GHG emissions from within the subarea are nearly identical. 2. Citywide GHG Emissions:This measure considers emissions from all passenger vehicle travel occurring in the City of Fort Collins and vicinity. The total emissions increase slightly with the updated plan,but the increase is offset by a regional decrease in GHG as described below. 3. Regional GHG Emissions:This measure considers emissions for all passenger vehicle travel within the North Front Range, including travel within the Mountain Vista Subarea and the City of Fort Collins. The total emissions decrease slightly with the updated plan,but the change is minimal. In conclusion, the updated to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has little or no impact on GHG emissions as compared to the previous plan. Within the study area,total emissions remain constant. Because GHG impacts are a global concern, a citywide and regional analysis was also performed. This analysis showed a slight decrease in regional GHG emissions,but the change is insignificant given the precision of the modeling tools used to perform the analysis. 2 I �P LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Other Emissions In addition to greenhouse gas emissions,a brief inventory of other emissions was prepared. The results are shown in the following tables. VMT and VHT—Mountain Vista Subarea 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Total Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) 251,952 243,866 Total Vehicle Hours Traveled(VET) 7,342 7,706 Other Emissions—Mountain Vista Subarea (Tons/Da ) 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Carbon Monoxide CO 4.1 3.99 Volatile Organic Compounds VOC) 0.13 0.13 Nitrogen Oxide(NOX) 0.10 0.10 These numbers are for the Mountain Vista subarea only. Other Emissions—Fort Collins Tons/Da 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Carbon Monoxide CO 56.53 56.73 Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC) 1.77 1.79 Nitrogen Oxide(NOX) 1.38 1.39 These numbers are for the Fort Collins nonattainment area. Other Emissions—Regional(Tons/Day) 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Carbon Monoxide CO 232.87 232.83 Volatile Organic Compounds VOC) 7.48 7.47' Nitrogen Oxide(NOX) 5.69 5.69 These numbers are for the entire North Front Range(based on the MPO boundary). ATTACHMENT 8 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN FORT COLLINS , COLORADO TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT Prepared for: City of Fort Collins 250 N . Mason Street Fort Collins , CO 80522 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way , Suite 600 Centennial , CO 80111 303/721 - 1440 FHU Reference No . 08- 164 July 2009 1 . INTRODUCTION As part of the long - range planning activities by the City of Fort Collins for the Mountain Vista subarea , traffic noise levels that would result from planned major street improvements have been examined . The Mountain Vista subarea ( Figure 1 ) is located in northeast Fort Collins , Colorado within Larimer County . Currently , much of the subarea is undeveloped and unimproved . Major new or relocated arterial streets are envisioned within the long - range plan for this subarea . The purpose of this traffic noise analysis is to assess the future traffic noise levels from the street improvements for compatibility with future developed uses of the adjoining properties within the subarea . The proposed major road improvements include : • Redesigning the Timberline Road connection to Mountain Vista Drive • Widening Mountain Vista Drive , Timberline Road and Lemay Avenue • Completing Vine Drive along a new alignment • Completing connection of Conifer Street The following report presents an overall traffic noise analysis that was performed to assess potential traffic noise levels at various distances from these road improvements . Train noise has not been included . This assessment is intended to provide supporting data for decisions regarding land use planning in the subarea . Generally speaking , residences are a land use more sensitive to (and incompatible with ) high traffic noise levels . This is important for the Mountain Vista subarea , given that substantial residential development is planned here . While it is desirable to have residential noise levels as low as possible , real -world experience shows that it is very difficult to achieve low noise levels in developed areas . Often , the access routes to the residential areas are sources of noise that inhibit achievement of low overall noise levels . Often , a balance must be struck between low traffic noise levels and sensible land development . Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 Figure 1 . Mountain Vista Subarea and Noise Measurement Locations . a. . e' rr .! -u r .. , - It lot 11l'tI& lilt a Mulberry Street • Mountain Vista DriveIca I1 NW r :5 Of Detail Map a ,R ; z W. > IN 1l �` ort 1 Q • , Mulberry Street ', Horsetooth Road � ► "; Prospect Road . , Or � _ 'Marren Park 1 Drake Road , n r © Horsetood �l etar a th Road _ _ Legend If I , 0"<" O Measurement Location `/ 0 0 . 5 1 K Miles : ; Mountain Vista Subarea " p�� Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 2 2 . METHODS The City of Fort Collins does not have regulations geared specifically toward routine traffic noise from streets . The City does have nuisance noise regulations ( Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 ) , including those for individual motor vehicles . However, the regulations specifically exempt the City for noise from public rights-of-way . Moreover , conforming individual vehicles could cumulatively cause traffic noise concerns . So , the City does not have specific noise regulations by which to evaluate the potential future traffic noise conditions . Therefore , three related noise criteria that have been developed by others were selected for discussion in this project . These noise criteria are based on either of two noise level metrics : the 1 - hour equivalent sound level ( Leq ) , which is the 1 - hour " average " sound level ; or the day- night level ( Ldn ) , which is the 24- hour " average " sound level with a 10-decibel (dB ) penalty for noise between 10 PM and 7 AM . The three selected criteria are described below and the corresponding numeric values are listed in Table 1 : • Colorado Department of Transportation ' s ( CDOT' s ) Noise Abatement Criteria , regularly used to assess highway noise • U . S . Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) noise regulation (24 CFR Part 51 B ) , regularly used to assess housing projects applying for federal funding • U . S . Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) recommended noise levels , identified by EPA as requisite to protect public health and welfare Table 1 , Residential Noise Limits Included in Analysis Agency Acceptable Residential • of Sound Noise Level Level Value CDOT < 66 dB Leq HUD <_ 65 dB Ldn EPA <_ 55 dB Ldn a Recommended noise level , but does not consider technical feasibility or cost The noise analysis is based on a combination of noise measurements and computer modeling . Noise measurements were made to document conditions along existing corridors comparable to these planned for Mountain Vista . Modeling was performed to predict future traffic noise conditions along the major study area roads . Two noise measurements were made for the project ( Figure 1 ) . The first measurement was made in the yard of Peak Community Church at 500 Mathews Street , approximately 27 feet from traffic on Mulberry Street . The second measurement was in Warren Park , at approximately 1201 E . Horsetooth Road and approximately 100 feet from traffic . The measurements began on June 4 and June 24 , 2009 , respectively . Each measurement consisted of 24 consecutive 1 - hour cumulative measurements with ambient sound levels logged each second . Traffic on adjoining streets was not counted due to the nature of the measurements . The noise modeling used the Federal Highway Administration ' s Traffic Noise Model (TNM ) Version 2 . 5 software to predict Year 2035 traffic noise levels for the major study area roads ( Figure 2 ) . The streets analyzed included Lemay Avenue , new Vine Drive , old Vine Drive , Conifer Street , Timberline Drive and Mountain Vista Drive . Traffic volumes for 2035 were provided by LSA Associates , Inc . Proposed 2035 street alignments were used . Because the streets have different traffic volumes , each street will have different traffic noise characteristics . Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 3 Traffic speed was modeled at 45 MPH for all streets . The vehicle fleet mix proportions were derived from published CDOT traffic count data from Highway 14 ( 5 . 1 percent trucks ) . The noise model receivers consisted of regularly-spaced points in a line extending away from each of the streets of interest . Traffic noise levels were calculated using the models for each of these receivers . TNM is designed to calculate hourly Leq values , so to obtain Ldn values , standard daily traffic distribution patterns were assumed to create TNM models for peak , off- peak, evening and night traffic hours for each of the streets of interest. The peak hour TNM results were used for comparison to the CDOT noise limit . To produce Ldn values , the four hourly Leq results from the TNM models were mathematically combined for each receiver. The purpose of the modeling was to generate data to identify the distance from each road of interest to each of the noise levels in Table 1 . Property within these distances may not be compatible with residences . Therefore , the distances indicate what set back from the streets will be needed for a prospective residential area to meet each of the three traffic noise limits , as a guide for long-term planning decisions . It is important to note that these results are without any traffic noise mitigation features , such as berms or landscaping , or any development features , such as buildings , setbacks or parking areas , Figure 2 , Noise Model Roads of Interest (2035 Alignments ) soft fit OY I � � `, i ; A1 " ® may• � Mountai,Visa Drive ii ` � :.^•ram+Tt" . ; t�' . - rE I � '"'r' : —� r• Conifer Street - �....� New Vin� rive , ;, i '`R�� r; • t3s� z � � ---Aft ' n: ` Old Vine Dnve •_ _ _ ' ( • _ .+ Legend 0 1 , 500 3 , 000 -jr Feet Noise Analysis Road N Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 4 3 . TRAFFIC NOISE RESULTS The measurement results are summarized in Table 2 . The data have been arranged sequentially to begin at midnight for convenience . Sound levels at Location 1 exceeded all three noise limits included in this study (Table 1 ) . Sound levels at Location 2 exceeded the CDOT limit ( at Hour 1000 only) and the EPA limit , but met the HUD limit . ( Note : further investigation indicates that the CDOT limit exceedence may have been due to park activities , not traffic . ) Table 2 . Results from Noise Measurements Hour of Location 1 Location 2 Measurement Hourly Leq • BA) Hourly Leq • 0000 58 . 4 1 49 . 4 0100 55 . 9 48 . 6 0200 57 . 3 49 . 6 0300 55 . 6 49 . 9 0400 56 . 7 48 . 3 0500 62 . 3 53 . 1 0600 66 . 4 57 . 1 0700 67 . 0 58 . 7 0800 67 . 1 61 . 2 0900 71 . 2 58 . 5 1000 66 . 7 66 . 4 1100 68 . 1 64 . 0 1200 67 . 7 60 . 9 1300 67 . 7 57 . 1 1400 68 . 7 57 . 5 1500 67 . 8 57 . 4 1600 67 . 9 58 . 0 1700 67 . 4 57 . 7 1800 68 . 9 57 . 3 1900 67 . 7 58 . 5 2000 65 . 1 57 . 9 2100 63 . 8 55 . 6 2200 63 . 4 53 . 9 2300 62 . 8 52 . 3 Ldn 69 . 9 61 . 2 The modeling results are summarized in Table 3 . These results show the approximate set back from each street of interest needed to meet the residential traffic noise limits for each of the three agency limits being considered (Table 1 ) . Future development plans that comply with these set backs would ensure that the designated land uses (transportation and residences ) are compatible with each other in terms of traffic noise without any noise mitigation actions . Note that the distances for the EPA limit are by far the most restrictive , and that the distances for the CDOT and HUD limits are similar. These set back distances are illustrated in Figure 3 ; properties within the shaded areas would be incompatible with residential uses according to the indicated agency noise limits . Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 5 Table 3 . Results from 2035 Noise Models (without Mitigation ) Distance from Future Edge of Street Pavement to Street Residential Noise Limit (feet) CDOT HUD EPA Lemay Avenue north of 160 110 600 New Vine Drive Lemay Avenue south of 120 100 570 New Vine Drive Conifer Street 50 55 290 New Vine Drive 95 80 450 Old Vine Drive 35 25 260 Timberline Drive north of 160 150 580 New Vine Drive Timberline Drive south of 160 150 550 New Vine Drive Mountain Vista Drive 1 140 130 550 Several existing homes may be within these set back zones , which indicate traffic noise may be louder than desirable at these locations when the street improvements have been made . Implementation of these set backs for future development could leave some property unavailable for residential development . This could be offset by placing less noise-sensitive land uses (such as commercial areas or open spaces ) next to the major street corridors . Rows of non - noise-sensitive buildings (e . g . , commercial buildings ) next to the major streets could reduce traffic noise levels at the properties behind these buildings , possibly allowing compatible residential development closer to the major streets . Another option would be to construct traffic noise mitigation features , such as earth berms , along the major streets where residences are planned . As an example , a 6 -foot-tall berm installed next to a major street may reduce traffic noise such that no set back beyond the berm is necessary to meet the CDOT and HUD residential limits ( Table 1 ) . ( Note : this is a general result and will depend on the specific ground topography near the berm and on the ultimate noise level goal . ) So there are several options available to manage the traffic noise levels in the subarea to ensure maximum land use compatibility . Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 6 Figure 3 . Calculated Residential Set Backs for Major Mountain Vista Subarea Roads l, y OL td AV a i Mountain �Vista Drive Ilu1 E ' Arlir ..: H ..�. L Conifer Street i ** � 'e► . ' why New Vine Drive Old Vine Drive A Legend 4 Yih W OAM Noise Analysis Road ` `- CDOT (& HUD) Set Back Area 4r 0 1 , 500 3 , 000 Feet EPA Set Back Area I .a, .�'' Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 7 4 . SUMMARY A traffic noise analysis was performed for the proposed major road improvements in the Mountain Vista subarea ( Figure 2 ) . The adjoining properties were examined for 2035 traffic noise levels for comparison to three common residential traffic noise limits (Table 1 ) . Without noise mitigation , a set back of at least 100 feet from the major 4- lane arterial streets in the subarea (Table 3 ) may be necessary for future residential land uses to ensure compatibility . With systematic noise mitigation planning , the set back may be reduced or eliminated , which would increase land use planning flexibility in the Mountain Vista subarea . Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 8 in Attachment 9 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan — Update Land Demand Analysis - Final Report Summary of Findings The following points provide an executive summary to the full Land Demand Analysis Report developed by Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. which follows. 1. A 25 to 35 acre Community Commercial zone district should form the nucleus of the subarea plan. A grocery store will act as the primary anchor because it can be successfully integrated within a mixed use The 1"conontic.<fiZ to 1iL'se town center. The market study indicates that a neighborhood center including a 60,000 square foot grocery store, a 15,000 square foot drug store and 40,000 square feet of ancillary retail space can be supported in the subarea by ® 2025. This type of retail center can develop in a low density manner similar to other centers in suburban locations throughout Fort Collins. However, this retail program also provides the most potential to leverage mixed use development. Several similar mixed use town center or village center centers have recently developed in the Front Range (e.g. the Stapleton Town Center and Lowry Centers). In addition, another 32,000 square feet of ancillary space will be supportable in the later years of the subarea's development. This additional space can serve as a second phase for development in the town center core. This will increase the total retail in the CC zone district to ` approximately 147,000 square feet. However, the mixed use town center ' core should not be just retail development. It will be more successful with ,i adjacent medium density multifamily, mixed-use office and retail space, civic uses (e.g. library,post office, police branch station, etc.), and public gallery places. These uses are more typically associated with traditional town centers and will help differentiate the Mountain Vista subarea as a distinct location within Fort Collins. 2. A 4 to 6 acre neighborhood center is supportable in the early years of Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. development within the Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood zone 730 17th Street,Suite 630 district A potential location for this additional retail development is Denver,CO 60202-3511 303 623 3557 tel near the intersection of Vine and Lemay, adjacent to the realigned Vine 303 623 9049 fax Drive enhanced travel corridor. Berkeley Sacramento Denver www.epsys.com EPS, Inc. Land Demand Analysis Report Summary Date June 24, 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Page 2 Retail demand sufficient for supporting a small neighborhood oriented retail center anchored by a convenience store, liquor store, and restaurants can be achieved by 2015. This retail center will likely include 35,000 square feet of retail space with an additional 6,000 square feet of service oriented uses such as insurance agents, banks, and other office users desiring street frontage. The total demand for retail space will range between 35,000 to 45,000 square feet and require between 4 and 6 acres. The timing required for the development of the corner of Vine and Lemay provides a likely location for this smaller neighborhood retail center. 3. The Framework Plan includes an additional 131 acres of Employment land. This increase will result in a 13.0 percent increase in the existing land capacity of 1,012 acres Although a surplus in office supply exists, the Mountain Vista Subarea provides one of the few places within the City with large developable Employment parcels. In addition, the immediate access to Interstate 25 will make the area an ideal location for campus style office development. Therefore, the area can support a significant amount of Employment-zoned land regardless of the oversupply elsewhere in the City. The preferred Framework Plan under consideration includes 131 acres of additional Employment-zoned land or 13.0 percent of the existing vacant land capacity(1,012 acres). 4. The forecast in employment growth and resulting land demand analysis identified a small shortfall in Industrial-zoned land capacity. The Mountain Vista Subarea provides an opportunity to correct this shortfall and provide additional capacity for industrial development beyond the 2030 time horizon. The shortfall in remaining industrial capacity is evidence to the need to increase the amount of total Industrial-zoned land in the City. The preferred alternative includes 148 acres of additional Industrial-zoned land. This additional land will not only correct the forecast deficit in Industrial-zoned land but also provide additional capacity for the time horizon beyond 2030. Given the limitations of the GMA, the City of Fort Collins will not likely be able to increase the overall Industrial-zoned land supply in the future without re-zoning or redeveloping major portions of the City's Structure Plan. Furthermore, the condition and quality of the proposed industrial land in the Mountain Vista Subarea is superior to many other locations because of the large parcel sizes with interstate and railroad access. It is therefore reasonable to add Industrial-zoned land in the subarea. 5. Due to the limitations imposed by the Growth Management Area, an oversupply in either Employment-or Industrial-zoned land is beneficial to provide flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. An oversupply of either Employment- or Industrial-zoned land does not necessarily indicate a problem with the existing allocation of future land uses. Both Employment and Industrial uses typically require large vacant parcels for efficient development. These parcels are difficult to obtain through redevelopment or re-zoning; however, other uses, such as residential and retail, are much easier to obtain through redevelopment. 6. The changes to the supply of Employment-and Industrial-zoned land included in the preferred Framework Plan will have only a marginal impact(within the margin EPS report Summary(7-22-09).doc �I Y EPS, Inc. Land Demand Analysis Report Summary Date June 24, 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Page 3 of error) on the jobs/housing balance ratio and should therefore not prevent the proposed zone changes from occurring. The increases in Employment- and Industrial-zoned land will have a marginal impact on the forecasted jobs/housing balance ratio. Incorporating the proposed zoning changes increases the ratio from an estimated 1.50 under the existing Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to 1.56 under the proposed update. This small increase(well within the margin of error at approximately 4.0 percent) will have little effect on altering the future role of the City of Fort Collins. The City anticipates serving as an employment center for the North Front Range community in the future and will become marginally more so as a result of the proposed zoning changes. 7. Medium density multifamily development in Fort Collins (outside the downtown market area) is currently primarily driven by affordability. The demand in the Mountain Irsta Subarea is likely to follow this pattern of affordability mirroring comparable development Based on this conclusion, the subarea can support between 130 and 150 acres of medium density multifamily zoning. Based on comparable development, multifamily residential in the Mountain Vista Subarea is expected to be driven by demand for affordable entry-level ownership housing. As a result, the percentage of land dedicated to multifamily use in comparable development projects provides an indication of the proportion of multifamily development to be provided in the subarea. The examples of SideHill, Rigden Farm, and the Rock Creek Drive area averaged 12.9 percent multifamily development. However, the Mountain Vista Subarea represents a much larger development area than the comparables; therefore the amount of land dedicated to multifamily will be lower overall. Assuming an 8.5 percent share of the total residential land, the demand for MMN zoning will range between 130 to 150 acres. . 8. The proposed town center forming the nucleus of the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan should include between 30 to 50 acres of medium density multifamily zoning. The remaining medium density zoning, approximately 80 to 100 acres, should be located along the proposed enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea. The ideal location for multifamily will be adjacent to the Community Commercial core and along any proposed enhanced travel corridors. Based on comparable analysis, this medium density multifamily zone district should range between 30 to 50 acres. The district will create greater synergy for the proposed adjacent Community Commercial zone district. The remaining medium density multifamily residential zoning should occur along the proposed enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea. These areas should be a minimum of 10 to 15 acres for apartment projects that tend to range from 150 to 300 units and require a minimum of 10 to 15 acres to develop. Apartment developers prefer to build near retail amenities, such as those offered by the Community Commercial core, or near major intersections. Similar to apartments, higher density multifamily development is typically compatible with retail amenities. Lower density for-sale multifamily development is typically better integrated with single family development. EPS report Summary(7-11-09).doa EPS, Inc. Land Demand Analysis Report Summary Date June 24, 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Page 4 9. The preferred Framework Plan includes approximately 12 percent less land zoned for Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood(LMN). The loss of this residential designation has only a marginal impact on the jobs/housing balance. Many of the factors that influence this measure are driven by market forces beyond the control of the local community. These market forces include housing prices, housing preference, competitiveness of local businesses, local and state fiscal policy, and job availability. Instead, the measure is more useful for evaluating the overall character of a community as either a bedroom community(ratio of less than 1.0) or an employment center (ratio of 1.0 or greater). The increases in Employment- and Industrial-zoned land will have a marginal impact on the forecasted jobsihousing balance ratio. Incorporating the proposed zoning changes increases the ratio from an estimated 1.50 under the existing Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to 1.56 under the proposed alternatives. This small increase (well within the margin of error at approximately 4.0 percent) will have little effect on altering the future role of the City of Fort Collins. The City anticipates serving as an employment center for the North Front Range community in the future. By incorporating more employment land the City will meet this goal with only marginal housing impacts. 10. The preferred Framework Plan alternative is closely aligned with residential and commercial market demand. The preferred Framework Plan alternative includes 143 acres of MMN land and is consistent with the range of multifamily demand anticipated for the Mountain Vista subarea. The location of the MMN zoning, adjacent to the CC core and along the Enhanced Travel Corridor along E.,Vine and Mountain Vista, is ideally placed to attract the greatest amount of development. The size of the CC zone district is appropriate given the market demand and the location is ideally suited to capture both existing residential demand outside of the subarea and future demand within the subarea. The location of the commercial district is bounded by two arterial roads, which will provide a positive influence on retail development with drive-by traffic. The E/I zoned land contributes to a surplus Citywide in Employment- zoned land but corrects the shortfall in Industrial-zoned land. The area is ideally suited to both Employment and Industrial zoning because it provides large parcels and regional access, via interstate and railroad, that are essential to the success of this type of development. EPS report Summary(7-22-09).d" City & ATTACHMENT 10 Advance Planning F6rt Collins 281 PO Box 580ollege Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221 .6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov. com/advanceplanning Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Response to June 2009 City Council Questions August 11, 2009 The following questions were raised by City Council at the June 9, 2009 work session on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update . The project team has prepared the following responses and appreciates the opportunity to address Council questions . Any additional information requested will be presented in the September 15 , 2009 City Council packet. 1 . More information is needed regarding the unintended consequences of extending the Vine realignment as shown, specifically related to the de facto truck route issue. Staff should research street design alternatives and enforcement options (look to other communities for ideas) that would mitigate the effects of long-haul through truck traffic on existing neighborhoods. The project team researched communities including Colorado Springs, Boulder, Loveland, Greeley, Laramie, and Cheyenne. These communities have similar existing conditions such as multiple state and federal highways, vehicle weight limits, and city departments that address truck issues (Traffic Engineering, Public Works, Planning, Transportation Planning) . As part of the Mountain Vista Plan update, the project team is suggesting several street design elements that can help discourage long-haul through truck traffic along the proposed arterial streets . Final street design and a traffic impact study occur concurrently with the development review process . This gives both the public and the City the ability to comment on the street design. The recommended design elements would not compromise the function and efficiency of the overall street network. ■ Travel Lane Width : The City street standards include a 12-foot travel 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. A narrower travel lane would encourage lower speeds and a safer travel environment. ■ 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 . A roundabout would be designed to accommodate all types of traffic, including trucks. However, the slower speeds and traffic movements associated with a roundabout would help discourage through truck traffic . Cheyenne is currently planning a roundabout on an arterial street, though it will accommodate trucks . Fort Collins ■ Street Design Speed: The design speed of new streets can be adjusted in conjunction with the desired posted speed limits . Portions of realigned Vine Drive, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive could have lower posted and design speed limits . However, there must be an adequate street design speed to ensure traffic safety as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Lower speed limits are recommended along the Community Commercial District, Community Park, and Poudre School District site. Other locations may be determined as development occurs, based on traffic impact studies . ■ Local Street Traffic Calming: The City already installs a significant amount of traffic calming devices on collector-level and local streets including raised crosswalks, stop signs, and pedestrian crossing signage . Traffic calming devices are intended to reduce cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets. ■ Signage: The City and CDOT have the ability to post truck route and vehicle weight limitation signage . The project team recommends posting truck route signage along SH 14/US 287 , and vehicle weight limitation signage along major arterial streets off of I-25 . Several communities, particularly those with a large industrial base, have specified truck routes on local, state, and federal roads . Some truck routes are set to ensure that heavier vehicles do not use structurally deficient bridges . The Fort Collins designated truck routes are currently SH 14, US 287 (College Avenue), and Harmony Road. Greeley has diesel emission standards that are enforced by the City's Health and Police departments . The standards focus on ambient air quality violations caused by diesel vehicles as determined by a trained "spotter" from the City Health Department. Several communities have oversized truck permits (based on vehicle height and width) in instances where structurally deficient bridges require trucks to use local streets . Police enforcement of these standards varies among communities and is often targeted to address specific problems . Loveland strictly enforces overnight truck parking restrictions, as it has been a concern near residential neighborhoods . The Colorado Springs municipal code permits the police to pull over trucks suspected of violating vehicle weight standards . This is confirmed by a public weigh station. If trucks are in violation, then the police can issue a ticket and fines . The City of Fort Collins traffic code currently does not permit this type of enforcement. City staff could explore this option as a possible Traffic Code change . 2. Concerns arose regarding the phasing and funding of the street network and related infrastructure, especially the three proposed grade-separated crossings. Staff should create a constrained model analysis that would highlight the impacts on future development and traffic if the City was unable to fund those big-price items. The project team has prepared a fiscally constrained development scenario particularly related to the three proposed grade-separated crossings (GSC) . For additional detail on the GSC requirement from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), please see the response to Question 4. Development in the subarea is presently limited due to lack of Adequate Public Facilities (APF) to handle projected traffic volumes as required by the Land Use Code. This is largely due to constraints surrounding the Lemay Avenue/Vine Drive and Timberline Road/Vine Drive 2 / Fort Collins intersections. The project team presented a list of infrastructure projects at the June 2009 work session that would be required to alleviate APF issues over time, including the grade-separated crossings . The timing of any infrastructure projects will determine when and how much development may occur in the subarea. Adequate Public Facilities will continue to be an impediment to realizing the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan until the grade-separated crossings or at-grade, four-lane arterial street crossings are constructed. The scenarios presented below examine the alternative to constructing the three grade-separated crossings . Any non-infrastructure costs or highly variable cost (i. e . legal representation at the PUC) is not included. There are several base assumptions used in the scenarios : ■ Lemay Avenue should be a grade-separated crossing. The financial and social cost to acquire right-of-way, demolish homes, advocate for using the existing alignment with the PUC, and construct a four-lane Lemay Avenue would be near the cost of the grade- separated crossing. There would also be significant negative impacts to existing neighborhoods that would be in conflict with the 2005 Northside Neighborhoods Plan, 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and City Council direction. ■ The scenarios include infrastructure projects that can alleviate APF issues as outlined in the June 2009 work session memo . These include realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay), realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) , and the Northeast College Corridor Outfall drainage project. ■ The BNSF Railroad will have concerns about any at-grade crossing that could negatively impact their switching yard operations along Vine Drive. ■ The City would likely have to hire specialized legal representation to advocate for at- grade crossings with the Colorado Public Utility Commission and BNSF Railroad. The cost would depend on the number and type of at-grade crossings the City desires . ■ The City has not collected any funds through development impact fees for the grade- separated crossings . These funds should not be viewed as "available" for other projects should the grade-separated crossings not be included in the Plan. ■ A small percentage of the Lemay Avenue GSC would be covered by capital projects funding. This funding could be viewed as "available" for other projects should the grade- separated crossings not be constructed. ■ Development impact fees collected through the City Street Oversizing Program cannot legally be redistributed toward the grade-separated crossings . For example, removing the landscaped median from arterial streets would not result in surplus funds that could be used for the grade-separated crossings . ■ The project team recognizes that the grade-separated crossings are a significant cost with safety, time, and development benefits that may be difficult to quantify. Council Member Manvel ' s cost/benefit analysis with regard to travel time saved by a grade-separated crossing was greatly appreciated. Scenario 1 : Construct Realigned Vine Drive from College to Lemay This scenario would not include any grade-separated crossings and is similar to the existing conditions in the Mountain Vista subarea. The arterial streets would be maintained as two-lane streets, with the exception of realigned Vine Drive between College and Lemay. This project is part of the North College Corridor Improvements Plan. Construction of this street would 3 Fort Collins alleviate APF issues at the Lemay Avenue and existing Vine Drive intersection and allow development to occur in the Mountain Vista subarea. Scenario 2 : Construct Realigned Vine Drive from Lemay to Timberline Over time, the intersection at Timberline Road and existing Vine Drive would become congested and prevent further development due to APF issues. This scenario includes constructing the extension of realigned Vine Drive from Lemay to Timberline. Construction of this street would alleviate APF issues at the Timberline Road and existing Vine Drive intersection. No grade- separated crossings would be constructed at this time. Scenario 3 : Petition for At-Grade Railroad Crossings This scenario includes grade-separated crossings at Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road. The City would advocate with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the BNSF Railroad to utilize the existing alignment of Mountain Vista to expand to a four-lane arterial. A grade- separated crossing at Timberline and Vine would alleviate the need for extensive re-grading, avoid impacting the railroad tracks, and positively impact APF impediments to development. Scenario 4 : All Three Grade-Separated Crossings Constructed This scenario is what has been planned, to date, as part of the framework plan from the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the current Master Street Plan . Grade-separated crossings would be constructed at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive . Scenario Infrastructure Projects Cost Estimated Estimated Jobs Population 1 Realign Vine Drive (College to Lemay) $ 8 million' 304 9 ,032 2 Realign Vine Drive (College to Lemay) $9 . 5 million 91761 25243 Realign Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) Realign Vine Drive (College to Lemay) $ 18 . 5 3 Realign Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) million 4,9992 2,0712 Arterial Street Construction Realign Vine Drive (College to Lemay) 4 Realign Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) S91 . 8 4 999 2071 Grade- Separated Crossings (Lemay, million ' Timberline, Mountain Vista) ' The portion of realigned Vine Drive between College and Lemay is included in the North College Capital Improvements Plan and located outside of the Mountain Vista subarea. Z The implementation of Scenario 3 is dependent on approval by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. If at- grade, four-lane arterial street railroad crossings are not permitted, an adequate public facilities issue would prevent further development. 4 Fort Collins 3 . Questions were raised about the proximity of existing Vine Drive, the proposed extension of re-aligned Vine, and Conifer Street. Staff should clearly explain how each roadway would function and justify the need for having the three so close to each other. Each of the three streets will have different classifications : existing Vine Drive (collector/local street); realigned Vine Drive (four-lane arterial street) ; and Conifer Street (two-lane arterial street) . All three streets would provide an east-west connection between College Avenue and the Mountain Vista subarea. The proposed extension of realigned Vine Drive would also provide a connection east of I-25 . Please see the attached cross-sections for each street classification. The project team conducted travel demand modeling as part of the alternatives analysis . The projected volumes for each street and the volume range for each street classification are as follows : ■ Existing Vine Drive : 1 ,700-4, 100 ADT o Major Collector Street ADT Range : 3 , 500-5 ,000 ADT o Local Street ADT Range : <2,500 ■ Realigned Vine Drive : 17, 100-20, 100 ADT o Four-Lane Arterial Street ADT Range : 15 ,000-35 ,000 ADT ■ Conifer Street: 71400-75700 ADT o Two-Lane Arterial Street ADT Range : 3 , 500- 15 ,000 ADT In addition to the technical analysis, the project team considered other factors . ■ Existing Vine Drive is expected to function as a local connector street providing neighborhood access. ■ Conifer Street will provide an important street connection for existing neighborhoods and as development occurs north of realigned Vine Drive . ■ The proposed street spacing is similar to other parts of town. This includes Horsetooth Road and Swallow Road, and Mason Street and College Avenue . 4. Is the PUC requirement for grade-separated crossings legislative or bureaucratic? It seems unreasonable and is there any way to influence a change in policy? The Colorado Public Utility Commission has full economic and quality of service regulatory authority over intrastate telecommunication services ; and investor-owned electric, gas and water utilities, as well as partial regulatory control over municipal utilities and electric associations . The commission also regulates utilities that move, such as railroad and motor carrier utilities that are for hire. The commission is comprised of three members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term. The commission has a requirement that a grade- separated crossing would be required when Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive become four-lane arterial streets. This requirement does not include a specific set of review criteria for the commission. Review would be subject to PUC and BNSF comments and oversight. The City would have the ability to petition the PUC to permit an at-grade four-lane arterial street crossing. If the City wishes to pursue a change to PUC policy, it would most likely require a legislative remedy. 5 Fort Collins 5. Is it possible to change the weight restrictions on local streets ? Why is the current limit 54,000 lbs ? How do the weight restrictions influence street construction methods ? It is possible to change the weight restrictions on local streets, as they are set by City Code . The current vehicle weight limits are similar to State of Colorado standards and other communities that have adopted the Model Traffic Code (though it has not been adopted by the City) . Any changes should be made concurrently with enforcement changes to permit police to weigh suspect vehicles . City streets are currently designed to accommodate trucks based on truck axle weight limits . City staff estimates the number of trucks that may use a street during a given time period to estimate the life of the street pavement. If lower vehicle weight limits are approved but not realized, the street pavement will deteriorate faster. 6. Additional information is needed from the Moore property owner that clearly outlines their reasoning/justification for the request. Please see Attachment 11 for the letter from the Moore property owner. 7. The Moore request for reduced density clashes with the tenets of City Plan. Are there ways to use the existing development review process rather than making the policy change through the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update? Please see Attachment 12 for a response to this question. 8. Staff should provide additional information related to the various schedule changes for the planning process and any/all meetings that have been canceled. How was the public notified of these changes ? The project team has adjusted the schedule several times in response to public concerns. These changes have given additional time for the public to comment on the plan, to provide requested analysis, and to prepare the plan document. A listing of the meetings that changed follows : City Council The City Council was originally scheduled to consider the Plan update for adoption on March 17 , 2009 . A work session on December 9, 2008 was also planned. As the project schedule was adjusted, the adoption date changed to May 2009 , June 2009, and finally to September 15 , 2009 . The project team scheduled two additional work sessions (June 9 , 2009 and August 11 , 2009) to ensure City Council was up-to-date on the planning process and had sufficient information to evaluate the Plan update . Planning & Zoning Board The Planning & Zoning Board was originally scheduled to receive bi-monthly updates and consider a recommendation to City Council on February 19, 2009 . Additional updates were scheduled in January, February, March, May, and August 2009 . A final recommendation hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2009 . 6 t Collins Transportation Board The Transportation Board was originally scheduled to receive an update in November 2008 and consider a recommendation to City Council on February 18 , 2009 . Additional updates were scheduled in March and May 2009 . A final recommendation hearing is scheduled for August 19 , 2009 . Boards and Commissions The project team did not schedule updates with the City' s various Boards and Commissions until December 2008 . General update meetings were held in late January through early March and later changed to late February through early March. Recommendation hearings were held in June and July 2009 . During this time period, an Air Quality Advisory Board meeting was advertised on an incorrect date . A handful of residents from the Lindenwood neighborhood were planning on attending this meeting. The project team realized this mistake the day of the meeting and immediately sent an email to Kathy Nix, Lindenwood HOA president. A staff member also waited outside the meeting location to inform residents. Public Open Houses Four public open house meetings were held on December 3 , 2008 , February 19, 2009, April 30, 2009 , and July 23 , 2009 . Initially, staff projected ahead and placed tentative dates on the project schedule for these meetings. As a meeting was confirmed, the new date was placed on the Advance Planning web site, project schedule and any other presentation materials. Notice for an open house was advertised on the City' s project web site, public meeting calendar, press releases, meeting notice mailings, Coloradoan articles and staff presentations. Individual Neighborhood Meetings The project team held eight individual neighborhood meetings in early 2009 in response to public input. The neighborhoods included Tres Colonias, Lindenwood, Adrial Hills, Maple Hills, Waterglen, Richards Lake, Country Club, Lind, and Storybook. Several neighborhoods did not respond to the request for a meeting. An additional meeting was requested by the Old Town North neighborhood (located outside of the study area) . However, the project team did not receive a response when attempting to schedule the meeting. Stakeholder Meetings While any person involved in participation during the planning process is a stakeholder, staff identified the stakeholder group to specifically include large property owners within the study area with representatives of Anheuser-Busch (AB) and approximately 25 other land owners and/or representatives . To date staff has met separately with representatives of AB at three meetings : July 29, 2008 , February 19, 2009 and April 7, 2009 . Notifications of these three meetings were confirmed by phone and email correspondence, and after confirmation, were then placed on the project schedule . 7 Fort Collins , Nt= The stakeholder group of land owners has met with staff on seven dates, with a final meeting held on July 16, 2009 . Post card notices of the stakeholder meetings were mailed, usually 2-3 weeks in advance, and final meeting dates placed in the schedule . 9. Clarify the acreage calculations for water features/natural areas/ditch corridors. The 1999 Framework Plan map showed 229 acres of water features (streams and canals), irrigation ditch corridors and natural area wetlands (see Figure 1 ) . As part of the GIS mapping calculations 10 years ago, the categories were more broad brush, not specifically following parcel or right of way boundaries similar to the City Structure Plan map . Of the total acreage of the three categories, the areas included the two existing natural areas, existing and future ditch corridors and existing water features such as Dry Creek and Lake Canal. Unlike the updated map, the original map also included the dedicated future neighborhood park and elementary school site adjacent to the wetlands, located northwest of Vine Drive and Timberline Road intersection. The updated 2009 Framework Plan map shows a total of 101 acres of water features, ditch corridors and natural areas (see Figure 2) . The updated GIS mapping calculations reflects a difference of 128 acres compared to the original map . This new total acreage represents accurate boundary calculations for all three categories of open lands that follow specific parcel lines and GIS mapping delineations . No parks or school sites were measured in the updated map. As a result of these revised mapping calculations , the proposed 2009 map reflects no loss of existing water features, ditch corridors or natural areas. The only proposed features that were removed were those that did not fit within the three categories . These land uses were simply mapped and calculated more closely and accurately. 8 Fort Collins Figure 1 : 1999 Natural Areas/Ditch Corridors/Water Features Map Legend 1 inch = Z500 fee: 43t"I Are36 _ 71tP CDft130f6''N3te1 Fe3tL'e6 T � VIM i r � it 1 .f ids * i a I . _. p / Figure 2 : 2009 Natural Areas/Ditch Corridors/Water Features Map ' Legend 1 inch = 2,50C feet ' NZW 3 Ate36 - ORCA COTOOMYOV' Fe3Jre Viii a I�I r !Mxr 9 Fort Collins 10. Explain the timing of infrastructure improvements and when development can be expected in the area. 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 physical 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 and anticipated construction timing) : 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 Subarea. 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 potential future residential development. This floodway results from a combination of factors associated with partially built systems . The City' s Stormwater Department has developed a design for needed improvements to remove the floodplain from this area. 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. The realigned Vine Drive project (College to Lemay) is expected to occur in three to five years. The timing of the other projects is dependant on development but can be expected to be at least five years out. The grade-separated crossings would be needed to relieve APF issues in the long term (see Question 2 for additional information) . All of these estimates are dependant on the 10 Fort Collins economy improving before development can proceed, funding availability, and the timing of development. 11 . More information is needed regarding the statement that the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project will have no negative environmental impacts. Staff must be accurate when describing the effects of the project on the existing Dry Creek drainage corridor. The historic Dry Creek channel daylights east of the Lake Canal and runs through the Alta Vista neighborhood, across Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive and then southeast through the Airpark area. The NECCO project provides a large culvert outfall from a regional detention pond located west of the Lake Canal (see Figure 3 ) . This culvert will be located north of the historic Dry Creek channel and will cross Lemay Avenue north of the historic crossing. Construction will not require disturbance of the historic channel. Local drainage will continue to flow to Dry Creek, but offsite flows will be diverted into the NECCO culvert. 11 Fort Collins Figure 3 : Public Infrastructure Improvement Projects Map vtIL lim} - J T' r=1 _ 4 tMcl" l { 13 9 „ r� •tYr "4' ir Y . f4bVr; Ae F 1 .000 ■ ■ ■ Hii-■ ■ , ■ 1 i i1 f-■-r0 1 , Legeiid regional Transportation Storm drainage detention Fonds Other {Made Separated Crossings #6 Ditch IrnDmvern2rits a "cd Fairr' Ra I -ad 1' 'Arse Dr;LenayAxe C$S Railroad Diversion Strut# •� '�' A&EC In2ew MD.. u `vis.a Intersedio.r t Subara3 Ecunv3ry � Black Holow Cuffall ChanrRS g U&D,Crumb Vine DdTinitierl me Rd �' Mtei InwSedim t1EEINgYne DriveCulyecks EL, Exist-rig Pane Montan Uinta Dr MMKDNwt^*astCDkWC4:mnd(vv W- all ?hIDDM) r ❑ 2. 50U 5,0131) Feet 12 ATTACHMENT 11 July 28, 2009 Dear City Council Members and Advanced Planning, First and foremost we would like to thank you and the Advanced Planning Department for including us in the planning process for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. However, after months of meetings and a tremendous effort on the part of your staff, we feel that this subarea plan is not the best alternative for an area that has the potential to be an outstanding, sustainable and charming neighborhood for the City of Fort Collins. Mountain Vista Road: The final plan that is being presented shows Mountain Vista Road going North on the current Timberline alignment and then cutting diagonally Northeast to meet up with the current Mountain Vista Road alignment. We believe that this proposed four-lane arterial will be detrimental to the development of the proposed neighborhoods and to the area as a whole. If we understand that the goal is to create a pedestrian friendly area, why separate the commercial center from both the park and the majority of the housing? We realize that there are many instances of four-lane arterials running through residential areas but it is hardly the ideal situation for neighborhoods and removing this impediment will encourage many to walk and bike to the grocery and retail stores within the CC district. We recognize that there needs to be a major road in this area in order to create an enhanced travel corridor but the proposed road alignment butchers our property in a way that makes the ground on the east side of the road awkward for development. We believe that the road could be better situated but we also know that Anheuser Busch has rejected any road changes on their property. Densities and Acreage: Our greatest concern regarding the proposed plan and the City plan as a whole is the overabundance of CC and MMN acreage combined with inflated minimum densities in both MMN and LMN. Thirty acres of commercial property, which is meant to include a grocery anchor, retail, and offices (and some apartments, as we have been encouraged to consider) 1 combined with forty acres of MMN which is meant to include some commercial, offices and high density housing with multiple family projects, combined with the multi-family projects which become necessary within LMN to achieve the 5 DU/acre minimum, creates a tremendous overlap of purpose. While we understand that a certain percentage of multi-family is necessary and desirable, the amount shown on the current plan is far beyond what we feel is marketable. We also understand that this emphasis on high- density housing is partially driven by the desire to encourage public transportation. If the homes that are being offered are too crowded to be desirable to families, the families are very likely to move to outlying communities such as Wellington and Tin-math where they have no option but to drive into Fort Collins. The densities required in both the MMN and LMN zonings are simply too high to create a quality and attractive development. After thoroughly searching the City Plan for some justification for where the `no less than 12' and `no less than 5' numbers came from, it seems that the only answer is that we are aiming for a more `compact urban form.' We believe that anyone in search of urban living will gravitate toward the downtown area. Mountain Vista is an ideal area for single-family homes and multi-family developments that will give families a little more elbow room. To be very clear, we are NOT pushing for mansions on enormous lots or very expensive homes. After researching successful neighborhoods, based on resale desirability and value;we know that 3 of the most successful are Dakota Ridge, Sunstone and Fairbrook. All 3 of these neighborhoods are between 3.5 and 4 DU/acre and consistently appraise in the $200-$350k range. These represent the type of neighborhood that we would like to see in Mountain Vista. Single-family homes work best on lots that are 7,000-8,500 square feet allowing for a little space and to avoid the feeling of the overcrowded new developments like Stapleton. Are we truly happy with the type of neighborhoods that have been developed under this City Plan? LMN, when developed in conjunction with any amount of MMN should represent a comfortable single-family neighborhood. Instead, under the current minimum density of 5 DU/acre, some multi-family projects are always necessary in order to reach that average when combined with single-family lots making parts of it indistinguishable from 2 MMN. For example, the city Land Demand Analysis report points to Rock Creek as an example of quality multi-family developments. There is no MMN zoning in Rock Creek. The multi-family projects within that community are planned so that the entire development reaches the LMN standard of 5 DU/acre. If we are to develop some acreage of MMN then there is absolutely no reason to develop the LMN area higher than 3.5-4 DU/acre. Fort Collins neighborhoods have traditionally developed at 4DU/acre and we truly believe that that is one of the reasons that it is such a desirable place to live. Local builders, suppliers and labor have been the casualties of the current density restrictions. This policy opened the doors for national builders to erect low quality homes while using supplies and labor from outside of Fort Collins. These developers don't live in their developments and have no vested interest in this community. Rather than making their profits from building good homes, these national builders made their profit acting as banks, pushing bonds and subprime mortgages. This has no benefit for Fort Collins. We believe that the local builders would embrace this project if given the opportunity to build nice single-family homes with character on lots that are appropriately sized to allow gardens and play areas for families. We know many local builders who live in the developments that they have created and find it very unlikely that the same can be said for the executives or project managers of the large, national firms. Throughout this planning process, we have noted that one of the justifications for requiring this level of MMN,acreage is to encourage the development of affordable housing. If this is the case, then the policy is rather counterproductive. Forcing developers to build too much high-density housing only creates a wasteland of poor quality housing. Affordable housing should, above all, be high quality housing that is' easy to maintain and will encourage pride of ownership. Requiring that a large amount of acreage in a development be apartments and row houses while hoping that a certain percentage falls in the affordable range does nothing but create poor living conditions. We would suggest that a more effective policy would be to negotiate with the developers to set aside a certain percentage of the development that will be designated as affordable housing, allowing them to create their profit outside of shoddily built apartment complexes. We would be happy to set aside an area for this purpose but feel that this 3 much density makes for bad community planning, an abundance of unmarketable;poor quality housing. In response to the argument that this density is necessary in order to boost the job to housing ratio, we would like to point out that, on the 1999 plan, there was a significant amount of LMN acreage on the Northwest corner of Anheuser Busch property. We have been told that they have refused to have any residential zoning on their land. We see no reason why they should have the option to decline while we are being forced to shoulder a large quantity of high-density development to even out the ratio. In reality, we have no idea how effective the current City Plan will be in creating sustainable neighborhoods. In the developments where this much MMN is planned, the acreage has not been fully, or even partially, built. Given the 25-year timeline for this project, it only makes sense to watch how these neighborhoods progress and to allow for flexibility within this plan to meet the needs of the city two decades from now. After farming this property for 5 generations we would like to see this area develop into a neighborhood that Fort Collins can be truly proud of. We want the development built by local builders, filled with local businesses and the "Fort Collins" ambiance; goals we can't see being fulfilled with the current plan. The City Plan could prove us wrong but we would like to see a little flexibility within this subarea plan so that we can all make decisions in the best interest of the city at that time rather than being shackled to colored borders. We see an incredible opportunity to develop a truly innovative project; utilizing local builders, suppliers and labor along with eco-friendly technology to create a unique and family-friendly community. We all recognize that the downtown area is the gem of Fort Collins and feel that, given the opportunity and a little more elbowroom, we can create a community that will attract businesses and families looking for something different than a soulless cookie cutter neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this plan and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas K. Moore 4 ATTACHMENT 12 City of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue O Box rt sO 7 80522 Fort Colima970.221.6376 970.224.6111 -fax �\ fcgov.com/advanceplanning Staff Response to Moore Property Request Attachment No. 12 During the June 9, 2009 City Council Work Session, members of Council requested additional information and justification from the Moore family for changes to the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map. Representatives of the Moore family have forwarded a letter explaining their requests for changes to the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map and Land Use Code Standards as part of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (see Moore letter—Attachment No. 11). The following are staff responses to the points made in the Moore letter: 1. Concern oJArterial Street(Timberline Road/Mountain Vista Drive) bisecting property and creating a barrier between residential and other land uses. Staff Response: The staff recommends the alignment of Mountain Vista/Timberline as shown on the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map. The adopted 1999 Framework Plan map shows the connection of Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive extending diagonally across the Moore property. This alignment is a result of the need to accommodate the future community park, provide a more direct arterial street connection, and establish a local portion of the subarea's street alignments that are directed toward the mountain peak view. The City's Master Street Plan was amended to reflect Mountain Vista/Timberline alignment as contained in the 1999 Framework Plan As part of this update process to refine the original 1999 Framework Plan map, staff developed six map alternatives to test various land use and street alignment options. During this same time, representatives of the Moore family developed several options for their property that were coordinated with staff. Based on the latest traffic modeling results, discussion with the Moore family, comments from Boards and Commissions, and public feedback to date, staff developed the proposed 2009 Framework map. This map shows a close approximation of the original 1999 Plan alignment for this arterial street connection for the reasons mentioned above. It should be noted that Timberline Road presently bisects the Moore property. Staff does not believe the proposed street creates an undue separation or barrier between land uses. In assessing all of the map options through the update process, staff has not found a need to significantly adjust this alignment as shown in the original 1999 Framework Plan map and Master Street Plan map. 2. Densities and Acreage The Moore family has expressed a concern that the preferred Plan represents an over abundance of multi- family housing land use designation, and not enough detached single-family homes on their property. �,.FFort of According to their letter, the Plan shows too much acreage of Community Commercial and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN) designations. They are also concerned that the minimum densities are too high in both MMN and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN), which they believe adds to an imbalance of single and multifamily homes. Staff Response: The staff supports the land uses, densities, housing mix, and acreages as shown on the preferred 2009 Framework Plan. City Plan policies to support the required minimum densities are included at the end of this response. Amount of Community Commercial Representatives of the Moore property have asked the City to consider a reduction in the size of the Community Commercial District (CC), yet the letter does not indicate a preferred size of this District. The preferred 2009 Framework Plan map shows a 30 acre CC District. The EPS Land Demand Report recommends a range in size between 25 — 35 acres that would be marketable within the projected build- out timeframe. Based on the updated Land Demand Analysis developed by EPS, Inc. recommendations, staff has reduced the size of the Community Commercial District from 78 acres in the original 1999 Framework Plan map to 30 acres in the proposed 2009 updated map. This adjustment reflects a significant reduction in the size of this center on the Moore property. The proposed 30 acres is in the middle range of the EPS recommendation to allow enough land to accommodate implementation of the long-term vision for a pedestrian oriented mixed-use commercial center as defined in City Plan. The Moore request for a smaller center represents a typical grocery anchored neighborhood commercial center that exists throughout the City. While these existing centers include a few additional pad sites for supporting retail, none of them incorporate additional residential uses and street pattern that emphasizes pedestrian activity and City Plan vision for a unique commercial destination. Amount of Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MAIN) The EPS recommendation identifies a range of MAIN adjacent to the Community Commercial center between 30—50 acres in size. Staff is recommending 40 acres which reflects the middle of this range and significant reduction from the original 1999 Framework map that showed 145 acres adjacent to the Community Commercial District. Higher density residential is needed within close proximity to a commercial destination and transit to promote pedestrian and bicycling use. Reduced minimum density within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN) designation (Moore Property) Representatives of the Moore property have asked the City to consider a reduced minimum density within the LMN designation on their property. The attached letter(Attachment No. 11) explains their request for more flexibility, with 3.5 =4 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) as the minimum density, as compared to the current standard of 5. 2 Cky of Fort Collins Staff Response: This issue was addressed at the Work Session on June 91h. Following is a recap of that information, with some additional explanation. Overview The lower density standard is requested for 173 acres of LMN-designated land on the Moore property. The estimated number of potential dwelling units with the current standard of 5 d.u./acre is 629. A lower minimum average density of 3.5-4 d.u./acre, as requested, would result in 440-504 housing units, with a reduction in potential housing units of 125-189. The points in the Moores letter, requesting a lower density requirement, are well understood. .Those points and related issues were explored and debated when the density policy was developed in City Plan. In staff s opinion, there is not adequate new information or circumstances in this case to warrant the requested change. The Subarea represents the largest remaining undeveloped sector in the Growth Management Area with the potential to reflect the vision and policies of City Plan for achieving higher density, integrated mix of land uses and transportation system, and quality urban design. The area has major infrastructure needs, and a reduction in density would result in fewer dwelling units to pay for infrastructure via impact fees. It appears to staff that what the Moores would like to achieve could be met in a creative development project meeting current Land Use Code standards. The main exception would be the specific desire to develop only single family detached houses on lots of 7,000-8,500 square feet, which, by definition, could only be accomplished with a lower density. There is a degree of flexibility in current Land Use Code standards that should be kept in mind. All standards, including the density standard, allow for Modifications. A Modification could be supported, where an alternative plan is "as good or better"than a plan which meets the standard, keeping the purposes of the standard in mind. In addition, LMN standards allow a developer to set aside park-like outdoor spaces (outside of density requirements), if desired, to have fewer dwelling units and more landscaped area. Staff believes that the best way for the Moores and the City to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of a lower density plan would be in the Modification process. Perhaps the positive qualities the Moores advocate could be met in a plan at 3.5-4 d.u. per acre, and perhaps such a plan could also address the purposes of the standard. However, the negative qualities described by the Moores could also occur in a plan even at the lower density. The Modification process is a way to test and prove this. In the process, the Moores could work with a creative consultant team to explore alternative plans. This allows actual plans to demonstrate benefits and drawbacks. If a proposed lower-density plan emerges that the Moores advocate, while addressing the purposes of the standard, then that is precisely what the Modification process is for. 3 City Forrt of Further Explanation: Some Rationale to Support the LMN Minimum Density Standard Density alone is not a goal for its own sake. It is a basic foundation for many other goals. Key reasoning behind the residential density standard includes the following ideas: • Per capita cost of infrastructure is lower. • Per capita miles driven is lower. • Per capital consumption of land, water, energy, and other resources is lower. • A mix of housing for a range of households is promoted. • Support for walkable commercial districts in proximity to housing is higher. • A more compact city pattern, as opposed to a more suburban pattern, supports many forms of travel and access, including walking, bicycling, wheelchair use, skating, scooting, etc., in addition to driving. The whole concept of the density standard is predicated on good urban design to make locations, neighborhoods, and dwellings.desirable. In fact, the density standard, in conjunction with related design standards, is specifically intended to spark more creativity in the design of both neighborhoods and the dwellings themselves. The higher density is meant to result in more attention to character and details, not less. Some Specific Points in the Moore Letter Overlap of purpose with multi-family housing in both MMN and LMN neighborhoods: The intent of the LMN Standard is to achieve the density standard of 5 d.u./acre by including attached housing types. However, the intent for attached housing was to bridge the gap between single-use tracts of suburban subdivisions and apartment complexes. In addition, the LMN Standard allows smaller scale attached housing ranging from two to six units in row house or"big house" styles suitable_for integration into the neighborhood. Rather than overlapping purpose with the MMN neighborhoods, the LMN neighborhoods are intended to expand the range of choices. Also, different neighborhoods are intended to be linked and integrated into an overall city pattern, rather than a series of separate projects. Density too high to create quality development: Staff is seeing high quality, valuable examples of development across the state and nation with densities in excess of conventional suburban densities. Given the 25-year timeline need flexibility to meet the needs of the city two decades from now: The density standard of five is a forward-looking concept based on trends in demographics, resources, infrastructure costs, and general awareness of the benefits of creating compact cities and surrounding rural lands, as compared to suburban development projects. In any case, there is flexibility within the plan and density standards, as noted previously. 4 �of t Collins Incredible opportunity for a truly innovative project utilizing local builders to create an eco-friendly, unique and family friendly community: Staff agrees completely and feels that these are choices a developer can make,working within adopted standards. All said, staff continues to support the land uses, densities, housing mix, and acreages as shown on the preferred 2009 Framework Plan. City Plan policies to support the required minimum densities are included at the end of this response. 5 Attachment 13 City of �- - Advance Planning F6rt -Colh 281 North College Avenue Fort Box580 Fort Collins,CO 80522 970.221.6376 fcgov. omlad-fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning Moore Property Request and Supporting City Plan Principles and Policies justifying urban residential densities: PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the City will promote a compact development pattern within a well-defined boundary. Policy LU-1.1 Compact Urban Form. The desired urban form will be achieved by directing future development to mixed-use neighborhoods and districts while reducing the potential for dispersed growth not conducive to pedestrian and transit use and cohesive community development. Policy T-1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will implement land use patterns, parking policies, and demand management plans that support effective transit, an efficient roadway system, and alternative transportation modes. Appropriate residential densities and non-residential land uses should be within walking distance of transit stops, permitting public transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile. PRINCIPLE HSG-l: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. Policy HSG-1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, services, and amenities. In particular, the City will promote the siting of higher density housing near public transportation, shopping, and in designated neighborhoods and districts. PRINCIPLE LMN-1: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of five (5) dwelling units per acre, achieved with a mix of housing types. Policy LMN-1.1 Calculating the Density. In calculating the overall average density of a residential project, areas which are undevelopable will be excluded from the density calculation. Undevelopable areas means those areas of a project which are to be publicly owned and/or dedicated, and/or not available for development (such as major street rights-of-way, various open lands, areas of geologic hazard, alleys, natural areas and water bodies). Policy LMN-1.2 Mix of Housing Types and Lot Sizes. Builders and developers are encouraged to use their ingenuity to combine and distribute a variety of housing types to make an attractive, marketable neighborhood with housing for a diversity of people. At least two (2)housing types will be included in any residential project containing City of VtCollins more than thirty (30) acres. As the acreage of the residential project increases, so will increase the number of housing types. This can be achieved in various ways, with a variety of housing types, including the following: a. standard lot single-family houses (lots over 6,000 square feet) b. small lot single-family houses (lots 6,000 square feet, or less) c. duplex houses d. townhouses (attached housing) e. accessory dwelling units f. group homes g. multi-family housing (provided they are compatible in scale and character with other dwellings in the proposed neighborhood, and limited to a maximum of four to eight dwelling units in a building) h. manufactured housing and mobile homes PRINCIPLE MMN=1: Housing in new Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, achieved with a mix of housing types. Attachment 14 City Of Advance Planning F 281 North College Avenue 6rt Collins 9Fort 0.221PO Box 58 !63076080522 970.224.6111 -fax /00000 fcgov.com/advanceplanning Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan Update Rationale for Land Use Adjustments and Impacts on City-wide Jobs/Housing Balance August 11, 2009 I. Rationale for Proposed Land Use Adjustments As part of the update process a number of adjustments are proposed in a 2009 Framework Plan map. This proposed Framework Plan map represents a refinement of the currently adopted 1999 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. Between the fall of 2008 and March 2009, six map alternatives were developed to test various land use and transportation options. Certain components of the initial alternatives were combined into the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map. The updated Framework Plan map recommendation is based on extensive public input, Boards and Commission feedback, City Council direction, and an updated consultant Land Demand Market Analysis (developed by Economic& Planning Systems, Inc.). Industrial/Employment Districts The existing Anheuser-Busch Inbev(ABI) brewery establishes the core of future industrial use in northeast Fort Collins. With future expansion of the brewery and new industry locating adjacent to the Brewery, this Industrial District is situated to be easily accessed from the interstate, Mountain Vista Drive and the Burlington Northern rail mainline and spur tracks. The 2009 Framework Plan shows about 457 acres of Industrial, an increase of 148 acres compared to the 1999 Plan. The location of the Industrial land use designation is separated from the Mountain Vista Drive frontage to set back this more intense manufacturing use from the gateway corridor and Employment designations. The adopted 1999 Framework Plan established an approximate ''/z mile separation between the ABI industrial brewery and residential uses further to the west. As part of this update process, representatives of ABI requested increasing this separation between uses by expanding the Employment land use designation. This resulting increase will remove previous residential from ABI property and extend the desired buffer to approximately one mile. The objective of this recommendation is to reduce incompatible uses, strengthen the buffer and transition between uses, and provide a larger business center in northeast Fort Collins. of Fort Collins The future Employment District is primarily located within the Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive corridors, with direct access to Mountain Vista Drive and I-25. The proposed 2009 Plan includes 661 acres of Employment, reflecting an increase of 131 acres from the 1999 Plan. The Employment land use will provide a buffer and transition between the more intense ABI brewery industrial operation and existing and new residential neighborhoods to the west. This business district will also form a positive gateway appearance for travelers entering west off the Interstate 25 corridor. Combined,both the Employment and Industrial Districts will provide 1,118 acres of future development, establishing a large future business center for northeast Fort Collins. Demand for this type of growth is not expected in the short term, with anticipated full build-out of these uses near the year 2030. The following is an excerpt summary from the Market Land Demand Analysis developed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. The Framework Plan includes an additional 131 acres of Employment land. This increase will result in a 13.0 percent increase in the existing land capacity of 1,012 acres. Although a surplus in office supply exists, the Mountain Vista Subarea provides one of the few places within the city with large developable Employment parcels. In addition, the immediate access to Interstate 25 will make the area an ideal location for campus style office development. Therefore, the area can support a significant amount of Employment-zoned land regardless of the oversupply elsewhere in the city. The preferred Framework Plan under consideration includes 131 acres of additional Employment-zoned,land or 13.0 percent of the existing vacant land capacity(1,012 acres). The forecast in employment growth and resulting land demand analysis identified a small shortfall in Industrial-zoned land capacity. The Mountain Vista Subarea provides an opportunity to correct this shortfall and provide additional capacity for industrial development beyond the 2030 time horizon. The shortfall in remaining industrial capacity is evidence of the need to increase the amount of total Industrial-zoned land in the city. The preferred alternative includes 148 acres of additional Industrial-zoned land. This additional land will not only correct the forecast deficit in Industrial- zoned land but will also provide additional capacity for the time horizon beyond 2030. Given the limitations of the Growth Management Area(GMA), the City of Fort Collins will not likely be able to increase the overall Industrial-zoned land supply in the future without re-zoning or redeveloping major portions of the City's Structure Plan. Furthermore, the condition and quality of the proposed industrial land in the Mountain Vista Subarea is superior to many other locations because of the large parcel sizes with interstate and railroad access. It is therefore reasonable to add Industrial-zoned land in the subarea. 2 City of Fort Collins Due to the limitations imposed by the GMA, an oversupply in either Employment-or Industrial- zoned land is beneficial to provide flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. An oversupply of either Employment- or Industrial-zoned land does not necessarily indicate a problem with the existing allocation of future land uses. Both Employment and Industrial uses typically require large vacant parcels for efficient development. These parcels are difficult to obtain through redevelopment or re-zoning; however, other uses, such as residential and retail, are much easier to obtain through redevelopment. Community Commercial District In the 1999 Framework Plan Map, the Community Commercial District was 78 acres, anticipated to provide both neighborhood and regional scale retail. Based on new market analysis information, regional retail uses, including big-box stores, will more likely locate along the I-25 Corridor. As a result, the revised size of the Community Commercial District is about 30 acres. This is intended to be an adequate amount of land for such a district to accommodate multiple neighborhood oriented needs and purposes. The Community Commercial District reflects a destination serving primarily northeast Fort Collins, but possibly serving the whole community, to some degree. This district will combine a mix of retail, services, and civic and residential uses. The district's development will incorporate pedestrian-oriented design with a series of mixed-use blocks, designated"Main Street,"transit station, and public spaces oriented along a network of streets aligned to take advantage of long- distance views towards the mountains. The following is an excerpt summary from the Market Land Demand Analysis developed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A 25 to 35 acre Community Commercial zone district should form the nucleus of the subarea plan. A grocery store will act as the primary anchor because it can be successfully integrated within a mixed use town center. , The market study indicates that a neighborhood center, including a 60,000 square foot grocery store, a 15,000 square foot drug store and 40,000 square feet of ancillary retail space, can be supported in the subarea by 2025. This type of retail center can develop in a low density manner similar to other centers in suburban locations throughout Fort Collins. However, this retail program also provides the most potential to leverage mixed-use development. Several similar mixed use town center or village centers have recently developed in the Denver area(e.g. the Stapleton Town Center and Lowry Centers). In addition, another 32,000 square feet of ancillary space will be supportable in the later years of the subarea's development. This additional space can serve as a second phase for development in the town center core. This will increase the total retail in the Community Commercial zone district to approximately 147,000 square feet. However, the mixed use town center core should not be just retail development. It will be more successful with adjacent medium density multifamily,mixed-use office and retail space, civic uses (e.g. library, post office, police branch 3 of Fort Collins station, etc.), and public gallery places. These uses are more typically associated with traditional town centers and will help differentiate the Mountain Vista subarea as a distinct location within Fort.Collins. Mixed-Use Neighborhoods The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) designation represents the largest land use in the Framework Plan (1,298 acres). This total represents a decrease of 182 acres, in comparison to the original 1999 Plan. This adjustment is based on the previously mentioned increase of both Industrial and Employment land uses. These neighborhoods will provide for the majority of future residential growth in Fort Collins' northeast area. The character of these neighborhoods reflects a variety of housing types, predominantly single-family, with supporting parks, trails, and open lands, with a minimum average density of five dwelling units per acre. In addition, these future neighborhoods will provide a transition from existing Larimer County development to the west, and higher density neighborhoods, commercial, employment and industrial uses further to the east. The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) is concentrated adjacent to the Community Commercial District (40 acres), central to the subarea, and adjacent to the future Enhanced Travel Corridors (104 acres). This neighborhood is intended to be a place for predominantly attached and multi-family housing within easy walking distance of transit and the Community Commercial District. This neighborhood will form a transition and a link between the surrounding lower density neighborhoods and the Community Commercial District, with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, multi-use bike and pedestrian trails, and outdoor spaces will be arranged to create an inviting and convenient living environment. The following is an excerpt summary from the Market Land Demand Analysis developed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Medium density multifamily development in Fort Collins (outside the downtown market area) is currently primarily driven by affordability. The demand in the Mountain Vista Subarea is likely to follow this pattern of affordability mirroring comparable development. Based on this conclusion, the subarea can support between 130 and 150 acres of medium density multifamily zoning. Based on comparable development, multifamily residential in the Mountain Vista Subarea is expected to be driven by demand for affordable entry-level ownership housing. As a result, the percentage of land dedicated to multifamily use in comparable development projects provides an indication of the proportion of multifamily development to be provided in the subarea. The examples of SideHill, Rigden Farm, and the Rock Creek Drive area averaged 12.9 percent multifamily development. However, the Mountain Vista Subarea represents a much larger development area than the comparables; therefore the amount of land dedicated to multifamily will be lower overall. Assuming an 8.5 percent share of the total residential land, the demand for MMN zoning will range between 130 to 150 acres. 4 Fort Collins The proposed town center forming the nucleus of the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan should include between 30 to 50 acres of medium density multifamily zoning. The remaining medium density zoning, approximately 80 to 100 acres, should be located along the proposed enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea. The ideal location for multifamily will be adjacent to the Community Commercial core and along any proposed enhanced travel corridors. Based on comparable analysis, this medium density multifamily zone district should range between 30 to 50 acres. The district will create greater synergy for the proposed adjacent Community Commercial zone district. The remaining medium density multifamily residential zoning should occur along the proposed enhanced travel corridor and at major intersections in the subarea. These areas should be a minimum of 10 to 15 acres for apartment projects that tend to range from 150 to 300 units and require a minimum of 10 to 15 acres to develop. Apartment developers prefer to build near retail amenities, such as those offered by the Community Commercial core or near major intersections. Similar to apartments, higher density multifamily development is typically compatible with retail amenities. Lower density for-sale multifamily development is typically better integrated with single family development. II. Impact on Jobs/Housing Balance The rationale for determining an appropriate balance of jobs to housing is based on direction from City Plan policies: "ECON— 1.4 Jobs/Housing Balance. The City will strive to ensure that a reasonable balance exists between employment and housing is maintained, as well as a balance between basic and non-basic jobs. The primary intent is to create a relative balance between the wages generated by various types of employment and housing prices." The jobs/housing balance is a tool often used to determine whether a community has an adequate number of jobs available to provide employment for all its residents seeking employment. A ratio of less than LO means residents must commute outside the area for employment while a ratio of greater than 1.0 means workers employed within the area generally reside outside the jurisdictional boundaries and commute inwards. The meaning of the jobs/housing balance can often be overstated. In reality, many of the factors influencing this measure are driven by market forces beyond the control of the local community. These market forces include housing prices, housing preference, competitiveness of local businesses, local and state fiscal policy, and job availability. Instead, the measure is more useful for evaluating the overall character of a community as either a bedroom community or an employment center. Under the 1999 plan, this area at full build-out has a projected jobs-housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per housing unit, city-wide. In the updated 2009 Framework Plan, the jobs-housing ratio is 1.56. This small increase will have a marginal impact on the forecasted ratio city-wide. Planning literature often cites 1.5 jobs per housing unit as a preferred or ideal number. In comparison, the 5 Fort Collins state-wide ratio is 1.7 jobs per housing unit. Boulder is considerably higher with a ratio of 2.1. Comparative numbers from either Greeley or Loveland are not available. Historically, from 1997-2007, the Fort Collins ratio has remained relatively constant at around 1.4-1.6 ratio. As a result,the projected 1.56 ratio reflects a healthy and desired level. The current ratio is projected to remain at about 1.5 to full build-out of the Growth Management Area based on population and employment estimates. The following is an excerpt summary from the Market Land Demand Analysis developed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. The changes to the supply of Employment-and Industrial-zoned land included in the preferred Framework Plan will have only a marginal impact(within the margin of error) on the jobs/housing balance ratio and should therefore not prevent the proposed zone changes from occurring. The increases in Employment and Industrial zoned land will have a marginal impact on the forecasted jobs/housing balance ratio. This small increase (well within the margin of error at approximately 4.0 percent) will have little effect on altering the future role of the City of Fort Collins. 6 Attachment No. 15 ATTACHMENT 15 C- Mountain Vista SUBAREA PLAN City Council Work Session August 11, 2009 cltyof Fort.�Coll_s C Purpose of this P"N V'1C9ANEA PIAN Work Session • Follow up to June 9 Council Work Session • Additional information and responses to Council questions • Focus discussion on outstanding policy level Issues • This is the third and final work session prior to Council consideration of adoption of this plan on September 15, 2009 utyoCoUins C Attaclvnent No. 15 Questions for City Council SUB 11 Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision on the following transportation issues: 1) The proposed street network, particularly the extension of realigned Vine Drive to Timberline Road, 2) Grade separated crossings at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive, and 3) De facto truck route concerns and street design and enforcement options? City of Fort��115 Questions for City Council W-m,=P�N Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the request for changes for the Moore property? If not, what additional information is needed? 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? Ory of For, la`s i Attachment No. 15 C JUNE 9 ' UUn� ;,; = Council Work Session I Questions and Request for More Information 1. Moore Property Request ctty o+ __--- - Fort Collins C- 11 �".Mountain.Nsu 4 . tiU1L�NEA PLAN o -3�51e�1W�i� .r MwMoore Property ` Context r C 3 Attachment No. 15 Outstanding Issues ��•°^�°�°.x.un,usn r�av MOORE LETTER MAIN POINTS Concern of Arterial Street bisecting property, Timberline Road/Mountain Vista Drive. rori°�OtlinS a-D 4I v A Proposed 2009 Framework Plan 9 L 9 �I Mwnan 1 1: J•f � a 4 Attachment No. 15 C Outstanding Issues SIiB.UtFA VLW MOORE LETTER MAIN POINTS Overabundance of community commercial and multi-family residential. CBy of Fort, Collins V. C Outstanding Issues - 1 BMtEA PIAY MOORE LETTER MAIN POINTS Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN) Minimum density is too high. �- cutyof Fo rt ColUns C Attachment No. 15 Low-Density Neighborhood Character Examples JW JO�FUN kw . P. -�am City of ,-Fort Collins rk�kl" _J Medium-Density Neighborhood Distrlgtk,........ Character Examples ® """"`""" Left �AM 71 MMMI N \ FocAtlAns w. 6 :Attachment No. 15 C r n Afountaln v�pu PSO I I �'s'ceexen PlAV tr POL EMV ed Enlargement of LMN � JMN 2009 Framework LMN `� ��yPlan Map- n7 Acres Moore Property LMN on Moore Property 4 LM N City of or C JUNE 9 �a>�.BAREA PLIN Council Work Session Questions and Request for More Information 2. Impacts on city-wide Jobs/Housing Balance city C hi:. Attachment No. 15 Jobs/Housing Balance ♦U cv�N City Plan Policy Rationale: ECON-1.4 Jobs/Housing Balance. The City will strive to ensure that a reasonable balance exists between employment and housing... City of Fortes -J Jobs/Housing Balance Info W U ; (2007 City Plan Monitoring Project) 1997- 1.5 2000- 1.6 2003- 1.5 2007- 1.5 2009- 1.56 (With Proposed MVP update) 2007 . 1.7 (State of Colorado) of Foil Collins y` dj F O Attachment No. 15 C Jobs/Housing Balances� � � 1999 Plan would result in a balance of 1.5 2009 Proposed Framework Plan: In 2030, at full subarea build-out, city-side jobs/housing balance is 1.56 • This is due to expansion of Industrial and Employment land uses, and resulting reduction of residential uses in Subarea • Market analysis shows city-wide impact is marginal and should not prevent proposed land use changes within sample subarea City of im -- - - - Fhort � Framework Plan Comparison "^a ;v ♦ Table 2-Jobs/Housing/Population Comparison 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Jobs 11,725 15,065 Mt. Vista Housing Units 7,374 5,735 Subarea Population 17,161 13,347 Jobs/Housing Balance 1.59 2.63 Jobs 142,699 146,046 Fort Collins Housing Units 95,031 93,444 GMA Population 229,792 226,104 Jobs/Housing Balance 1.50 1.56 C 9 Attachment No. 15 JUNE 9 ®JL'BAAFA PI.W Council Work Session Questions and Request for More Information 2. Transportation Related Issues: - Extension of Realigned Vine Drive - Grade-Separated Crossings - De Facto Truck Route Concerns `�"rfColUns JUNE 9 .,... �l IiNIL\PL\.V Council Work Session Questions and Request for More Information 2. Transportation Related Issues: - Extension of Realigned Vine Drive - Grade-Separated Crossings - De Facto Truck Route Concerns o G" Colllns 10 Attachment No. 15 C DMI.O..il 2009 II a Framework Plan a Richard Lake R . v A-O Ornery E r Mt Viet Drl 4[ Conifer St. 0 East WirwOJ(ive = E a,d C- Master Street Plan Comparison JR h r RQEMuJ Co e 1999 Street Network 2009 Street Network City t011`5 C Il Attachment 'No. I Adequate Public Facilities W SLZ ,PIIIAN • Development is presently limited due to a lack of Adequate Public Facilities (APF) • Timing is the issue; There are several infrastructure projects that can alleviate APF issues in the short- and medium- term and delay need for grade-separated crossings • There will be a long-term APF issue until Lemay, Timberline, and Mountain Vista are four-lane railroad crossings City of .Fort Collins Adequate Public Facilities Projects 1. Realigned Vine arterial (College to Lemay) Estimated Costs = $8 Million 2. Extension of realigned Vine arterial (Lemay to Timberline) Estimated Costs = $9.5 Million 3. Northeast College Corridor Outfall drainage project (east of Lemay) Estimated Costs = $4.5 Million 2008 dollars city of r^ tCollins I- Attachment No. 15 C Adequate Public Facilities ® °w Projects Grade-Separated Crossings a. Lemay/Existing Vine Estimated Costs = $32.1 Million b. Timberline/Existing Vine Estimated Costs = $26.6 Million c. Mountain Vista Drive Estimated Costs = $23.6 Million 2008 doldollaar�rs��ll'' rms C Adequate Public Facilities W-nn4., P= Projects 1 Mountain Vista Or m 01 a' a' m E w o' J B ' E .....%IJLS .Li....• ...• i� N Vine Realignment ____-..........-...._... r—.r.. ._� Vine Or grade-separated crossings _-- _ - trb&ns 13 Attachment No. 15 Infrastructure Funding � Aluniiiii P�ksl Scenarios Scenario 1: Construct Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay) Scenario 2: Construct Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) Scenario 3: Petition for At-Grade Railroad Crossings Scenario 4: Construct Three Grade-separated Crossings '��of t_1l �4 ! Scenario 1 • Construct Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay) Infrastructure Construction and Cost Impacts - $8 million` • Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay): cost included in North College CIP • Increases traffic capacity and alleviates APF issues in western portion of subarea Total Estimated Population and Jobs • Estimated Population: 9,000 • Estimated Jobs: 300 Olyof Forte- t��llins 14 Attachment No. 15 C Scenario 2: Construct ®st;e�xen Vl N Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline) Infrastructure Construction and Cost Impacts - $9.5 million • Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay): cost included in North College Capital Improvements Plan • Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline): $9.5 million • Increases traffic capacity and alleviates APF issues in western and central portions of subarea Total Estimated Population and Jobs • Estimated Population: 2,250 Estimated Jobs: 9,800 _- _ crt Collins C Scenario 3• Petition for W ,Hll°f At-Grade Railroad Crossings Infrastructure Construction and Cost Impacts - $18.5 million • Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay): cost included in North College CIP • Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline): $9.5 million • Arterial Street Construction: $9 million; no GSCs require 1/2-mile 4-lane arterial street at 3 at-grade crossings Total Estimated Population and Jobs" • Estimated Population: 2,100 • Estimated Jobs: 5,000 cnv00011tF15 \hhv �,uIJ' i — — d C I � Attachment No. 15 Scenario 4: Construct Three GSCs Infrastructure Construction and Cost Impacts - $99.5 million • Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay): $8 million; cost included in North College CIP • Realigned Vine Drive (Lemay to Timberline): $9.5 million • Construct all three grade-separated crossings: $90 million Total Estimated Population and Jobs • Estimated Population: 2,100 • Estimated Jobs: 5,000 FO`,., rt011l`5 Potential Funding Options • Continue to Utilize Development Impact Fees • Capital Funding Request • Collective Funding Strategy iM V l 16 Attachment No. 15 C De Facto Truck Route M SUH�XhA PL4� Concerns • The City is not advocating for realigned Vine Drive as a truck route either intended or unintended. The City continues to support the SH 14/US 287 truck route • The Plan document will include street design and enforcement recommendations,as well as a summary of resident concerns • Truck Route Analysis Summary • Not enough speed,travel time,or safety efficiencies gain for truck traffic to discontinue use of SH 141US 287 truck route • State and federal highways vehicle weight limits permit up to 30,000 pounds more than on local Fort Collins streets FortY� Cl`s C- Street Design Options Mommmn Msw IV SI:INNFA Pi N The Plan will include recommendations on street design • Travel Lane Width • Intersection Controls • Street Design Speed • Local Street Traffic Calming • Signage i C 17 Attachment No. 15 Enforcement Options y =Y� The Plan will include recommendations on enforcement • Vehicle Weight Limit Restrictions • City/state enforcement of existing 54,000 lb. local street weight limitations • City can revise local street weight limitations; currently based on Model Traffic Code and CDOT standards • Mobile Truck Weigh Stations • Signage y of Fort rttCollins Next Steps V ILanuE�aG.0�° kP"N August— Development of Draft Plan Aug 19 - Transportation Board Recommendation Aug 20 - Planning &Zoning Board Recommendation Sept 15 - City Council Adoption Hearing ay of FO, t�i`s is Attachment No. 15 C Questions for City Council ♦U= Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision on the following transportation issues: 1)The proposed street network, particularly the extension of realigned Vine Drive to Timberline Road, 2) Grade-separated crossings at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive, and 3) De facto truck route concerns and street design and enforcement options? City of rt CoWns ft... C Questions for City Council ♦U ;,P�tN Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the request for changes for the Moore property? If not, what additional information is needed? 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? p Cltyof rtCoUins blo w""! J C in