Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/15/2009 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 UPDATE ITEM NUMBER: 18 A-E AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: September 15, 2009 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Pete Wray Matt Wempe SUBJECT Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2009 Update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct financial impacts exist as a result of adopting the 2009 update to the Mountain Vita Subarea Plan (2009 Plan). However, the Plan identifies short and long-term public infrastructure improvements and potential funding sources for this subarea. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2009-086 Adopting the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Several related items are being proposed, concurrent with consideration for adoption of the 2009 Plan, including- B. Resolution 2009-087 Amending the City Structure Plan Map to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. C. Resolution 2009-088 Amending the North College Corridor Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. D. Resolution 2009-089 Amending the Northside Neighborhoods Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. E. Resolution 2009-090 Amending the City's Master Street Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, an element of City Plan, is projected to accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth with approximately 1,500 acres of vacant land. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, originally adopted on March 16, 1999, laid a framework for a large, primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins. Over the past ten years, staff has responded to numerous requests for changes to this plan. September 15, 2009 -2- Item No. 18 A-E The Plan update process, started in March 2008, addresses identified issues based on new information. The Plan update refines the adopted vision, framework plan map, policies, and implementation actions identified to achieve the Plan in the future. This update is also responsive to the ideas and concerns of the many stakeholders, including area property owners, residents, boards and commissions, City Council and the broader community. A follow-up action to consider an ordinance to amend the City of Fort Collins Zoning map is scheduled for November 3, 2009. BACKGROUND A. Resolution 2009-086 Adopting the 2009:Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Overview of the proposed 2009 Update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan,originally adopted on March 16, 1999, laid the framework for a large, primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins. This Plan area is projected to accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth; with approximately 1,500 acres of vacant land. Over the past ten years, staff has responded to numerous requests for changes to this plan. The Plan update process started in March 2008. The purpose of the update process was to determine potential refinements to land use, streets, drainage ways,parks, open lands and trails. The updated 2009 Plan refines the vision, Framework Plan, and principles and policies in the original document,based on new information. In addition, this process included a reassessment of the implementation actions identified to achieve the Plan in the future. This update is also responsive to the ideas and concerns of the many stakeholders, including area property owners, residents, boards and commissions, City Council and the broader community. The 2009 Plan itself is divided into chapters covering the following topics: Executive Summary Chapter 1 - Plan Foundations Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions and Analysis Chapter 3 - Vision Chapter 4 - Principles and Policies Chapter 5 - Framework Plan Chapter 6—Implementation Recommendations Appendix— Summaries and Technical Reports Presented below is a brief summary of each chapter. September 15, 2009 -3- Item No. 18 A-E Chapter 1 —Plan Foundations Chapter 1 sets the context for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It describes the purpose of the Plan Update, description of the public input and review process, and a review of related planning documents. Chapter 2—Existing Conditions and Issues Chapter 2 provides an updated summary of existing conditions within the subarea related to land use, transportation system, open lands, and utilities. This chapter also identifies factors that may influence future development and contains a summary of the latest consultant analysis of the major issues. Chapter 3 —Vision Chapter 3 describes a vision for the Plan area, including neighborhoods, commercial center, employment and industrial uses, transportation system, natural areas, and community appearance. Chapter 4—Principles and Policies Chapter 4 identifies principles and policies specific to the subarea, while building from the established community-wide City Plan policies. The Principles categories include land use, transportation,community appearance and design,economic sustainability and development,natural areas, and open lands. Chapter 5—Framework Plan Chapters 4 and 5 are intended to organize, guide, and stimulate efforts to implement the vision and address the identified issues. The centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is the Framework Plan. This Framework Plan represents an integrated pattern of existing and future land use,transportation system, and network of open lands. Key building blocks include existing and new residential neighborhoods, schools, parks,commercial centers, a business center, and a network of open lands. These destinations will be linked by a transportation system that provides a high level of connectivity, internally and to other destinations throughout the community, serving vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel. This chapter is organized into three main sections,including land use,transportation and open lands. The chapter also includes a comparison of the 1999 and 2009 Framework Plans. Chapter 6—Implementation Recommendations Chapter 6 highlights the key implementation actions needed to achieve the Plan. This chapter includes a detailed listing of projects and improvements needed to support this subarea's development, including transportation improvements, parks and trails, natural areas, stormwater drainage,and public facilities. In addition,this chapter includes an analysis of select infrastructure projects needed to alleviate Adequate Public Facilities (APF) issues. September 15, 2009 -4- Item No. 18 A-E Public Process The Plan update process started in March 2008. The public process has included extensive public involvement from property owners within the project area, including Anheuser-Busch Inbev, residents and neighborhood groups, Poudre School District and other service providers, multiple City departments, City boards and commissions, and direction from City Council. The project team included staff from various City departments, EDAW/AECOM (urban planning and design), Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (market analysis), LSA Associates, Inc. (transportation modeling/air quality analysis), and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (transportation engineering and noise analysis). The planning process was divided into three main phases. The primary tasks of the first phase (March 2008—August 2008) included identifying background information associated with project start-up. The second phase (August 2008-December 2008) included a focus on design and alternative analysis. Finally, the third phase (January 2009—August 2009) included selecting a preferred framework plan and updating the Plan document. B. Resolution 2009-087 Amending the City Structure Plan Map to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Based on the 2009 Plan recommendations, amendments to the City Structure Plan map are needed to change the land use designations within the subarea, including Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial, Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods,and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The City Structure Plan will also reflect changes to the Master Street Plan and the Enhanced Travel Corridor designation. C. Resolution 2009-088 Amending the North College Corridor Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The 2009 Plan recommends an amendment to the North College Corridor Plan to change the. location of the Enhanced Travel Corridor from Conifer Street to realigned Vine Drive. The North Fort Collins Business Association has submitted a letter in support of this change. (Attachment 7) D. Resolution 2009-089 Amending the Northside Neighborhoods Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The 2009 Plan recommends an amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, which overlaps a small portion of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The amendment will reflect additional Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods land use designation near the intersection of realigned Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue. The updated Land Demand Analysis supported higher-density housing adjacent to the Enhanced Travel Corridor. September 15, 2009 -5- Item No. 18 A-E E. Resolution 2009-090 Amending the City's Master Street Plan to Comport with the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The 2009 Plan recommends changes to the Master Street Plan including: 1. A refined street network, particularly fewer collector streets; 2. The extension of realigned Vine Drive from Lemay to Timberline; 3. Elimination of the extension of Turnberry Road south of its current terminus at Mountain Vista Drive; and I 4. Several minor alignment changes to streets as shown in the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS On August 19, 2009, the Transportation Board voted (7-2) to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and related amendments to the Master Street Plan. The Board also provided additional comments including: 1. Adding specific language in the Plan stating that the realigned Vine will not become a de- facto truck bypass; 2. Clarifying future enforcement and monitoring of through truck traffic in subarea; 3. Maintain high priority for resolving existing street deficiencies at the existing Lemay/Vine intersection and future grade separated crossing in this area before implementing realigned Vine; and 4. The overall reduction in carbon dioxide from the 1999 Plan to the 2009 Plan is minimal,and further review is needed to monitor environmental impacts. On August 20, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (4-1) to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and related amendments to the City Structure Plan,North College Corridor Plan,Northside Neighborhoods Plan,and rezoning. The Board also outlined additional comments including: 1. Provide language in Plan to ensure monitoring of potential truck through traffic in subarea; and 2. Forwarding a recommendation not supporting the Moore requests as part of this update process; instead, the density issue should be addressed later as part of the City Plan update process. On July 20,2009,the Air Quality Advisory Board voted unanimously to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. On July 8, 2009, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. On June 8,2009,the Bicycle Advisory Committee forwarded a list of thoughts and concerns on the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to the Transportation Board. September 15, 2009 -6- Item No. 18 A-E On May 27, 2009, the Parks and Recreation Board voted (7 — 1) to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. On May 7, 2009, the Affordable Housing Board voted unanimously to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council work session summaries, August 11, 2009, June 9, 2009 and December 9, 2008 2. Minutes and letters from: - Transportation Board - Planning.and Zoning Board - - Air Quality Advisory Board - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board - Bicycle Advisory Committee - Parks and Recreation Board - Affordable Housing Board 3. Existing City Structure Plan Map 4. Existing North College Corridor Plan, Framework Plan map 5. Existing Northside Neighborhoods Plan, Framework Plan map 6. Existing Master Street Plan map 7. Letter from the North College Business Association 8. PowerPoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 City ®f Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue 6rt Colth 97 Box 580 Floftis Fort Collins,CO 80522 970.221.63.6376 970,224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/adva nceplanning MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 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: August 11, 2009 Work Session Summary—Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Council members present: Mayor Doug Hutchinson, Ben Manvel, Aislinn Kottwitz, Wade Troxell, Kelly Ohlson, Lisa Poppaw, and David Roy. Staff members present: City Manager Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Jeff Scheick, Mark Jackson, Joe Frank, Kathleen Bracke, Joe Olson, Pete Wray, Matt Wempe, and supporting staff team. The following Council comments or questions for additional information are summarized. Staff will provide a response to unanswered questions and requests for additional information in a separate memorandum as part of the agenda materials packet for the September 15, 2009 Hearing. 1. 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? ■ What is the status of Turnberry Road? In the 1999 Plan this street extends south to Vine, and in the 2009 map, it is not connected. (Staff provided response at meeting). ■ What is the 2005 data that was utilized in the truck route speed analysis? (Follow up item). ■ Explain the statement that"no development impact fees have been collected for the grade-separated crossings to date." (Follow up item). Fort Collins ■ More information is needed on estimated percentages and/or overall funds that would be generated by the different funding options (Follow up Item). ■ Explain the grade-separated crossing exception process that would be required with the Colorado Public Utility Commission (Follow up Item). ■ What is the number of tickets issued by the Fort Collins Police for violations of the existing vehicle weight limitations? (Follow up item). ■ What is the status of the 1-25/East Vine Drive Interchange? Staff provided response at meeting). ■ Continue to pursue a written response from the Colorado Motor Carriers Association. (Follow up item). ■ What is the correct estimated cost of the grade-separated crossings? (Staff provided response at meeting). 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? ■ Explain the options for the Moore property and how any City Council decision would be implemented. (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? ■ Please explain the rationale for the Employment expansion. Is the change driven by the market analysis or the need for additional revenue? (Staff provided response at meeting). 4. Additional comments/information needed and next steps: ■ Send an informal copy of the draft Plan document to City Council members as soon as it is available. Ensure that it is also available on the project website for the public at the same time. (Follow up item). • Explain the statement that City Plan supports a mix of commercial and multi- family residential neighborhoods based on a market analysis. (Staff provided response at meeting). ■ Will Lemay Avenue, north of Country Club Road, need to be renamed in the future to maintain street naming consistency? (Follow up item). ■ Explain the proposed trail alignments and why are they typically located adjacent to natural areas. (Staff provided response at meeting). ■ Explain the envisioned City Plan build-out timeframe and how that is impacted by infrastructure needs in this subarea. (Staff provided response at meeting). ■ What is the projected area of the growth management area? (Follow up item). ■ Is the City or Larimer County collecting the regional development impact fee? Could these be used for the grade-separated crossings? (Follow up Item) ■ City Council members indicated that they have the necessary information for the September 15 adoption hearing. 2 City of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue 6rt Collins 97 Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522 970.221.6376 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. 1. Does Council have all of the necessary information to make a decision regarding the street network shown on the proposed Framework Plan, and "Realigned Vine" in particular? If not,what additional information is needed? ■ 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). ity F`orr_t of ■ 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 City ®f Advance Planning F6rt 281 North College Avenue Coll 97 Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522 970.221.631.6376 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/ad vanceplanning MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Pete Wray, Senior Planner Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Jeff Scheick, Executive Director, Planning Development and Transportation Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning RE: December 9, 2008, Work Session Summary—Mt. Vista Subarea Plan Update 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the options presented on the Plan alternatives? Staff was not asking Council to select a preferred alternative, but rather to offer general comments on the Plan options presented. The following Council comments were heard by staff: • Supporting market and transportation modeling analysis to justify changes to land use and street network is important to document in preferred plan. • Concerns of interface between existing County development and planned City growth. • Clarification on criteria to support expansion of Industrial and Employment land uses and impacts on amount of residential, and jobs/housing balance community-wide • Coordination with property owners is important, but focus on providing best planning options for City of Fort Collins • Why are some of the street alignments shown to connect and others are not in the alternatives such as Conifer Street and Turnberry Road? • Make sure that existing natural areas and wetlands shown on the 1999 Plan are identified in Plan update • What is the street classification of Conifer if the Enhanced Travel Corridor designation is moved to the realigned Vine Drive? • Make sure transit elements are fully integrated into Plan Ci of �F6rt Collins • What types of retail and services would be a part of the Community Commercial District? • How will the grade separated crossings affect the timing of future development? • Clarification if the residential land use densities are consistent with City Plan. • What are the criteria and policies for determining regional trail alignments? • The new Gateway design standards are important and staff is encouraged to bring this implementation item to Council for consideration at time of Plan adoption if possible. • Staff may need to consider an additional work session for preferred plan. 2. Are there other issues not mentioned that staff needs to address? Staff received general direction from Council that we are on track on working towards a preferred Plan. No further issues were identified to include in the process. 3. Is there any additional information that is needed prior to or along with agenda materials that would be presented at the time a decision is considered by the Council? The following specific requests for additional information were received: • Data to support appropriate Jobs/housing balance. • Need to explore potential funding options for future public infrastructure improvements. 2 ATTACHMENT 2 City Of Transportation Board Fort Collins Gary Thomas,Chair August 24, 2009 Mayor Hutchinson and Members of Council: At its regular meeting on August 19, 2009 the Transportation Board voted to recommend adoption of the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan and the associated Amendment of the Street Master Plan. The motion was as follows: "That the Transportation Board recommends to City Council the adoption of the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan and along with the modifications to the City's Street Master Plan." The vote was 7 to 2 in favor with the following comments referred for your consideration. The final plan captures the concerns that were expressed that the re-routing of Vine Drive to connect with Mountain Vista should not become a de-facto truck bypass. The plan also outlines additional steps that might be taken if indeed long distance trucks begin using that road. The Transportation Board recommends that a mechanism be established to insure that a future review of the situation occurs once the roads are built. Perhaps a commitment that staff will report back on six month intervals for a year or two after the road is completed to verify that the route is not becoming a bypass and/or what is being done if so. / Among the elements discussed to prevent unnecessary truck traffic along the Vine/ Mountain Visa route is improved enforcement of the weight restrictions. The Board noted with concern that few tickets have been issued for weight restrictions in the recent past, yet this is one of the primary reasons for keeping long distance trucks on the designated .truck routes. The Transportation Board recommends that the City consider some form of passive weight control, such as a roll over weight scale as is used in some freeway applications. Given all the other demands for police services, the board feels that something more consistent than the occasional patrol check will be needed to enforce the weight limits. Within the Sub-Area Plan is sequencing for the construction of the Vine relocation and ultimate connection to Mountain Vista, with Lemay to College being the first segment. Since there is already a seriously failed intersection at Lemay and Vine, there was some concern that resolving the existing street connection deficiencies should have precedence over construction that will only enhance possible future sub-area development. The diversion of Lemay to the East as originally planned is not even contemplated in the initial staging, yet that would appear to be a critical link in resolving the traffic jam at the intersection. And that grade separated route over the railroad would also meet the objective of improving the community quality of life for the Andersonville and Alta Vista neighborhoods. City of art Collins Finally, the Transportation Board noted that the plan documents the impact of the changes on emitted CO2 in the area. Tracking the environmental impact of any change is a very good idea and the staff is commended for adding that to this document. However, it is noted that the overall reduction in CO2 from the 1999 plan to the current one is minimal. Granted that the new Plan moves more traffic with fewer roads, which is a good step. But given the City's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases as part of its Climate Action Plan, the Board urges staff and Council to make sure that all future elements of design are reviewed against their environmental impact to see if the reductions already contemplated can be improved on. As indicated above two members voted against the plan. One member thought the plan was well prepared as far as it went, but did not adequately address how development would pay for the improvements. He also commented that the entire effort seemed too car-centric and was not consistent with the stated goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving air quality. The other dissenting member felt that too many questions were still unanswered. His concern was that matters such as lack.of progress in reducing CO2, the road alignment that does not seem transit and bicycle friendly, and the neighborhood impacts including truck traffic were not fully resolved. The minutes of our meeting will provide more detail of our discussion. In closing, the Transportation Board makes note of effort made by City Staff to engage and listen to all of the neighbors concerns and issues. Numerous open houses, presentations and private responses have gone into the results presented at our meeting. Staff is to be commended for their proactive outreach efforts on this particularly sensitive situation. The Transportation Board itself has also entertained a number of public comments on this plan and worked to make sure our visitors were welcomed and given ample opportunity to share their views with the board. As usual I would be glad to discuss this recommendation more at your convenience. Sincerely Gary D. Thomas Chair Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 2 \JDiscussion Items: 2. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Project: Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Counc l for�doption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related items;"including: A) Amendment to City Plan, City Structure Plan,map. B) Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan, anelement of City Plan. C) Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, an,element of City Plan. D Amendment to the Cityof Fort Collins'Zonin ma q, 9 P The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan;an efement_of City Plan, is pro�ected.to t to accommodate a significant portion�of the City";future growth with approximately 1,500 acres of vacant land. The up`date=will�re6gthe adopted vision, framework plan map, policies, and implementatOo ' ions identified to achieve the Plan in the future. �1' The Mountain Vista Sub r-0ea�Plan, originally adopted on March 16 1999, laid a framework for a large, pnmanly�undeveloped area�of northeast Fort Collins. Over the past ten years, staff t ass respondedto�numerous requests for changes to this plan. The plan update process, startle 4hWarch-2008, addresses identified issues based on new information. Recommendation: Approval of adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related items fi , �' % Hearing Testimony.Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior Gory Planner Pete0ray repotted the proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been developed by a team,of it staff and consultants, withrextensive public input. The 16-month planning process, initiated mMarch of 2008, is a expected tobe completed in August 2009. City Council will consider adoption of the.update to the Pfa ion September 15, 2009. The primary elements of the Plan include vision, policies; Framework Plahl!map, and implementation. Based on Plan recommendations, amendments to the City Structure Plan map are needed to change the land use designations.Oft!ip the subarea including Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial, Open Lands, Parks and`Stream Corridors, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The Plan recommends an amendment to the North College Corridor Plan, to change the location of the future Enhanced Travel Corridor from existing Conifer Street, to the proposed realignment of East Vine Drive. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 3 The Plan recommends an amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, to locate additional Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods land use designation between existing Lemay Avenue and the realigned segment of Lemay Avenue. The Plan recommends changes to the zoning map, providing consistency with the City Structure Plan changes within the subarea size and location of the: (1) Industrial District; (2) Employment District; (3) Community Commercial District; (4) Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors; > (5) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District; and (6) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District. a Finally, the Plan recommends changes to the Master Street,Plan map, providing consistency with the City Structure Plan changes within the subarea alignments oFfuture: ' v (1) four-lane arterial streets; ,P (2) two-lane minor arterial streets; (3) two-Lane Collector streets. � .(4) classification of the existing East Vine Drive Staff has asked the Transportation Board for their recommendation on these identified transportation changes and they will be reviewing them•and making their recommendation to City Council at their August 19"' meeting. it In a staff memo from Wray dated August% 10, the following three additional considerations were requested: � 1. A proposed rezoning of-a-65 acre parcel, 4om-.he Transition'(T) to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN�) District,\which was determined after the staff report was prepared. 2. An owner requestfor some adjustments to the"Kproposed 2009 framework plan map and LMN density standard 3. A recommendatiomfrom staff to_add language to tte Plan document to allow a special provision for certain non-resid`entiahuses within-the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN) Standards foran area north of Vine Drive,and=the existing railroad line. This proposed change would,be considered as a future Land Use Code change. Moore,Fa ly Requests 5- as part of\ Plan update process, staff has met with representatives of the Moore family,on a regular basis.`Prior to developing a preferred framework plan map, staff developed six map alternatives for review by'area land owners and the public. During this process, representatives of the Moore family created six additional map alternatives combined totaling 12 map alternatives, for staff to consider for their,property. The proposed 2009 framework plan map reflects several refinements to the Moore property"that-staff supports. These adjustments include the size of the Community Commercial and Medium;'Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designations, addition of Employment, size of the Community Park ori7their property, and removing the Turnberry Road connection south of Mountain Vista Drive. The Moore family has requested additional changes. Staff is not supporting these additional requested changes to the Plan document, related maps, or Land Use Code amendments. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 4 CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP UPDATE 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 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 Frameork Plan map recommendation is based on extensive public input, Boards and Commission feedback, City Council direction, and consultant analysis throughout the update planning process\The recommendations from the proposed 2009 Framework Plan map, establish the need to amend,the City Structure Plan map. Industrial/Employment Districts ; The existing Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) brewery establishes-,the,core of future md'ustrial 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 the11,999 Plan\T The adopted 1999 Framework Plan established an approximate\'/z�mHe separation between the ABI industrial brewery and residential uses furthp-r-to,the west. As part,of this update process, representatives of ABI requested increasing this separation between uses�byfexpanding 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. r zpt�+ ff a fr/ The future Employment&�triclrimarily located within the Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive corridors, with direct access>to Mourtain Vista Drive and l-25. The proposed 2009 Plan includes 661 acres of Employment, reflecting an increase of 131 acre'skfrom 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. 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. i Cormercia Corridor District The 1999 Framework Plan Map showed the Community Commercial District totaling 78 acres in size, anticipated to'provide both neighborhood and regional scale retail. Based on new market analysis information as part ofthe 2009 Plan update, regional retail uses, including big-box stores, will more likely locate along Interstate 25? As'a result, the 2009 map shows the revised size of the Community Commercial District size of about 30 acres. 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 miz 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. Mixed-Use Neighborhoods The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) designation in the 2009 Plan represents the largest land use in the Framework Plan (1,298 acres). This total represents a decrease of 182 acres, in Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 5 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 proposed 2009 Plan shows the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood=(MMN) designation concentrated adjacent to the Community Commercial District (4b acres), central to.the subarea, and adjacent to the future Enhanced Travel Corridors (104 acres). While thexamount of MMN in both the original 1999 and 2009 Plans is about the same, the distribution and4ocations are different. 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, streetsmulti-use bike and pedestrian trails, and outdoor spaces will be arranged to create an inviting and convenientdiving 5 environment. X Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors The updated 2009 Framework Plan map shows a total of 211 acres;of parks, water features, ditch corridors and natural areas. The updated GI&mapping calculations�'reflects a difference of 128 less acres compared to the original map. This nEk fotalkacreage represents accurate boundary calculations for all three categories of open lands that follow-sp`e'cific parcel lines and GIS mapping delineations. 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 onl.,y proposed-features that were removed were those that did not fit within the identified categories�,These land uses/were simply mapped and calculated more closely and accurately. X r Table 1't sFr"ameweW Plari`Com atisonN r Land UseF"ramewock`= Framework." Changep a : . ;_„. (Acres) Plan (Acres �" Plan- Acres Commune Co.mm&cial \ 78 30 -48� � Em to meri`ty 11C N _ 530 661 131 \Industrial ; ` 309 457 148 Low Density Mixed Use `Neighborhood 1,480 1,298 -182 Mediumh DensityfMixed Use Nei borhood 145 144 -1 Park \ % 110 110 0 School V 108 108 0 Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas 229 101 -128 Regional Detention Pond inside MVSB 0 80 80 Total 2,989 2,989 Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 6 Table 2� 6bs/Housing k p/Po Com arison. $ F -1999PIan�X, ct 2009�PIan .> 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 f 1`.56; Transportation Network The 2009 refinements maintain multi-modal connectivity, access and capacity while responding to land use and other proposed changes. The key changes shown in_he proposed 2009 Plan is 1) an overall refined street network; 2) the extension of the realigned Vine Drie'arterial street between Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road; and 3) the relocation of the Enhanced Travel Corridor from Conifer Street to the realigned Vine Drive. Additional local streets;-'constructed at the timeof development, are not included in the travel demand model or Master Street Plan _ AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH-COLLEGE CORRIDOR PLAN` l Wray said this is a recommendation,,o the City Council of proposed changes to the North College Corridor Plan, involving a change to the Framework Plan map. The proposed change is based on the recommendations from the update tolthe Mountain Vista'Subarea Plan. The proposed change represents a minor relocationdof the future Enhanc avel Corridor, from the current Conifer Street, to the proposed realigned-East Vine\Drive The proposed change isNdescribed below; corresponding to areas shown on the Proposed North College Corridor Plan - Framework Planmap. Transportation NetworkYrA Transportatioh,needs in the subarea are vitally connected to city, county and regional transportation systems. The transportation network and land uses in the subarea were planned in conjunction with each other. This update,proces's`included travel demand modeling by LSA Associates, Inc., transportation plan ningeview"by City staff and Felsburg, Holt, and Ulevig, coordination with the Colorado Motor Carriers+Association, public input from city and county residents, business and community groups, and<�eview by various City boards and commissions and City Council. The 2009 recommended improvements are consistent with the street classifications in the City's Master Street Plan, and are projected to operate at the levels of service defined in the City's Multi-Modal Level of Service Manual. The revised transportation network will reflect changes to the Master Street Plan approved by City Council 1 . Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 7 As part of the update, the project team analyzed ways to refine the area's existing street network. This included the location and overall number of arterial and collector-level streets. The 1999 plan included an extensive street network, particularly collector-level streets. The alternatives analysis, including travel demand modeling, indicated the projected traffic volumes can be accommodated on the proposed street network. The refinements attempt to maintain multi-modal connectivity, access, and capacity while responding to land use and other proposed changes. A key change shown in the proposed 2009 Plan is the extension of the realigned Vine Drive arterial street between Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road. Based on this change,-staff is recommending that the current location of the Enhanced Travel Corridor be relocated from Conifer Street to this new arterial street (Realigned East Vine,Drive). Additional local streets, constructed at the time of development, are not included in the travel"demand model or Master Street Plan. r Transportation Planner Matt Wempe noted that Council asked them to address'Adequate Public Facilities (APF)—looking at the capacity of the road network asIt stands right now and in the future. APF is a Land Use Code requirement that ensures we have the f cilities;available at the time of development to mitigate any impacts. Conditions of particular interest,are \` � • Lemay Avenue/existing Vine Drive intersectiok r� • Timberline Road/existing Vine Drive intersection M, ` There will be a long-term APF issue until either • Grade-separated crossings are constructed ($82 Million) a. Lemay/Existing Vine, estimated Costs = $35'Million, � b. Timberline/Existing Vine, estimate&,CostsJ= $30 Million c. Mountain Vista-DriW'estimated Costs:z= $25 Millions' • At-grade 4.-lane arterial raiiylroad crossings are constructed � � Timing is the issue. The re�are severalinfrastructure projects that can alleviate APF issues in the short- / " n a and medium-term- 1. Realigned iVial (College,-to Lemay)Estimated Costs = $8 Million 2!Exte nsion of realigned Vine arte ialmay to Timberline) Estimated Costs = $9.5 Million 3. Northeast College Corridor}Outfall drainage project(east of Lemay) Estimated Costs = $4.5 Million\\ � t Defacto Truck Route Concerns -- staff's analysis has evolved over time as they've heard more input from the public, Boards,& Commissions and City Council. They are looking at the elements that the trucking industry may look at when they look at which would be a preferred route. Right now Mulberry, Riverside, Jefferson and College ara the designated truck route to State Highway 14 and US Highway 287. The concern is the Mountain Vista;Timberline, and the realigned Vine Drive connection would start to act as an alternative through truck route. With industrial, employment and commercial uses there will be truck traffic using these arterial streets. Wempe said the intention of having these arterial streets is to provide connections not only for residents but jobs and business within the community. The plan document is going to include the following street Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 8 design and enforcement recommendations. He believes there's not enough benefit for truck traffic to discontinue use of the designated truck route. Street Design Options • Travel Lane Width o City Traffic Engineer accepting of 11-foot travel lane instead of standard 12-foot travel lane • Intersection Controls o City policy requires staff to examine all types of controls, including o ndabouts • Street Design Speed • Local Street Traffic Calming o Traffic calming measures on local and collector streets encourage through traffic to use arterial streets • Signage i. Enforcement Options • Vehicle Weight Limit Restrictions , o City/state enforcement of existing 54;000`Ib local street weight limitations o Coordination with public weigh statiot confirrri=overweight vehicles o City can revise local:streetweight limitations;currently based on Model Traffic Code and CDOT standards Mobile Truck Weigh,Stations',' o Coordinate with Colorado State Highway Patrolteo ensure vehicle weight limitation compliance o/City-and,CDOT-,can post truck route and,weight limit signage All these streets are at a conceptual planning level. When staff goes through the actual design and build z/ phase of-all the improvements, that's a public process where boards and residents have a chance to give input. Enhanced\Tra I\Corrido Both City Plan and,Transportation Master Plan identify four(4) Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETC) in Fort Collins. These corridors.include/the Mason Transportation Corridor, Harmony Road, Timberline Road, and North College/Conife,Street. The purpose of these corridors is to provide multi-modal connections between key activity centers and access to high frequency transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The alternatives analysis included an evaluation of the enhanced travel corridor route through northeast Fort Collins. The existing City Structure Plan map and the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Framework Plan map located this future ETC along the North College/Conifer Street alignment. The extension of Conifer Street is planned for a 2-lane arterial street. With the proposed realignment of East Vine Drive as a new Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 9 4-lane arterial street, this corridor is better suited than Conifer Street to incorporate this high-frequency transit route between the Downtown and northeast Fort Collins. 'AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN This is a recommendation to the City Council of proposed changes to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, involving a change to the Framework Plan map. The proposed change is based on the recommendations from the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Thepcoposed change would replace the same amount of existing approved Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designation, with Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods shown on the,Northside Neighborhoods Plan. The proposed change is described below. The Northside Neighborhoods Plan(NNP) adopted in 2005 overlaps the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan boundary slightly foran area between the existing Lemay Avenue and East Vine Drive, and realigned Lemay Avenue/.Withinathi's NNP area, the existing adopted land use designation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN). This designation was intended for vacant future residential development. As part of the;Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update„the recommendation is to replace this original LMN designs fW,with Medium Density Mixed-Uses Neighborhoods (MMN) land use designation adjacent to the proposed4uture intersectionjof realigned Vine/Lemay. This change is based on the proposed relocation of`the`Enhanced Travel Corridor(ETC) from Conifer Street to the realigned Vine Drive. The updated Market.Analysis recommendation by the consultants EPS, inc. supports higher density;multi-family residential along this future high frequency transit route.. This change is also supported by City Plan policy to locate MMN adjacent to recognized transit corridors. , The following section from the June 2009 Land Demand Report develop d by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. is included below.a 4; The proposed town cente forming the nucled_ of the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan should include=between 30 t6\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'majorintersections in the subarea. V. The'ideah6cation 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 rangey `l� 6etween 30 to 50 acres. The district will create greater synergy for the proposed`adjace�Community Commercial zone district. The remaining medium''density multifamily residential zoning should occur along the proposed enhanced travel corridorand 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 minimu&of10 to 15 acres to develop. Apartment developers prefer to build near retail amenities, such astfiose 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. The following City Plan policies support MMN along transit corridors: 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 Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 10 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-1: 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 location of higher density housing near public transportation, shopping, and in designated neighborhoods and districts. % AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING M/AP The vision for the Mountain Vista subarea reflects a vibrant/business district, parks,�schools, commercial center, and residential neighborhoods, linked b a trans ortation network su ortecf b . all, modes of 9 Y P �� pP .� Y� travel. Changes to the zoning of six (6) areas would.,el p to;support that vision. These include: (1) one property, size and location of Industrial; (2) two properties, size and location of Employment; (3) two properties, size and location of Community Commercial; (4)four properties, size and location of Medium Density Mixe`d;Use Neighborhoods; and (5) three properties, size and location of Low,eDensity Mixed-Use�Neighborhoods. (6) one property, replace existing Transition zoning with,Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. rqa The rezonings are based upon proposed changes'to�the City Structure Plan map, provided in Staff Report 2A. The areas withih4he-Mountain Vista subarea correspond to the proposed zoning categories. 1. Land Use Code-Requirements for Rezoning ? The regulations covering rezonings.in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2:9.4 (H) indicates the°following (2)-Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) s all be recommended for approval;by'the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed:amendment is: (a) Consistent with°the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b)Wa4rran\ted-b'��/changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. (3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 11 (b)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. ' (c)Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 2. Background. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Area A- Industrial: . N: Outside City limits and GMA; County FA-1; vacant E: Outside City limits and GMA; County Open; vacant S: Employment; vacant W: Employment; vacant „<< Area B - Employment: ` N: Industrial; Anheuser-Bush InBev Brewery ; E: Industrial; Brewery, vacant S: Community Commercial (CC), Medium Density (MMN) and Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant and smglefamily residential W: Community Commercial'(C% Medium Den0i (MMN) and Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods (LMN)vacant_ and sing le-family,residential; vacant and auto- dealer Area C— Community Commercial / N: Employment-(E), Medium De`sity'(MMN) andsLow Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods`(LMN); vacant�� $V E: Low Density Mixed-Use Neigh borh, oods (LMN); Medium Density Mixed-Use ;Neighborhoods (MMN); vacant \`�/ S: Low'Density Residential (RL); single-family residential W: Commercial (C, various commercial and industrial uses Ar a D�Low�DensityMixed-Use Neighborhoods: N: Outside City limits'and GMA; County FA-1; vacant E: Employment(E), Community Commercial (CC), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN); vacant S: Low Density' Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN), Outside City limits and GMA; County FA=nl vacant V1/ ,Outide City limits; County FA-1, existing residential Area E - Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods: N: Employment (E), Community Commercial (CC), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant E: Employment (E), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant S: Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN); vacant W: Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN); vacant Area F—Transition N: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant E: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); Outside City limits, vacant S: Industrial (1); existing BNSF Rail switching.yard Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 12 W: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN); vacant 3. Request Justification These rezoning requests are being made in conjunction with the adoption hearings on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to help implement its vision, along with the related changes to the City Structure Plan. The rezoning justification matches the justification for the Structure Plan changes. Therefore, the justification for these rezonings is contained within the Mountain Vista Subarea;Pslan, specifically the Framework Plan map which shows the subject areas and their new land use'designations. Staff Analysis 1. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan As indicated above, any request to rezone less than 640 acres is considered a quasi=judicial rezoning and the first "criteria" for approving the request is consistency with City,Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. The City Structure Plan map, an element of City Planets the,basic�land use framework showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years.\Its'land use designations guide the zoning of properties within the city. The Structure Plan is being amended as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea'Plan adoption process to be consistent with the Mountain�Vista Subarea Plan - Framework Plan map. 2. Findings of Fact v` In evaluating the request for rezoning, staff makesthe`following findings of fact: A. Area A- Industrial ntain VIndustrial (1) + T48 acres The Mouista Subarea Plan and it'F,ramework map designate this site as Industrial, with a proposed expansion of-148 acres:'/The rezoning would be consistent with the City Plan the,City's compreh sive plan:_ Representatives of the owners (Anheuser-Bush InBev(ABI)were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan-process, about the change in land use designation and have i "< \ coffered support1for'the ch�ge. Staff has not received any negative comments from owners on the change. � t j B. Area B: Employment (E) +131 acres �i \ Y /'' The Mounfain'Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as Employme'nt with a proposed expansion of 131 acres. The rezoning would be consistent with City-Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. Representatives of the owners (Anheuser-Bush InBev (ABI), were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about the change in land use designation and have offered support for the change. The other adjacent owner has expressed some concerns for the size of the proposed change. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 13 C. Area C: Community Commercial (CC)—48 acres The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as Community Commercial. The rezoning would be consistent with City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. The two owners were notified, as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about the change in land use designation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for the change. The other owner has expressed some concerns over th"ize of the proposed changer ^ D. Area D: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN) 11' res The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and its Framework Plan designate.this site as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The rezoning would be consistenf,wiith City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. The three owners were notified, as part of the Mountain-Vista Subarea Plan/process, about the change in land use designation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for the change. The owner near the Lemay area has expressed support for this change. The other owner adjacent to ABI property has expressed some concerns for the amount and density of the proposed change. 7 E. Area E: Medium Density Mixed�Us Nei hborhoods MMN,j1 acre The Mountain Vista-Subarea Plan and,itts'Framework Plan designate three areas as Medium Density Mixed LIse Neighborhoods. The rezoning would be consistent with City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. The four owners were notified, as part of<ihe�Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process, about the change in usbAbsignation. Representatives of ABI expressed support for the change-.The owner near the-Lemay°area has expressed support for this change. The 4owner adjacent to ABI property has expressed some concerns for the amount and density of the proposed change The fourth owner near Timberline Road has expressed support for this change. F. Area F: Transition'J)—65 acres Th\Mountain J t Subarea Plan and its Framework map designate this site as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. The existing zoning is Transition. The proposed zoning`would^remove the 65-acre (T)zone and replace this portion of property with Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District. The rezoning would be consistent with City Plan, the;City's comprehensive plan. The owners were notified about the change in land use designation, and more recently about this specific request for rezoning. They have expressed support for this change. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 14 Future Implementation Actions: • 1-25/Mountain Vista Gateway Standards • Northern Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan • Infrastructure Project funding plan Wray said at the work session the Board asked for examples of pre-City Plan,subdivisions that the Moore's are referencing as examples of larger lot/single family subdivisions TF a,Moores mentioned Dakota Ridge and Sunstone off of Horsetooth near Ziegler. The developments are entirely single family with a mix of lot sizes—7,000-9,000 square foot lots. Sunstone Village'.(adjacent to Timberline and '/< mile south of Horsetooth) was also cited as was Fairbrook (adjacentJo West=eFrospect and a little west of Taft Hill Road) near Bauder Elementary. jr In response to new City Plan projects that showed some large lot portion within that development, Wray cited Willowbrook/Observatory Village (southeast part of the City just east of Fossil Ridge High School) and Rigden Farm. There are portions of those developments that have larger homes on.between 6,000 and 8,000 square foot lots. To meet City Plan densities they had to have other housing types, lot sizes and multi-family home to meet density standards. 1f Finally, Wray said staff would like to add language not included with.the distribution of the Board's Y , packet, but which he thinks is a good idea and worthy of your consideration. The language to the plan document would allow some non-residential uses;near-the railroad switching;yards on East Vine Drive and Timberline where there's medium density mixe ise neighborhoods:;We have an existing standard in the Land Use Code and LMN zone that allow`sJor a range of'non�residential uses. By adding MMN near Vine at Timberline; Wray believes we will accomplish the same standard. r : . Board Questions: ti Member Lingle asked'reference to the Framework Planisjhe increase in industrial of 148 acres all owned by Anheuser-Busch"(AB)? Wray,said yes. Lingle%noted in the previous plan, some of their land was in other land-use designations.�Lingle asked is=that just going to provide buffer for their own use— not add 148,acres_of industrial land inventory to the,jobs/housing mix since theyvve been not inclined in the past to s e that and�for development by other users. Wray said that expansion shown provides some additional(land—primarily on the west side of the brewery to allow room for future expansion needs of the brewery,and,also an opportunityfor AB to market industrial land with direct access to the railroad west of the brewe`ry\\ Lingle asked if Wray thought AB's position has changed relative to their position on selling some of their land. Wray said he�believes sower the past 2 to 3 years he's been encouraged that they are considering marketing some,oftheir holdings. There have been several inquiries by employers looking at this area. Wempe said AB s secured the services of BHA Design and he thinks that's a positive step. Wray said it is a realistic)ex'pectation that we'd have this as part of our inventory and available for future development in our long term growth area. Member Rollins asked relative to the table of jobs/housing,it appears that housing units have gone down from 7,374 to 5,735. With what the Moore family is she correct in assuming (173 acres of Moore property in the LMN zone) it would make it 173 less housing units? Wray said based on their proposed lower density of 3.5-4 versus the current standard of 5 units; we would lose approximately 150-160 dwelling units. Wray said the jobs/housing balance had a slight change because of the expansion of the industrial and employment and the resulting reduction of mixed used neighborhoods. Planning &Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 15 The Moore request to further reduce the minimum density, Wray believes would not have a significant change to the city-wide jobs/housing balance but it would have a further reduction in the number of housing units in this area. Rollins noted it appears fairly small compared to the total number. Member Carpenter asked for a frame of reference for the size of the shopping center. She said it appears to have been reduced and the Moore family is asking for another reduction. She'd like to know what mix of uses you can have going from 70 to 40 to 30 acres. Wray said this is the only Community Commercial (CC) district within our growth management area on vacant land','Other examples of existing CC are Foothills Mall, Campus West and North College Avenue Toi -achieve City Plan vision and policy direction for this area, it calls out for an integrated mixed-use`ciistrict above and beyond what we'd see in a typical grocery anchored site neighborhood commercial'centet(typically 15-20 acres). The Moore request would be supported in a short term market. What the,"City is requesting relates to long term projections (year 2030 and beyond). Wray said the mix of�use's supported by.the market analysis are for supporting neighborhood services, an above ground off iceand-residentiaG°miz, possibly a branch library similar to Front Range Village on 30 acres. The plan allows for enough room,for;a mixed used commercial destination that will be served by high frequency transit on Timberline and a newly,realigned Vine Drive connecting it to the downtown area. X. Member Campana said if we were to recommend a reduction,indensity for LMN, what would that look that?,Would it be a new zoning designation? How would we tack that? Wray said the current standards call for community commercial, at,,least three different housing types to meet the minimum of 5 units per acre. Wray thinks there's a lot of flex ibility;within our current standards and they can accomplish most of their objectives by meeting current standards or seeking'modification. The Moore preference is for predominately single family detached housing on larger,lots and a lot less multi-family residential. We don't have a zoning district that reflects the minimum densities they are requesting. Wray said it is "above" the Urban-Estate (UE) and si,mlla�to our`RL (Low density residential) but the RL zoning is for existing development. Xchange would;require an adjustment to Article 4 standards in the Land Use Code specifi�c,totthis property. Chair Schmidt asked with the lower ln)sity, would you`presume that also includes not having the three housing types. Wray said in the Moore letterthey state.they are not completely against other housing types—they'd like=to-reduce the,amount of'multi=-family y in the LMN. Chair Schmidt thanked staff for the eff t,they'e put into the details of this comprehensive subarea plan such as the air quality and noise,analysis. Will this set the standard for future subarea reviews? Wray said`this'is a pretty sign ificantksubarea t''s/identified as our long-term future growth area with the largest inventory of undeveloped property; He said we don't envision any new subarea plans but they will be looking at poteritial.updates (like East Mulberry). Chair Schmidt asked ifthe triangular piece north of Richard's Lake Road was included in the calculations. Wray said yes ' Chair Schmidt asked if the line is "outside the ditch" so when we're talking about funding for ditch improvements, etc.; will the ditch be included. Wray said yes. Chair Schmidt said future implementation actions and discussion about gateway standards was a great idea. She noted there's a pretty extensive ditch that runs through the subarea. Will there be a further study group that looks at how the development is going to impact this ditch and where we could plan on getting agreements for crossings from the ditch company? Chair Schmidt said her concerns are when you come at things piecemeal, ditch companies don't seem to want to provide crossings over their Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 16 ditches (similar to the development at College and Willox). Schmidt says it's just a suggestion staff look at all the places and how that's going to work. Wray said the #8 Ditch, as far as improvements to the ditch, is a part of Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan recommendations. Wray said in the plan they do identify the potential for improving that ditch between development and that could include a bridge crossing to the trails. Wray said there's an opportunity to look at additional landscaping, ditch slope, and embankment improvements—it's a pretty significant liability (it's a deep ditch with a lot of rip-rap) and with the school and park there; there's a great opportunity for those two future facilities to provide some additional enhancements to that ditch to create an amenity versus a liability. per,, Chair Schmidt said the "line"for the trail near the community park comes straight down Timberline. How will people in the MMN easily get to the park? Wempe said that's something they've looked at and the trail alignments will come from the Parks & Recreation Policy Plan. H6/§aid'as such, they are recommendations. He's interpreted it as showing there needs to be tail access.to/within this park— whether it goes straight down the #8 Ditch or whether it comes,over.'where tkere'ss,some sort of pedestrian underpass over to the CC and MMN districts is yet;to 6e,determined.7hey,'ll have those discussions when planning for a development. An exampleis the Winn Subdivisioh:in Maple Hill, there's a trail underpass constructed near Richard's Lake Roadr Chair Schmidt asked with the park and the Mountain Vista'R ad being,realigned, is future,development is going to pay for that. Wempe said Parks actually pays for their-share of road impact fees when they do park development. Having arterial level access is something,th y ve expressed they want to provide to users. i Chair Schmidt asked if we were thinking with Co u ity-Commercial(CC)tfie arterial will be improved all at one time. Wempe said that typically what you seeds improvements;6s development occurs. Wempe said a good example is Eastridge (on Timberline'south of the railroad tracks). What they're doing as a part of their road improvement is adding'tu 'lanes,bike lanes, and sidewalks for their development. Street Oversiziir6,manager Matt Bakertsaid an example of the biggest realignment has been the realignment of.Harmony Road,with County'Road 38E. That was done in two phases. As the subdivision came in they,built the arterial road on the interior of their subdivision and used it as a local access road until such time as that connection was needed. Later ties to the arterial were made and traffic diverted. `F '' Chair Schmid asked-if the park was going in when'the school goes in. Wray said what they've heard from the school district is they,purchased that property for long term holdings and Its development is based/on the residential population in the northeast all the way to Wellington. More than likely the eleme ary and middle schools would be built before a high school. They are looking roughly 10-15 years out. Wray said the same appliesto the community park and the commercial center. Until there's enough residentiakin this northeast area they will not be built. Staff is looking at full build out of this north east area between the years 2028-2030 or beyond. Chair Schmidt noted to�get,to�the high school; you could come down Giddings and go across Richard's Lake to Timberline. Wempe said Giddings to Richard's Lake or Country Club. You could also come south on 1-25 from Wellington. The school district is planning multiple access points to their property. Member Rollins asked when an arterial is being realigned are the developers responsible for paying for the whole thing or do we take into account it serves a regional need. Baker said the program tries to take advantage of the existing county rights-of-way for most section lines for the arterial roadways. Where the roadway diverts off the section line (in this case due to a realignment), then the developer picks up the same burden he would as if the street was on the section line. He dedicates his 25 '/2 feet and the City's street over sizing reimburses him for the right-of-way acquisition for that realigned road. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 17 Chair Schmidt said as a member of CAG (Urban Renewal Authority Citizen Advisory Group) she's heard about the proposed realigned Vine. She's never heard of it being identified as an enhanced travel corridor. Is it still the plan that it will be an enhanced travel corridor all the way from College? Wempe said that's a new component of this plan so right now it's designated as Conifer but it would still t basically go from the Downtown Transit Center up North College to the realigned Vine near Chipper Lanes. That connection will go over Timberline to jobs in the northeast part of the city. Wempe said the Transit Strategic Plan adopted by City Council on August 18`h is based on the realigned Vine. Chair Schmidt asked if the old Vine still be available for people in the Waterglen Subdivision. Wempe said the realigned Vine east of Timberline would turn from a 4 lane to a 2e6ne arterial. It'll connect back in having closer to a 90 degree_crossing (safer than what is currentlyrthere)and go east to 1-25 and Timnath. Wray said the existing Vine from Timberline back to Lemay, woul reclassified to a collector street. Chair Schmidt asked what is a 54,000 pound truck?' Wempe said it is most likely a semi-truck. Wempe said we want to allow a 54,000 pound truck on arterials,fbf�access and deliveries to businesses. Chair Schmidt said if weight was the only"bat" we had to enforce a.truckerusmg an arterial as a defacto truck route what would you say the average truck weight is that goes:,up North College. Wempe said it varies. CDOT has a station that monitors truck traffic but lately their weight-component has been broken so we haven't been able to get any recent data. ;<'`; Chair Schmidt invited the public to comment. Public Input: £ ? '24 Matthew Majores, Lindenwood Homeowners Association—the southern tip of Lindenmeier Lake, does have a lot of questions and,concerris'about east Vineebecoming a defacto truck bypass. As just stated semis are 54,000 pounds.�If the road'becomes an enhanced travel corridor—it will be enhanced not only for cars but also trucks .Th.`ey believe, in their opinion\that most trucks would use this route. They've done some travel analysis(like.the City),and they are within a minute or two of each other. The one thing the city did not take into.account is on.:the.current MuIberry to Jefferson/Riverside/North College route, the trucks`have-to cross two railroad'cross'ings-that are at grade. Under this new plan they can go up 1-25, cut-through-Mountain Vista;to;east Vine or Conifer to get to College Avenue going north. It's only one,mile longer. Why would a truck want to go through an existing route where they may have to stop twice for trains when they can just`ta he new route? . Majores's nconcern is enforcement. They've heard from Advance Planning and Transportation staff that it comes down�to an issue 'of°enforcement.. At the Transportation Board meeting on August 191h, he learned that Fort,Collins Police apparently do not have jurisdiction in terms of writing tickets or assessing fines. All they can`do is�accompany truckers suspected of being overweight back to the weight station at Prospect. He thinks th'eey'rreeAnot going to stop trucks—they'll most likely just let them go by. He said currently the intersection of Lemay and Vine is a disaster. When returning home (heading north on Lemay) at 5 p.m., he was recently stopped at Lincoln and waited 10-15 minutes to get through that intersection. He said that intersection is a disaster without 5700 new homes and new businesses in the northeast part of the city. He believes before they develop East Vine, they need to fix that intersection for current residents. Majores said it gets down to the grade separated crossings for $82 Million so right now there is no money for those and he thinks there never will be. One possibility is to go to the taxpayers of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 18 to vote in an increase in sales tax to pay for that—he doesn't think that someone on the south side of Fort Collins will vote for it. So then you'll put all the property tax just on those people directly affected—he doesn't think they'll want to be on the hook for $82 Million either. What he envisions is staff gets approval for this plan, then building East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road, and all the development and the neighbors are stuck with a two lane road going on Lemay and no money to fix the north/south grade separated crossings. They talked about getting the railroad to grant an easement to do the work but they haven't asked yet. Before you adopt the plan, ask and find out if they're going to give it to you because if not you know you're going to be on the hook for$82 Million. Majores said within 2000 feet you're going to have three major roads (Conifer, realigned Vine, and the existing Vine) going east and west. There's not that much traffic out theee`and they.don't see the need to have Conifer go all the way over to Timberline Road to College. If anything;:the truckers will use that road. He urges the Board to make sure they address the financing,of this,,plan The second,thing they'd like to see is make sure they have unequivocal language in the plan that it's the City's intent not to have this as a truck bypass and they will put in whatever features are necessary,to eliminate the potential for a truck bypass. Third, if it does become a truck bypass, theywill use all measures to deter trucks, and pass code that requires Police enforcement. h works n Cheryl Distaso, PO Box 340, works for the Center for Peace, Justice, and Environment. S e o 0 behalf of the Tres Colonias neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods<have been marginalized since they've been in Fort Collins. She said it's important to include neigh borhood'inij,put in any of these decisions. Tres Colonias deserves a different kind of approach.given the history of�th neighbors. She'd like to address the issue from a historic perspective -She.saidPw,a I know the issue of the defacto truck bypass has been a major--issue for the Alta Vista°Neighborhood`and all of Tres Colonias for the past 10 or so years. City Councils-2006 decision to refer back to the voters the initiative that passed in 1999 regarding the truck bypass had an'unintended consequence. She said that consequence was a major decay in trust betwee4he northeast\neighborhoods and the city's decision makers. Rebuilding this trust would be in the best interest of-our entl[e community. There was an enormous democratic effort that went into the passing of the 1999,initiatiye an_effort„she believes, that has been unprecedented in the history of Fort..Collins:•The Alta Vista ne ghbors,have.not forgotten both the enormity of the 1999 victory and the great-degree of discouragement that resulted from the 2006 referral. The truck bypass route analysis, while quite comprehensive in the examination of data and possible scenarios, does not take into consideration the fragile community element that exists as the result of the history of the issue. She said itwe:err in this process we shoulld/err on the side of being hyper vigilant and proactive in the enforcement of laws that prohibit-trucks using the realigned East Vine. To this aim, she wondered if there are some solutions we haven't talked about yet like having some kind of a magnet (a sensor) on trucks that do local'business. ..They're not talking about local business truck traffic; they're talking about the road being a defa`cto truck-bypass. Even if you take into consideration the design elements of narrow streets and lower speed`iimits, why would trucks not use a bigger, wider road more when they currently use the existing.two lane road? She said if it's not very clear from the maps that the realigned route is at the property line of the Via Lopez Neighborhood which is just east of the Andersonville Neighborhood. We're talking about putting a four lane arterial right at someone's property line in a low-income neighborhood. She's not so sure we want to do that. It also sounds like we're going to have an at-grade separated crossing there unless the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) sees the light or changes their mind. Although its not been determined whether that grade separated crossing will be an overpass or an underpass, she's hearing Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 19 "overpass" used a lot. If we have an overpass at somebody's property line it would be very, very uncomfortable for that entire community so she asks the Board to take that into consideration as well. Ed Robert, 1923 Linden Ridge Drive, has a few things to cover involving the transportation element of the plan. He's heard the presentation of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan maybe 15 times. He helped write the first plan with Pete Wray, among others. It's a fine document and a difficult one to manage. It does need updating and they're doing a terrific job. Last night at the Transportation Board meeting, a new element showed up. It was not because of staff, it was because of Council asking questions regard some interim (less than adequate) transportation intersection change, i.e., they,want to basically look at not putting in any grade separated crossings particularly at Lemay and Vine. They want to delay those 10-15 years by putting in alternative interim type packages and by putting in an at-grade crossing. He said delays to that crossing started in early 1980s—then it was,$8.2 Million. Now we're talking $31 Million—delaying it another 10-15 years is going to make it more difficult to find funds so we need to concentrate on solving the problem at hand. Delays are more costly.The safety.irripacts in that area of town near Alta Vista and Buckingham are terrible—you'd be,amazed how people aren't,killed every hour. Traffic has for years justified a grade separated crossing and a 4 lane road there. He said adding a "leg" from Vine between North College and Lemay may be an{interim solution to reducing a little bit of the east-west traffic. Connecting Linden Street with Redwood would really,help north-south),But let development drive that need. He said staff(Matt Baker) has to'also come up with the way of connecting the new extension of Vine back to the old Vine (east of Lemay abouts,3 or 4 blocks). The intersection would have to change when they finally do develop it properly. These interim measures are very expensive measures and it appears that City\Council,is looking at avoiding meeting the real problem and solving it. One of these grade separated crossings-(particularly) at Vine andrLemay would certainly go a long way in helping our transportation of people\n that cornerof this community. We need that badly— safety requires it. He'd like to have them continue looking at other developments The realigned Vine is outstanding and if it were built tomorrow great. But Ids not do things that are just going to try and push off the real decision—we need to have'at least one;good grade separated crossing and the need is at Vine and Lemay. r , Tom Moore represents-his family who has fa ms i his' area. He thanked staff for involving them in the process. They-are-obviously not planners or developers and staff has shown a lot of patience with a "bunch of rookies". Theyseethis area as,a perfect area for families. It has a park and it has the schools. They are looking foi;a\walkablelbikeable community of single family homes with some type of day-to-d'ay amenities. They asked for a change in the road because they'd like to see a commercial area next to housing Their goal is: how does a 12 year old safely walk to the grocery for a bottle of milk? Grocery store`4re,built when there are 8,000 rooftops around so this area probably won't hit that for some time. Scotch Pines is a 12,000 square foot commercial area. He's not sure how large the Ridgen Farms commercial area,is�� He knows a truck leaving the AB plant is 80,000 pounds (maximum allowed on the highway.) He said some other problems they see with the plan are the commercial component. They just don't see that it's possible to support a 30 acre commercial center there. They see a smaller grocery store (80,000 square feet) and a 20 acre development. They don't think a large "life-style" type center is either possible or desirable in this area. He doesn't envision another Harmony Road nor do they want that. They want something to complement the downtown area. As far as the MMN, they want something like 15 acres along with 10 acres of Employment as Anheuser Busch has more than enough Employment land for the long haul. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 20 They'd like to see a little bit of flexibility. He said no one has a crystal ball to see what's going to happen and they'd like to suggest"can't we simply say this plan will have 20 acres of commercial, 15 acres of MMN, and 10 acres of employment"—the rest would be housing rather than put "hard lines" on a map that make no sense in the future. Their greatest concern is the residential. They feel that Fort Collins is a successful, attractive community because of neighborhoods that developed at 3 to 4 units per acre. Neighborhoods developed under the current (City) plan are not the same quality. Families want lots of about 8,000 square feet so they have a reasonable size house, back yard, and some privacy. He said they are nottalking>McMansions. They can point to several subdivisions with around 8,000 square foot lots and houses valued at $250,000 to $350,000. He said in this economic downturn, where experience reallyfputs a spotlight on what works, ve older subdivisions are really holding up better. We're told we can,ha mid-sized lots but we need to "jam up" more lots elsewhere on the property and this does not-create the quality of housing that will maintain value and create pride-of-ownership and sense of community. If affordabl\housing is the problem, let's address that rather than say let's "jam a bunch" of housing in here and maybe some of it will fall in the affordable housing category. He believes that shotgun approachis pretty crude,They feel that while the current City Plan is laudable, the goals;are to attract national builders who\luse�housing as a chip in the game of bond deals, subprime mortgages and derivatives ';They leave nothing in the 4 community. v In conclusion, Moore would like to reiterate th`at,they want to keep thisa walkable/bikeable family oriented locally built neighborhood. Don Tiller, project planner for the Liberty Farms S Living�Center on Tiriiberline north of Vine, thanked staff for their work. It's a complex and extremelytime consuming project. He asked do they have a perfect result—no but.it isa.definite improvement over what's,existing today. He'd like to express his support with two conditions. The first condition is extending the non-residential uses to the MMN area on the north side of Vine. You have the same need for that type of a buffer between the industrial, the railroad tracks, and housing'. He believes it's very important that shows up in the subarea plan. The second is more important and hesaid Mr. Moore kind of hit on this. That's the request that the-sub`area,plan is trying to express the intent of what development should follow 5, 10 or 15 years in4he-future He believes.the.more specific the plan gets, the more rigid it is, and the more difficult it1s'for the plan to�be on target in,the future. He'd like to see something in the subarea plan that addresses,openness and willingness for future Boards to review and consider recommendations from the devel p erit,t the time of review. He's been through rezoning himself and it's kind of tough to do because you re going against 'something'that was recommended by a group several years prior. From his experiencce`with LiberryjF(arms, he understands how difficult it is to work against the existing master street plan—everyone agreed it didn't make sense for the way it was but at the same time it would be too difficult as a`developer to do a traffic study to justify changing it for their specific development. He thinksNbeing too rigid and too over planned can cause real issues to what you'd like to accomplish in the future/ He does expect to see shifts in the land use and the distribution. One of the comments that Mr. Moore made was to look at a range of acreage you'd like to see for different land uses or maybe even a number of rooftops. As the area develops, look at new developments coming in—maybe you'd end up with more rooftops than expected so it's probably okay to do a few less in a particular area. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 21 In closing, he thinks the plan need to be written to provide for the intent of the city as you go forward— something you can measure us against but at the same time not be so overly restrictive or directive to preclude a good plan in the future. Ken Crumb, 1044 Trading Post Road—developer for both the Waterglen and Trail head Subdivision, said both subdivisions represent 1,000 developed home sites of which 600-700 are currently occupied. He said he also sits on the Board for the Aberdeen Town homes HCA (approximately 100 homes). He thanked staff for their work. He particularly likes the realignment of East Vine. The enhanced roadway will provide a new corridor that will be appropriate for new standards of housing;_.commercial and some industrial uses. The current East Vine Drive is more or less of substandard construction in an industrial zone and they'll now have a new front door into our future residential communities of significant value to the City of Fort Collins. This part of Fort Collins, due to lack of good access, has been slow .., developing; The area is only 10 minutes from downtown (which he believes is the heart of the/community). Timberline is important both for car and bike traffic. He thinks Timberline could operateeffectively as a two lane•arterial with east/west plan improvements. He believes the City should install an.at-grade crossing at Vine and Lemay—the traffic problems and safety concerns arethere now. The City will restrict futuregrowth in the north corridor until problem intersections are improved sufficiently./He=said you're not going to get the growth if you don't do something to improve the problem crossings.�He thinks priority should be to solve issues with interim solutions that would last 15 years. He thinks the East Vine realignment should be put in,.the master plan�andahe d,like to support the Moore Family in their proposal to reduce the density Hb's.found,having deve`lope_6�uo subdivisions using City Plan standards, they're very difficult to sell. Design standards-where garages have to be tied into the floor plan cause the house itself to take up so much of the=lot,�He'believes the standard should be about 8,000 square feet. People.can-go-to Timnath, Wellington, and other;regional communities and find the 8,000 square foot lots. Chair--Schmidt�asked Mr. Crumb what the;density is at Waterglen. He said 5-6 units per acre-4,500-5;000 square46ot lots. HE said'fortunately about 1/3 of Waterglen is open space so people's yards sometimes extend,into open space ,'He believes the plan should be recommended to City Council and that it will,serve that,,,-part of the community well. George Holter owns property at,the northeast,comer of Vine and Timberline. He lives at Rigden Farms where his neighbors"children need�to°play in the st eet because there are no back yards. He thinks we're off base--people are made to live,on such small lots and streets are so wide he gets tired when walking across them. Also; every time he do es into the new shopping centers, he sees acres and acres of parking:lots,that are never used. Holter said small lots are hard to sell. He was going to build houses on Trail Ridge but the lots are so "darn" small he doesn't know who'd buy them. He expressed concerns about the "rough" railroad crossings—he's hadtc slow to'31M.P.H. to cross them. He was told no development could occur on his farm until the streets are put in place. How can one developer do that? ' He asked the Deputy City Attorney if limiting their opportunity to talk to 5 minutes was an infringement of his freedom of speech. Public Input Closed Chair Schmidt asked staff to address concerns related to grade crossings at the various intersections. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 22 She asked Matt Baker to speak to how the relocation of Vine will affect those graded crossings—make them a little easier to deal with because we won't have as much traffic. She asked staff to please explain if those are done as a transition—phased first from College to Lemay. How will it impact things until the next phase? Baker said the significant intersection as far as APF (Adequate Public Facility) requirements is Vine and Lemay. The City has improved it 4 or 5 times to try and get some additional width. It's constrained— there are no other improvements they can make. Traffic is building to a level where it fails at rush hours. Without any possibility of making further improvements, to•alleviate APF yowl ave made some intersection improvements. One way is to do a grade separated (over or�underpass)� crossing. The Vine and Lemay intersection has been on our Capital Improvement Plan for 20 years and has not yet received funding. � The realignment of Vine Drive has significant benefits toward relieving the APF issue at both Vine and Lemay and in the future at Timberline Road and Vine. By moving the`Vine alig ment\�p north a '/< mile we'll be able to intersect Lemay Avenue and provide a full,Jntersection which would allow turn lanes and stacking capacity. It would essentially allow the congestion we are currently experiencing�to go away. It would alleviate the APF issue and allow some development to occurm the Mountain Vista>area which is currently restricted by the APF. E Baker said once development starts to occur in the Mountain Vista area, you add that same level of congestion to Timberline Road & Vine so realigning Vine north at Timberline and building a full intersection (with additional turn lanes and auxiliary1anes) away from,therailroad tracks will alleviate the congestion at that intersection. The only traffic that.the railroad crossing would see would be southbound traffic on Lemay Avenue (or Timberline Road in the future )�A-two lane road segment like that can carry IA quite a bit of traffic—almost arterial volumes if there's notT,r Int re section That is the strategy to alleviate restrictions in the Mountain Vista area, to'allow further development, and to complete a roadway segment in an area where.ypu currently can't do any more road improvements. Chair Schmidt askedjif he thought it was still necessary,,n order to do the grade separation at Lemay and Vine, to move Lemay over. Baker said he's looked afit a intersection as recently as a couple of years ago. There's a high tension power Ime,on ones de and a row of houses on the other so do you move a high tension power lin6ordo.you take down'a row of houses? Those are the issues. It's just constrained there's-not enough'room,for a four lane arterial. Baker said the City looked at alternate alignmentsefor Lemay Avenue;n the�early.,1980s and they selected an alignment that went behind the existing`Anderson Place Subdivision and crossed the railroad tracks at the location noted for the future grade separated roadway. He's purchase the alignment south of Vine Drive prior to the construction of the existing'subdivisions that backs up to it. As the Kederike property north of Vine develops, they'll be dedicating the additional right-of-way. That grade separated overpass is an existing deficiency area and a City capital funding responsibility. Chair Schmidt noted the realignment of Lemay was covered extensively in the Northeast Neighborhoods Subarea Plan and not really in the realm of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan / Chair Schmidt asked Matt,Wempe to speak to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) request. Wempe said the PUC would most likely require separated grade crossings but City Council directed staff(due to budgetary constraints)to ask the PUC if the crossings could be done at grade. Council has asked staff to look at whether or not one, two, three or some combination can be done at grade. Are there opportunities to do trading where if we do Lemay at a grade separated crossing, is it possible to do Mountain Vista as an at-grade crossing? There are also concerns from the City's perspective of emergency access (should an injured person or ambulance need to get through). Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 23 Grade separated crossings are not necessarily a hard and fast rule. The rule is being considered in this case in consultation with the PUC and the railroads. Wempe said stake holders' main concern is safety. There is also a need by the railroad to protect the operation of the existing switching yard. Chair Schmidt asked if it is currently being studied. Wempe said they've presented the facts and the possibilities to City Council at two separate work sessions. They are anticipating getting direction in September as a part of the Plan adoption hearing. If it's something Council•wants them to do, it would be a separate implementation follow up item. . " Chair Schmidt asked staff to speak to the truck route concerns. She,noted:,there is a railroad crossing at Mountain Vista. If trucks came off there to use the enhanced travel corridorthey\would still have to deal with at least one railroad crossing. The trains can block traffic for long periods of'time as they move back and forth while unloading at Anheuser-Busch. AV f ' Wempe said the truck route analysis is a document that has evolved,over time and inlues input from the community, including parts of the analysis performed by,the Lindewood Neighbor hoo The analysis Looked at: • Travel times—a Traffic Operations van can do a "run'whereby they drive a particular route several times to a-day to get an idea of travel times and delays. • Train traffic --the BNSF (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe) line goes up Mason and crosses at North College several times a day. Itis�used,more than the Umon;Pacific line which is used mainly for their switching yard in southern Fort,Collins 1-2 trams per;day. All of the elements were included in the analysis, speed tr vel,time, andxtrain traffic. That's how staff came to the conclusion that the efficiencies just aren't therefor tcks to abandon the designated route. As far as enforcement goes, the City,does not have the ability to issue tickets. The Traffic Code has a provision that allows,our officers to escort suspected overweight trucks to a public weight station. That station is most likely going``to be at Prospect and 1-25. The Colorado Bureau of Weights and Measure would be the agency that would issue that ticket .Thereis an impetus for enforcement. The level of enforcement,while it's been there.could be stronger,.= staffs 3The citizens'truck route concerns, stas analysis, the street design recommendations;"and the enforcement options are in the plan. Wempe said the City has taken,extensive steps,to�try to address the issue. Wempe said'relative to the issues,raised'regarding the east/west corridors—Conifer Street is already in the 1999 plan and it has volume's'that support that two-lane arterial. Realigned Vine is serving that major east/west connection, and existing Vine (with the realignment of Vine) is more of a neighborhood access road. � ,, i �• Board Questions Member Lingle asked if the'truck route analysis on Highway 14 at Jefferson takes into account the possibility of a roundabout being installed at Jefferson and Mountain and would that potentially deter truckers from wanting to go that route. Wempe said they did not really look at intersection controls in general—it's a future question so whether or not a roundabout would make sense is determined at the time of development. The roundabout at that location is part of the Jefferson Street project. The River District Plan does recommend narrowing that street down to two lanes and slowing the traffic to have a more pedestrian friendly environment but it's not intended to discourage truck traffic. That plan, since it's a state highway is just getting ready to send a RFP (Requests for Proposals)for consultants to do work Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 24 with CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), the City and DDA (Downtown Development Authority). Wempe said that certainly is an issue they will look at. Chair Schmidt asked does that mean that probably CDOT would not approve any changes that might discourage truck traffic. Wempe said the City and CDOT have a responsibility to have that truck route work for truck traffic. Member Rollins asked if there's analysis that talks about existing through truck traffic on Vine. Wempe said they do recognize that there are trucks out there now but as far as traffic'counts and weight data that is not something that they've had the ability to look at. Wempe said the�l'ast,Iime they did an'origin destination study was for the truck bypass studies that took place in 2004 iiollins says that does seem very relevant to her because if there is a good amount of through truck-traffic;in that area; obviously as you improve that route you'd see an increase in truck traffic unless°you approveathe other route for better truck traffic flow. Wempe said he did not necessarily agree with\that-\you can,say.anecdotally there are more trucks using the designated route. Rollins said there's,no-question about that\,She just saying if there are 100 trucks a day and 80 on Mulberry and 20 o,yine; there could be an anticipated shift; is it 2 trucks, are there more? Wempe said that is what the analysis focuses on—it asked the questn would that route be attractive for truck traffic. $" e mi i he'd like to comment anecdotally that she does,travel that area relative) often and Chair Schmidt said s y y she's noticed it's difficult for large trucks to go on Vine because it's`so hard to get there. At the intersection at Timberline and Lemay; it's very difficult for semis t�make turns without going into oncoming traffic. You don't see that many trucks'coming out of thereat College or near Poudre Feed. She said she has noticed local businesses'with'trucks use�Vine. Mpg Chair Schmidt said the new realigned Vine will be#•in a more open;,area—development will be happening along with it. We won't be putting-it in the middle of old established Neighborhood so there will be an opportunity to do noise anon with.m ore tree plantings and other noise abatement features. Member Carpenter saysshe avoids Lemay and Vine.YShecan't image a trucker choosing that route as a way through town the waysit is now. She thinks it's important we do the enhanced enforcement because she thinks it'll be different when its,,bette—r`—particularly in those areas. She does think that counting now would be useful because she can't,image aIlrucker selecting it as a way to get through town. Member Lingle said staff-had'ment onedsome of the operational and design controls—one being narrower travel lanes. Would those be'substandard to the Larimer County Street Standards? Wempe said'he wouldn't use the word substandard/"The consultant, Lucas, recommended 12 foot travel lane but staff recommend an 11 foot lane. t,lt will be looked at more closely in the design phase. Lingle asked if he thought an IT foot lane would't e a deterrent to truck traffic. Lingle thinks it would just make it less safe--it wouldn't keep,a truck from using it. Wempe said that's a good point—where you'd have to balance the safety of it;,,Wempe'said the.thinking behind that is having narrower lanes reduces speed. Chair Schmidt asked whatthe procedure would be if neighbors noticed a lot more truck traffic. Wempe said there was a recommendation made by the Transportation Board at their meeting last night(August 19). They want to recommend to City Council that there be some type of periodic review of what level of traffic there was and how the road was operating. Chair Schmidt asked if staff was anticipating the segment on East Vine from College to Lemay will be built a significant period before the other segments are built. Baker said with the interest in redevelopment on North College Avenue and an active URA (Urban Renewal Authority), we're anticipating 5-7 years out with that connection made with redevelopment. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 25 Chair Schmidt asked Wray to point out where other uses near the railroad were being considered. Wempe said they recommend allowing some non-residential uses near the railroad'switching yards on East Vine Drive and Timberline—medium density mixed use neighborhoods. They have an existing standard in the LUC in the LMN zone that allows a range of non-residential uses and by adding MMN near Vine at Timberline; they feel they should have the same standard. They'd like to provide supporting higher density residential along the two merging enhanced travel corridors in the future. By adding the new MMN east of Timberline right up to the existing Vine, they felt it was a similar situation that we have that existing standard for the LMN all along the Vine corridor. It would provide more flexibility and allow a handful of non-residential uses there. Wray said on the west side of Timberline they were acknowledging the existing development that is there. Chair Schmidt noted that any widening of Timberline Road would likely takeuplace on the east side because the Plummer School is on the west side. Wray said corrects That's where this new language would address more flexibility for that new MMN development 4- -,the event a grade Separated crossing is constructed east of the Timberline intersection, the potential impacts of that new"intersection (at grade or grade separated) combined with the railroad track impacts; staff believes calls for flexi6ility.in the Land Use Code for MMN. Wray said the Code allows for officetand light industrial that provide=additional options. This provision is for 500 feet north of Vine Drive. ` A .CV Chair Schmidt asked Wray what he would guess the number of houses that are outside the Mountain Vista Plan but that might use that Community5,Commercial (CC) center�,,Mr. Moore mentioned he thought using 20 acres would require 8,000 homes-a;grocery store trigger point Moore questioned whether we'd have that number up there. She said Wray notec15700 homes in the`plan but that does not consider the homes in subdivisions including thWLindenmeie sand Richards Lake areas and others. Wray said a CC is considered a community wide destinati Wt a:.grocery store serves a 4 mile square area. He thinks this destination would attract the laegecdarea (up fo."b1lington and county development east of 1-25). There could be aiil branch library, hotel, mid-sized retail, and restaurants there. Staff thinks we need to have a placeholder for the-long term market. e a Chair Schmidt said in Employment (E),you re allowed 25% secondary uses. Do you know if Anheuser Busch (AB) is open to anything like•th6t?�If they're very committed to just Employment & Industrial zones, than that'community commercial zone would';pick up all other commercial uses. Wray said they've had tot of d'isc su sion wit'h,AB's St. Louis staff. Their original thought was to establish a commercial strip along Mountain VistaDrive and staff was successful in convincing them that did not reallyfineet the provisions foranattractivegateway. Staff really wants to focus the commercial activity in the CC center. They do not want�a typical auto-oriented commercial development around the Mountain Vista interchange. Wray said that's why new standards were added several years ago to set back secondary uses m the Employment a '/ mile from the interchange. Member Lingle asked about thp/four amendments to the different plans—are those critical to the overall plan being supportable:(tasked if they all have to happen. Wray said that's the sequence that we followed with the creation of7the original plan 10 years ago. He said the implementation items precede the recommendations at;the policy level. Wray said we need to amend the land use designations on the Structure Plan (so City Plan is consistent with this element of City Plan). And the zoning needs to be updated based on land use policy recommendations. Lingle said his concern is he can support the overall plan but he has a problem with one of the amended plans. He wondered how that would affect the outcome. Wray said he'd need to hear his concerns and know whether it was a majority or minority position as it could affect the recommendation being made to City Council for their September review. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 26 Chair Schmidt said she's been on the Board for some time and she's made derogatory comments relative to subarea plans because they seem to change as soon as they're approved. She's never seen the concerns raised by citizens tonight about being too restrictive (lines drawn, etc.) come to pass. Usually if someone comes in with a development proposal and they've put a lot of work planning, there aren't too many times when the Board hasn't gone along with them. She doesn't think folks should feel that because we have the Structure Plan Map that absolutely nothing would ever change on this Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Member Carpenter said in a recent email from Wray, he spoke of a request from the Moore's for a lower density standard for 173 acres of the LMN land—that would take the number'of housing units from 629 between 440 and 504. Does that include changes to the MMN as well is,that everything? Wray said that's just a calculation for 173 acres of LMN. Member Campana asked what another way of accomplishing that lower density isJf we had a PDP (Project Development Plan) come forward on that property, couldthey request a°'rnddification of standards at that time? Wray said yes—that's staff's recom nendation. Wray said the,Moore's preference is for a predominance of single family/larger lot development with a "middlep,amount of multi- family housing. That's difficult to achieve with our current LMN standards but there is sorneXexibility there. Staff believes with a creative design, particular with a,large site°Iikq this, that you-can provide some larger lot housing. You'll have to make up for it, however, with densities of other housing types on other parts of the project. They can show an alternative that's equaito or better than the standard. Wray said as we create these plans, we're creating-:policy guidance for future,development decisions and those are implement through our current LandWsejCode, zoning, and Master Street Plan. We have to draw lines on the map for these designations. TA a� Wray said if the Board was supportive of their request we'd`needto do,something similar to what was done in the Fossil Creek area where we had a modified LMN allowing a minimum of 3 units per acre based on some unique circumstances of some critical natural areas. There was support for reducing density ("feathering density") as you,got closer to the eservoir. That was a joint decision of the City of Fort Collins and LarirneraCounty. To support the Moore)request, we'd have to add language to the Plan that would set the stage fora potential Land Use Code amendment to specifically spell out this range of Ar density change for their prop6i f 0 g/ Member Campana-asked if.Fossil'Creek happened with a modification of standard before the PDP. Wray said' that it was a provision in°th"e�Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. It included amendments to the Lanrner,County Land UserCode and tointragreements for the residential development as a specific receiving area of the TDU (Transfer Development Units) Program. Member Lingle asked how design--standards were handled for that reduced density since there's not anything in ArticleA_(with the zoning designation)for that density. Wray said that was a unique situation—we had agreements`for deferred annexation. The area east of Timberline, south of Kechter Road, and north of the reservoir was identified as a TDU receiving area. The development that came forward in that area wouldbe reviewed first by Larimer County until such time as we had final review (and final transfer of development rights) then the City would annex. We had agreed upon development standards that were put into the Larimer County Code as supplemental regulations that were close to our own-Land Use Code standards. There was.a minimum of 3 units per acre in that receiving area. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the one thing about the modification of standard that Wray mentioned is the equal to or better than approach. The Code says the proposal, which would be a proposal for lower density, would have to satisfy the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that met the standard. It would take a creative argument to persuade one to think that the lower standard Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 27 achieves the purpose. You might try the hardship approach or the important community needs approach but he thinks it would be difficult to use the equal to or better than approach if the sole purpose of the standard is to achieve higher density. Member Campana said.the challenge here is that normally our decisions are made based on our Land Use Code (LUC)and on this recommendation, you are asking us to "get out of the box" and review a recommendation that perhaps is not supported by City Plan or the LUC. He asked Eckman to confirm whether he understood that correctly. Eckman said if the Board was inclined to do the lower density, Wray said that legislatively was one way in which it could be done. Chair Schmidt asked what is the status of the review of City Plan. She said that obviously this density is a "button" for everyone there tonight. Is that something that City Plan isAgoing.,to look at? Would they possibly be thinking of doing a new zoning district within that City Plan that`might,have a density between what's available now to meet the need in this case? Would that happen in a timeframe that would work for the Moores Wray said they've actually debated it quite a bit over the past year The collective staff opinion is looking at the overall remaining inventory of available buildable lands in a�low,density-mixed used (LMN) neighborhood category; this area in the northeast is really the last large tract,v e- conclusion was this really should be handled as a part of`thisprocess ®specific for their'property versus a consideration of a City Plan amendment community wide t g�sa Member Carpenter had a question for Mr. Moore. In the letter you&sent to City Council, you requested the LMN density be changed but in the letteryou sent to the Planning&Zoning Board that wasn't one of the things you asked for. Have you changed your mind on that? Moore�said he was out of town for a couple of weeks before this meeting so they sent the;Board the same letterdthey sent to City Council and very hurriedly put together the points because 1Nray said they needed to,present those points more clearly. Their request for a change in density wasI�aI read y`ciear enoughin the initial letter(and remains the same.) He apologized for any confusion the second letter mayhave caused. Z. �o .w " Member Campana said,he'd like to go�back to City Plan versus the subarea plan addressing the Moore density request. He was mthe City Plan Advisory ComI'llmittee and they spent a "ton" of time on the density of the LMN; We no`uv have a °look back" period wihen you could find people on both sides of question of City Plan density e uirements_pHe feels a little uncomfortable making a recommendation on density in a one night meet ng when hey spent 18 month reviewing City Plan for an area that holds the majority of.r'emaining'-inventory. He;would hate to overrule that at this point. Wray said staff would agree with you,`.There was a lot of:,community,,input in developing City Plan/Land Use Code. Wray said in this area the Moore property is`the hole in the-'-middle of the donut". It's central to this whole subarea—it's a very strategic,property. The plan shows arrange of mix of uses on their property and they've gone through sorrieaslight adjustmeritsifrom the original plan. He thinks we have a better result with this update. We've responded to their initial requests—they thought the original plan had too much LMN and Community Commercial (CC). With this update we've significantly reducing that. Wray said City Plan calls forhigher density particularly for this area to support this large/significant business center(with Industrial and Employment)that we've identified for northeast Fort Collins. Two, high frequency travel corridors merge into this central location. Staff completely understands the Moore requests. As he's shown in the other maps, there are a lot of examples throughout the community of pre-City Plan subdivisions that meet their expectations but City Plan evolved from that previous existing development pattern to a more compact urban pattern for our remaining developable land. That is what staff is responding to. They support the findings of City Plan and for those reasons we actually need this density in these locations to support a walkable/transit environment in these more intense uses all concentrated in this northeast area. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 28 Member Lingle said he would tend to agree with Member Campana. The City Plan philosophy is not for everywhere in this community except this subarea and for the Board to change that just for the subarea he thinks is defeating that 18 month process. As Wray was saying, the modification process is available—that was put in there specifically to allow property owners to make their case on a case-by- case basis. It's the burden of the developer to prove to the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council that their proposal is equal to or better than what City Plan would call for. He said it's not the Board's burden to come up with a way to allow that to happen. Chair Schmidt said what she's about to say may be out of turn but having lived:in the northern part of Fort Collins since 1979 and gone through the first City Plan and the secon--difi Plan (update committee); she'll tell you the feelings of a person who lives in that area'z=When they went to the very first City Plan outreach meeting when everyone said we need to become more,,com pact,and urban and there's going to be 250,000 people in Fort Collins; where are we going to put them all. Everyone said "whoa—look at all that vacant land up there; let's put them up there�:' Very few�of the people lived up there so they couldn't vote down City Plan. Part of that decision was so they wouldn't have to deal with infill in their areas. The frustrating thing is north Fort Collins'doesn't want to get pegged-with a certain characteristic. Right now, if you look at the City Plan developments.that are there, they f nd to be more lower-income (lacking diversity). She'd hate to see the`whole,area gef,filled up the type of�subdivision. She thinks, quite frankly, that would not be fair to northern`Fort Collins�An_example would"bre Storybook—it seemed to have no imagination. It was just str"aighf;blocks of no different housing designs. It is not a good representation of what we hoped City Plan would,be,,and that's what they've seen so far. Schmidt's hoping that some kind of compromise could be reached��_40,acres of MMN is a lot of really high density. Would we consider doing a buffer there? Maybe that might happen when the development plan comes in. �� z Member Campana said he's not disagreeing wiWh her. He�has mixed ffeelings on City Plan himself, he was just thinking it needs totake_place with City Planamd not on'thivpiece of ground here tonight. There is a City Plan review in progress right now. Is he correct in thinking the outreach will be via stakeholder meetings versus a review�"committee�'tWray said correct. Campana said because there are a couple of large property owners:out there, how.can we get there,involved in the review. We'd be really smart to look back at the last 12 years=where'was City Plan successful or where was it not successful? He just thinks that's where the debate for thisneeds to be Tonight we need to make a recommendation on the mix of uses. We should not be debating the'defmition of the zoning districts. Member�6rpenter say s e s struggling with this too. She tends to agree with Member Campana in that it should be in a bigger forum-than we have here. Unfortunately, the land we have to develop whether vk --% it's d"evelopedunder City Plan�ora modif ed it Plan is what we're looking at tonight. What happens here tonight4fid what happens mall of this is really going to guide where City Plan goes. 91 Carpenter said she served on t&first City Plan Advisory Committee. She was concerned about density at that time and whatshe's alittle worried about here is that we've shrunk the commercial zone and the dea of City Plan was to have activity centers where people could do everything employment zone. The i they needed to do in that soace. In making the compromises that we're making, we're not going to get a good City Plan project and we're not going to get a good suburban type project. She thinks in order for it to be a good City Plan, you do have a lot more commercial, more office space, more employment, and then you have a lot of diversity in the housing projects. She can't get a good feeling for what we're coming out with a good subarea plan or whether we're just going to get a bad suburb. Carpenter thinks it needs to be looked at more deeply before we move on with this. She appreciates all the work that's been done but we're right at a point where we're going to relook at City Plan and we're talking about remaining inventory now. She wouldn't be comfortable saying to a citizen that we have a Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 29 modification process when the City Attorney is saying "well, sort of'. In a review if you can't justify we have to go back to what the Land Use Code says. She said she's struggling, she doesn't know what she's going to do. Member Rollins said she's not struggling. She is fully in support of the Moore property getting a reduced density. She needs to remember that this is the Moore's property. We're all here planning it and deciding what's going to happen to it. If you take a look at the overall piece of property, they've got a lot of mixture. She said what City Plan was looking for has been done on this piece of property—it just happens to be where we draw the lines. She won't be supporting the plan unless she sees the reduced densities. Member Lingle said he'd like to challenge Rollins because if you were-to�make a motion to reduce the densities; you'd have to have something to support waiving the requ ements of,City Plan and the Land Use Code. What would those be? Member Rollins said she'd rely on the slide,that Wray has provided that said we could do this in a way that was supportable and.similar to what's been'done in the past. Chair Schmidt asked Wray when a plan like this might be updated again years. _wondering why the Moores are any different than Anheuser Busch. Anheuser Busch can just say we have this industrial here and you want to put "x, y, z" factory here and "No thank you, we don't wan sell our land". Couldn't the Moores do the same thing? What control=d,46-4eally have over it because the Moores are the landowners? Couldn't they,just sit on it and our plan,would never happen. Wray said any owner can decide to whether to sell a particular developer for a particular use. Wempe said we're looking at a long-term (20 yea`rs)jbuild out of this area There's a short term market and a long term market. Looking back at the past_16 months they've looked at a lot of different plan alternatives. They've worked with all the different property owners inethis area. At some point we need to more forward and bring the'best-recommendation`to.City Council We're not always going to get complete agreement includin Anheuser Busch) b°"eve pro pert" `owner in an area for a community P 9 (� 9- Y,. rY P P Y Y wide City Plan. < Y When they were looking at the,Moore property, there are-several things that we've been willing to agree on and change. One thing was we ve.agre`ed-to-resize,fhe CC district and still meet City Plan vision and objectives. They wouldn't have\done thafit-ifit,had precluded the long-term expectations of City Plan and the Land,Use Code. It provides a\lot of flexibility in creating a unique, mix-used commercial center. The samefis true with LMN and Turnberryynot�connecting to the south (a complete review of the overall street network), and the inclusion of 70'acres-of Employment on their property. We have worked through this p cess and we're ending.ul,,with a good updated subarea plan. What we have ended up with is general support of all affected property owners. This plan provides good direction to look at when requests for plan amendments or code amendments are made. That's done on a regular basis through a lot of debate and,discussion. Those are part of the challenges for a developing community. Director Dush said with regard"to Member Carpenters concerns about density and how we might be creating a non-City Planarea. It's important to recognize through the reduction of several of the identified land uses (Commercial and Employment) that the zoning districts allow for mixed use even in those residential zone districts. In the LMN, you can do things such as churches, neighborhood centers, and child care centers. Those things are thoughtfully planned out in a large master plan development of 173 acres. He said you can start to transition some of those neighborhood centers with some densities and then spread that out with some large lots. Doing some of those things through thoughtful land use planning in the LMN allows you to capture the intent and the tenants of City Plan. Campana and Lingle had mentioned some of the 18 month debate about density. If that were to occur later on with the City Plan update, not withstanding what occurs can always be revisited through an update. There are ways Planning & Zoning Board d August 20, 2009 Page 30 through thoughtful design based upon mixed-use capabilities that we have in our zoning that allow for the different types of transitions to occur even in what is defined in low-density residential zoning district. Member Campana said if we just say its"173 acres of LMN and if through the review of City Plan we decide to change the density of LMN based on what's take place in the developments in our city; those new density requirements will be applied to the property—is that correct? Chair Schmidt says she finds it hard to believe in City Plan that we'd change all of LMN in the city to be lower density. In that particular case we wouldn't be achieving the goals of City Plan. Campana said that as apart of the City Plan review, we could also look at the Structure Plan and say "now we have a new`zoning—let's apply it to a portion of this area". �� Campana said 30 acres of commercial is not that much. When he thinks of 40 acres of MMN—he thinks of the Argyle on Timberline and the condo project just south of it--that's notthat,much at all. Those are challenges we've had with City Plan. He's not saying he agrees or disagrees with^it. He's just saying he doesn't think we should change the density for this piece of^prope'rty especially wl eh,we are years away from this property being ready to develop. He just thinks this is the wrong place to debate that. He likes what staff has done on this subarea plan and he's ready to vote anytime the rest of the Board,is. 'Member Lingle asked Eckman if the order in the staff report'is the ordehn�which action should be taken—subarea plan and then the amendments to the differe tdocuments. Eckman said it can be taken in any order just so long as City Council gets your recommendation'on everything. He said if you don't want to deal with minority reports you don'tf ave.to—Council is primarily interested in the recommendations of the majority of the Board: Chair Schmidt asked if the rezoning were any differerrt than the�rest of the amendments. Eckman said 41 no. Schmidt asked if we could put it all in one motion. Lingle"said he oughtthe rezoning were quasi- judicial and has facts and findings,Eckman said if.that'sthe case, y',ou can use the language in the staff report in support of your motion-Wray\said staff reports were created for each amendment. Eckman said it might be best to take each co;ponent—there"may be differences of opinion by each component. Member Campana asked for clarification—one the initialjstaff reported amended by the memorandum dated August 10? Wray said,staffrecom_ mendation is to'add that additional transition adding Section F to the rezoning staff-report. Mountain Vista SubareaPla\n update Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista,Subarea Plan based on the staff report, item # 2. Member Campana seconded the motion. Chair Schmidt asked staff if they ere planning to strengthen the language for monitoring realigned Vine to mitigate the possibility of tr,uckers wanting to deviate from the defacto truck route. Member Lingle asked it that was also apart of the North College Corridor Plan amendment. Wray said their direction Was to add that language to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The only change staff is showing for the North College plan was to shift the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer to the realigned Vine. Lingle said he believes shifting the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer to the realigned Vine is what will trigger truckers from the defacto truck route. Wempe said the enhanced travel corridor is really a concept related to transit, pedestrians and bicycles similar to what you'd see in the Mason Corridor. It should not be interpreted as enhanced mobility for trucks. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 31 Chair Schmidt said she thinks we need to watch location so they don't turn into something we haven't intended. Wempe said the design of those corridors is subject to a separate plan--the Master Street Plan planning document is the place to best record those comments. Member Carpenter said she will support it because she feels it's pretty difficult for the Board to address the issues related to density in this forum. She would encourage those who spoke this evening to consider participating in a City Plan Update outreach event. Member Lingle would like to thank staff for all the effort that's gone into this update. He thinks it's comprehensive and makes some very good broad brush improvements over h�N1999 Plan. He said we all individually might have more focused interests and areas of concern and that will likely come out (at least for him) in future discussions. �/ � Chair Schmidt said she's also thinks staff has done a great job.(comprehensive and well done) and it is a large improvement over the previous plan. The motion passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting. Amendment to City Plan, City Structure Plan Map Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to City Plan involving a change to the City Structure Plan Map related to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based upon thestaff report, item #'2A Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting, Amendment to the North College-Corridor Plan Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the North College Corridor Plan, an element-of City Plan, involving achange of the Framework Plan Map related to the Mountain Vista SubareaPlan based on the staff report, item # 2113. Member Campana seconded the mot oh.-----.�^ ",Y Member Lingle d hai ironically this'is the component he would object to. This may not be the appropriate document but he thinks thafat least City Council will see our minutes and will get the gist of our discussion. His concern is not that"he disagrees with shifting the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer to Vine—he totally agrees with that./ the whole idea that some how we think through design, operation, or enforcement procedures that we can get keep it from becoming a defacto truck route. He thinks that is exactly what will happen. He would prefer that we recognize that and deal with it accordingly. �\ In his experience any kind•of design implementation that was based on depending on operational controls, enforcement, or something that isn't inherent to the design is set up to not be workable. To depend on mobile truck weigh stations for enforcement when that would be one of the first things yanked if there was a budget concern does not seem like an effective plan. He's going to vote.against this motion just for that reason but he agrees with the overall idea of moving that enhanced corridor to Vine. Chair Schmidt said in a way it's more important not to leave it as Conifer because Conifer could just as easily become a defacto truck route—it's even closer to some residences. She understands where Member Lingle is coming from. She'd like to see stronger language relative to monitoring traffic. Planning & Zoning Board August 20, 2009 Page 32 1 The motion passed 4:1 with Lingle dissenting. Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council for adoption of the proposed amendments to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, an element of City Plan involving a change to the Framework Plan Map based on recommendations from the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan based on the staff report, item # 2C. Member Campana seconded the motion. Chair Schmidt thinks it might be convenient for the neighborhoods along Vine and Lemay to have some small businesses there. Wray asked is she was referring to the new/realigned Vine intersection. Schmidt said yes. Schmidt said she'd like to see that area have some flexibility,with regard to commercial. Being a member of CAG (Citizen Advisory Group,for North College)she's aware of their interest in expanding commercial there and views it as a source-for�generating tax increment revenue. Wray said yes that would be possible in both the LMN and'the MMN zone districts. The motion passed 5:0. Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Member Lingle made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of rezoning related to the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea`Plan based on the Findings of Fact (A-F) beginning on Page 3 of the staff report and including the addition'of,F shown omPag62 of the staff memo dated August 10, 2009. Member Campana seconded the-motion. The motion passed 4:1 with Rollins dissenting Z., Chair Schmidt had one final,c mmo ent on the discussion today--,.she asked Director Dush if it might be good to have Joe Frank,c`ome to one of the work sessions to talk about the updated City Plan. He could get the Board's feedback and provide information on where they are in the update process and how they expect to proceed. Director Dush said he'd work to gettha't scheduled. Chair Schmidt,noted-that subarea plans are alwaysopen to change. She invited Mr. Moore when he's closer to the development of his property, he can always submit what he believes to be a better plan. Member:R llins wanted to',th an staff e erough she voted no. Other than her concerns about the Moores property rights, she thinks the update's been really well done. Other Busi ess ' . ; ;e None Meeting adjourned at'9:40.p.m. Steve Dush, Current Planning Director Brigitte Schmidt, Chair Natural R@sources City ®f 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Bob r t C o P ns Fort Collins,CO 80521 970.221-6600 970.224-6177-fax fcgov.com AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM: Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory Board DATE: July 24, 2009 SUBJECT: Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Dear Mayor and members of City Council: At our meeting of July 20, 2009.the Fort Collins.Air Quality Board members [AQAB] resolved to support the proposed revision of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. We adopted the following motion unanimously: The AQAB believes this plan will provide adequate air quality protection for the subarea. The Board is concerned the Vine Street realignment may become a de facto truck route and the Board, for health and safety reasons, would like the City Council to make every effort to prevent this from happening through street design, traffic monitoring and traffic enforcement. Please contact me if there is a question about this recommendation from the Air Quality Advisory Board. Sincerely yours, Eric Levine, Chair CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Natural Areas Program City/ of 17 Box580 Fort Hoffffmm an Mill Road F6rt Collins Fort Collins, 8G522 970.416.2815 970.416.2211 -fax fcgov.com/natural areas To: Mayor and City Council CC: Pete Wray, Project Manager Darin Atteberry, City Manager John Stokes,NRD Director From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board(LCSB) i Date: August 13, 2009 Subject: Mt. Vista Subarea Plan i The Fort Collins Natural Areas Program(FCNAP) is an abutter to the Mt.Vista Subarea Plan(Plan), holding a conservation easement on the sod farm directly north of the project area. The Natural Areas Program also has expertise in habitat restoration improvements. The LCSB has seen multiple presentations concerning the Plan and we request that City Council consider four recommendations to enhance the plan's directions related to natural areas conservation. l. The first recommendation is to add a strategy suggesting that the City work with the ditch company and landowners to restore the banks of the Number 8 ditch with native vegetation to provide wildlife habitat connectivity along this corridor. If the abutting landowners are willing to add to the 50 foot Right of Way on the East side of the ditch this may lend itself to a more natural { looking meandering landscape-perhaps with natural features and vegetation out to 500 feet or more in some places and back to 50 in others for example. A linear Natural Area in this location would make a nice natural break between the residential and industrial zones. The FCNAP may be able to help with finding creative funding opportunities for this habitat corridor. 2. The second recommendation is to include a policy to recommend a natural vegetation buffer in the planned regional park,much like the new Spring Canyon Community Park. 3. The third recommendation is to include a strategy to negotiate with the landowner to purchase and/or work with the owner to restore the wetland buffer around the pond between Vine Drive and Conifer Street. 4. The final recommendation is to include a policy to restore the regional detention area north of Cooper Slough with native vegetation by purchase as a Natural Area or by working with the current landowners. i The habitat connectivity between the agricultural areas to the north with native vegetation along the ditch, park area, and finally into the Cooper Slough will provide residents of this new growth area with the opportunities to see and live with the wildlife and plants that make Fort Collins a desirable place to live and play. The one public comment given to the board during the July meeting was from a current Mt. Vista resident asking us to preserve the rural feel in this area. Although keeping this area rural may not be a realistic vision because of private holdings, the City has an opportunity and a responsibility to its citizens to plan for keeping and/or enhancing a portion of its wildlife and habitat value. The LCSB City of OCt Co ins recommends passing this plan with the above recommendations for enhancing the isolated wetland as well as creating a Natural Corridor along the#8 Ditch, future Regional Park, and on into Cooper Slough. Thank you for your consideration of these additional recommendations. i i i !I i i I i t i i I i fig( Planning, Development & Transportation City �" Transportation Planning&Special Projects—FC Bikes Fort Collins 250 North Mason Street P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins.CO 80522.0580 970.416.2411 970.221.6239-fax fcgov.com/bicycling Date: June 9,2009 From: Dan Gould, Chair Bicycle Advisory Committee To: Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner Gary Thomas, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Subject: Bicycle Advisory Committee comments on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan At our June 8, 2009 meeting, Matt Wempe described the current state of the subarea plan. Boundaries, physical features, and various uses were described. It was understood that the bicycle facilities for arterial and collector streets will conform to current street design standards. The network of off-street trails is part of the Park Planning process and conforms to those design standards. The designation of Vine Drive and Timberline Rd as Enhanced Travel Corridors means that there will be separate design processes to optimize transit, pedestrian and bicycle functions as the improvements become funded. Committee members looked favorably on these assumptions. Specific bike-related issues raised by BAC members 1) Excessive truck traffic on Vine Dr could have negative effects on bicyclists. 2)Committee members urged that means of reducing truck use on Vine Dr should be explored. 3) Design features of a Vine Dr Enhanced Travel Corridor could mitigate truck/bike hazards and intimidation. Off-street or separated bike facilities, physical barriers and/or mixed use bike/ped facilities were discussed. 4)Off-street bike trail connections to North College Ave, Poudre River Trail, parks and schools should be optimized. Are there opportunities for arterial street underpasses that can be identified? Use of irrigation ditch right-of-way for bike trails could provide off-street routes for bike riders. 5)There were concerns about air quality for bikers in the Mountain Vista area. Does the basin-like configuration tend to aggravate accumulation of air pollutants? 6)There were concerns about narrowing of vehicular traffic lanes from 12' to 1 1'. This could result in more motor vehicular invasion of on-street bike lanes. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Parks and Recreation Board May 27, 2009 Agenda Items Minutes Mountain' Subarea Plan Update—Pete Wray, Senior City Planner- Advanced Planning The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan was adopted in 1999. Since adoption, staff has responded to nurnerous requests for changes to the Plan. The timing was right to have another look at the Plan and assess what refinement is supported. The process to begin this update began in March 2008, with an anticipated completion in early July, 2009. This Plan is projected to accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth with approximately 1500 acres of vacant land. While the City Structure Plan, Master Street Plan, and current Zoning establish a foundation and direction for future development decisions, the need to reevaluate the Plan to assess potential changes is warranted. The update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan will determine potential refinements to the land use, streets, drainage ways,parks, open lands and trails within-the study area. The process will update the adopted vision, goals, and policies in the original document,based on new information. Finally, this process will include a reassessment of the implementation actions identified to achieve the Plan in the future. A centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is the Framework Plan map. This "Framework"represents an integrated pattern of existing and future land use, streets, trails and network or open lands— establishing a guide for growth in this northeast part of the City(See attached 1999 Framework Plan map). The Framework Map provides more detailed policy directives, than what is described in the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan map,part of City Plan, the community's Comprehensive Plan. In comparison, the Structure Plan represents a community-wide vision for the long-term growth of the City as a policy directive. The Structure Plan map is more"broad brush" in its delineation of existing and future land use, streets and open lands, than the Mountain Vista Plan Framework map. Key building blocks incorporated into the Framework Plan map, or"pieces of the puzzle", include new residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial center, employment and industrial districts. These destinations will be linked by a system of transportation corridors serving vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel that provide a high level of connectivity, internally and to other destinations throughout the community. Staff has been working with a consultant team to assess market support for various land use scenarios and traffic forecasting of the proposed street network options. Staff developed six framework map alternatives between December, 2008 and February, 2009 to test options for land use and transportation. Based on public input to date and consultant analysis, staff has developed a preferred Framework Plan map (See attached Map). The draft Framework Plan map incorporates certain elements from map alternatives that staff determined best reflected the project objectives. Since the original Plan adoption in 1999, City staff has been in the process to coordinate the location of the future community park. The land area needed to accommodate all park program elements including active recreation fields, access, parking, passive recreation,recreation center and drainage facilities is between 110— 120 acres. The 1999 Plan shows the park location both north and south of Mountain Vista Drive. The recommendation allows for agreements with Poudre School District to share facilities and locate the future park and school adjacent to each other. Recent discussions between City staff and representatives of Anheuser-Busch and adjoining land owners, has formulated a similar arrangement that includes approximately 80 acres on AB property north of Mountain Vista Drive and 30 acres south of the existing street, totaling 110 acres. Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27,2009 Page 2 of 13 Existing Park Planning practices do not allow through streets to bisect park facilities. As a result, the current alignment of Mountain Vista Drive is proposed to be off-set to the south and connecting at a new intersection. The proposed alignment will still provide east west access, only slightly off-set from the existing alignment. The extension of Country Club Road, as a future collector street is important in providing access,both east/west between neighborhoods, school, park, and employment areas. The alignment of the street bordering the park and connecting further south on Giddings reflects a more efficient travel route to Mountain Vista Drive and access to I-25. The proposed trail network described in the 2009 Framework Plan Map is consistent with the updated Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. The trail system reflects both study area connections and links to community or regional trail connections that are off-street in most cases. Discussion/Questions: Do you feel the truck traffic will increase along Vine? We do not anticipate the truck traffic moving from the current route utilizing highways 14 and 287. There are traffic control measures that can be implemented if truck traffic becomes an issue. Will property have to be purchased for Vine Drive to be realigned? Yes, if the draft is accepted by Council, it will then become a part of the Master Street Plan. Landowners would have to comply and allow the City to purchase land for the new road. What is being done in that area currently, is it part of this project? No it is not part of this project. The Greeley waterline is under construction, and the North County waterline will follow in about 2-3 years. Recommendation from the Parks &Recreation Board After reviewing the information presented by Pete Wray regarding the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan at the both the March 27, 2009, Parks &Recreation Board meeting and the May 27, 2009, Parks &Recreation Board meeting; Greg Miller moved to recommend the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as presented. William Pickering seconded the recommendation. There was no further discussion. The Parks &Recreation Board voted 7:1 in favor of recommending the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Board Member Jessica MacMillan voted not to recommend the 2009 Framework Plan Map of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan due to the Conifer Street expansion. With Vine Drive being realigned to the North, she does not feel that affected neighborhood wants Conifer to be expanded, as they are highly dissatisfied with how close Conifer will be to their homes. . NOTE: The May 27, 2009 P&R Board Minutes have not been approved by the Board. The P&R Board approves minutes from theirprevious meeting at the current meeting. We are currently w rs. With the budget constraints, the general fund operations on creative ways to do more with less. rtment is working on wa ma e, innovative and customer service oriented. The final offers will nee esu is teams by Friday, June 5. The result teams will review each offer, Iry, will ask the sellers o vide more information. The general fit ents are all competing for the same pot of money, so it's lice y e all the o n ed. 1 Parks&Recreation Board Meeting—May 27,2009 Page 3 of 13 CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado May.7, 2009 Denise Rogers, Chair Ken Waido, Staff Liaison,970-221-6753 City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Board Members Present: Denise Rogers, Ben Blonder, George Bryan, Pete Tippett, Board Members Absent: Dan Byers, Marie Edwards Advanced Planning Department Staff Present: Ken Waido, Megan Woodman . Council Members Present: None. Board Chair Denise Rogers called the meeting to order at 4:07 PM 4�1Open Public Discussion: Kandace Majoros,.a homeowner in Fort Collins, discussed neighborhood concerns regarding the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as presented by city planners. She distributed a letter from concerned1omeowners. The primary concern is the realignment of East Vine north of its present location. Vine will be turned into a four- lane arterial and will stretch from 287 to Timberline(which connects to Monte Vista) to I-25. Area residents are concerned because they believe it will become a truck bypass route. There is also a concern that the new route will cause air and noise pollution in an almost entirely residential neighborhood. The city has been approached about installing traffic calming devices,but the residents have been informed that these devices are not found on four-lane arterials. They are also concerned about Conifer because it will extend from College to Timberline, so it will provide a parallel east/west corridor just 1500 feet from East Vine. It seems odd that a two-lane arterial (Conifer)will only be 1500 feet away from the Vine Street four-lane arterial. w Business.- Approval of George,Byrne made amotion to approve the e March 5, 2009 and April Affordable Housing Bo gs. Ben Blonder seconded the motion. The motion passed. U date— an Strategies Repo Affordable Housing Board May 7, 2009 Minutes- DRAFT Update on Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Pete, what I'm passing out here a copy of our latest draft framework plan in comparison to the original adopted plan from 1999, so we're on the ten year cycle for updates. The last time we came to the board, two months ago, we were still developing or assessing various plan alternatives to test the land use and transportation options. The difference now is we have a consolidated draft plan so share with you tonight. This is the same plan that we presented at the public open house a little over a week ago. Ben: It this A,B, or C. Pete: We have six alternatives over the past 4 or 5 months. We're pleased-to be out of the alternative plan phase. You can seethe land use table comparison of acreage. What we're looking at with the new plan for residential, which is the focus of our discussion today. We have a little overl500 acres of low density mixed use neighborhoods,.the yellow on the plan which is consistent with the city plan, community wide. We have about 150 acres of medium density which is predominately multi-family; this is the orange addition to the commercial center in the middle of the plan. We also have strategically located the MMN,multi-family adjacent to key intersections that are also in alignment with future enhanced travel corridors which are a planning description for potentially high frequency bus service similar to what you've probably heard.on Mason Corridor. Our structure plan, there's four future enhanced travel corridors throughout the community. Mason is one of them. We have always shown on our structure plan map one connecting the downtown transit station up to this northeast area. And, the original plan showed it on Conifer Street,but our new recommendation is to shift that further to the south along the realigned Vine and Cherry connecting up to the center and employment and 1-25 and park and ride facilities out here. So, we are showing higher density residential along this north enhanced travel corridor and also along Timberline is one of those other enhanced travel corridors from Harmony up to this northeast area. Those both bisect at a new intersection, north of the existing Vine Drive and now on up to this larger northeast area. As far as housing units, we are looking at approximately 5700 housing units which is a combination of calculations with the low density residential, which Ken described at our last meeting,really allows quite-a bit of flexibility.for not only housing types,but density as well,because we require a minimum of 5 units per acre within the LMN,but that can range all the way up to 8 or 12 for a single phase of the development. So, there is quite a range within this LMN. Within the orange, it's a minimum of 12 units per acre with mostly attached product housing type. Typically, what we've seen throughout the community over the years, 12 to 16 units per acre with no cap. Typically, what we've seen throughout the community over the years is 12 to 16 units.per acre. We haven't really seen a lot of high density residential. We created anew HMN, but we haven't seen any projects come forward that would reflect that vision for that area. Perhaps in our downtown area,with some of these loft projects, we eventually might see some higher 11 i end of that range. Typically for apartment complex, condo, townhome kind of projects, it's close to 12. Isn't that right Ken? Ken: There's still a range, what we use to call the standard FC 2 % story apartment is in the range of 14 to 18, something like that. Pete: All of our land use designations provide some sort of mixed use. Even within the community commercial district, there is allowance for some mix of residential within that. And, typically with employment in other areas of town along Harmony Corridor, as an example, and adjacent to some of our east prospect area, there is a provision for secondary uses within the employment up to 25% of project. For typically multi- family/residential. Just south of Harmony, south of Intel,just north of the new Fossil Creek HS and Observatory Village area, a lot of that multi-family housing is within the employment Harmony Corridor zoning, and that came in as a 25% secondary use. For that larger and that.came in as a 25% secondary use. For that large Harmony technology park that includes Intel on that comer of Ziegler and Harmony. As an example, they calculated the large employment tract and figured out how much residential would be allowed., And that came in first, so, we still would expect the employment parks and things like that to fill in the rest of that because they maxed out their 25%. Anheuser Busch has been I think we mentioned this at the last meeting, has been very clear that they really don't support residential within their buffer area and transition between residential and the more industrial brewery operation. So, they are looking at roughly a little more than a mile buffer. If they ever market any of their property, they have made it pretty clear, that they are not interested in that 25%provision or any other kind of residential. I think at the last meeting that we talked about this plan provides a lot of options for potential AH projects based on the private market coming forward and looking at some of our incentives and existing programs. But, we don't have specific provisions as part of this framework plan as far as identifying land bank properties or other incentive measures that are different than our existing programs. Again, I think roughly half of this study area we are showing as residential. We still think we are maintaining an appropriate jobs-to-housing balance, and we're comparing that citywide as we move forward with our analysis. But, the other part for discussion and in your packet, we do have a request by the second largest land owner in this study area. Anheuser Busch, as you probably know, is the largest land owner. 'They own about 1200 acres. The Moore family owns two quarter sections, which is about 340 acres. It's larger than two quarter sections, and it includes a majority of LMN. They are kind of the hole in the middle of doughnut. We have a lot of our key land uses on this property. LMN, we show about 40 acres of LMN adjacent to the community commercial center, which is about 30 acres and a portion of a future community park. And, consistent with the original plan and policy language that we have in the city plan, envision higher density residential adjacent to employment_ areas, adjacent to commercial destinations and kind of a new concept that we're trying to implement along Mason Corridor. Along this future enhanced travel corridor, some higher density residential with perceived, future transit stations and things like that to 12 better support transit along those corridors. And, their request is to have the city consider a provision within the low density mixed use neighborhood, and again,remember I mentioned we have a requirement for a minimum 5 units per acre, they are looking at a minimum of 3 throughout their property. Demise: Just the LMN portion of their property? Pete: Right. The first table, option 1, is what we show with our plan. The second table, and that produces about, that's about 250 acres is what we're talking about here on their property. Without a potential change, would generate about 900 housing units at 5 units per acre. We're just looking at the LMN right now. If you look at the second table, that is with that assumption of a 3. This is similar to what we agreed to with the joint plan that we developed down in southeast in the Fossil Creek area with the county about ten years ago, where we had around Kechter Road and North we had our typical designations, but as we got closer to the reservoir we agreed with the county that it made sense to feather the residential density lower as we got closer to the reservoir which the city and county really recognized as a high natural resource area, and we didn't have. It was quite a different position than all the other lakes around the region that are private and surrounded by expensive homes on the water. We really wanted to set a new vision for that southeast area, so it really made sense to come up with a modified LMN north of the reservoir down to urban estate and then down to the county's FAl zoning. Hopefully, protection, conservation easement, acquisition and really try to reduce development around the reservoir. Obviously, this is quite different. I think their reasons. We've heard several initial justifications and we are still trying to get confirmation in writing. They think that it's more marketable for larger lots and a variety of housing types with that lower density. They showed some examples of some projects that were done in the Timnath area and in Windsor that are 2-4 units per acre. They think it provides more opportunities for families and they think it's actually a better arrangement next to a commercial center, a park, and a high school. Compare that to what I just mentioned about this is our long- term future growth area and since the original plan and the original city plan in 1997, we have recognized this area as a large employment center and pretty sizeable commercial district to serve this northeast area, and we have two enhanced travel corridors merging in this area to connect it to other parts of the community, and from the stars perspective we think that the densities that we have had in place and what we are showing with our new draft plan are consistent with city plan intentions. This counters that to some extent. We don't have a zoning district that reflects this specifically. Ben: This would be a new zoning basically. Pete: It's one of the things that we are going to be asking council for direction on June 90'. There are really three choices: (1)to come up with a new zoning district,but we really don't think that's appropriate for an individual property; (2)to wait for a future development project, and we have provisions in the Land Use Code to allow a modification to our development standards and they could provide justification for 13 change based on that specific development proposal and try to get approval that way. I think that's probably something we would recommend. The third option is what they are suggesting is that we actually put language in the plan and we change the LUC to put new language in the LMN, Article 4 Zoning District, like Fossil Creek, where it says instead of a minimum 5, it says for this property the city would agree to a minimum of 3, etc. Ben: Would it be 3 to 8 still? Pete: It would still be to 8 except the lower end minimum would be changed from 5 to 3. And again, that's similar to what their county put in their supplemental regulations for the Fossil Creek area. Ken: I don't think Pete's last statement really needs to be blasted. Pete was one of the project managers for the southeast area north of Fossil Creek area. Let me back up. When we did city plan, which went through a tremendous citizen participation process, looked at all kinds of issues,housing, relationships to commercial development, types of housing, all these different ratios and stuff, and the idea to increase the overall density in the community to promote alternatives modes,deal with air quality and other environment issues. Then we got into the Fossil Creek Area Plan, and because of that unique environmental asset to the community, he did not mention, they do not mention the bald eagle roosting on the trees on the north shore of that, so there was a reason to look at doing something different than the minimum of 5 units per acre. He didn't mention the county's transfer development units program which this area was a receiving area for in an attempt to help create more open space in the FC/Loveland corridor. That was a receiving area. And developers north of Fossil Creek had to go south of Carpenter Road, buy those development rights there and transfer them to the north side of the reservoir. So, it was a pretty complex implementation strategy for that whole area. None of that exists here. There's no extreme environmental issue that needs to be phased to buffered against. At five units per acre, you can still do a half acre lot in five units per acre. It just means you've got to make the trade off, that another part of the property made need to have a higher density to get those half acre lots. So, it's not prohibitive against doing larger lots. And, in my background memo, I said this is somewhat unusual because the board doesn't get into land use planning. Your purview is for affordable housing. As I mentioned at the last meting, the minimum density requirement, the mix of housing type requirement that we have in a land use code basically requires LMN ground to develop some type of attaching dwelling. Attached dwellings are typically cheaper, more affordable than detached housing. You can have your$3 million dollar condos. There are exceptions. So, again, my recommendation to the board in supporting or making a comment about the Moore's thing, you're interest is in preserving the potential for the development of AH. Now, when we had our luncheon with Mike Sollenberger,he said,hey, cut a deal, for three units an acre maybe you come back in and Pete mention the HMN zone,maybe there's a trade off that will give you the 3 if you go to 20 on another part of your property so that the net number of units that are going to developed is going to be zero. You are not going to lose the potential number of units. 14 Denise: We want to get something. If we just ask us for a recommendation that would lower it to three,the answer is no. FC,the thing that really constrains FC in terms of affordable housing, is land. This is the only place that's really left for the city to grow. And when you close off options to AH in the only part of town that's left to grow, you just kill us. Ken: You look at the significant areas of employment; those aren't all going to be $100,000 scientist/engineering positions. There's gong to be support staff. There's going to be lower paying jobs up here too, particularly in the retail sector, so there's going to be a need for affordable housing. Pete: In the information that we put in your packet here, that if it was 3 units per acre, it would reduce the percentage of potential multi-family housing. Some recent examples that are close to 3 units per acre, are Stan Everitt's Fossil Lake Ranch, south of Kechter in that middle part, because that was part of that reduced density there, and the value of those homes, are up there. I think the Ponds Development off of Overland is just a little over 3, but again, I think the cost of those homes are more than you're typical. Denise: I'm not opposed to housing for rich people. I'm just saying that this is one of the only areas that we have left. We close off the option, or we reduce the possibility of affordable housing development being developed. Pete: We do have urban estate along our edges and things like that. Denise: How many times have we talked about the importance of developing AH near transportation, near employment, near services? I really don't want to see AH developed away from bus lines. We can't guarantee that AH is going to be developed on that land, but if we say, sure, go ahead, reduce it 3, we really close the door to the future. Pete: As Ken said, this is not something we're by any means forcing you guys for a recommendation. It's up to you. We're going to be asking council for direction at the June 9t'work session. The representatives of the property have consistently requested this change. Ken: I had a talk with Larry Kendall, used to be president or guru, whatever. We talked about the,exodus of large, more expensive homes out of FC. Part of the reason is, we're fresh out of golf courses and we're fresh out of lakes. These are amenities that the people who want to live in that type of housing. With one exception being the Moore.property, with the way the land is laid, and it sort of rises up, through design, you can get some excellent views of Long's Peak from that property. But, again, we're not prohibiting larger lots. You want to build some large lots, go ahead. It's just that you need to compensation in another place. George: I don't know where the seven parcels are you are holding for the Land Bank. 15 Ken: They are scattered through the community. We don't have a land bank property in this property. The closet one would be on West Vine, west of Taft Hill Road. George: Is there any sort of a map that shows where they are. Denise: Board members, do we have a suggestion on how you would like to frame our response. Ben: I think we are all on the same page. Denise: As a board, we would like to support the current proposed framework plan, and we would oppose any plan to lower the density in those LMN portions of this plan. And then, for the following reasons, land is scarce within the City of FC, the scarcity of land makes it more difficult to develop AH, the open land that we have available, and lowering density requirements would make it more difficult to develop multi-family housing within the plan area. Ken: Was that like a motion or just a consensus. Pete made the motion. George seconded. Discussion: All those in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Update on the Affordable Housine Agreement an: We met with some local nonprofit and for-profit developers with intention of goin ver the agreement in detail. It was a great discussion, lots and of issues, but we didn ecessarily really talk about the agreement all that much. Ken: But, it w a great meeting, and Megan tried to bring agreement around. We just kept going aro d, it was great, we shared a lot of information, a lot of insight. We need to meet aga Megan: We had lots of disc ions, kind o out development incentives in general that we have. In sitting around with ilder d developers, the question came down to, you know, who are we really incentivez to build. The ones that we have in place are designed for develops, the co nts c e up that really it's the builders that take a big brunt of the cost for trying uild afforda housing. It really brought up more of an issue of how our incent' s are really working d whether or not they are working. Issues around hom nership and how to keep h e ownership affordable for the long term. We had d conversations and ideas about tha Candice Mayo from Habitat wasn't at th eeting, but I met with her separately. Kin f a big part of the agreement was the ' ue of the fees or the penalties. If they say they are ing to so many units and the e give them a delay of fees or we reduce their fees and the ecide not to build it, much should we be asking back? So, it's a matter of quantifyin ose incentives and how much should we expect to get back should they not follow thro 16 Attachment 3 ounCtin Vista Mountain Vista Subarea Cityof olhns SIJBARE.A MAN For Existing Structure Plan Z MOUNTAIN VISTA DR CONIFER ST i r I Z I i'• ' E VINE DR ................. Legend Boundaries Districts Neighborhoods Edges Corridors dF Fort Collins GMA if Downtown District eLl Urban Estate ' Community Separator NEnhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) A'City Limits df Community Commercial District 0 Low Density Mixed-Use Foothills Poudre River Corridor Commercial Corridor District rr'�7 Medium Density Rural Lands Poudre River Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial Center E�3 Open Lands, Parks, Campus District Stream Corridors Employment District Industrial District /�1'► 0 2,500 5,000 /�►� Feet a x 3 t� z W Attachment 4 F- z w x U d F-� . Now■ Z � 4, 8, #• i O8 Pie. a(v 3AV XVW31 N , 1S Hl6 Co N J � U �qj O �e O W z CCD) > coo TEE W M MEN 1 x: ' W e A a E 1 r E z 5 � Q� Cp1.LEp' b N in - it I ...J• E E ¢ € € H + . �ly] MOMMI 1S SG131HS'N." ME e ' MIMMMOM ®LEI .. o w z N j o U wU n «� 1 a � uL a & a _ NN Attachment 5 Northside Neighborhoods Plan EXISTING -. j0• , gyp. . . .. - r •,1 C^ l t++ ... a ,,Y � ¢.ty Evergreen Pars ^ r, i - •• Rodw d Pond 01, Mefadows v r; d w J , Z 9 t � A • • •r• i �AI ISt� A. Amr -,. _ � .. ✓osh '� �� � la Vla •� uL ,G,. rbk o ., .., re r tl `iacs Cr4 Le rove undo �mm1 I - �` • h�, 1borho m , - 1 � LL _ An so villia l e I I ♦ammo wu�umu r an r S • +' ^ Om no Ouse& •, �„ Existing Industrial Area •` �1 '•, mero Al lI f � _BUok A h m _-=Future Lemay v ,� f �+ ON ` Realignment ~ •°' . y! Own, ± Existing Industrial Area R. no g1 4 �y'' ''j�IIYI Ytr r, ��R • L. FRAMEWORK PLAN Legend July 29,2009 Plan Boundary Futt.lre Land Use Streets & Trails Other EIIN1 City Limits Existing Low Density Residential Industrial 0 Arterial (4-Lane) 00reen Corridor [[ Water Features Low Density Mixed-Use ResidentialOM Downtown Mixed Use M Arterial (2-Lane) • Gateway/Art Existing Trails r :', Industrial/Residential Interface ® Public Open Lands = Collector (2-Lane) Existing/Potentia *1* Neighborhood Services Stream Corridor Future Multi-Use Trail Parks \� (Existing/Potential) ■■ Future Widened Y a 1.or Multi-Use Sidewalk Fort Collins North son zso n sno r,000 F""' CLARION ��� > x z un Attachment 6 Mountain Vista Subarea )Mountain Vista City of SUl3AlztiA PLAN ����l ins Existing Master Street Plan -------------------T---------- --__----- i ML^ -- — — - JLJLi ----r---= o: wngPoW Z ' !. I 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR ti w \ r..._. _ �,� I E VINE DR i / -`• f------- 1 ice_. .::,...--•---- Legend City Limits Master Street Plan Interstate man� 8 MV_Boundary Collector 2 Lanes ----- Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing Arterial 2 Lanes ----- Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA OPotential Interchange Arterial 4 Lanes ----- Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA Railroad Lines 0 3,100 6,200 Feet a v x z Attachment 7 North Fart Coffins Business Association D p Positively Impacting Fart Cottins` Northern Gateway 1475 N. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-5384 September 3, 2009 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, On behalf of the North College Business Association (NFCBA), this letter reflects support for adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and related amendments. In particular, we are supportive of the realignment of Vine Drive between College Avenue and Timberline Road. If approved, this new alignment is better positioned to incorporate the relocation of the future Enhanced Travel Corridor, providing benefit to business and property owners along North College Avenue. City staff has provided updates to the NFCBA membership and Board over the past year, and are well aware of the issues associated with the realigned Vine Drive corridor. While some residents within the Lindenwood neighborhood have been very vocal of concerns that this arterial street corridor may become a de facto truck through route, our Organization does not agree. The proposed future infrastructure improvement projects listed in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update recommendations are also identified for the North College Corridor Pion area including the realigned Vine street segment and Northeast College Corridor Outfall storm drainage project. The benefits of implementing these two projects for the Mountain Vista and North College areas far outweigh any potential impacts. We are grateful for City staff's work, and look forward to future projects with the City. Sincerely, 4Ad,~7 R. Dean R Hoag President North Ft. Collins Business Association Attachment No . 8 City Council Hearing September 15 , 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update 1 . Adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related items, Including : A) Amendment to the City Structure Plan map B) Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan map C) Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan map D) Amendment to the City Master Street Plan map Fort Collins Cityof - s Mountain Vista =� Sl;6ARFA PIAN . .. Fort Collins CITY PLAN Fo tCollins Original Plan Adopted 1999 Plan update 2009 City of Collins ALows, rt kwL� 1 Attachment No . 8 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Public Process 1 , Phase I - Project Start Up (March - June, 2008) 2 , Phase II - Framework Plan Development (July, 2008 - March , 2009) 3 , Phase III - Implementation (April , 2009 - August, 2009) Fort Collins Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Plan Document Sections Chapter 1 - Plan Foundations Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions and Issues Chapter 3 - Vision Chapter 4 - Framework Plan Chapter 5 - Principles and Policies Chapter 6 - Implementation recommendations Appendix - Supporting Information , Analysis Reports city of ort Collins 2 Attachment No. 8 Framework Plan Development FR�'SUBANEA PWN - I Update ! a . L — —I 1999 2008 2008/09 2009 2009 Framework Plan Update process 6 Framework Plan Proposed Council adopted by initiated in Alternatives Framework Adoption Council March, 2008 tested Plan Map (May) Hearing (September) Fort Collins� 1999 � . Framework Plan - Club Rtl.. _ y�5 n y LuntainY•t ' 4000 r 3 Attachment No . 8 ; i Wil f " 3 ) Proposed 2009 Long Pond Framework Plan Mountain `- - IstaExiension of Dr 4,v eYpt /ta. Realigned Vine Dr I F +_ s Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Comparison of the Framework Plan Map • n - r� 1999 Framework Plan 2009 Framework Plan City of ort Collins 4 Attachment No. 8 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Comparison of the Master Street Plan map �l N C RighaW5, Lake Rd.e �' Richards Lake Rd 'C. K ' > � 4W. > c Q to Drive Q R _ _ Mt. Vista Drive •LO N E ' MW TAIN NSTAOR J • 1 r . . . . Conifer St. ,. Extension of Realigned Vine East Vine Drive _NE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ East Vine Drive Current Master Street Plan Proposed Master Street Plan `rt Collims 1 Mountain Vista SUBAREA PLAN WIF Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update 2009 Plan Implementation Recommendations - `rt Collins 5 Attachment No . 8 Adequate Public Facilities ■ 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 F�t` Collins Adequate Public Facilities Projects NECCO Mountain Vista Dr College Corridor Q Q Cutfall) drainage y T d E • a o U � Extension of Re -gne&Vine Dr. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Slr.* S �ti ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • N East Vine Dr Grade-Separated Railroad 5 Cit of Crossings _ ort Collins ION Attachment No . 8 Timing of Infrastructure Improvement Projects Scenario 1 : Construct Realigned Vine Drive (College to Lemay) , concurrent with NECCO project (Short-Term Project, 5-10 Years) Scenario 2 : Construct Realigned Vine Drive ( Lemay to Timberline) (Mid-Term Project, 10-15 Years) Scenario 3 : Petition for At-Grade Railroad Crossings Scenario 4 : Construct Three Grade-Separated Crossings ( Long -Term Projects, 15-20 Years) r,�rt�5 Potential Funding Options ■ Continue to Utilize Development Impact Fees ■ Capital Funding Request ■ Collective Funding Strategy City of ort Collins Attachment No. 8 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Future Implementation Actions • 1 -25/Mountain Vista Drive Gateway Standards • North College/Mountain Vista Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan • Infrastructure Projects Funding Plan Fort` Collins hwr� Mountain VIS I SUBAREA PLAN Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update Concurrent Implementation Actions • Amendment to the City Structure Plan map • Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan map • Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan map • Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan map . City of ort Collins 8 Attachment No . 8 Plan Implementation Related Item : Amendment to the City Structure Plan map J iiCZN52aml y-Club N•, ountaln•V Ili sta e moo 4 / ,ve _ -1 Existing Structure Plan Proposed Structure Plan City 0' will Plan Implementation Related Item : Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan map Rill woo M was 61 _ m T \ Existing North College Corridor Proposed North College Corridor Plan Plan City of iwff Collins ALows, rt 9 Attachment No . 8 Plan Implementation Related Item : Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan map I Existing Northside Proposed Northside Neighborhoods Plan Neighborhoods Plan Fort Collins Plan Implementation Related Item : Amendment to the Master Street Plan map LO • , N Richards Lake Rid . r a cwNTj Richards Lake Rd. > s > n a' E a: 3 Mt: Vista Drive ; ,n Mt Vista .Drive LLEU . Comfe t. y er St. Ext� 3ligne V ine least Vine Drive ,_ 1 =MIM East Vine Drive Current Master Street Plan Proposed Master Street Plan Fort Collins 10 Attachment No . 8 City Council Hearing September 15 , 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan update 1 . Adoption of the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and related items, Including : A) Amendment to the City Structure Plan map B) Amendment to the North College Corridor Plan map C) Amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan map D) Amendment to the City Master Street Plan map Fort Collins 11 RESOLUTION 2009-086 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS . ADOPTING THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS,on March 16, 1999,the City Council adopted the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, which laid the framework for a large and primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins, as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the Mountain Vista Subarea contains approximately 1,500 acres of vacant land and is projected to accommodate a significant portion of the City's future growth; and WHEREAS,since the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan numerous requests have been made to the City to implement certain changes to the Plan including refinements to the land use pattern, street system, drainage-ways, parks, open lands, and trails in the Mountain Vista Subarea; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan refines the vision, framework, principles and policies, and other elements of the original document based upon new information which was gained through an extensive public process involving property owners, neighborhood groups, the Poudre School District, and various City departments and boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, Air Quality Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Parks and Recreation Board, and Affordable Housing Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Mountain Vista City of I I Adopted �� SUBAREA PLAN �ort Collins September 15, 2009 / fcgov.com/advanceplanning Chapter 1 - Plan Foundations How to Use Setting the context for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, this chapter describes the purpose of this update, explains the public process, and this Plan reviews related planning documents. Mountain��♦�. This plan is intended to Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions and Issues coordinate local stakeholder • SUBAREA PLAN This chapter identifies existing subarea conditions related to land use, needs with the larger transportation , open lands, and utilities. This chapter also describes community's purpose (as P L A N S U M M A R Y factors influencing future development and summarizes the latest represented in City Plan). The A Community-Based Plan consultant analysis. recommendations contained within the plan are intended Between March 2008 and August 2009, Purpose of Updating the 1999 Plan Chapter 3 - Vision to be used by city staff, the property owners, including Anheuser- Busch This chapter describes an overall subarea vision as well as the specific planning 8 Zoning Board, the InBev, and area residents helped the City The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, originally adopted on visions for neighborhoods, a commercial center, employment and industrial of Fort Collins envision Mountain Vista's uses, parks, transportation system, natural areas, and community Transportation Board and City March 16, 1999, laid a framework for this large, primarily appearance. Council in understanding future through an extensive public process. undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins. Over the past where the community, local The update was divided into three phases. ten years, there have been numerous requests to modify Chapter 4 - Framework Plan leaders, and elected officials elements of the plan from the development community. This chapter is organized into three main sections: land use, transportation should focus their energy. The first phase (March 2008-August 2008) The purpose of the update is to revisit previous decisions and open lands. The centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan identified development issues. regarding the overall vision for the area and the is its framework plan map . The majority of this chapter relates to a To the left, see how the plan corresponding principles, policies, and implementation comparison of the original 1999 Framework Plan with the updated 2009 is organized into chapters and The second phase (August 2008-December actions. The size and location of land uses will be re- plan . appendices. 2008) focused on design and alternative assessed, along with the transportation network that links analysis. this area to the rest of the community, including connections Chapter 5 - Principles and Policies to open lands and trails. The process will be responsive to Chapter 5 builds upon the established , community-wide policies of City Finally, the third phase (January the ideas and concerns of the many stakeholders involved, Plan and identifies principles and policies specific to this subarea. 2009-August 2009) involved updating the including area property owners, residents, the City of Fort Chapter 6 - Implementation Recommendations plan document and identifying Collins and the broader community. This chapter highlights the key implementation actions needed to achieve implementation actions. this plan 's vision . A variety of standards and requirements, policies, Area Vision and capital improvement programs are recommended to make the Moun- Citizens, in addition to calls or emails, had tain Vista Subarea Plan a reality. an opportunity to participate and share • This subarea will be an integral part of Fort Collins, their comments by attending any of the functioning as an extension of the greater community as Appendices contain supplemental information about: following public events: new growth takes form . A. Summary of Open House Comments • This subarea will be an area of Fort Collins known for its B. Land Demand Analysis and Framework Plan Alternatives impressive views of the mountains and recognized for its 8 Property owner meetings C. Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts Memo successful and innovative community design . D . Traffic Noise Evaluation Report - 4 Anheuser-Bush InBev meetings P - 7 Individual neighborhood meetings This subarea will be distinct and attractive with a E. Truck Bypass Route Analysis g g comfortable, town - like atmosphere that residents and Advance Plannin - 4 Open houses g businesses identify with and take pride in . 281North College Avenue - 9 Planning Et Zoning Board meetings • Neighborhoods, parks, schools, shopping district and City of I I Fort Collins, Co 80524 - 3 Transportation Board meeting business center within this subarea will be connected Fort Collins 970-221-6376 y- 5 Other board and commission updates and served b a varietyof travel choices includingvehicle - 3 City Council work sessions transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. For additional copies, please download from • This subarea 's existing natural areas will be preserved to fcgov.com /advanceplanning our website, or contact us using the above protect these important natural resources and amenities 8 information. for the community. 1 Mountain Vista Mountain Vista SUBAREA PLAN Welli gton susntzFa PLAN Development Factors Map fy - .•_.. - _ The No. 8 Ditch, a deep .�.... channel filled with debris, Lapoite " " may limit new street connections. } - - •• Mountain views This area's 1,500 acres of Proposed ditch upgrades should play a vacant land enables this Mountain Vista trails would plan's vision to start from staring role in Subarea ._. . trails would enhance this design of this area's the ground up. area. development and streets. Compatibility between -' The County's standards industrial and residential for lower density areas is a primary neighborhoods are concern of the brewery. different than the City's, and create a lack of 3iFh5rds Lake 3 The proposed street connections. -- •• Compatibility between business center existing and new v will provide long- """^•"' "" " " "' ' neighborhoods can be - ac term job growth - - for the whole enhanced with quality and ' of design. r community. _ 5 L By adding landscaping and trail connections, This wetland should be Mountain these regional protected to provide wildlife Vista Dr detention ponds habitat and open lands. could enhance this - � .��e area. For COIII Dry Creek Floodplain limits new residential These ponds and "• - development. their drainage on requirements may delay new area development. Extension of Realigned r F-ml _E G _ . Vine Dr F Timnath �1 Overhead power lines may impact location of new neighborhoods. This intersection, The railroad The Plummer School is an important historic About the Mountain rated F for failing, switching yard landmark, but may limit widening of the experiences daily limits widening intersection at Vinelrimbedine. Vista Subarea delays during peak of Vine and isa traffic. barrier to new Legend northisouth This subarea encompasses about 5 /2 square miles Historically agricultural in use, approximately spa• aGrowth Mana ementArea Grade Separated Rail Crossing and 3000 acres of land in the northeast quadrant 1 , 500 acres remains undeveloped , with the 9 of Fort Collins . The subarea is bounded by 1 -25 on exception of four residential neighborhoods and - —Power Line % Regional Detention Pond the east, Richards Lake Road on the north , Lemay the Anheuser Busch InBev brewery. The subarea — Trail Avenue and Turnberry Road on the west , and East is expected to absorb a significant proportion of RailroWater Street Vine Drive on the south . new development as Fort Collins continues to grow +t+rt+ ad and approaches capacity of its Growth Management — streets Natural Areas/ Ditch Corcidore 2 Area . Study Area ® park and Ride 7 How was This Plan Developed ? Key Plan Elements Conifer Street should be extended , and how those 1 . Inventory of existing development factors extensions connect into the broader subarea street Provide a Balance of Business and Retail with Supporting 2. Framework Plan alternatives network. See the complete plan , more specifically Residential 3 . Public input Appendix B - Land Demand Analysis, to view the 4. Technical analysis six Framework Plan alternatives. - Expansion of the area 's industrial and employment land 1 . Development Factors Based on public input, comments from Boards and uses to create a signifigant business center. The first task, in updating this subarea plan , was Commissions, Council, and incorporating the latest The appropriate buffer and transition between Q identifying existing development factors; both those consultant analysis findings, staff developed a industrial and residential uses. - „-� either hindering development, or those enhancing proposed 2009 Framework Plan . . Promote unique marketability of large vacant tracts, r this area 's potential. This assessment was then used zoned employment, with direct access to 1 -25 and rail. as a basis in determining appropriate adjustments to 3 . Public Input - Centrally-located Community Commercial District providing the framework plan map and supporting policy Public comments included a wide variety of issues a range of grocery and supporting retail shopping, dining, direction for addressing these factors. See the map from throughout the subarea. At times, these entertainment, office, residential, and civic uses to serve on the previous page identifying each factor. comments contradicted each other, representing the adjoining neighborhoods, future school, and business , the diversity of public opinion . See the complete center. plan , more specifically Appendix A, for the full - Future Poudre School District K- 12 school campus. °r summary of public comments. Questions and comments heard most often included : Future community park adjacent to the school, commercial Bike + Pedestrian Routes center, and neighborhoods. -� - What is the timing of development? Remaining land uses consist of Low and Medium Density - Appropriate buffer between industrial and Mixed- Use Neighborhoods. Future Transit Routes residential uses. - Locate higher density residential near transit, commercial - Amount and locations for multi-family residential and employment areas. uses. Master Streets Plan - � - How large will the commercial area be and what Create A Complete Transportation System , services will it offer. - Plan for off-street bicycle and pedestrian trails. Refine overall street network for local collector, 2-and 4 . Structure Plan - Do/do not extend Turnberry Road south to Vine J Drive. lane arterials for future traffic volumes. - Do/do not extend Conifer Street to the east. - Relocation of Enhanced Travel Corridor from Conifer Street Exlsnny Uses . Maintain direct access to 1 -25 . to realigned Vine Drive. - How will the grade-separated crossings function - Provide extension of realigned Vine Drive between Lemay (overpass vs. underpass)? Avenue and Timberline Road . 2. Framework Plan Alternatives . Re-aligned Vine Drive and its connection to - Implement pedestrian-oriented design along streets and Staff prepared six Framework Plan alternatives (A-F) Mountain Vista Drive/ 1-25 interchange will become new development. and presented them to the public in order to test a de facto truck route. - Orient the proposed Mountain Vista Drive/Timberline Road various land use and transportation options, in connection and the Community Commercial District's comparison to the original adopted 1999 Framework 4. Technical Analysis "mainstreet" to capture views of Long's Peak. Plan map. Three of the maps were unveiled at the As public input was received for the Framework - Refine multi-use trail network utilizing off-street alignments open house in December; the other three at the Plan alternatives, the staff team conducted as much as possible. second open house in February. technical analyses on the land use demand, noise, p traffic, and air quality impacts. The land use Overall, the acreage of each land use did not change analysis studied current and future market Enhance Natural Resources and Drainage Corridors significantly from one alternative to another. The conditions and made recommendations for the center of the subarea, however, varied with regard appropriate size and locations of each land use. - Establish appropriate buffers and set-backs between to the location of the Community Commercial District, The noise, traffic, and air quality impact reports development and existing natural areas and wetlands. surrounding residential uses, and the community park. were mainly driven by the concern the extension - Establish appropriate buffers between development and The decisions regarding land use locations were of realigned Vine Drive would become a de facto existing irrigation ditches and canals. influenced by the transportation network (and vice truck bypass. Each analysis studied current and - Identify existing stream corridors and establish appropriate versa) , which did change considerably between the future traffic volumes and demand to determine buffers between them and development. . alternatives. whether or not the new road would cause Locate future regional storm drainage detention onds. significant negative impacts to the subarea and g g P Major transportation issues revolved around the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, these reports - Locate multi -use trails away from important natural extension of realigned Vine Drive and the way it reinforce the final decisions as both reasonable, resources. connected into Timberline Road and Mountain Vista and conforming to industry standards and City t t Drive. Framework Plan alternatives also tested the policies. Each can be found in the complete plan 's f public's views on whether or not Turnberry Road and appendices. 6 3 LL � 7 ■ ■ _l 7TT■ ■ ■ OEM ■ ■ * ■T■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ O ■ cc c o00 to cc w Cl V cc cc G7LL ` d J U N a S ■ �, N ■ 4)2 £ � o �o 0 a E o zZ p21, s6uipp! J >% `o o o a o Li , �GM U m Lo 0. to ,�, E o y oZ =Z o f ' E 3 Li y E 3 07 •O m L E 0CQ C U W 5 J7 2� N U � � LJJ _ sy� J ■ ❑ ❑ — ■ pla au !! �agw !l�r` O a � n 1 .� 0 /F " c (Ao er x -Ff- t• H ■ f- p21 ejTag171n � �r-f Q a o e o f� o m r_ o o c°> ' V 0 C `o c . a -0 y- o GA �'' • C N 7 i +tea W CL ma � � +" -�1M1�,. r t:' -'�. ,: r • } - + r+ ,. ' aV�� �'.Y _ W •� - f•'. ,L�i y C C �4i s + 1 Q 1 t O L l0 C.\ + ` \ _ �e •.� r e J rJsN c { +�.' eC� ` `� ��>'..' 1' C 7 O /0 C N l6 l6 Va �iw tZh' cr' Z d Uzia4N'a l� iY1N`Y5 \ 'F•�•• Ir ' ` ` `` ` • V ?tee n• 1 h' y 'YF.�[/tJ.�_ 1 .�, O • fi ` Mountain Vista SUBAREA PLAN 0 r-�• .M i�.. � Q or ' /rS � Fj �• 'R y� ^ � , V� ,�• - . •i 4W.. 014 ,• . .. . . . - • _ 'r' • M _ .• � � ; tom i . � 149, i W4 r f L, I I �? 1 Sr� � .:, p9 �y _ •� , . �� •1 ( 'It- , � !•W ,rP � . „ � ,) ` ' . i 1 Vt + -j ZI A k 1. r F, City of ort Collins MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Adopted September 15 , 2009 City of /0,000 Fort Cothns Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins , CO 80524 970 - 221 - 6376 fcgov . com / advanceplanning For additional copies , please visit our website , or contact us using the above information . MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN CREDITS FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL CITY STAFF Doug Hutchinson , Mayor Pete Wray , Senior City Planner , Kelly Ohlson , Mayor Pro Tem , District 5 Co - Project Manager Ben Manvel , District 1 Matt Wempe , Transportation Planner , Lisa Poppaw , District 2 Co - Project Manager Wade Troxell , District 3 Megan Woodman , City Planner David Roy , District 4 Denise Weston , Senior Transportation Planner Aislin Kottwitz , District 6 ( former ) Diggs Brown , District 6 ( former ) Becca Henry , Urban Designer Matt Baker , Street Oversizing Program Manager PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Craig Foreman , Manager of Park Planning Et Development Brigitte Schmidt , Chair Susan Hayes , Civil Engineer III Gino Campana Sue Paquette , Utilities Water Engineering Et Jennifer Carpenter Field Operations , Special Projects Manager David Lingle Dana Leavitt , Green Building Program Manager Ruth Rollins Steve Olt , City Planner Andy Smith Susan Joy , Civil Engineer I Butch Stockover Laura O ' Gan , GIS Programmer / Analyst James Wetzler (former) CONSULTANT TEAM TRANSPORTATION BOARD EDAW - AECOM , Inc . Gary Thomas , Chair Bruce Meighen , Principal - in - Charge Olga Duvall Megan Moore , Associate Sara Frazier Bill Jenkins LSA Associates , Inc . John Lund Ray Moe , Principal Kip McCauley Sean McAtee , Transportation Shane Miller Edmund Robert Felsburg, Holt Et Ullevig Sid Simonson Rich Follmer , Transportation Garry Steen Dale Tischmak , Noise Analysis Scott VanTatenhove Economic and Planning Systems, Inc . CITY LEADERSHIP Dan Guimond , Principal Michael Gaughan , Associate Darin Atteberry , City Manager Diane Jones , Deputy City Manager MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Jeff Scheick , Director of Planning , Development Et Transportation Many property owners , residents and members Mark Jackson , Transportation Group Director of the public participated in this planning Joe Frank , Advance Planning Director effort . Thank you to all who contributed to this Kathleen Bracke , Transportation Planning EL plan . Special Projects Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CREDITS i MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Plan Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Purpose of Updating the Mountain Vista Plan Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Subarea Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mountain Vista Subarea . Moog Moog Moog 1000 10000 pool 3 Community Commercial District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Public Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Employment >:t industrial Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 " " " " " " " " ' Natural Areas and Open Lands . . . 26 City Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Community Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Transportation Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 5 Transit Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parks Et Recreation Policy Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Land Use . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northside Neighborhoods Plan . . oo * o 6 1 - 25 Subarea Plan 7 Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How to Use This Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2009 Framework Plan Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mixed - Use Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Existing Conditions and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 9 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Transportation Network Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Street Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 De Facto Truck Route Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Framework Plan Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Open Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Park Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Stormwater 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Open Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Upper Cooper Slough . . . . . . . . . . 44 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Dry Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Travel Demand Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 principles and Policies 45 AirQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Demand Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 019 Principles and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Framework Plan Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Development Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Economic Sustainability and Existing Ownership and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . 20 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Existing Railroad Switching Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Community Appearance and Design . . . . . . . . . 49 Stormwater Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Existing Ditches and Canals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Natural Areas . . Moos oo * o oo * o o * * * o * * * o * * * o * * * o * * * o9 * 21 Natural Areas and Open Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 021 Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . 9 o o 9 o o * 21 Future Employment District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Overhead Power Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . 51 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Implementation Actions Since the 1999 Plan Adoption . I * 0 6 6 0 0 a 6 1 0 a 6 0 0 a 6 0 * a 1 0 * a 1 6 * 5 1 Amendments to Existing City Maps . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Land Use Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Stormwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Off- Street Trails and Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Poudre School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Implementation Actions Concurrent with Plan Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Implementation Actions After Plan Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 REZONINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Gateway Corridor Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . 52 Mountain Vista / North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Future Infrastructure Improvement Projects and Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Transportation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Stormwater Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Funding Options . . 0 6 a 0 0 6 0 * a 60 * 0 60 * 0 60 * 0 60 * 0 10 * 01 6 * 53 Key Adequate Public Facilities Projects . . . . . 54 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 A . Summary of Open House Comments B . Land Demand Analysis and Framework Map Alternatives C . Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts Memo D . Traffic Noise Evaluation Report E . Truck Bypass Route Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CREDITS iii MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Context Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 13 - Community Commercial District Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 2 - 1999 Framework Plan Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 14 - Community Commercial Figure 3 - Current Structure Plan Map . . 10 District Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . Figure 15 - Enhanced Travel Corridor Figure 4 - Current Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 5 - Future Park Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 16 - Proposed Master Figure 6 - Water Features / Ditch Street Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Corridors / Natural Areas Map . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 17 - Priority of Transportation Figure 7 - Existing Master Street Plan . . . . . . 15 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 8 - Travel Demand Modeling . . . . . . . a18 Figure 18 - Adequate Public Facilities Projects . . . sees ease see soss * oss * & 57 Figure 9 - Development Factors Map . . . . . . . 22 Figure 19 - Capital Improvement Figure 10 - 1999 Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 11 - 2009 Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 20 - Capital Improvement Projects Map . . . . . . . . . . sees soo * 000 * 000 so * * * 59 Figure 12 - Framework Plan Map Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 21 - 1999 Implementation Action Plan - Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 22 - 2009 Implementation Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN CHAPTER 1 More specifically , the purpose of the subarea ' s update is to determine potential refinements to PLAN FOUNDATIONS land use , streets , drainage ways , parks , open lands and trails . Based on new information , this update refines the former vision , framework Introduction plan , policies , and implementation actions from the 1999 plan . A subarea plan is a policy document for a specific area prepared by a city to implement a This update was responsive to the ideas and community - based vision . In Fort Collins , a concerns of the many stakeholders involved , subarea plan provides a framework of including area property owners , residents , the community- based principles , policies and City of Fort Collins , and the broader community . implementation strategies recommended by the Planning Ft Zoning and Transportation Boards and adopted by City Council . The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan represents a strong relationship between land use and transportation , and directly links to the Transportation Master Plan ' and City Plan ( the comprehensive plan for Fort 5 _ Collins ) . Thus , the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan xt is an element of City Plan and provides more ti . - - ■ detailed policy direction for future MPlaj� J�, implementation decisions . This plan is a statement of how the community views itself, what the vision is for the future , and what actions are required to implement this vision . Maple Hill, a newer neighborhood in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Purpose of Updating the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan } The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan , originally adopted on March 16 , 1999 , laid a framework for a large , primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins . Over the past ten years , staff has responded to numerous requests for changes to this plan . The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 's _ update process started in March 2008 , and is slated for adoption in September 2009 . With approximately 1 , 500 acres of vacant land , ' the subarea is projected to accommodate a significant portion of Fort Collins' future growth . Anheuser- Bush InBev Brewery. While the City's Structure Plan , Master Street Plan , and zoning designations establish a foundation and direction for the subarea's future development decisions , the need to reevaluate and assess potential changes is warranted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 1 - Context Map 1, ✓ `' � `- - STUDY AREA �-- r,Up r t- .r - - -- - 'i It t r w r ' - r r' � t FORT COLLINS '4 r ✓1 �.I I pII - do 14, r.J Legend QGrowth Management Area Arterial Streets L---------' City Limits Railroad Project Study Area Water Features 0 8. 000 16 .000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA assess support for the amount of land use designations in the subarea . In October 2008 , The Mountain Vista subarea is located in the three framework plan alternatives were northeast quadrant of Fort Collins , bordered by developed to compare different scenarios for Richards Lake Road to the north , Interstate 25 to land use , street patterns , open lands and other the east , Vine Drive to the south , and Turnberry public facilities . In February 2009 , three plan Road and Lemay Avenue to the west (see Figure map options were developed to further test land 1 on previous page ) . Historically agricultural in use and transportation choices . Based on public use , a large portion of the subarea remains feedback , the project team integrated the undeveloped , with the exception of four successful elements of each alternative into a residential neighborhoods and the Anheuser- single draft framework plan . Busch InBev (ABI ) brewery . Until recently , the subarea experienced less pressure to develop than other areas of the city . Recent economic - conditions aside , the northeast quadrant of the ANN city will provide the long - term growth area of the community . This is due to a limited supply FA of buildable vacant land available throughout ' the Fort Collins ' Growth Management Area 7J , ( GMA ) . Most of the land within the subarea was annexed in the 1980s , but a few parcels remain outside of city limits . These parcels are expected to annex at the time of development . Public Process The planning process for the Plan update One of many open house discussions. included extensive public involvement from Phase III (March 2009 - August 2009 ) developed property owners within the project area , the final plan document . The Plan incorporates Anheuser- Busch InBev , Poudre School District updated analysis data , land use and ( PSD ) , service providers , Burlington Northern transportation recommendations , and Santa Fe Railway , area residents , Boards and implementation strategies to achieve the Plan . Commissions , and City Council . The planning process was divided into three The team also coordinated public events main sections . The first phase (March 2008 - throughout the planning process : August 2008 ) primary tasks included identifying . Six meetings with major property owners . background information associated with the . Four public open houses . project start up . The project team identified . Three City Council work sessions . key issues , existing conditions and plan . Seven meetings with individual objectives . A reevaluation of the original vision , neighborhoods . and policies was conducted to assess refinement . Nine updates to the Planning Et Zoning of this foundational language . The team set up Board . meetings with individual property owners and . Three updates to the Transportation Board . provided updates to Boards and Commissions during this phase . The original schedule was extended several Phase II (August 2008 - March 2009 ) focused on times to thoroughly address public concerns . design . Travel demand modeling by the Public comments included a wide variety of consultant team determined future traffic issues from throughout the subarea . At times , volumes and street classifications for these comments contradicted each other, comparison between the 1999 and 2009 street representing the diversity of public opinion . networks . A market analysis was conducted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS 3 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Questions and comments heard most often not intended as single - use ` zones ' in the sense included : of traditional land use zoning patterns , but as distinct and diverse places that contain mixtures ■ What is the timing of development? of uses and activities . " The Mountain Vista ■ Why does the City want to co - locate the subarea contains all four place types : future park with school facilities? neighborhoods , districts , corridors , and edges . ■ What options are available for lower residential density? Mountain Vista as a Neighborhood ■ What is an appropriate size buffer between City Plan envisions neighborhoods as the the Brewery and residential uses? dominant and most important areas within Fort ■ How large will the commercial area be and Collins . Neighborhoods are to be walkable and what services will it offer? connected , include a mix of housing types , and ■ Plan for off- street bicycle and pedestrian include destinations within walking distance , trails . such as schools , parks , neighborhood shopping , ■ Do / do not extend Turnberry Road south to employment and civic areas . Vine Drive . ■ Do / do not extend Conifer Street to the east . Mountain Vista is one of the last growth areas of ■ Maintain direct access to 1 - 25 . the community and is planned to accommodate ■ How will the grade - separated crossings a significant portion of new residential function (overpass vs . underpass ) ? development in the Low Density Mixed - Use ■ Re - aligned Vine Drive and its connection to Neighborhood ( LMN ) and Medium Density Mixed - Mountain Vista Drive / 1 - 25 interchange may Use Neighborhood (MMN ) zones . LMN is expected become a de facto truck route . to be the predominant form of new housing development , with a minimum density of 5 Related Plans dwelling units per acre . These neighborhoods will consist of a mix of detached homes on small The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is only one of and average size lots , townhomes , duplex units many plans that have been adopted by the City . and manufactured housing . MMN , in relation , is Each subarea plan reinforces the concepts and Planned to accommodate a minimum density of policies of broader comprehensive plans , 12 dwelling units per acre with the same mix of ensuring that one , cohesive vision is established housing types . These neighborhoods should be for the community . The following is a review of located near Community Commercial Districts previously adopted plans that influenced the and transit routes . The principles and policies decisions made for the Mountain Vista subarea . pertaining to neighborhoods focus on promoting these areas as integral parts of the broader CITY PLAN community structure , integrating open lands , parks , greenways , and design policies In 2004 , the City of Fort Collins updated City emphasizing creativity, diversity and Plan , a forward - thinking , 20 -year plan for the individuality . community, premised on the following concepts : Mountain Vista as a District discouraging sprawl while encouraging infill and There are seven types of districts identified in compact development , establishing community City Plan , three of which are planned for the separators , interconnecting many multi - modal subarea ; Community Commercial , Employment , transportation options , promoting diversity of and Industrial districts . Districts are larger than housing options , and advocating high quality an individual neighborhood and are important development . City Plan speaks to four basic destinations for living , working , shopping and place types , which comprise the structure of the playing . The concepts for each are defined as community : neighborhoods , districts , corridors follows : and edges . According to City Plan , " the organization of Community Commercial District (CCD ) these places - their ` structure ' - gives meaning "These community-wide destinations are the and form to our community ' s vision . These are hubs of a high - frequency transit system offering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN retail , offices , services , small civic uses and modal connections between two or more major higher density housing . The physical activity centers . ETCs promote safe , convenient , environment will promote walking , bicycling , and comfortable access to high frequency transit transit use and ridesharing , as well as provide a service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities . high quality urban life for residents . Vertical ETCs are multi - modal in nature and emphasize mixed - use ( multi - story buildings ) will be wide sidewalks , bike lanes on designated routes , encouraged with housing and / or offices located transit stops , and parking facilities . " above ground - floor retail and services . " City Plan 's principles and policies support Employment District ( ED ) integrated planning between land use and the " Employment Districts are locations for basic transportation network, assuring the highest employment uses , including light manufacturing , composite level of service ( LOS ) among the offices , corporate headquarters , and other uses various modes of service along the corridors , of similar character . These districts will also and advocating for facility design to match include a variety of complementary uses , such surrounding development to create pedestrian - as residential , business services , convenience scale urban design . retail , child care and restaurants . They will be designed to encourage non - auto travel , car- and Water corridors contain natural and man - made van - pooling , and transit use , and have an drainageways , maintain wildlife habitat , and attractive appearance - allowing them to locate provide trails / paths for recreation use . The adjacent to residential neighborhoods . " corridors found in this subarea are the Upper Cooper Slough , the Larimer and Weld Canal , No . Industrial District ( ID ) 8 Outlet Ditch , and their connections to the "These districts are intended to provide a natural areas . Principles and policies support location for a variety of work processes such as adequate buffering of these corridors while still manufacturing , machine shops , warehouses , encouraging design to include a trail / path outdoor storage , and other uses of similar system connecting to open lands and / or parks . character . " Industrial districts do not have as extensive design standards and , therefore , Mountain Vista as an Edge should be located away from , or adequately Edges form the boundaries for the community buffered from , residential neighborhoods and for the next 20 years and beyond . This plan ' s linked to the city-wide transit system . " eastern boundary establishes an edge between Fort Collins Growth Management Area ( GMA ) and Mountain Vista as a Corridor unincorporated Larimer County , and future Corridors are intended to be the linking Timnath development , bordered by 1 - 25 . elements of the community , providing mobility between and among districts . This subarea This plan ' s northern boundary and GMA forms an contains three corridor types : Transportation , edge between Larimer County , and planned Enhanced Travel , and Water . community separator between the Town of Wellington . Transportation corridors are based on existing and planned street corridors . City Plan states , TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN "Transportation corridors are developed primarily to increase mobility , provide A companion document to City Plan is the transportation options , enhance the efficiency Transportation Master Plan (TMP ) . The TMP and aesthetics of the pedestrian / transit defines the long - term transportation system interface , and accommodate the flow of goods accommodating the future needs of Fort Collins . and people . " The TMP also provides policy direction for how decisions regarding the implementation of the Conifer Street and Timberline Road are transportation system should occur . The TMP identified as Enhanced Travel Corridors ( ETC ) also includes the City ' s Capital Improvements feeding into this subarea . This type of corridor is Plan . It identifies priorities for implementing intended to be developed " to provide multi - projects to meet short - term deficiencies while . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS 5 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN working towards the ultimate transportation PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN system for the community . An update to the Parks and Recreation Policy The Master Street Plan (MSP ) is a map - based Plan was adopted in February 2009 to : guide for the development of the future street network in Fort Collins and the Growth Assess the park and recreation needs of the Management Area . First implemented and Fort Collins community . adopted in 1981 , the MSP reflects the functional Evaluate the City ' s current services . classification ( i . e . arterial , collector , etc . ) of Provide clear and achievable the City ' s ultimate street network . The MSP also recommendations to deliver the level of provides a reference for planning and layout of service needed to meet the community ' s key transportation and circulation connections . changing needs for the next ten years . TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations provide the basis for the off- street trail network in this plan . The Transit Strategic Plan specifies how Transfort , the City's public transit service , will Citizens specifically identified the need for new transition to a grid - based system . Specifically, parks and facilities in northeast Fort Collins . the TSP calls for improved service along Fort There are six parks planned within the Mountain Collins' Enhanced Travel Corridors , including the Vista subarea , and the land for three Mason Corridor, Timberline Road , Harmony neighborhood parks is already acquired . Land Road , and realigned Vine Drive to link this acquisition for the future Community Park is still subarea with North College Avenue and needed . Land In addition to parks and downtown . recreation facilities , long - term trail priorities ( 2014 - 2018 ) include completing work on the UPPER COOPER SLOUGH MASTER PLAN northeast trail system . The Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan , NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN completed in June 2006 , addresses flood hazards and necessary improvement projects for the The Northside Neighborhoods Plan ( NNP ) southern portion of the Upper Cooper Slough adopted January 18 , 2005 , overlaps the Basin located within Fort Collins ' Growth Mountain Vista subarea to the southwest . The Management Area . In 1981 and 2002 , the NNP recommendations for street alignments hydrology of the basin was studied as part of the were coordinated based upon the Boxelder Creek / Cooper Slough watershed by the recommendations set forth in the 1999 Mountain City of Fort Collins and Larimer County . In 1984 , Vista Subarea Plan . in conjunction with development of the Anheuser- Busch InBev brewery , the company The Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue prepared a drainage master plan for their realignments are supported to alleviate portion of the basin . The 2003 update to the traffic issues for the area ; the NNP City ' s stormwater master plan adopted recommends both streets be classified as 4- improvements for the Lower Cooper Slough lane arterials ( existing Vine Drive will remain Basin . two lanes ) . ■ The NNP supports the recommendation made The improvements recommended by the 2006 in the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan were realign Lemay Avenue to the east of the Via developed to provide cost - effective solutions to Lopez / San Cristo neighborhood . A grade - mitigate existing flood damages and alleviate separated crossing is also recommended to the potential for future damages caused by new solve current access and congestion development . All improvements identified in the problems due to rail traffic . The NNP Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan are supports an underpass to reduce visual and located within the Mountain Vista subarea . noise impacts to the neighborhoods . The final decision as to whether the crossing will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN be above or below grade will not be decided Policy 1 - 25 - NOL- 1 . 3 until development and the financial Storm drainage and detention ponds will be resources are available . developed in compliance with the Storm ■ The existing alignment of Lemay / 9th Avenue Drainage Master Plan for both the Boxelder and will remain a 2 - lane street when the Cooper Slough drainage basins , and wherever realignment occurs , allowing pedestrian and appropriate , should be designed to create bike connections between Alta Vista and permanent natural habitat areas incorporating Andersonville . The street will end in a cut - native vegetation . de - sac south of the railroad tracks . The NNP recommends maintaining a pedestrian and How to Use This Plan bicycle connection across the railroad tracks . This decision will be made by the Colorado This Plan is intended to coordinate local Public Utility Commission with input from stakeholder needs with the larger community ' s Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and purpose ( as represented in City Plan ) . The the City of Fort Collins . recommendations contained within are intended 1 =25 SUBAREA PLAN to be used by City staff, the Planning 8t Zoning Board , the Transportation Board and City Council in understanding where the community, The 1 -25 Subarea Plan focuses on the area local leaders , and elected officials should focus located west of I - 25 from around the Prospect their energy and use as the basis for future Road interchange on the south , to County Road decision - making . 52 on the north , and County Road 5 on the east . The Mountain Vista subarea was included in this A separate plan summary, with an 11 " x 17 " planning effort . Specific policies and goals were Framework Plan , is also available at developed , and included : fcgov . com / advanceplanning . Policy 1 - 25 - LU - 2 . 1 Subarea employment and industrial districts will This Plan is organized into the following provide sufficient areas to accommodate long - chapters and appendices : term employment growth , and will establish appropriate transitions between employment Chapter 1 : Plan Foundations uses and adjacent residential areas . Policy I - 25 -T- 1 . 1 Chapter 2 : Existing Conditions and Analysis The subarea ' s transportation system will support Chapter 3 : Vision the development of interconnected regional and local transit , bicycle connections and an Chapter 4 : Framework Plan integrated pedestrian system . Policy I - 25 -T- 1 . 2 Chapter 5 : Principles and Policies The subarea ' s roadway system will include a Chapter 6 : Implementation Recommendations network of roadways parallel to 1 - 25 designed for local trips , as needed to support subarea The appendices contain the following land use activities , and discouraging dependency supplemental information : on 1 - 25 for local trips . A . Summary of Open House Comments Policy I - 25 -CAD- 1 . 1 B . Land Demand Analysis and Framework Map Development in the subarea will provide for Alternatives attractive gateways to Fort Collins from its 1 - 25 C . Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts interchanges and overpasses at Harmony Road , Memo Prospect Road , Mulberry Street , Vine Drive , D . Traffic Noise Evaluation Report Mountain Vista Drive , Carpenter Road , and their E . Truck Bypass Route Analysis arterial corridors leading in from 1 - 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS 7 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CHAPTER 1 - PLAN FOUNDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN C H APT E R 2 Figure 2 - 1999 Framework Plan Land Uses SOURCE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS GIS EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use Acres Community Commercial 78 AND ANALYSIS Employment 530 Introduction Industrial 309 Low Density Mixed - use 11480 The purpose of this chapter is to assess the Neighborhood existing conditions within this subarea , Medium Density Mixed - use 145 summarize the technical land use and Neighborhood transportation analyses , and identify the key Park 110 challenges and opportunities that may influence School 108 recommendations for updating this Plan . The Water Features / Ditch following sections describe the existing Corridors / Natural Areas ( adjusted ) 229 conditions , design objectives , technical analyses , framework alternatives , and Regional Detention Pond 0 development factors , forming the basis for this Total 21989 subarea ' s vision , and policy directions . Employment Existing Conditions The Employment District ( ED ) accommodates office - like development , similar to existing LAND USE development along East Prospect Road near 1 - 25 . In 1999 , the ED included approximately 530 The 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan acres , primarily located adjacent to the Framework Plan established the original acreage Anheuser- Busch InBev (ABI ) brewery operation and location of various land uses . Figure 2 shows and along both sides of Mountain Vista Drive . the acreage of each land use category . The Another small portion of the ED was located majority of land within this subarea remains along this subarea ' s southern border, directly undeveloped and is used primarily for east of Timberline Road . ABI owns the vast agriculture . The Figures 3 and 4 represent majority of ED designated land . However , no current land uses and zoning for this subarea . development has occurred to date . Community Commercial In 1999 , a 78 - acre Community Commercial District ( CCD ) was included in this subarea . The CCD was centrally located and intended to accommodate regional - level retail , capitalizing on its proximity to 1 - 25 . There has been no CCD development to date and it remains in agricultural use . - Anheuser- Busch InBev is the area 's largest industrial user. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 9 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 3 - Current Structure Plan Map I 1 Richard's L�a1� Woman O Long Pond to ` Z Ei (7 I `` .1 I 1 1 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR move Lindenmeier Lake r.J 1 CONIFER ST MINDV' 'r' �L'dTTRT2 w OWeld Canal 1 w �'''�•. .✓ i I VINE DR I I r, 1 ■ a Low 1Ry` • I •rf1Yf� • �y •V..410100.9vemme._.._.._.._.._.._.._. Legend Boundaries Districts Neighborhoods Edges Corridors q@ Mt. Vista � Downtown District � Urban Estate Community Separator m _ Enhanced Travel Corridor W Subarea Boundary df Community Commercial District Low Density Mixed-Use Foothills J2 Poudre River Corridor Growth 41 Commercial Corridor District t7 Medium Density Rural Lands Poudre River Management Mixed-Use Area 41 Neighborhood Commercial Center CJ Open Lands Parks , Streets Campus District Stream Corridors —••—•• City Limits *I Employment Distract Railroad r"J Industrial District 0 2 , 500 50000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 4 - Current Zoning Map Y Y i 1 \ W \- Q __`1 I I I ■ 1+✓ MOUNTAIN VISTA DR ■ ■ W ■ Z ■ Q: ■ ■ \ W / J ■ VINE DR � ' ■ ■ ■ ■ I Legend City Zoning Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood ' ■ ■ Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary ® Community Commercial 0 Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood Streets _ Community Commercial North College 0 Neighborhood Commercial Railroad Lines Community Commercial Poudre River Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Growth Management Area Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Low Density — — City Limits ® Limited Commercial 0 Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Service Commercial Public Open Lands Q CSU 0 River Conservation - Downtown River Downtown Redevelopment 0 Employment Residential Foothills _ Harmony Corridor Low Density Residential Industrial 0 Transition 0 2 , 500 5 , 000 ® High Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood Urban Estate Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 11 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Industrial District ( ID ) development and transit corridors . The higher ABI brewery operations are located on the 309 density of MMN provides a transition from a acres currently designated ID in this subarea . more intense commercial core into LMN This type of land accommodates large - scale development . manufacturing operations and typically requires large lot sizes . The existing brewery operation Park and School is the only development on this portion of land , There are 110 acres planned for a future which is owned by ABI . community park . This future park will offer both passive and active recreational opportunities . Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood ( LMN ) The park will be located directly adjacent to a LMN is designed to accommodate any new future 108 - acre school site acquired by Poudre residential development within Fort Collins . It School District in 1998 . The park and school site has a minimum density of five dwelling units per were purposely planned next to each other in acre and encourages a mixture of detached order to share recreational and sport facilities . single - family housing and attached dwelling Both are further supported by surrounding units to provide a variety of housing choices . residential uses and are in close proximity to the The majority of land ( 1 , 480 acres ) was planned Community Commercial District . The school site to accommodate future LMN developments in is planned to accommodate grade levels from order to provide a supportive market base for kindergarten through high school . future commercial and retail uses . Since 1999 , four residential projects have been approved In addition to the large community park, smaller and are under construction : Waterglen , neighborhood parks are planned for this Trailhead , Sidehill , and Maple Hill subdivisions . subarea ' s residential subdivisions . To date , one The remaining land is undeveloped and is used park is completed , and the remaining sites are for agriculture . scheduled for development within the next 5 - 10 years ( see Figure 5 below ) . Figure 5 - Future Park Sites SOURCE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN (2009) i IL N on 4 � N N � � U Q i V mum .Cc=== O N N _Name a Ln a U° J ` Iron Horse Park 6 6 . 5 2012 Y Maple Hill , a newer neighborhood in the Mountain Maple Hill Park 7 7 . 0 2013 Y Vista subarea. Lind Park 10 4 . 0 2016 N Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Trailhead Park 13 4 . 0 2019 Y (MMN ) Lake Canal Park 16 7 . 0 2022 N The purpose of MMN is to accommodate multi - Northeast family housing , with a minimum density of 12 Community Park 19 110 . 0 2025 N dwelling units per acre . Multi - family housing is often more affordable and can provide an alternative to home ownership . The 1999 plan showed 145 acres of MMN , located adjacent to the Community Commercial District and easily accessible to potential Employment District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 6 - Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas Map ■ ; City Aquired Conservation Easement tM •, (Leased Sod Farm ) r � d_ 3 � ■ I � ._.r._ �' ";'were• ir' „o„ � iAll Long Pond Li 1 t 1� fii:•� r "^ ' Boxelder "o 0 t . F ■sue--� - ■ ■ ,• Dry _ s r Cooper Slough Legend Conservation Easement Existing Natural Proposed Storm Line Held by City or County Area Wetlands Floodplain/Floodway Regional Detention Pond County or City #8 Ditch Water Open Lands Drainiage Corridor Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary 0 2 . 500 5 , 000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 13 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas of the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin . The Shown in Figure 2 on page 9 , the 1999 mapping second natural area is located on private land calculations did not include a category for water approximately 1h - mile northwest of Vine Drive features , ditch corridors and natural areas and Timberline Road . Additional riparian together . As part of the 2009 update , the City ' s habitat including tree and low groundcover Geographic Information Services (GIS ) adjusted vegetation exist along irrigation ditch and canal the 1999 framework plan map to more facilities . These natural resources provide accurately compare with their new 2009 important wildlife movement corridors and calculations . habitat space . TRANSPORTATION The Mountain Vista subarea and northeast Fort Collins is a mixture of properties both inside and outside of city limits . A loosely connected street • system was developed to serve existing and new development . In most cases , local streets do not comply with the current Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards . This often means a lack of infrastructure such as sidewalks , bicycle lanes , and curb and gutter infrastructure . Street Network r' Most of this subarea ' s streets were constructed Lorimer Et Weld Canal. in Larimer County , and came under City jurisdiction as properties were annexed or developed . Most of the arterial streets have a 60 - foot right - of-way ( ROW ) , typical of rural county roads . Exceptions include the streets al tkill adjacent to the Anheuser- Busch InBev brewery , - which have a 100 - foot ROW negotiated as part of the company's master development agreement . All of the streets in the Mountain Vista Subarea are paved , with the exception of Richards Lake Road between Giddings Road and the No . 8 Ditch ( eastern border of Maple Hill ) . New collector and local streets have been ZI i constructed as development occurred . As shown "4A " .e on the Master Street Plan , this included several Upper Cooper Slough wetland. of the streets through the Waterglen and Maple Hill subdivisions . These streets are slated for The 1999 plan shows a total of 229 acres of completion or extension to connect to future existing water features , ditch corridors and development . Turnberry Road was relocated to natural areas . This includes the designated the east , in conjunction with the Maple Hill development buffer areas for each category ; see development , to allow construction of a full Figure 6 on the previous page . The existing street cross - section and safer driveway access drainage canals and water features include the for county residents on the west side of the Larimer and Weld Canal , the Lake Canal , and road . the No . 8 Ditch Outlet . Two existing natural areas exist in this subarea . The first natural area is within the Waterglenn subdivision northwest of I - 25 and East Vine Drive and is part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 7 - Existing Master Street Plan ---- ----- -------- ------r----- ------ ---------- -�• I i f r , I , �J RICHARDS LAKE RD " K � p larg Pbnd � _ _ to W z m Z COUNTRY CLUB RD o H c� . . MOUNTAIN VISTA DR POP Lndenomer Lake i 1�J ■J�J A • ■ 0 CONIFERS Z �- - — - - n r a! LLJ ca ■ VINE DR i f — — — — — — — i Legend Master Street Plan Interstate % 0 N Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary Collector 2 Lanes Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA ° i City Limits Arterial 2 Lanes - - - - - Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA ® Growth Management Area Arterial 4 Lanes - - - - - Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Railroad Lines Major Arterial 6 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA VJ Potential Grade-Separated Rail Crossing OPotential Interchange 0 ? , 500 5, 000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 15 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN A number of street bridges were constructed The 1999 Plan and the 2004 Transportation over canals and other waterways . In recent Master Plan identified Conifer Street as part of years , a new bridge was built along Timberline the Mountain Vista / North College Enhanced at the Larimer and Weld Canal . The new bridge Travel Corridor . This corridor would provide will accommodate a widened Timberline Road safe , convenient , and direct travel with an and meet City standards . emphasis on high - frequency transit service , and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities . Interstate 25 Access This subarea is served by the northernmost Fort Framework Plan Objectives Collins interchange at Mountain Vista Drive . A diamond interchange , consistent with current The project team identified key design Colorado Department of Transportation ( CDOT ) objectives to provide criteria and basis for standards , was improved in the early 1980 ' s . No updating the 1999 Plan . Objectives for land use , further improvements to this interchange are transportation and open lands include the anticipated in the near future . General safety following : improvements to 1 - 25 are planned as part of the North 1 - 25 Environmental Impact Statement LAND USE currently underway by CDOT . The Master Street Plan currently recommends a Create an Anheuser- Busch InBev Anchored future interchange at Vine Drive and 1 - 25 . This Major Employment Center interchange was not included in the North 1 - 25 The northeast part of this subarea is anchored Environmental Impact Statement . If future by the existing Anheuser- Busch InBev brewery , improvements are warranted and desired , a and will serve as a future major industrial and separate planning process is required prior to employment center for Fort Collins . construction . This process would include the Establish Buffer and Transition Between City of Fort Collins , the Town of Timnath , and Industrial and Residential Areas CDOT . An appropriate separation and buffer will be Bikeway System established between the industrial ABI brewery The bikeway system is largely made up of on - operation and nearby existing and future street bicycle lanes . Both the 2008 Bicycle Plan residential neighborhoods , extending about one and the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan outline mile . The Employment District will be expanded an extensive network of on - and off- street to provide this transition . bicycle lanes and trails . This more robust system promote the Marketability of the Employment will occur along with development and available Center funding as new streets and trails are This northeast employment district is uniquely constructed . In recent years , the City has marketable with available large parcel sizes , constructed improvements in advance of the off- direct access to an improved 1 - 25 interchange , street trails including a trail underpass at and railroad access . Richards Lake Road east of Turnberry Road . Transit Service Centrally Locate the Community Commercial Transfort Route 8 currently serves the western District edge of this subarea . The bus route runs through A centrally- located Community Commercial northeast Fort Collins via Vine Drive , Lemay District ( CCD ) will serve this subarea ' s existing Avenue , Conifer Street and College Avenue . This and future neighborhoods , schools , and business provides connections to the River District , the centers and not compete with regional retail Larimer County Department of Human Services , uses along 1 - 25 . the North College Corridor, and Old Town Fort Collins . Transfort recently amended the route to include service to the new Northside Aztlan Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Use a "Town Center " Design for the Refine the Street Network Community Commercial District The 1999 Framework Plan street network will be The CCD will reflect the vision of City Plan . This reevaluated during this update to reflect new will include a " town center " block pattern , traffic modeling analysis and adjustments to the active street frontages , a mix of supporting land existing and future land uses in this subarea uses such as ground floor retail and office , and above ground residential uses , branch civic Connect the Key Destinations services and public gathering places . The CCD The transportation network will accommodate will emphasize and support pedestrian activity . the long - term traffic forecasting demand . It will provide connectivity and access to key subarea Establish Connections City-wide via Enhanced destinations , other destinations in Fort Collins , Travel Corridors and neighboring communities . The subarea will be linked to the rest of Fort Collins by connecting Enhanced Travel Corridors Minimize the Impacts of the Extension of ( ETC ) along Timberline Road and the extension Realigned Vine Drive of realigned Vine Drive , providing high frequency Impacts to natural areas , neighborhoods , homes , transit connections between destinations . and the historic Plummer School will be minimized or removed with the consideration of Plan for Community Facilities the extension of realigned Vine Drive . The subarea will plan for key community facilities such as neighborhood and community Designate Realigned Vine Drive as the parks , schools , public plazas , a transit station , Enhanced Travel Corridor police substation , and branch library . The current location for the ETC on Conifer Street is proposed to be relocated to the future Locate Medium Density Mixed - Use extension of realigned Vine Drive between Neighborhoods Near the Community College Avenue and Timberline Road . This will Commercial District allow a more direct connection to and from this Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods will subarea and serve the largest concentration of be adjacent to the CCD and along the ETC routes land uses . to provide higher density multi - family housing within walking distance to transit and primary OPEN LANDS shopping destinations . Adhere to the Parks and Recreation Policy Share Facilities Between the Community Park Plan and Poudre School District Site This subarea ' s planned community and The planned 110 - acre community park will be neighborhood parks and trail network will be located adjacent to the Poudre School District consistent with the adopted Parks and site in order to maximize opportunities to share Recreation Policy Plan . facilities . Preserve and Protect the Natural Environment Balance Residential 8t Commercial Uses Existing natural areas and wetlands will be Maintain an appropriate balance of residential preserved and protected in coordination with and non - residential uses to support the existing and future development . jobs / housing balance city-wide . Improvements to the No . 8 Ditch TRANSPORTATION The No . 8 Ditch owned by the Windsor Reservoir Company , provides both irrigation water rights Provide Transportation Choices delivery and storm runoff conveyance . The transportation network will provide a Improvements and enhancements to the No . 8 balance of travel modes including vehicular, Ditch should be implemented including ditch transit , pedestrian , and bicycle choices . slope grading , clean - up , landscape improvements , and trail alignment . Any improvements must be coordinated with the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . .EXISTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONDDITIITI. . . . ONNSS. . . . . .and. . . . . . . . .ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . .17. . CHAPTER - MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ditch company , Poudre School District and the participants were asked to report all of their City of Fort Collins . travel activities on a selected day . A transit on - board survey , two Colorado State University Take Advantage of Recreational Opportunities surveys , and a camera - based external station Planned regional detention basins should provide study were also conducted and used to develop a combination of stormwater functions , and travel model components . recreation access to take advantage of open land opportunities . Figure 8 - Travel Demand Modeling How many trips N-vill Analysis people make ? Technical analyses , based upon existing conditions and objectives , were completed by Trip Distribution Where will people go ? the project team and include : _\N"hatmode of travel ■ Travel demand modeling . Mode Choice ■ Air quality . will people use . ■ Noise . What routes will ■ Land use market . Traffic Assignment people use ? ■ Framework plan alternative analyses . Project consultants include EDAW I AECOM ( urban planning and design ) , Economic and AIR QUALITY Planning Systems ( market analysis ) , LSA Associates , Inc . ( transportation modeling ) , and The project team prepared an air quality Felsburg Holt Et Ullevig ( transportation analysis of the framework plan . This analysis engineering and analysis ) . The following included estimates of the annual amount of provides a brief description of the findings from greenhouse gases and ozone generated within each . See Appendices A- E for full reports . this subarea , Fort Collins , and the North Front Range . Greenhouse gases often have a larger TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING geographic impact , as these are the causes of global warming . The impact of these gases is Extensive travel demand modeling was often felt at a regional , national , and global completed to determine if the proposed street level . Ozone has a more localized impact . The network could accommodate projected traffic various volatile organic compounds (VOCs ) volumes . The North Front Range Metropolitan expelled by vehicle emissions is the main cause Planning Organization Regional Travel Model of ozone . ( NFR RTM) was used to forecast traffic volumes The analysis compared the 1999 and 2009 street and transit ridership as part of the alternatives analysis . The model uses afour- step process to networks . Overall , the amount of greenhouse gases and ozone generated at all three levels is forecast travel in the subarea , Fort Collins as a w the same between the two plans . Vehicle miles hole , and the North Front Range region . The regional model includes the cities of Fort traveled is estimated to decrease in the 2009 Collins , Loveland , and Greeley . The NFR RTM is street network , though vehicle hours traveled is calibrated further to Fort Collins and the estimated to increase . This is a signal residents Mountain Vista subarea . will drive less distance , but will spend more time in travel . Assumptions on travel behavior used in the model are based on a series of technical surveys NOISE conducted by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization . The The project team prepared an analysis to assumptions are based on a household travel determine noise impacts of arterial streets , diary survey , in which randomly selected particularly the extension of realigned Vine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Drive . Two different standards were used in this is beneficial to provide flexibility to respond analysis : a 55db US Environmental Protection to changing market conditions . Agency standard and a 66db Colorado The changes to the supply of Employment - Department of Transportation standard . Both and Industrial - zoned land included in the are intended to determine the area along a preferred Framework Plan will have only a street where noise levels would exceed the two marginal impact (within the margin of error) standards . It should be noted the analysis is on the jobs / housing balance ratio and should based on a "flat earth " assumption ( i . e . no therefore not prevent the proposed zone topography , no development , no landscaping , changes from occurring . etc ) . Fencing , development patterns , and Medium density multi - family development in landscaping would all reduce the noise impact of Fort Collins ( outside the downtown market an adjacent street . area ) is currently primarily driven by affordability . The demand in the Mountain LAND USE DEMAND MARKET ANALYSIS Vista Subarea is likely to follow this pattern of affordability mirroring comparable The Land Use Demand Market Analysis Report development . Based on this conclusion , the developed by Economic Et Planning Systems , Inc . subarea can support between 130 and 150 evaluates the market demand for the land uses acres of medium density multifamily as shown in the adopted 1999 Framework Plan . housing . The report uses the outcome of the land demand The proposed town center forming the forecasts to provide a basis to guide the nucleus of the updated Mountain Vista development of the proposed 2009 Framework Subarea Plan should include between 30 to Plan . The following findings represent a 50 acres of medium density multifamily summary of the more detailed report located in housing . The remaining medium density Appendix B . zoning , approximately 80 to 100 acres , should be located along the proposed ■ A 25 - to 35 - acre Community Commercial enhanced travel corridor and at major District should form the nucleus of this intersections in the subarea . subarea . A grocery store anchor will likely be The preferred Framework Plan includes the most successful at integrating a mixed - approximately 12% less land zoned for Low use town center . Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood . The loss of ■ A separate 4 to 6 - acre neighborhood center this residential designation has only a including non - residential uses is supportable marginal impact on the jobs / housing in the early years of development within Low balance . Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood zoning . A The Framework Plan map is closely aligned potential location for this additional retail with residential and commercial market development is near the intersection of Vine demand . and Lemay, adjacent to the realigned Vine Drive enhanced travel corridor . FRAMEWORK PLAN ALTERNATIVES ■ The Framework Plan includes an additional 131 acres of Employment land . This increase Staff prepared six Framework Plan alternatives will result in a 13 % increase in the existing and presented them to the public in order to land capacity of 1 , 012 acres . test various land use and transportation ■ The land demand analysis identified a small configurations . Three of the maps were unveiled shortfall in Industrial - zoned land capacity . at the open house in December; the other three The Mountain Vista Subarea provides an at the second open house in February . Overall , opportunity to correct this shortfall and the acreage of each land use did not change provide additional capacity for industrial significantly from one alternative to another . development beyond the 2030 time horizon . However , the center of the subarea tested ■ Due to the limitations imposed by the various locations for the CCD and surrounding Growth Management Area , an oversupply in residential land uses . The transportation either Employment - or Industrial - zoned land network varied with regard to the extension of realigned Vine Drive and how it connects into . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 19 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive , the West railroad companies . The proximity of this extension of Turnberry Road and Conifer Street , switching yard to at - grade railroad crossings can and the overall street network . See Appendix B impact efficient traffic flow and create safety to view the six Framework Plan alternatives . hazards and noise issues . The proposed grade - separated rail crossings will provide more Development Factors efficient and safer traffic movement at arterial street intersections in the area . Based upon the review of existing conditions , STORMWATER DRAINAGE technical analyses and extensive input from stakeholders and area residents , the following summary describes various factors affecting this The majority of the subarea falls within the subarea ' s growth and development . They are Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin , which also illustrated graphically in Figure 9 . naturally flows from the north to the southeast . The main factors that may influence EXISTING OWNERSHIP development include foodplain impacts and AND LAND USE storm drainage flows . The update to the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan include The majority of this subarea remains recommendations to mitigate these two main undeveloped , which presents an opportunity to factors by identifying implementation apply the most current City Plan concepts . improvements to existing ditch facilities , slope Overall , this subarea is under the possession of grading and constricting new regional detention approximately 30 large - parcel landowners , with Ponds within the subarea . Anheuser- Busch InBev being the largest . The Dry Creek drainage basin extends through Cooperation among the landowners concerning the southwest portion of the plan area near potential development , location of streets , and Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive . The historic Dry an overall vision for the area will influence the Creek channel daylights east of the Lake Canal success and timing of this subarea ' s and runs through the Alta Vista neighborhood , development . across Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive , and then ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL southeast through the Airpark area . A floodplain NEIGHBORHOODS exists along this historic channel , affecting new residential development areas , as well as Existing subdivisions are located to the west of existing development in the Alta Vista area botheast and west of Lemay Avenue . this subarea such as Country Club , Adrial Hills , Lindenwood , and long - established single - family The City of Fort Collins has implemented several neighborhoods such as Alta Vista and Dry Creek drainage improvement projects to AndersonviRe . This subarea ' s urban residential mitigate the impacts of the Dry Creek floodpain . densities , commercial , and employment uses A key remaining Dry Creek improvement project may impact these neighborhoods . Appropriate is the Northeast College Corridor Outfall Project and innovative design of new development will ( NECCO ) . Most of the NECCO project is located help provide a transition adjacent to existing near the North College Corridor Plan area . The neighborhoods . Furthermore , the proposed eastern portion of this project extends through transportation network will provide additional the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and will provide connections for travel between this subarea and outfall for the Dry Creek drainage . Dry Creek other destinations throughout Fort Collins . improvements include constructing a new underground culvert to intercept flows upstream EXISTING RAILROAD SWITCHING YARD of the historic channel and carry them in a pipe north of the historic Dry Creek channel . The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway ( BNSF ) Construction will not require disturbance of the switching yard is located along Vine Drive historic channel . This pipe network would between Lemay Avenue and Timberline Drive , remove the floodplain from the area , and is operated by both the BNSF and Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN EXISTING DITCHES AND CANALS TRAILS The existing irrigation ditches and canals , such This subarea provides opportunities to locate as the No . 8 Outlet Ditch , Larimer and Weld off- road multi - use trails adjacent to several Canal , and Lake Canal , serve the region 's existing ditch and canal corridors . Additional agriculture . These water corridors limit the trail segments can also be located through the ability to provide street crossings and present future school and park properties . This proposed challenges for new development . In some trail network will provide pedestrian locations , established riparian vegetation is connections between neighborhoods , schools , located along certain sections of these corridors the commercial center, and employment areas , providing important wildlife habitat . The and also connect to existing trail facilities in ditches and canals can be incorporated into both Fort Collins and Larimer County . Trails future developments , but natural area buffers throughout this subarea will be designed to and water flow must be accommodated . Future respect sensitive natural areas and corridors . off- street multi - use trails must be coordinated with the ditch providers and new development VIEWS to establish access within these properties . This subarea offers impressive views of the foothills and mountains . Opportunities exist to configure road alignments and developments to maintain scenic vistas and corridors . _ - GATEWAYS North of the Highway 14 / East Mulberry Corridor , the Mountain Vista Drive / 1 - 25 Interchange 4 f. provides an important gateway into northeast ` � v4 Fort Collins , and one of five key gateways into ' �- the community . New development standards .. - should be created to strengthen this gateway .5� and the subarea ' s image and identity . Current view of the No. 8 Ditch . FUTURE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT NATURAL AREAS The 1999 Plan designated most of the Anheuser6usch - InBev property for employment The 1999 Plan includes two primary natural and industrial uses to help ensure long - term areas located within the Upper Cooper Slough employment growth for Fort Collins . While the and Dry Creek drainage areas . These two natural existing overall inventory of vacant land for areas consist of native grasslands and wetlands , future industrial and employment uses is and provide wildlife habitat . In addition , sufficient for the projected long - term build - out , several existing man - made ditch and canal this large business center in the subarea is drainage corridors are also located within the uniquely situated in the market compared to area . Portions of these corridors contain other similar properties within the Growth riparian tree and shrub vegetation , which Management Area . This location has close supports wildlife movement and habitat . access to 1 - 25 , provides railroad access , and offers large vacant parcels for potential development . Compatibility with residential areas and this business center is important . Transit connections should also be provided to serve this employment destination with other destinations in Fort Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 21 MnUNTA1N VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 9 - Development Factors Map The No. 8 Ditch, a deep channel filled with debris, may limit new street ■ ■ ■ ■ connections. ■ Mountain views This area's 1 ,500 acres of Proposed ditch upgrades �� should la vacant land enables this like grading , greenery and play a plan 's vision to start from trails would enhance this starring role in area. design of this area's the ground up. development and streets. Compatibility between The County's standards industrial and residential for lower density _ areas is a primary neighborhoods are concern of the brewery. different than the City's , J and create a lack of Richards Lake R� street connections. — The proposed Compatibility between i business center existing and new will provide long- neighborhoods can be term job growth enhanced with quality u, for the whole ❑ community. design . M0 M 3 By adding landscaping and trail connections, This wetland should be Mountain these regional protected to provide wildlife Vista Dr detention ponds habitat and open lands. could enhance this area. Dry Creek Floodplain limits new residential jz These ponds and development. J their drainage St , requirements may delay new area development. Extension of Reali d , Vine Dr ■ E ■ ■ r is Overhead power lines may impact location of new neighborhoods. This intersection, The railroad The Plummer School is an important historic rated F for failing , switching yard landmark, but may limit widening of the experiences daily limits widening intersection at Vine/Timberline. delays during peak of Vine and is a traffic. barrier to new Legend north/south , streets. ■ ■ Growth Management Area Grade - Separated Rail Crossing - — Power Line Regional Detention Pond Trail Water Railroad Streets Natural Areas/ Ditch Corridors Study Area Park and Ride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN The Plummer School - 2524 East Vine Drive The Plummer School is one of only two historic rural schools in Larimer County . Built in 1906 , the school is listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Places , and is a rare example of a two - story rural schoolhouse . It remained open as a school until 1960 . Due to the significance of this property , future widening of the existing Vine Drive is limited at this location . The Hope Sykes Home and Plummer Station - 2600 East Vine Drive Overhead power lines may impact new development. The address , 2600 East Vine Drive , is the former home of the late Hope Sykes , author of Second OVERHEAD POWER LINES Hoeing , an influential book on the difficult lives of sugar beet workers in the Fort Collins area . This subarea includes a major overhead power This book was an important part of changing the transmission line extending east / west between child labor laws in Colorado . She wrote Second Lemay Avenue and 1 - 25 . This facility has an Hoeing while living here , and it was published in existing 75 - foot wide utility easement 1935 . Mrs . Sykes and her husband , Howard W . underneath the power lines , limiting adjacent Sykes , built this home in 1925 . She worked as a development . Despite this mandated setback , second grade teacher at the Plummer School , opportunities remain for neighborhood located across the street . The building is likely development and parallel road connections near eligible for listing on The National Register of the power line . Similar developments occur Historic Places and the Colorado State Register throughout Fort Collins where power lines exist . of Historic Places . HISTORIC PROPERTIES Alta Vista Neighborhood - Vine Drive/Lemay Avenue While the Alta Vista Neighborhood is outside of the Plan area , its adjacent location is important to coordinate any potential changes to the area as part of the update . The Alta Vista neighborhood contains the northernmost collection of historic adobe structures in North America . This culturally and historically important neighborhood is one of the original groups of residences associated with the former sugar beet industry in Fort Collins , which was prosperous from the turn of the century through World War 11 . The neighborhood is eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmark, and a contender for both the National Register of Plummer School at 2524 East Vine Drive. Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS 23 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN CHAPTER 3 VISION : 1 Introduction � - City Plan ' s vision focuses on what our community will be like in the future . The City ' s yjI�IIIII�I vision is to channel growth into positive community development . Therefore , our community will have a compact land use r " pattern , consisting of a primary , vital downtown and other supporting districts that serve as focal points and centers of activity, and a variety of Harvest, located in southeast Fort Collins, is a newer pleasant residential neighborhoods and places example of a low density mixed- use neighborhood. linked by inviting streetscapes , walkways and open lands . NEIGHBORHOODS The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 's vision The subarea ' s new residential neighborhoods reinforces and demonstrates the intent of City will provide a variety of housing types in many Plan while addressing more area - specific issues price ranges . Neighborhoods will be mixed - use , associated with the northeast quadrant of Fort allowing residents to meet daily needs at Collins . The vision describes this subarea ' s convenient locations close to home such as general overall development scenario in the nearby shopping , work , schools , and recreation future , about twenty years out . This vision areas . These new and existing neighborhoods reflects a desired outcome , or map , in charting will be connected by a network of streets and the course to realizing the plan . Building on this trails that provide opportunities for social vision , the next steps to achieve the Plan interaction , and are designed to be attractive , include developing more specific principles and safe , and pedestrian - oriented . policies , which will then form the foundation for implementation . Plan Vision F This subarea will be an integral part of Fort Collins , functioning as an extension of the greater community as new growth takes form . This subarea will be an area of Fort Collins known for its impressive views of the mountains -_ and recognized for its successful and innovative - community design . This subarea will be distinct and attractive with a comfortable , town - like atmosphere that residents and businesses identify with and take pride in . Neighborhoods , Example of a Community Commercial District. parks , schools , shopping district and business centers within this subarea will be connected COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and served by a variety of travel choices including vehicle , transit , bicycle , and The Community Commercial District will form pedestrian modes . The additional statements the primary commercial destination , centrally that follow are facets or subsets of the overall located to serve nearby neighborhoods , the vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - VISION 25 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN future school , and employment center within groves . This subarea ' s existing natural areas will this subarea . be preserved to protect these important natural resources and amenities for the community . This The Community Commercial District ( CCD ) subarea will have a variety of parks and design will focus on a small town - like pattern of recreation facilities , linked by a network of streets and blocks supporting a high level of green infrastructure . pedestrian activity . The CCD will integrate a mix of uses such as retail shops , restaurants , offices , above - ground residential living , ` supporting civic services , and inviting public spaces to gather . This district will have direct - a access to surrounding areas by a network of multi - modal streets and trails for convenient access . The CCD will also serve as the public 4 transit hub for this subarea , with connections to the downtown and other transit corridors . EMPLOYMENT & INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS This subarea's major employment and industrial districts will combine a variety of business types and sizes allowing for a range of area job View of natural area north of Vine Drivel west of opportunities for this area , community and Timberline Road. region by establishing a major business center in northeast Fort Collins . The employment center COMMUNITY APPEARANCE will be designed to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer is established between The overall design and appearance of this residential uses and the business center . subarea will be visually appealing . The design Workplaces and supporting residential uses will and image the Mountain Vista Drive gateway will be arranged to encourage car- pooling , transit , reflect a quality and inviting entryway into the and other modes of travel . community . This subarea ' s public streets will be well designed with attractive landscaping , TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM signage and lighting . Building design will utilize high quality, local materials , finishes and The transportation network in this subarea will innovative forms to reflect a quality built provide access , mobility , and connectivity for all environment . Residential , commercial , and travel modes . Residents , businesses , and visitors business developments will incorporate a well - will have a choice of traveling via automobile , balanced and integrated landscape design walking , bicycling and transit . Key connections enhancing buildings , streets , and parking areas . for all travel modes will be provided between the Community Commercial District , Employment and Industrial Districts , Community Park , and other activity centers . The transportation network in this subarea will also emphasize connections to other destinations in Fort Collins and neighboring communities . NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN LANDS Residents and visitors to this subarea will enjoy the amenities provided by the natural environment , including existing irrigation ditches and canals , creeks , wetlands and tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CHAPTER 3 - VISION MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN C HAPTE R 4 Buffer and Transition Between Industrial and Residential Land Uses . FRAMEWORK PLAN The 1999 Framework Plan established an approximate 1/z - mile separation between the Anheuser- Bush InBev brewery and residential Introduction uses to the west . Representatives of ABI requested increasing this separation between City Plan addresses community- wide issues and uses by expanding the Employment District . This a long - term vision , which emphasizes compact increase will remove previously designated urban form , with "Activity Centers " in transit- residential uses from ABI property and extend served areas , and an interconnected system of the buffer to approximately one mile . The open lands . The Mountain Vista Framework Plan objective of this recommendation is to reduce supports these community- wide concepts at a incompatible uses , strengthen the buffer and more detailed neighborhood level for this transition between uses , and provide a larger specific part of the city . The Framework Plan business center in this subarea . will be incorporated directly into the overall City Structure Plan , which is part of City Plan . Future Community Park The project team assessed a variety of options The centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea for the location and size of the future Plan is a Framework Plan . This "framework" Community Park . A shared objective of both the represents an integrated pattern of existing and City's Parks Planning Department and Poudre future land use , transportation system , and School District is to co - locate the school site network of open lands , all combined into a with the future park to maximize facility- sharing composite map establishing a guide for growth opportunities . Discussion with area land owners in this subarea . Key building blocks include adjacent to the school site has led to a existing and new residential neighborhoods , preferred location and size similar to the 1999 schools , parks , commercial centers , business Plan . The current alignment of Mountain Vista center , and network of open lands . These Drive would be impacted by the location of a destinations will be linked by a system of portion of the park south of this street . transportation corridors serving vehicular, transit , bicycle and pedestrian travel that Size and Location of Community Commercial provide a high level of connectivity , internally District and to other destinations throughout the The 1999 Plan included an 80 - acre Community community . Commercial District . At that time the land use market analysis recommended support for a This chapter is organized into three main combination of neighborhood and regional retail sections including land use , transportation and uses . The updated analysis suggests market open lands . The majority of this chapter relates support for a smaller center focusing more on to a comparison of the 1999 and 2009 neighborhood - oriented retail and a mix of other Framework Plans . uses . As part of the planning process , the project team assessed different locations for Land Use this district . KEYISSUES The following land use issues were specifically addressed in the framework plan alternatives analysis as part of the planning process . The project team reviewed each of these issues both separately and as they pertain to the overall Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Fort Collins at large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 27 MnUNTA1N VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 10 - 1999 Framework Plan qr • � �. , �.. . is Richards Lake Rd MIN& awn Long Pondk, 1 1 f - _ I Moun in -i ■ A - ■. fLi It Conifer St d P► : v4Vine Dr Age" y v Legend Land Use Streets Other Features . Community Commercial Local Road ■ o Mountain Vista Grade - Separated Rail Crossing (CC ) % Subarea Boundary Employment ( E ) Collector - — Power Line Regional Detention Pond Industrial ( 1 ) 2- Lane Arterial Trail Low Density Mixed - Water Use Neighborhood ( LMN )Medium Density Mixed - 4- Lane Arterial tt+++i Railroad Use Neighborhood ( MMN ) _ Natural Areas/ Ditch Corridors School ( PSD) = Interstate 25 ='='Enhanced Travel Corridor Community Park ( POL ) Growth Management Area Park and Ride 0 2 . 500 5 , 000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 11 - 2009 Framework Plan , wool - � w40 S SIN Richards Lake Rd i � N Long Pond ` � 1 H Mountain � ." Vista Dr kF, - Conifer StT d Extension of Realigned Vine DrLE a .• a, ;� Ar ..- d ti -..• . Vine Dr -- -a -W f- - Legend Land Use Streets Other Features Community Commercial ( CC ) Local Road 0 Mountain Vista � � Subarea Boundary Grade - Separated Rail Crossing Employment ( E )Industrial ( I ) Collector _ . — Power Line Regional Detention Pond Low Density Mixed - = 2- Lane Arterial Trail Use Neighborhood ( LMN ) Water Medium Density Mixed - 4- Lane Arterial Railroad Use Neighborhood ( MMN ) Natural Areas/ Ditch Corridors School ( PSD) = Interstate 25 — -'Enhanced Travel Corridor Community Park ( POL ) Growth Management Area Flo Park and Ride ZA0 2 , 500 5 , 000 mommoc:z��� Feet For a larger version of this map , please see the Plan Summary , a separate document , at fcgov . com / advanceplanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 29 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Can This Subarea Support Additional 2009 Framework Plan Commercial Centers? During the alternatives analysis , a few land Land Uses owners requested designating additional commercial centers adjacent to the proposed As part of the update process that started in realigned Vine Dr , separate from the Community March 2008 , a number of adjustments are Commercial District location . The new market proposed to the 1999 Framework Plan . The 2009 analysis shows support for an additional small Framework Plan includes changes to land uses center that would not compete with the larger and the transportation network . Community Commercial location . The project team does not believe rezoning is warranted , as The adjustments result from comparing and this type of small center can be approved analyzing numerous alternative ideas for the through the existing Low and Medium Density future pattern of streets and land uses . Between Mixed - Use Neighborhoods standards described in the fall of 2008 and March 2009 , six alternatives the Land Use Code . were developed to test various land use and transportation options . Certain components of Amount and Location of Medium Density the initial alternatives were combined into the Mixed - Use Neighborhood (MMN ) Framework Plan . The Framework Plan is based The 1999 Plan includes 145 acres of MMN located on extensive public input , Boards and adjacent the Community Commercial District . Commission feedback, City Council direction , The project team received a request from a and consultant analysis throughout the planning local land owner to reduce the amount of MMN , process . and by other owners to increase MMN along the Enhanced Travel Corridor . Updated market A comparison between the land use acreages in analysis suggests these changes can be the 1999 and 2009 Framework Plans are supported by redistributing and increasing the summarized in Figure 12 . amount of MMN at key arterial street intersections ( 104 acres ) , and reducing the Figure 12 - Framework Plan Map Comparison amount of MMN within walking distance to the SOURCE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, GIS commercial center to 40 acres . � a� � v Provide More Options to Allow a Variety of a U Housing Types in Area � E � osE � Representatives of the Moore family , a M o prominent land owner in the Mountain Vista Land Use U. °- subarea , have requested a change within the Community Commercial 78 30 Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Zoning for their property . Justification for this change is to Employment 530 661 allow more choices for single - family housing Industrial 309 457 types and lot sizes than what current standards Low Density Mixed - Use allow for . The project team believes the Neighborhood 1 , 480 17298 objectives of this request can be accomplished Mixed - utilizing current standards . Medium Density Mixed - 145 144 Use Neighborhood Maintain Jobs/Housing Balance City-Wide Park 110 110 The 1999 Framework Plan recommendations School 108 108 resulted in a city- wide jobs / housing balance of Water Features / Ditch 1 . 5 jobs per housing unit . The 2009 Framework Corridors / Natural Areas 229 101 Plan results in an increase to this ratio of 1 . 56 . This is still within the desired threshold Regional Detention 0 80 identified in the City Plan Monitoring Report . Pond Total 21989 21989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN In the 1999 Framework Plan , mapping calculations did not include a category for water features , ditch corridors and natural areas - • together . As part of the 2009 Framework Plan , a e e new mapping calculations have adjusted the R 1999 Framework Plan to provide an accurate comparison . As shown in Figure 12 , the acreage for this category shows a decrease of 128 acres in the proposed 2009 Framework Plan , from an initial total of 229 acres . No natural areas or other natural resource lands were removed ; the mapping boundaries for each type were first recalculated to more accurately compare both Framework Plans . As a result , the 2009 —! Framework Plan shows 101 acres of water features ( streams and canals ) , irrigation ditch corridors and natural areas (wetlands ) . - MIXED - USE NEIGHBORHOODS Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood ( LMN ) t represents the largest land use in the Framework Plan ( 1 , 298 acres ) . These -- � neighborhoods will provide for the majority of future residential growth in northeast Fort Collins . The character of these neighborhoods reflects a variety of housing types , predominantly single - family , with supporting Examples of LMN (top) and MMN neighborhood parks , schools , trails , and open lands with a (bottom) . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 31 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 13 -Community Commercial District Concept "Main Street " Medium density aligned to views multi - family of Longs Peak residential Low density mixed - use Mid - sized grocery residential anchored shopping Supporting retail pads ��_ __ - � ` ` ^ - - Community park multi - use trail ,• kH r� ` tie underpass Community park rr Mixed - use for live /work units Potential hotel Pedestrian - oriented "Main Street" and supporting with supporting commercial / civic commercial uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 14 - Community Commercial District Diagram Potential hotel and supporting commercial !�— %W %loww Community park multi - use trail "r underpass to CCD r Potential civic uses such as a branch library ���ILL::: ,,,;;;���,,, i a ti Grocery anchor t ,¢ Employment • r - ��y`3 office park Both Mountain Vista Drive and "Main • r / Street " aligned southwest to — v � mountain views � •• ` III m to I � � ® Potential live/work units O .\ ff ter• LEGEND OOQ Single-Family Residential OQ Multi-Family Residential OQO Mixed- Use Commercial DOOOo � Mixed-Use Office o DO a a o LJ J l Civic - Employment © EDAW AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 33 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood embedded in this larger Community Commercial (MMN ) District . The MMN is concentrated adjacent to the Community Commercial District (40 acres ) , Second , this district is intended to have room for central to this subarea , and adjacent to the a secondary mid - size commercial anchor such as Enhanced Travel Corridors . The MMN designation a hotel or drug store , or another similar use to is intended to be a place for predominantly serve northeast Fort Collins . ( Note that such attached , multi - family housing within easy anchor uses are expected to be able to fit into walking distance of transit and the Community the pattern of street fronts and blocks , with Commercial District . The MMN designation will parking lots located away from the connecting form a transition and a link between the street frontages , thus avoiding auto - oriented surrounding lower density neighborhoods and uses dominated by its parking lots and traffic . ) 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 . t000 ,r For the MMN designation adjacent to existing Vine Drive / Timberline Road , a special provision should be allowed for certain non - residential _.^..... uses , similar to the existing standard in the Land 4 so was Use Code LMN District . This provision would No f ■■ ■■■■, . ® • on son • ■■me, WIRA now on allow for a buffer and separation from the rail � .. Igloo Q � . � ' ■ � a switching yard , and the future grade - separated � ■ lm INS crossing at Vine Drive / Timberline Road . Community Commercial District (CCD ) The CCD is a community- based destination , but serving primarily northeast Fort Collins , encompassing between 25- 35 acres in size ( see Figures 13 and 14 ) . In the 1999 Framework Plan , the CCD was 78 acres in size and was 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 1 - 25 Corridor. As a result , the revised size of the CCD is approximately 30 acres . This is intended to be an adequate amount of land for such a district to accommodate multiple neighborhood - oriented needs and purposes . Several factors Examples of commercial mixed use buildings. lead to developing this unique commercial center . Third , this district is intended to include a generous mix of neighborhood oriented uses First , this district needs to include a mid - size including retail shops , services , offices , housing , grocery anchor ( 60 , 000 square feet ) to serve and civic uses . To summarize , this district is not northeast Fort Collins . This is expected to be intended to be a typical 30 - acre commercial most viable if a typical 10 - to 15 - acre grouping development . For example , it is intended to be of uses supporting a grocery anchor is a unique , " mini - downtown " area incorporating accommodated . In other words , room for a mixed - use buildings with ground floor retail and " Neighborhood Commercial District , " as above ground level office and residential living described in City Plan and the Land Use Code , is units , as well as public gathering spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Fourth , the district will have sections of local Future Poudre School District ( PSD ) Schools streets within the block pattern to reflect a In 1998 , the Poudre School District acquired " main street " character with buildings facing approximately 108 acres of land located the street , on - street parking and wide sidewalks northeast of Mountain Vista Drive and for maximizing pedestrian activity and Timberline Road . The future programming circulation . This CCD will have a transit hub needs for PSD for this property are projected to linked to downtown by a high frequency transit include a K- 12 campus , combining elementary, corridor along a new arterial street ( the junior high , and high school facilities . PSD is extension of realigned Vine Drive ) , and along very supportive of the City collaborating to Timberline Road connecting to Harmony Road to locate the future community park adjacent to the south . The CCD overall street pattern is the school , thus maximizing opportunities to aligned to take advantage of long - distance views share facilities such as access , parking , athletic of the mountains . fields and some utilities . Industrial/Employment Districts Mountain Vista Drive Gateway The existing Anheuser- Busch InBev brewery The Mountain Vista Drive / 1 - 25 Interchange is an establishes the core of future industrial use in important entryway for northeast Fort Collins . the northeast . With future expansion of the Currently , this corridor is a 2 - lane street . brewery and new industry locating adjacent to Future traffic forecasting indicates this street the brewery , this Industrial District is easily will need to be expanded to a 4 - lane arterial accessed from the interstate , Mountain Vista street . A few strategies have been implemented Drive and the BNSF Railway ' s mainline and spur over the past ten years to support this gateway tracks . The Framework Plan shows about 457 area . acres of Industrial , an increase of 148 acres compared to the 1999 Plan . The location of the First , implementation actions after the adoption Industrial District is separated from the of the 1999 plan included adding new standards Mountain Vista Drive frontage to buffer this in the Land Use Code establishing setbacks for more intense manufacturing use from the light residential uses of 1 , 320 feet , and setbacks for manufacturing and office uses within the secondary uses of 1 , 445 feet from the centerline Employment areas . In doing so , the Mountain of 1 - 25 . These standards allow for a focus of Vista Drive gateway corridor overall appearance primary uses adjacent to the interchange areas is enhanced by incorporating higher quality versus allowing for incompatible and auto - development typical of Employment uses . oriented uses in these locations . The future Employment District is primarily Second , in both the 1999 Plan and in this Plan , located within the Giddings Road and Mountain Employment land use is located on both sides of Vista Drive corridors , with direct access to Mountain Vista Drive west of 1 - 25 . This is similar Mountain Vista Drive and 1 - 25 . This updated plan to the Employment lands along Harmony corridor includes 661 acres of Employment , reflecting an and East Prospect . This land use is preferred for increase of 131 acres from the 1999 plan . The establishing a foundation for more attractive , Employment lands will provide both a buffer and quality development at primary entryways . transition between the more intense ABI Future action strategies may include establishing industrial operations and the existing and new new standards for setbacks outside of the residential neighborhoods to the west . arterial street right - of-way, building architecture design , streetscape , and entry Combined , both the Employment and Industrial features . Districts will provide 1 , 118 acres of future development , establishing a large future Jobs to Housing Balance business center for northeast Fort Collins . As part of the Plan update , the Framework Plan Demand for this type of growth is not expected map has incorporated certain adjustments to the in the short term ; full build - out of these uses is land use designations from the 1999 map , all anticipated near the year 2030 . with an objective of maintaining an appropriate city -wide balance of jobs / housing units . In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 35 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN particular , staff continued to assess the as a preferred or ideal number . In comparison , potential impacts of the recommended the state-wide ratio is 1 . 7 jobs per housing unit . expansion of Industrial and Employment , and Boulder is considerably higher with a ratio of resulting reduction of Low Density Mixed - Use 2 . 1 . Comparative numbers from either Greeley Neighborhoods designations on the balance of or Loveland are not available . Historically from residential and non - residential uses . As a result 1997- 2007 , the Fort Collins ratio has remained of these changes , the targeted city-wide balance relatively constant at around 1 . 4- 1 . 6 . is still maintained . As a result , the projected 1 . 56 ratio reflects a The rationale for determining an appropriate healthy and desired level . The current ratio is balance of jobs to housing is based on direction projected to remain at about 1 . 5 to full build - from City Plan policies : out of the Growth Management Area based on population and employment estimates . " ECON - 1 . 4 Jobs / Housing Balance . The City will strive to ensure that a reasonable balance In comparing the land uses between the 1999 between employment and housing is maintained Framework Plan map and the proposed 2009 as well as a balance between basic and non - map , about 1 , 625 acres of residential land and basic jobs . The primary intent is to create a 1 , 364 acres of non - residential land are shown in relative balance between the wages generated the existing 1999 map . The proposed 2009 map by various types of employment and housing shows about 1 , 442 acres of residential , and prices . " 1 , 467 acres of non - residential , resulting in a closer balance of land uses . The jobs / housing balance is a tool often used to determine whether a community has an Population and Employment Projections adequate number of jobs available to provide The projected population for the Mountain Vista employment for all its residents seeking Subarea , based on this update , is 13 , 347 . Both employment . A ratio of less than 1 . 0 means the 1999 plan and City Plan projected 17 , 161 for residents must commute outside the area for this area , at full build - out in approximately employment while a ratio of greater than 1 . 0 2030 . In comparison city- wide , this equates to a means workers employed within the area population change from 229 , 792 , to 225 , 978 . generally reside outside the jurisdictional This difference of about 3 , 814 people is minor in boundaries and commute inwards . the context of the whole city given the variables and assumptions involved . Staff believes this is The meaning of the jobs / housing balance can still consistent with City Plan 's overall vision for often be overstated . In reality, many of the accommodating the population forecast upon factors influencing this measure are driven by which it is generally based . market forces beyond the control of the local community . These market forces include This updated plan projects 15 , 065 jobs at full housing prices , housing preference , build - out , an increase of 3 , 340 jobs in competitiveness of local businesses , local and comparison to the 1999 plan . Based on this state fiscal policy , and job availability . Instead , projection , there will be a change from 142 , 699 the measure is more useful for evaluating the to 146 , 039 jobs within the Fort Collins Growth overall character of a community as either a Management Area . bedroom community or an employment center . Under the 1999 plan , this Plan area , at full Transportation build - out , has a projected jobs - housing ratio of Multi - modal transportation needs in this subarea 1 . 5 jobs per housing unit city-wide . In the are vitally connected to city, county and updated 2009 Framework Plan , the jobs - housing regional transportation systems . The multi - ratio is 1 . 56 . This small increase will have a modal transportation network and land uses in marginal impact on the forecasted ratio city- this subarea were planned in conjunction with wide . A common recognized ratio in the each other . This update process included 2035 planning profession is 1 . 5 jobs per housing unit travel demand modeling by LSA Associates , Inc . , 36 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN transportation planning review by City staff and recommended Conifer Street extends east Felsburg , Holt , and Ulevig , coordination with the towards Timberline Drive . The extension , Colorado Motor Carriers Association , public input although a different alignment to accommodate from city and county residents , business and the high - tension power lines , is consistent with community groups , and review by various City the original intent . boards and commissions and City Council . Turnberry Road Extension The recommended improvements are consistent The project team heard extensive input both in with the street classifications in the City ' s favor and opposed to extending Turnberry Road Master Street Plan , and are projected to south to Conifer Street . The 1999 Plan did operate at the levels of service defined in the include an extension of Turnberry Road south to City ' s Multi-Modal Level of Service Manual . The Vine Drive . A parallel collector street was also revised Master Street Plan will reflect changes proposed in an effort to reduce traffic along approved as part of this Plan . Turnberry Road . This street was partially constructed through the Lind and Maple Hill KEY ISSUES developments , and has been incorporated into preliminary planning by Poudre School District . The following transportation issues were specifically addressed in the alternatives Realigned Vine Drive analysis . The project team reviewed each of The project team examined a number of these issues both separately and as they pertain potential alignments for Vine Drive between to this subarea and Fort Collins at large . Lemay and Timberline . A realignment has the potential to be more cost effective and have Refined Street Network less impacts than expanding the existing 2 - lane The alternatives analysis included analyzing street to a 4 - lane arterial street . Expansion of ways to refine the area ' s existing street the existing Vine Drive is limited due to the network. This included the location and number adjacent railroad tracks and switching yard to of arterial and collector- level streets . The the south . The Andersonville and Alta Vista refinements attempted to maintain multi - modal neighborhoods also prevent future expansion of connectivity , access , and capacity for all travel the intersection at Vine Drive and Lemay modes while responding to land use and other Avenue . In addition , several existing homes and proposed changes . The 1999 Plan included an the historic Plummer School are located on the extensive street network, particularly collector- north side of existing Vine Drive near Timberline level streets . Travel demand modeling , review Road . The proposed extension of realigned Vine by City Transportation staff and consultants , and Drive would also delay the need for an expensive extensive public input were all part of the grade - separated crossing at Timberline Road by alternatives analysis process . Additional local increasing traffic capacity and route choice in streets , constructed at the time of the immediate area . development , are not included in the Master Street Plan . These streets must comply with the In order to mitigate the impact of these issues , connectivity and design standards in the Fort the Framework Plan includes an extension of Collins Land Use Code and the Lorimer County realigned Vine Drive from Lemay Avenue to Urban Area Street Standards. Timberline Road . The magnitude of these existing conditions , input from area property Conifer Street Extension owners and the general public , the 2005 With the Vine Drive realignment , Conifer Street Northside Neighborhoods Plan , and the positive would provide a connection to existing Vine impact on the timing of infrastructure Drive east of Timberline and provide additional construction provides support for realignment of connectivity in this subarea ' s western portion , this important east / west street connection . The location of the high - tension power lines and the ability to develop north of these lines requires adequate road connections to serve future development . The 1999 Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 37 MnUNTA1N VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 15 - Enhanced Travel Corridor Examples 10 r0 ,o•-0' e'-0' ,r0 10 ,r-0 ,e -dWW u'-V W l ,r-0' ,e' o• 12 -0' tr-d Ir-e ,d-a r-W woe lot W09 r ■ ■ ■ I i e'-0' 8'-0' ld-0' ,r-0' 129-0' ,r-0' 1B'-0' 12'-0' 12'-0• 12'-0• 10'-e 8'-0• 8'-0• WOE Wot WOE log lot Wof Wot 1WFE ` r-W Wot W-T ,r0 9-V Wof g-0 ,r-0' ,r-r WFE19'-0 1 10 ,r-W Ot ,ram Wif r-r 9-T woe ,r-r WOE 104' of 1-0 mr-0• Enhanced Travel Corridors Both City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan identify four Enhanced Travel Corridors ( ETC ) in Fort Collins . These corridors include the Mason Corridor , Harmony Road , Timberline Road , and North College / Conifer Street . The purpose of these corridors is to provide multi - modal connections between key activity centers and access to high frequency transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities . Figure 15 above includes three options for integrating transit , bike , and pedestrian facilities into an arterial street cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Grade-Separated Crossings of the Mountain Vista / North College Enhanced Colorado Public Utilities Commission ( PUC ) Travel Corridor connecting Downtown , North regulations stipulate that grade - separated College Avenue , and Mountain Vista , crossings are required for all future 4- lane arterial streets . This requirement is subject to The alignment in the 1999 Plan did not take the review by the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe location of high - tension power lines into Railway ' s grade - separated crossing standards . account . The power lines are owned by the As a result , this Plan includes grade - separated Platte River Power Authority and cross the crossings at three locations : Lemay Avenue and entire subarea . The street alignment is now existing Vine Drive , Timberline Road and existing consistent with current City standards and utility Vine Drive , and Mountain Vista Drive . The cost locations . and timing of these crossings are addressed in the infrastructure financing and implementation There is on - going public concern about the analysis . extension of Conifer Street adversely impacting noise levels , air quality, and attracting Off- Street Trails additional traffic . Additionally, many residents The Parks Et Recreation Policy Plan lays out an expressed opinions both in favor and against the extensive network of off- street trails for the extension . Travel demand modeling projected community . The 2008 Bicycle Plan recommends between 7 , 000 and 8 , 000 daily trips along off- street trails consistent with the Parks Et Conifer Street between Lemay Avenue and Recreation Policy Plan . While the 1999 Timberline Road . As such , the street is classified Framework Plan located segments of off- street as a 2 - lane arterial ( two travel lanes with a trails near existing natural areas , a key issues center turn lane ) on the Master Street Plan . As for this update is to relocate these trail the adjacent areas develop , Conifer Street will alignments away from important natural serve new residences and provide an important features . connection as part of the larger street network . The City wants to ensure adequate street , TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CHANGES bicycle lane , and sidewalk connections as part of this plan . Refined Street Network The project team analyzed ways to refine this Turnberry Road Extension subarea ' s existing street network . This included Similar concerns and public input have been the location and overall number of arterial and received about an extension of Turnberry Road . collector- level streets . The 1999 Plan included The 1999 Plan included both an extension south an extensive street network , particularly to Vine Drive and a new parallel collector street collector- level streets . The alternatives to the east . This new collector street was analysis , including travel demand modeling , intended to relieve traffic pressure on Turnberry indicated the projected traffic volumes can be Road . accommodated on the proposed street network . The refinements attempt to maintain multi - Area residents must currently use Turnberry modal connectivity , access , and capacity while Road to access 1 - 25 directly via Mountain Vista responding to land use and other proposed Drive . The extension of Country Club Drive changes . Additional local streets , constructed ( included in both the 1999 and 2009 Plans ) will at the time of development , are not included in provide additional route choices . Based on these the travel demand model or Master Street Plan . additional route choices , projected travel demand , and the disproportionate impact of an Conifer Street Extension extension on nearby residences , no extension of The 1999 Plan includes an extension of Conifer Turnberry Road is recommended in this plan . Street as a 2 - lane arterial street from Lemay Avenue to east of Timberline Road . Conifer Extension of Realigned Vine Drive Street now ends at Timberline Road instead of The 1999 Plan included a realignment of Vine extending into the Community Commercial Drive between College and Lemay . This District . The extension was also deemed part alignment was coordinated with development , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 39 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN existing neighborhoods , and existing and other destinations within this subarea and Fort planned utility corridors . This alignment is also Collins . supported in the 2005 Northside Neighborhoods Plan . The 2009 Plan extends this realignment Enhanced Travel Corridors one mile east to Timberline Road to mitigate the Residents and businesses have long advocated impact of the existing alignment on residents , for better mobility within northeast Fort Collins neighborhoods , the railroad , and historic and to the rest of the community . This subarea , structures . a key growth area within the City ' s Growth Management Area , is steadily developing with 4- Lane Arterial Street Connectivity residences and businesses . City Plan , The alignments and intersection of Vine Drive , Transportation Master Plan , North College Timberline Road , and Mountain Vista Drive are Corridor Plan , and both the 1999 and 2009 similar to the 1999 Plan . Several alignment Plans examined this issue . A common adjustments were made to address changes in recommendation from all of these plans was an the location and size of the community park and enhanced travel corridor to serve increased Community Commercial District . housing and jobs . Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive were The 1999 Plan included North College Avenue slightly realigned to accommodate the new and Conifer Street as ETCs to serve existing and location and size of the community park and planned residences , jobs , and entertainment . Community Commercial District . This alignment The ETC also provided a direct connection to the also takes advantage of existing and planned Mason Corridor . utility corridors developed in the 1999 Plan . The 2009 Plan shifts a portion of the ETC from Off- Street Bicycle Trails Conifer Street to realigned Vine Drive . This The bicycle and off- street trail systems are change allows greater coordination with major taken directly from the Parks Et Recreation utilities , takes advantage of supportive land uses Policy Plan . In addition , all new streets will have ( higher- density housing , pedestrian - oriented on - street bicycle lanes and detached sidewalks commercial center ) , and provides more direct per the Larimer County Urban Area Street access to jobs . The Mountain Vista / North Standards . Existing streets are typically College ETC would also connect to the planned retrofitted along with reconstruction , overlay , Timberline / Power Trail ETC . This ETC would not or general maintenance projects whenever only provide better mobility in northeast Fort possible . The 2008 Bicycle Plan , based on the Collins , but could enable regional connections to 1999 Plan , is still used for policy and program surrounding communities . support . Several neighborhood parks are slated for construction in the next five years , as well as Grade- Separated Crossings on - going trail work in northeast Fort Collins . This Plan recommends three grade - separated railroad crossings in the same location as the Transit Service 1999 Plan . No major changes are proposed . The recently adopted Transit Strategic Plan Right - of-way for these crossings is dedicated continues transit service to this subarea in all along the southeast side of Vine and Lemay ( San three implementation phases . Enhanced Travel Cristo ) and the southeast side of Timberline and Corridor ( ETC ) service will be provided along Vine ( East Ridge ) . realigned Vine Drive via Transfort and developed in a future planning effort . This future ETC Whether each crossing will be an overpass or service is included in Phase 3 of the 2009 Transit underpass is not a part of this plan ' s update . We Strategic Plan . received extensive public input regarding this decision . The project team recommends the Any future modifications to transit service alternative designs analysis will need to include should include access to activity centers like the financial , engineering , environmental , noise , school , Community Park, Community and visual impacts at a minimum . Public input Commercial District , higher- density housing , and for each crossing indicates a strong desire for an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN underpass at Lemay and Vine to minimize visual must be an adequate street design speed to and other impacts to the Alta Vista , ensure traffic safety . Andersonville , Via Lopez , and San Cristo Neighborhoods . There was not a consensus Vine Drive - North of the Alta Vista regarding the Timberline and Mountain Vista Neighborhood crossings . Realigned Vine Drive will be located 100 feet north of the existing neighborhoods between The City ' s Engineering Department estimated College and Lemay Avenues . This alignment was the construction of realigned Vine Drive would coordinated with the Alta Vista Neighborhood , delay the need for the Timberline and Lemay utility providers , and the City prior to the 1999 grade - separated crossings . The Vine Drive Plan . At that time , the Northeast College realignment separates the street intersection Corridor Outfall ( NECCO ) project was going to be from the railroad crossing . In the short- term , an open channel with landscaping . The NECCO this would allow additional capacity at both the project is now planned as an underground intersection and crossing . Due to unresolved drainage pipe . In an effort to mitigate noise , air funding issues , this option should be a priority as quality, and visual impacts to Alta Vista , property develops and dedicates right- of- way for additional buffering should be considered along the extension of realigned Vine Drive . the south side of the Vine Drive realignment . STREET DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS DE FACTO TRUCK ROUTE CONCERNS The project team examined the subarea ' s street Over the past year, the project team has design . The Larimer County Urban Area Street examined six land use and transportation Standards are the guiding street standards for alternatives . The streets on these alternatives the City of Fort Collins . This Plan ' s ranged from a series of sharp 90 degree turns , to recommendations would not supersede the an almost straight connection from I - 25 to City ' s street standards unless they are formally College Avenue , to the same streets proposed in amended through a modification process . the 1999 Plan ( as shown on the current Master Several of these recommendations are also Street Plan ) . Each alternative was reviewed by expected to be considered as part of the update City staff, project consultants , various Boards to the Transportation Master Plan . and Commissions , City Council , and hundreds of Fort Collins residents . As part of this update Travel Lane Width process , some residents of the Lindenwood The City ' s standards include a 12 - foot lane Neighborhood expressed concerns about the width for 4- lane arterial streets . The City ' s extension of realigned Vine Drive acting as a de Traffic Engineer indicates an 11 - foot travel lane facto truck bypass route alternative to the would be acceptable from a safety perspective . existing SH 14 / US 287 designated through truck route . The project team has , and will continue Intersection Controls to address this concern . City policy states all types of intersection controls , including roundabouts , must be The project team does not believe the realigned considered and evaluated . The preferred Vine Drive will be a de facto truck bypass route . intersection control is based on providing a safe There is not a large enough speed , travel time , and efficient transportation network to serve or safety efficiency gained for truck traffic to surrounding development and short- and long - discontinue use of the SH 14 / US 287 truck route . range traffic volumes . The existing truck route provides a safe , direct , and predictable travel environment for through Street Design Speed trucks . In addition , the existing SH 14 / US 287 The design speed of a street can be adjusted designated through truck route permits vehicle based on the desired posted speed limits . weights up to 30 , 000 pounds more than on Fort Portions of realigned Vine Drive may have Collins streets . different posted speed limits which would have an impact on street design . However, these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 41 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 16 - Proposed Master Street Plan l i - i .--- --- i i i i RICHARDS LAKE RD ------ • ---gym - - \ ' Lag Pond ~ COUNTRY N ------- CLUB RD O z ■ ■ _ � 0 I � MOUNTAIN VISTA DR NN- L;edenmew Lake \ CONIFER ST j o ---------------- I I m Lann+er anC w anal j EXTENSION OF I Z REALIGNED VINE DR w •.% ' m VINE DR F- ; Legend . ■Master Street Plan Interstate .■� ■ ■ Mountain Vista Subarea Boundary Collector 2 Lanes - - - - - Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA — — j City Limits Arterial 2 Lanes ----- Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA ® Growth Management Area Arterial 4 Lanes ----- Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Railroad � - Major Arterial 6 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA ® Potential Grade-Separated Rail Crossing .� 0 21700 50400 O Potential Interchange Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN In the event truck traffic does begin using the With the previously acquired school site in realigned Vine Drive instead of the SH14 / US287 place , the final location of the park needs to be truck route , this plan recommends several determined to be able to initiate negotiations options : between the City and affected land owners for acquisition . ■ The City work with local and state law enforcement agencies to enforce weight During this update , City staff coordinated with restrictions on local roadways . Anheuser- Busch InBev (ABI ) and the Moore family ■ CDOT and the Colorado State Highway Patrol to agree on locating the 110 acres for this park conduct mobile truck weigh stations to within these two properties . As a result of these ensure compliance with weight restrictions . discussions , 80 acres of the park is located on This approach would be similar to speed ABI land adjacent to the school site , north of limit enforcement within school zones . Mountain Vista Drive . The remaining 30 - acre ■ The City post weight restriction and other portion is located on the Moore property , south signage to increase awareness of local and of Mountain Vista Drive . Negotiations for state truck traffic regulations . This could be acquisition will be initiated after adoption of the done along both the SH 14 / US 287 truck Plan . route and realigned Vine Drive . The off- street trail system shown in the The project team has been asked if all truck proposed 2009 Framework Plan represents a traffic could be banned along realigned Vine combination of paved and unpaved trails . The Drive . The local street network is intended to primary north / south trail alignment follows the serve adjacent commercial , industrial , No . 8 Ditch corridor and extends between the employment , and residential land uses and all future school and community park site . The vehicle types , including trucks . The project main east / west trail alignment is adjacent to team cannot responsibly support prohibiting existing irrigation canal and ditch alignments trucks on local streets . and overhead utility transmission line easement . All proposed trial alignments are located away Open Lands from existing wetland habitat . PARK FACILITIES Based on population projections for northeast Fort Collins and consistent with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan , there is a need for a community park , five neighborhood parks - ( between 6 - 10 acres ) , and additional trails within this subarea . While the Framework Plan does not show future neighborhood parks as part of the Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods land use designation , they will be included with development of future residential neighborhoods . The future programming needs for a community View of natural area north of Vine Drivel west of Timberline Road. park are between 100- 120 acres in size . This size park will provide a combination of active and Water Features/Ditch Corridors/Natural Areas passive recreation , a future recreation center , Protection of this subarea ' s natural areas is an including shared facilities with the adjacent important element of the Plan . This protection school . Key to the discussions in locating this future park is the need to co - locate the school is integrated into the design of land uses and and park together to maximize opportunities to street network to create a system of open lands share facilities like parking and athletic fields . to provide ample buffering from development , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN 43 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN while providing opportunities for passive DRY CREEK recreation . A portion of the Dry Creek drainage basin and The updated Framework Plan shows a total of floodplain extends through the southwest corner 101 acres of water features ( streams and of the subarea . The City did implement the Dry canals ) , irrigation ditch corridors and natural Creek Flood Control Project in north Fort Collins areas (wetlands ) . This plan includes two existing to provide a drainage outfall and reduce the natural area wetland habitats . The first is within impacts of the floodplain and storm drainage the developed Waterglen residential subdivision , flows through the area . On a more local scale northwest of 1 - 25 and Vine Drive , and part of the planning is underway for the North East College Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin . Protection Corridor Outlet ( NECCO ) project . The historic of this existing wetland area was coordinated Dry Creek channel daylights east of the Lake with Waterglen . The second wetland is located Canal and runs through the Alta Vista approximately 1/z mile northwest of Vine Drive neighborhood , across Lemay Avenue and east and Timberline Road , on private vacant land . Vine Drive and then southeast through the This wetland is within an area slated for Low Airpark area . A floodplain exists along this Density Mixed - Use neighborhoods , and near the historic channel , affecting new development proposed extension of realigned Vine Drive . areas , as well as existing development in the Based on preliminary analysis , City staff kept Alta Vista area both east and west of Lemay Vine Drive ' s proposed realignment outside of the Avenue . The NECCO project is proposed to buffer area of this wetland . intercept flows upstream of the historic channel and carry them in a pipe north of the historic Other riparian habitat exists along the banks of Dry Creek channel . Construction will not require some of the existing irrigation ditch and canal disturbance of the historic channel . This pipe alignments and along portions of the Dry Creek . network would remove the floodplain from the These riparian habitats include groupings of area . ( See Chapter 6 Implementation for shrub and tree vegetation , providing important projects related to the Dry Creek habitat for wildlife movement and shelter . Improvements ) . Stormwater UPPER COOPER SLOUGH In June 2006 , the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan was updated . The master plan reflects collaborative discussions with the Anheuser- Busch InBev (ABI ) brewery and affected property owners within the basin . The Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan recommends mitigation for floodplain damage , infrastructure improvements to existing ditch and canals , and regional detention ponds . The updated Framework Plan shows a combination of three large regional stormwater detention ponds totaling 80 - acres within the plan area . A fourth pond is located outside of the area , north of Richards Lake Road (20 acres ) . These future storm water detention facilities were not shown in the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 CHAPTER 4 - FRAMEWORK PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN CHAPTER 5 LAND USE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES P R I N C I P L E M V - L U - 1 The Mountain Vista subarea will have a Introduction balance of residential, employment, commercial, civic, and open lands uses . The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 's principles and policies determine how we can best achieve Policy MV- LU - 1 . 1 the values and ideals expressed in the "Vision " The Mountain Vista subarea will provide Chapter . A principle is defined as a general or approximately equal amounts of residential and fundamental rule , doctrine , or assumption ; a non - residential land uses . This subarea ' s policy is defined as a definite course or methods northeast portion will include an Industrial and of action selected to guide and determine Employment business center adjacent to the present and future decisions . Principles and existing Anheuser- Bush InBev brewery . A policies define ways to make a desired future centrally- located Community Commercial happen by forming the foundation for District ( CCD ) will serve the surrounding mixed - implementation . use neighborhoods and business center . Primary civic uses are expected to include a community The principles and policies listed below are park, schools , a potential police substation , and specific to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as a a branch library . The remaining balance of this supplement to the principles and policies subarea contains residential uses . already established in City Plan . City Plan ' s principles and policies are not listed here , but should be referenced ( fcgov . com / cityplan ) in order to gain a complete understanding of this subarea ' s guidelines . Principles and Policies Consistent with City Plan , the Mountain Vista Subarea principles and policies are organized into the following five categories : ■ Land Use ( LU ) ■ Transportation (T ) ■ Community Appearance and Design ( CAD ) ■ Economic Sustainability and Development Example of a mixed-use commercial building. ( ECON ) ■ Housing ( HSG )* Policy MV- LU - 1 . 2 ■ Environment ( ENV)* The Community Commercial District will be a ■ Natural Areas and Open Lands ( NOL ) community-wide destination , serving not only ■ Growth Management (GM )* this subarea ' s new development , but also greater northeast Fort Collins and , to a degree , * Housing , Environment , and Growth Management the community as a whole . The CCD provides a categories are already sufficiently addressed in unique opportunity to implement the City Plan City Plan ( fcgov . com / cityplan ) and are not vision from the ground up . repeated in this plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 45 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN G Example of mid-sized grocery to anchor Commercial Example of multi-family residential . Center. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND Policy MV- LU - 1 . 3 DEVELOPMENT The CCD will be centrally located in this subarea , southeast of Mountain Vista Drive and P R I N C I P L E M V - E C 0 N - 1 Timberline Road . It will provide focus , and Mountain Vista ' s business center will contribute to a distinct , positive identity for the subarea . The CCD will provide a mix of shopping , accommodate the long-term restaurants , services , work, entertainment , and Employment and Industrial land use living . The CCD will be designed to support a growth demands of Fort Collins, pedestrian - friendly environment of walkable , providing a variety of business and mixed - use blocks and a grid of local streets . industry types and sizes, compatible Policy MV- LU - 1 . 4 with surrounding land uses . The CCD ' s " main street " will be aligned towards the mountain view of Longs Peak , parallel to the Policy MV- ECON - 1 . 1 4 - lane arterial street ( approximate angle 38 This subarea ' s Employment District will provide degrees ) . This main street orientation will a unique market for a large business center in provide a site line looking southwest towards the northeast Fort Collins ; with amenities like mountains . access to an improved interchange , local street network, mainline and stub rail service , and a Policy MV- LU - 1 . 5 variety of large parcel sizes . This expanded The Plan will encourage a variety of non - Employment District will establish a buffer and residential retail and commercial activity in the transition between industrial uses and existing Community Commercial District , smaller and new residential areas to the west . neighborhood centers within neighborhoods , and in convenience shopping centers to support the Policy MV- ECON - 1 . 2 Employment District . Secondary uses within the Employment District will be located at least 1 , 445 feet west from the Policy MV- LU - 1 . 6 centerline of I - 25 , to support the focus of Higher density mixed - use neighborhoods should primary office and light manufacturing uses be concentrated adjacent to the Community adjacent to the Mountain Vista Drive frontage Commercial District and along the Enhanced and to establish a more attractive community Travel Corridors , including the extension of gateway . realigned Vine Drive and Timberline Road corridors . ................................................................................................................. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 46 CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN TRANSPORTATION PRINCIPLE M V - T - 1 Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within this subarea will have . ` 1 ) Arterial corridors providing safe and #_s efficient multi-modal access to and through the subarea, including major features such as railroad under/overpasses (where necessary), Anheuser- Busch InBev is the area 's largest industrial and significant landscape mitigation user. features , Industrial land uses will be provided 2) Multi-modal connections to and Additional Industrial Policy MV 1 . 3 across the arterial corridors , including to allow for the future expansion needs of pedestrian and bicycle connections, Anheuser- Bush InBev , but also for potential new providing convenient access to and industries . Industrial uses will be adjacent to the from the local networks that serve existing brewery and have access to rail individual developments and buildings ; facilities . p g and 3) Integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between developments and surrounding �s areas . Policy MV-T- 1 . 1 IThe design of the grade - separated crossings will be determined when funding is available and engineering is initiated . The design and project cost options will be assessed ( underpass vs . overpass ) to analyze efficiencies in costs , and visual and noise impacts on nearby areas . Multi- use trail underpass. Policy MV-T- 1 . 2 The extension of realigned Vine Drive will be designated as part of the Mountain Vista / North College Enhanced Travel Corridor rather than Conifer Street . The ETC will be designed for high frequency transit service , with enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities . The ETC will serve as a link between downtown Fort Collins , the Timberline Road / Power Trail ETC , this subarea ' s Community Commercial District , Employment District , Community Park , school site , and a future park- n - ride at 1 - 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 47 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN PolicyMV-T- 1 . 3 PRINCIPLE M V - T - 3 A future planning effort will establish the The Community Commercial District function and design of the Mountain Vista / North College ETC . The design and development will be designed with an emphasis on standards for the ETC will be coordinated with pedestrians . the 1 - 25 / Mountain Vista Drive Gateway corridor . Policy MV-T- 3 . 1 Policy MV-T- 1 . 4 The CCD ' s local street network will be designed Bicycle and pedestrian facilities , both on - and to maximize a town - like pattern of blocks , off- street , will be developed to link this subarea building frontage , and on - street parking . For to downtown Fort Collins and Poudre River Trail . these streets , standards will emphasize the These connections will link to the urban form and the pedestrian environment . comprehensive city- and region - wide bicycle , Vehicle access and flow will be accommodated , pedestrian , and transit systems . but will not override the design of the pedestrian street fronts . Possible elements of Policy MV-T- 1 . 5 the design may include slow speed limits , angled The location and classification of streets in this on - street parking , wider lanes (with subarea will comply with the updated Master maneuvering room for bicycles ) , medians with Street Plan based on the recommendations in pedestrian refuges , and curb extensions at this Plan . corners . PRINCIPLE M V - T - 2 PolicyMV-T- 3 . 2 Mountain Vista ' s Employment and The design of the Community Commercial Community Commercial Districts will District will support active street fronts with buildings and their entrances along main streets . both be based on transit-oriented If angled parking ( on selected main streets ) design. makes dedicated bicycle lanes infeasible , then special consideration will be given to bicycle Policy MV-T- 2 . 1 lanes leading to and around those streets . Also , The Community Commercial District will serve as wider lanes should be considered on the main this subarea ' s public transit hub . The CCD will streets to allow more room for bicyclists to be the focal point of an efficient and integrated share the slow- speed streets with vehicles . transit network serving all residential , commercial , and employment areas of Mountain P R I N C I P L E M V - T - 4 Vista , as well as provide connections to other The City will consider a variety of street transit hubs within Fort Collins and the region . design and enforcement methods to The Community Commercial District should provide higher density mixed - use residential in ensure realigned Vine Drive does not conjunction with retail , office , civic , and other become a truck route, either intended uses to support the transit system . or unintended . Policy MV-T- 2 . 2 Policy MV-T-4 . 1 Transit service should also be provided between The City will include the following this subarea and the Harmony Corridor recommended street design elements : narrower Employment District by way of 1 - 25 . Park and travel lane width , a variety of intersection rides and transit stations should be provided controls , lower street design speeds , traffic adjacent to the 1 - 25 interchange area . calming on local streets , and appropriate signage . These recommended elements will be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer to ensure that the final street design does not compromise the function , ................................................................................................................. 48 CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN efficiency , and safety of the overall street Policy MV-CAD - 2 . 1 network . The Mountain Vista Drive corridor heading west from 1 - 25 will establish a northeast gateway Policy MV-T-4 . 2 supported by a primary land use designation of In the event that through truck traffic begins Employment adjacent to the arterial street using realigned Vine Drive as a de facto truck corridor between 1 - 25 and Giddings Road . A route , the City will pursue the following focus of corporate office uses will be located enforcement methods : vehicle weight limitation along the Mountain Vista Drive frontage , with enforcement with Fort Collins Police and parking areas and light manufacturing facilities Colorado State Highway Patrol , mobile weigh located behind these office developments . stations , and appropriate signage along realigned Vine Drive and the existing SH 14 / US Policy MV-CAD - 2 . 2 287 designated through truck route . Gateway design and development standards should be established for the 1 - 25 / Mountain COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND DESIGN Vista Drive corridor . These standards should reflect a positive entryway appearance with PRINCIPLE M V - CAD - 1 quality building and site design , landscaping Important views toward the nearby setbacks within the public street right - of-way and between the street and development , and mountains should be preserved and appropriate entry features and signage to emphasized by the arrangement and enhance this community entryway . design of development. PRINCIPLE M V - CAD - 3 Policy MV- CAD- 1 . 1 The preservation of existing historic Key subarea streets , where appropriate , should resources, such as homes and the be oriented southwest to allow development to Plummer School, will be encouraged. provide mountain views . Policy MV- CAD- 1 . 2 Policy MV-CAD - 3 . 1 Developers and architects will be encouraged to The historic Plummer School will be preserved arrange buildings , outdoor spaces , and parking and protected . The grade - separated crossing at lots to protect important view corridors , Timberline Road will not impact the Plummer including limiting building heights , where such School property . arrangements are effective in emphasizing vistas o Policy MV-CAD - 3 . 2 f the mountains . Other existing neighborhoods and properties Policy MV- CAD- 1 . 3 adjacent to Vine Drive will be coordinated with The layout of the Community Commercial any future City street widening and realignment District street pattern and building placement of Lemay Avenue to minimize impacts to these will be designed to maximize view site lines existing developments . towards the mountains . HOUSING P R I N C I P L E M V - C A D - 2 Housing is already sufficiently addressed in City Mountain Vista ' s community gateway Plan ( fcgov . com / cityplan ) and not detailed in from I-25 should be designed to provide this plan . a sense of place and positive experience. ENVIRONMENT Environment is already sufficiently addressed in City Plan (fcgov . com / cityplan ) and not detailed in this plan . CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 49 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN LANDS coordinated between the City, ditch provider (Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company ) , and PRINCIPLE M V - N 0 L - 1 adjacent land owners including the Poudre This subarea will provide a balanced School District . system of recreation facilities, parks, Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 5 trails , natural areas, and open lands. Storm drainage facilities and regional detention ponds will be developed in compliance with the Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 1 Storm Drainage Master Plan for Boxelder and The future Community Park will be centrally Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basins , and located within this subarea , providing a primary wherever appropriate , should be designed to recreation destination between neighborhoods , create permanent natural habitat areas the school and the Community Commercial incorporating native vegetation . District . The park will provide a balance of opportunities for active recreation such as lighted baseball / softball fields , soccer , volleyball courts , and tennis courts , as well as areas for passive recreation such as interpretive areas and natural features - designed in accordance with the City ' s Parks Et Recreation _ Policy Plan , Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 2 An off- street multi - use trail network will be located within this subarea that establishes an important connection between neighborhoods , School , Community Park , Community Commercial District , and employment areas , and destinations outside of the subarea . This trail Existing wetlands. network will be designed and located in accordance with the City ' s Parks Et Recreation Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 6 Policy Plan and the Natural Areas Policy Plan . Significant natural areas within the Mountain Vista Subarea will be preserved and protected Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 3 through restrictions on adjacent development in A network of open lands including parks , trails accordance with City ' s Natural Areas Program and natural areas will be connected by existing Standards Et Guidelines . ditch and canal facilities , and other existing and proposed rights - of-ways . Buffer setbacks will be GROWTH MANAGEMENT created for new development in accordance with existing City ' s Natural Areas Program Growth Management is already sufficiently Standards Et Guidelines . addressed in City Plan ( fcgov . com / cityplan ) and not detailed in this plan . Policy MV- NOL- 1 . 4 The City will work closely with representatives of the No . 8 Ditch to coordinate enhancements , realignment , access , and modifications to reduce hazards in protecting the health and safety of the public . Such improvements will also enhance the drainage corridor by establishing new landscaping , grading of ditch bank slopes , and new trail alignment . Future funding of the proposed ditch corridor enhancements will need to be identified and ................................................................................................................. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 50 CHAPTER 5 - PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN C HAPTE R 6 LAND USE CODE IMPLEMENTATION The 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan included several land use recommendations to discourage RECOMMENDATIONS " strip commercial " and incompatible residential development . The adopted changes to the Land Use Code include a 1/a - mile setback from 1 - 25 for Introduction secondary uses in the Employment District and a 1/a - mile setback from the centerline of 1 - 25 for A key aspect of any plan is how it gets residential uses . implemented . This chapter highlights the key implementation actions needed to achieve the STORMWATER Plan . A variety of standards and requirements , policies , and capital improvement programs are In June 2006 , the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage recommended to make the Mountain Vista Master Plan was updated . The master plan Subarea Plan a reality . These recommendations reflects collaborative discussions with the draw on a review of City Plan , examination of Anheuser- Busch InBev (ABI ) brewery and City policies regarding infrastructure im - affected property owners within the basin . The provements and financing , and consultation with Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin Master Plan City staff and consultants . recommends mitigation for floodplain damage , infrastructure improvements to existing ditches , This chapter also includes a detailed listing of canals and roadways , and three detention projects and improvements needed to support ponds . The updated Framework Plan shows a this area ' s development , including combination of three large regional stormwater transportation improvements , parks and trails , detention ponds totaling 80 - acres within the natural areas , stormwater drainage , and public plan area . facilities . Figure 19 identifies estimated cost estimates of each improvement and OFF -STREET TRAILS AND PARKS recommending the probable source of funds . This chapter also includes an analysis of select City Parks Planning has coordinated the location infrastructure projects needed to alleviate of off- street trail alignments and neighborhood adequate public facilities issues . parks as new development has occurred . Developing these parks and trail sections will The implementation action plan highlights key happen as funding becomes available . recommendations , capital projects , and other actions needed to achieve the Plan vision ( see A regional trail underpass was installed on Figures 21 and 22 ) . Richards Lake Road ( east of Turnberry Road ) as part of the Lind and Maple Hill neighborhoods . Implementation Actions POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT since the 1999 Plan Adoption The Poudre School District acquired about 109 AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING CITY MAPS acres north of Mountain Vista Drive , and set this property aside for future school needs . The In 1999 , the City Structure Plan , Zoning , and future needs for PSD for this property are Master Street Plan maps were concurrently projected to include an elementary , junior high , amended with adoption of the Mountain Vista and high school . Subarea Plan . These documents translated the plan ' s recommendations from policies into regulations to guide future development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 51 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Implementation Actions Implementation Actions after concurrent with Plan Plan Adoption Adoption Several implementation actions will occur after As part of the 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan the 2009 Plan has been adopted , estimated to adoption process , several existing City occur within 1 - 5 years ( see Figure 22 ) . The documents were updated to reflect the responsible City department , implementation framework plan map . This includes the City timeframe , and any funding sources are Structure Plan , Zoning , and Master Street Plan identified below . maps . A few additional implementation actions REZONINGS were completed later ( see Figure 21 ) . As part of the 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The first implementation action will be update , the following existing documents will be considered for adoption in fall 2009 . This action amended concurrent with adoption : relates to the rezoning of portions of the subarea , based on the Framework Plan land use ■ North College Corridor Plan Framework Map recommendations . A few additional months ■ Northside Neighborhoods Plan Framework were needed to complete the required legal Map descriptions for each rezoning area . ■ City Structure Plan ■ Master Street Plan GATEWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS The North College Corridor Plan amendment represents a minor housekeeping change to The Mountain Vista Drive corridor west of 1 - 25 relocate the Enhanced Travel Corridor represents a key gateway into Fort Collins . designation from Conifer Street to realigned Similar to other gateway corridors in the city , a Vine Drive ( between College Avenue and Lemay plan addressing landscape , setback, and other Avenue ) . design standards will be developed . The City ' s Advance Planning Department and Anheuser- The Northside Neighborhoods Plan boundary Busch InBev will work cooperatively on the overlaps the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan gateway standards . The gateway corridor between the existing and proposed Lemay standards are expected to be developed in the Avenue alignments . The proposed amendment to next two years , and closely coordinated with the the Northside Neighborhoods Plan includes a Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan mentioned below . change of land use from Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods ( LMN ) to Medium Density Mixed - MOUNTAIN VISTA/NORTH COLLEGE Use Neighborhoods (MMN ) , totaling 54 acres . ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN The remaining two proposed amendments to the A separate planning process consistent with Structure Plan , and Master Street Plan maps , Federal Transit Administration ( FTA ) represent adjustments based in the 2009 requirements will address the future Mountain Mountain Vista Subarea Plan recommendations . Vista / North College Enhanced Travel Corridor . The City ' s Transportation Planning Department , An update to City Plan and the Transportation is actively pursuing funding to initiate this Master Plan will occur in 2009 - 10 . The corridor planning process . The ETC planning recommendations of the Mountain Vista Subarea process is anticipated to begin within the next Plan will be included in this planning process . two years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Future Infrastructure FUNDING OPTIONS Improvement Projects and There are several funding options available for Financing the projects summarized in Figure 19 . Multiple funding options can work for each project . The The Plan update identifies a list of infrastructure recommendations to implement the Framework projects and associated costs . A majority of Plan will be primarily funded by a combination these projects will be funded by future of City Capital Improvement Plan funds , development including the area ' s future street development exactions , and street oversizing network and storm drainage improvements ( see impact fees . Three funding options were Figures 19 and 22 ) . The remaining list of identified as part of this update process . projects are critical to removing constraints to new development related to providing adequate Continue to Utilize Development Impact Fees public facilities , as discussed later in this This approach would rely on development Chapter . impact fees to fund the infrastructure improvement projects listed in Figures 19 and Figures 19 and 20 summarize the key 22 . This can include both existing and new recommended transportation and stormwater impact fees . Due to development restrictions infrastructure projects in the Mountain Vista related to APF requirements , this may require subarea . The table includes the total cost of the many years of collecting funds . If all of these project , identified funding sources , and an funds are directed towards the subarea , this estimated timeframe for construction . The could result in less available funding for other majority of funding for these projects comes parts of the community . This approach would from existing development impact fees . The collect funding over a long period of time , but timing of these projects will be dependent on share the project cost among the largest new development moving forward . geographic area . Development impact fees are assessed on a city-wide basis based on the street TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS network shown in the Master Street Plan and land uses shown in the City Structure Plan . As a The proposed 2009 Framework Plan map future implementation action , City Engineering recommendations , and resulting adjustments to staff will update the development impact fee the Master Street Plan , include a list of street based on the Mountain Vista framework map . infrastructure improvement projects ( see Figures 19 and 22 ) . The street improvements Capital Funding Request include refinements to the overall street The projects could be funded as part of a network , extension of realigned Vine Drive , and citizen - supported sales tax initiative . This was future grade separated railroad crossings . proposed for the grade - separated crossings in the past , but was rejected due to the financial STORMWATER PROJECTS limitations it imposed on other infrastructure projects . The Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan and Dry Creek Improvement Project identify a Collective Funding Strategy list of recommended stormwater projects in the The City could initiate a special assessment or Mountain Vista subarea . The estimated costs , similar process to provide funding for the NECCO potential funding sources , and timeframe can be and realigned Vine Drive projects . This approach found in Figures 19 and 22 . Funding for the is currently under review by the City and North projects will be from the City and from new College Avenue business owners for the North development . College Capital Improvements Funding Plan . Several property owners in the Mountain Vista subarea expressed an interest in developing a similar plan . This approach would not be suitable for the grade - separated crossings . Limiting this strategy to the Mountain Vista area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 53 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN would not fairly share the project costs to Adequate public facilities will continue to be benefiting development . issue until the grade - separated crossings ( GSC ) are constructed in the long - term . Due to the KEY ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES cost and financing of the GSCs , several projects PROJECTS were identified that can be constructed in the short - and medium - term to address APF issues , City staff analyzed infrastructure costs and delay the need for GSCs , and allow development timing for key infrastructure projects that would to move forward . Priority of phasing , estimates help remove impediments to development as of project costs , and how much population and envisioned in the Plan . The adequate public job growth are provided in Figure 17 . The facilities (APF ) regulation ensures development location and magnitude of any development will provides the necessary infrastructure and depend on traffic impacts determined at the services to mitigate any impact . There is time of construction . Please see Figure 18 for a presently limited ability to develop land in the map of the APF projects . Staff has developed a subarea due to lack of APF . This is largely due to sequence below for the timing of implementing constraints surrounding the Lemay these large capital improvement projects ( in Avenue / existing Vine Drive and Timberline order of importance ) : Road / existing Vine Drive intersections . These constraints include existing neighborhoods , Realigned Vine Arterial (College to Lemay) : businesses , residential properties , Plummer The timing to implement the proposed realigned School , and the BNSF rail tracks and switching Vine Drive arterial street between College yard . These constraints combine to limit the Avenue and Lemay Avenue is a critical first City ' s ability to widen these intersections to phase in removing existing APF impediments in increase traffic capacity . this area . While this project is mostly located outside of the Mountain Vista subarea , Several developments , such as Maple Hill and implementation of this project in important to Lind , have received City approval but are still reduce traffic volumes at the existing under construction . Additional phases of these Vine / Lemay intersection and provide additional projects will be constructed but not violate the street and intersection capacity to and from the APF regulation . Mountain Vista Subarea . If constructed , this project would delay the need to implement the As part of the 1999 Plan , a preliminary future grade separated crossing at Vine / Lemay infrastructure analysis identified a large number for several years . The estimated population of capital projects required to alleviate the APF and jobs growth are dependent on concurrent issues . However, after clarifying and analyzing construction of Northeast College Corridor needed transportation and drainage projects Outfall drainage improvements (see Figure 17 ) . with this 2009 Plan update process , only a handful must be completed to allow Realigned Vine Arterial ( Lemay to Timberline ) : development to proceed . Construction of the extension of the Vine Drive realignment between Lemay and Timberline The existing Dry Creek Floodplain limits most would allow additional development to comply residential development from proceeding in the with APF requirements in the Mountain Vista current floodway . While the planned Northeast subarea . Over time , the Timberline and existing College Corridor Outfall ( NECCO ) project is Vine intersection will become more congested . listed with the other transportation APF This project would have the same benefits of projects , this storm drainage improvement reduced volumes at the existing intersection and project is somewhat different . Some new creating new street and intersection capacity . development can take place now and still meet As mentioned previously , if this segment of the City drainage and floodplain criteria . realigned Vine Drive is constructed , it would However, full development of the area can not further delay the need to implement the grade occur until the entire NECCO project is separated crossing at the Vine Drive /Timberline implemented to provide appropriate outfall of Road intersection . area and removal of the existing floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Northeast College Corridor Outfall ( NECCO ) Storm Drainage Project A portion of the Dry Creek Floodway remains in the western part of the subarea , limiting future residential development . This floodway results from a combination of factors associated with partially built drainage improvements . The City ' s Stormwater Utility has final design of needed improvements to remove the floodplain . Partial improvements are possible within the western portion of the subarea , but to ultimately remove the floodway, significant drainage facilities are needed upstream as well (west of Lemay Avenue to North College Avenue ) . The estimated population and jobs growth are dependent on concurrent construction of the realignment of Vine Drive between College and Lemay . Grade-Separated Crossings The Colorado Public Utilities Commission will ultimately require three grade - separated railroad crossings ( GSC ) at the Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive , Timberline Road / Vine Drive intersections , and Mountain Vista Drive when traffic volumes warrant a 4 - lane street crossing . This requirement would likely occur first at the Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive crossing , and then at Timberline Road / Vine Drive . 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 timing of when the GSC would be triggered at Mountain Vista Drive is dependent on future development around this crossing and related traffic impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 55 MnUNTA1N VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 17 - Priority of Transportation Improvements c 0 i E E 0 N . i O V) N a Infrastructure Projects u w w 1 . Realign Vine Drive ( College to Lemay ) $ 8* 304 91032 2 . Realign Vine Drive ( Lemay to Timberline ) $ 9 . 5 9 , 761 21243 3 Grade - Separated Crossings $ 823 4 , 999 21071 ( Lemay , 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 18 - Adequate Public Facilities Projects Northeast College Corridor Outfall Mountain Vista Dr ( NECCO) drainage Q a) Q ExtensionoMAm f E I U Realigned Vine 0 Dr J = i a) E H Vine Dr J IL Grade - Separated Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 57 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 19 - Capital Improvement Projects c J U N II U U a� 2 J a s O O � O > 7 O N E N 4r� L I I O H O N O Project Name a :::E aLL. w U z U Potential Funding Sources General Street Improvements Mountain Vista Street H N / A $ 119 . 2 Y New Development , City Street Network Oversizing Adequate Public Facilities - Street Improvements (included in overall cost ) Realigned Vine Drive ( College H Y $ 8 . 0 Y New Development , City Street to Lemay ) Oversizing Realigned Vine Drive ( Lemay H Y $9 . 5 Y New Development , City Street to Timberline ) Oversizing Lemay Avenue Grade - M Y $ 32 . 1 Y New Development ( amount Separated Crossing* TBD ) , City Street Oversizing Timberline Road Grade - M Y $26 . 6 Y New Development ( amount Separated Crossing* TBD ) , City Street Oversizing Mountain Vista Drive Grade - L Y $ 23 . 6 Y New Development ( amount Separated Crossing* TBD ) , City Street Oversizing Storm Drainage Improvements - Dry Creek/Upper Cooper Slough Basins Northeast College Corridor City Stormwater , New Outfall ( NECCO ) Portion in H Y $4 . 5 Y Development , other TBD Mountain Vista Plan area Upper Cooper Slough Projects M N $ 10 . 2 Y City Stormwater , New Development , other TBD Ditch Company , New Development , City Parks , No . 8 Ditch Improvements L N $ 1 . 6 Y Natural Rescources , and Stormwater ; Poudre School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 20 - Capital Improvement Projects Map I , - + illy. . i gym- 1 • � / . IQ't+ Sam � v. �'.� ' ♦, . ' 'di ( snk r 1 Long Pondof a I 4 ,/ 13 i 13 111^ s= =fir ■-f �■ iH 2 10 -�:—���.�■ 3 �-e 11 r� r Legend : Regional Transportation Storm Drainage Detention Ponds Other Grade Separated Crossings -AD(6 #8 Ditch Improvements r7mmAmor 5 Sod Farm Railroad �O1 Vine Dr/LemayAve `,L C&S Railroad Diversion Structure 8 A& B- InBev - - Mountain Vista Intersection 70 Black Hollow Outfall Channel + - - Subarea Boundary Vine Dr/Timberline Rd 9 C&S/Crumb Water Intersection 11 Vine Drive Culverts Existing Pond Mountain Vista Dr 13 Northeast College Corridor Outfall ( NECCO ) 0 2500 5 , 000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 59 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 21 - 1999 Implementation Action Plan - Completed Responsible Action Parties Status Land Use Amend City Structure Plan City Completed Amend City Zoning City Completed Amend Master Street Plan City Completed Land Use Code Amendment - City Completed /4-mile setback from 1-25 for secondary uses in the Employment District Land Use Code Amendment - City Completed /4-mile setback from the centerline of 1-25 for residential uses Stormwater Adoption of the updated Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Master Plan City Completed Construction of a regional detention pond City, Developers Completed Parks and Recreation Coordinate off-street trail alignments and future neighborhood parks City, Developers Completed Installation of a regional trail underpass on Richards Lake Road City Completed Poudre School District Acquisition of approximately 110 acres north of Mountain Vista Drive City Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 22 - 2009 Implementation Action Plan Responsible Action Parties Timeline Land Use Amend North College Corridor Plan Framework Map City With plan adoption Amend Northside Neighborhood Plan Framework Map City With plan adoption Amend City Structure Plan Map City With plan adoption Amend City Zoning City Fall 2009 Amend the Master Street Plan City With plan adoption Develop new gateway design standards for 1 -25 and Mountain Vista Drive City 1 -5 years Amend the Land Use Code to allow non-residential uses in the MMN District City 1 -5 years adjacent to East Vine Drive/BNSF rail switching yard City Parks and Recreation acquisition of land for future Community Park City/Land Owners 1 -5 years City Natural Resources acquisition of private wetland habitat land City/Land Owner TBD with Development Stormwater Implement the Upper Cooper Slough Master Plan City Driven by development Improvements to the No . 8 Outlet Ditch , including bank improvements to eliminate Ditch Company, the spill into the Anheuser-Busch property ( Mountain Vista Drive Spill ) , and the spill City, PSD , Driven by north of the Larimer & Weld Canal ; improvements to the channel to safely convey Developers development stormwater and irrigation flows ; and new bridges at major road crossings . Dry Creek/Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) Storm Drainage Project City, Developers Driven by development Transportation Grade-Separated Crossing - Lemay Avenue/Vine Drive City 10- 15 years Grade-Separated Crossing - Timberline Road/Vine Drive City 15-20 years Grade-Separated Crossing - Mountain Vista Drive City 15-20 years Realignment of Vine Dr. from Lemay Ave . to Timberline Road City 5- 10 years Develop an Enhanced Travel Corridor plan for Mountain Vista/North College City 1 - 5 years Update City Transportation Impact Fees — based on subarea recommendations City 1 - 2 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 61 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AP P E N DIX A Stormwater ■ Will the No . 8 Ditch be eliminated - can it SUMMARY OF OPEN be filled ? ■ Who will be responsible for No . 8 Ditch HOUSE COMMENTS improvements? ■ What are AB ' s plans for storm water retention? DECEMBER 3 , 2008 ■ Status of proposed regional detention? What has already been built? Land Use ■ Will there be any changes to the flood map ■ South of Liberty Farms Assisted Living , after proposed retention changes? desire to support Commercial and higher density multi - family along Vine Dr . Transportation ■ What is the status of the future Poudre . Don ' t extend Turnberry to connect with School Facility? Vine . ■ What is the status of dedicated elementary . Extend Turnberry to Vine . school on Vine? ■ Will Turnberry be expanded ? ■ How big of an area will the future school . Support for Turnberry to extend to the serve? south . ■ What does Employment on AB mean? What . Concern over excessive traffic on Country will it look like? Club Rd . ■ What ' s the plan for the CC district? What . Connection of collector Country Club to will it provide? Giddings ■ Why is Commercial planned ? o Provides alternative connection ■ Support for grocery store in the area o Cut - through traffic adjacent to ■ Example of mixed - use development - neighborhood Poulsbo , Washington ■ How will old Vine connect to new Vine? ■ How big of a buffer does the brewery need ■ Support transit to Vine and Timberline between operations and residential? ■ Is Timberline going to be 6 lanes north of ■ How big does the CC district need to be? Vine? ■ Why does alternative A show more multi - ■ Support for a direct Timberline / Mt . Vista family along Vine Drive? connection ■ 1 - 25 / Vine Interchange - continuing to show Parks , Trails Et Natural Areas the connection impacts property ■ Trail alignment - maps show trails through marketability existing development ■ Why won ' t railroad allow street widening ■ Want trail connection around the canal at Vine intersections? (2 ) ■ What is the timing of the trails? ■ Support for bus route to extend to area ■ What is the timing of the parks? ■ Don ' t change existing straight alignment of ■ How will the trails cross major streets? Mt . Vista Dr . to 1 - 25 ■ Will the park location preclude street ■ Status of grade separated crossings? access through that area? o How will they be paid for? ■ Why are original trail alignments changing? o When will they be built? ■ Will Regional trail connect north of Douglas o What is the cost? Rd . ? ( map needs to reflect that it will ) o Why are they described as going over the ■ Concerns over existing park in Storybook tracks instead of under? subdivision - why wasn ' t park built by Concerns of Vine / Conifer configuration - developer? keep it straight ■ Where are wetlands? On Alternative B , favor Conifer going east ■ What are the impacts on Vine realignment until Timberline - will take traffic off to natural areas? Country Club and Vine for Local commuting ■ Existing Framework has too many roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 61 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ■ Concerns of Conifer extending east within Transportation options are well thought- close proximity to Lindenwood out . Neighborhood . Land use options are satisfactory . ■ Preference for Alternative D because re- Other aligned Vine Drive does not cut - through ■ Street signs in Maple Hill subdivision - Commercial area and the road design misspelled (Matt contact streets ) makes better sense . ( 5 ) ■ Need additional public outreach The park should not extend south and opportunities cause a re - direction of existing Mt . Vista ■ Why was Waterglen allowed to be built so Drive . close to 1 - 25? ■ Conifer and Vine should not cross each ■ Why aren ' t there any sound barriers other but , rather, run straight east- west . between Waterglen Et 1 - 25? ■ Concern with the disconnect between the ■ Timeline of all development? What does Employment and Commercial Center . long - term mean? ■ Re - aligned Vine would be more difficult to ■ What are future expansion plans for the develop through LMN due to cost sharing . brewery? ■ Deal with the train instead of spending ■ Where is the ownership boundary for money on the grade separated crossings . Anheuser- Busch? ■ Commercial Center should border the School and future Park . THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19 , 2009 Frequent Issues (in order of greatest to Comments least ) ■ Support for Turnberry to extend further Concern that the re - alignment of Vine and south . ( 3 ) its connection to 1 - 25 will invite truck ■ Future bike paths should run along existing traffic and additional noise . drainage canals . ( 2 ) Preference for Alternative D because re- ■ These Plan Alternatives are too similar to aligned Vine Drive does not cut- through defend a preference . Commercial area and the road design ■ Support to not extend Turnberry further makes better sense . south . None of the Plan Alternatives are ■ Preferred December Plan Alternative C acceptable . because : ■ The Plan should do better to preserve open o A new bridge would not be required over space . the Larimer/Weld Canal . ■ Support for Turnberry to extend further o Turnberry did not extend further south . south . o Allowed direct access to 1 - 25 from ■ Future bike paths should run along existing Turnberry via Mt . Vista Drive . drainage canals . ■ The Plan should do better to preserve open . Keep existing Vine as the main east-west space . (4 ) connection and do not build a new re - ■ Keep existing Vine as the main east-west aligned version . connection and do not build a new re - aligned version . (2 ) THURSDAY, APRIL 30 , 2009 ■ Concern that the re - alignment of Vine and its connection to 1 - 25 will invite truck Comments traffic and additional noise . ( 11 ) . Concern regarding the amount and ■ Extend Timberline Rd . to Richards Lake mitigation of open space / trails . ( 5 ) Road to alleviate congestion on Turnberry . Concern that development and roads will ■ Is there enough density to support the affect the noise level of the area ( too Commercial Center? loud ) . (4 ) ■ None of the Plan Alternatives are Conifer should not be a two - lane arterial ; a acceptable . ( 5 ) ■ collector is more appropriate given that realigned Vine will be four- lanes . ( 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ■ The focus for the area should be on low ■ North - south connectivity important for the density residential use . ( 2 ) area ; incorporate County planning to the ■ What measures will the City take to limit north . truck traffic on realigned Vine? Examples ■ Can the PSD site and Community Park site could be a " no truck " sign , tight turns , switch locations? round - a - bouts , burms , legislate no through ■ Do not curve roads to accommodate the traffic and / or lower speed limits . ( 21 ) park ; keep the " t " intersection as it ■ Keep the Mt . Vista / Timberline a " t " already exists . (2 ) intersection as it is today ; will limit truck ■ Continue Giddings Rd . further south . traffic using this as a bypass to the ■ Grade separated crossing at Vine / Lemay Mulberry route . should be a top priority . ■ Appreciative of the City being open to ■ Leave the plan as - is . public input . ( 3 ) ■ Is there really a need for three east - west Frequent Issues (in order of greatest to streets (existing Vine , realigned Vine and least ) Conifer ) so close together? (2 ) ■ Concern of realigned Vine becoming a ■ The intersection at Vine / Lemay is awful truck route and mitigation efforts . and the City should do something to ■ The proposed plan is on the right track . improve it . ■ Preference that Turnberry should extend ■ Preference for a tunnel vs . an overpass for further south . a grade separated crossing . (2 ) ■ More open space / trails . ■ Can Plummer School be moved so that ■ Conifer should not be a two - lane road ; existing Vine can be expanded , rather than collector is more appropriate , if needed at creating the new four- lane arterial to the all . north? ■ Concern over the noise level increasing in ■ The Vine / Lemay and Vine / Timberline the area due to development / traffic . intersections are run - down and could use ■ Public appreciates the chance to comment . improvement , regardless of historic nature ■ The area should be more agricultural / low ( i . e . Plummer School ) . density residential in nature . ■ Round - a - bouts should be considered to ■ Concern about roads curving to reduce traffic caused by stoplights . ( 2 ) accommodate the park; keep straight as - is . ■ Why is Owl Canyon not being considered to ■ Concern over the number of east - west carry truck traffic? It makes sense to re - street connections ; three is too many route traffic north of Richards Lake Road ( Conifer , realigned Vine and existing Vine ) . or closer to Wellington ; truckers don ' t ■ Preference for tunnels vs . overpasses at contribute to the local economy . the grade separated crossings . ■ Accelerate the schedule for the ■ Round - a - bouts should be considered at development of the school and community major intersections throughout the area . park site . ■ This plan is acceptable . ( 6 ) THURSDAY, JULY 23 , 2009 ■ What is the difference between the Community Commercial and Employment Comments uses? ■ Grade separated crossings should be a ■ Will an interchange at Vine / I - 25 be higher priority on the Capital Improvement considered to move truck traffic away from Project table . Mt . Vista Drive? ■ Adequate Public Facilities (APF ) relief at ■ Grade separated crossings are good at Vine and Lemay - how does it impact Vine / Lemay and Vine / Timberline . " upstream " streets and neighborhoods? ■ Support for an improvement of Vine Dr . ■ Would Lemay need to be widened when and moving it further north , away from the Realigned Vine between College and Lemay railroad tracks . is constructed? ■ Preference for Turnberry to connect south ■ Traffic calming needed along the new NS as shown on the Master Street Plan . ( 6 ) collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 63 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ■ Is the new Greeley water line ( GWET) because inflation will greatly out strip fund under the pavement of realigned Vine reserves from impact fees . Drive? The " feasibility " of an 1 - 25 / Vine ■ Specify what the "T" in " ETC " could mean . interchange must be removed from any ■ It seems like there is a healthy mix of consideration or citizens will reject the Industry , Residential , Recreational , entire Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . Natural , and Municipal in the planning . There is only so much land . You can ■ 1 am not excited about (old ) Vine being always get more people . Small is segmented , but I do see that it is currently beautiful . inadequate or will become so soon and Turnberry Rd . should extend south to that there is little room for expansion as it realigned Vine Dr . ( 1 ) is . Otherwise , I like the general plan . Very well done . Info was clear . I hope it ■ Looks good - fewer streets , more defined comes to pass ! grid . The plans look absolutely great ! When will ■ Greatly prefer the Community Commercial development materialize? District , Industrial and Employment from The light rail system / bus rapid transit is the 1999 plan - the current plan extends absolutely necessary . the district too far south and east . Too small of a buffer between Industrial and Residential . ■ 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 I - 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 threaten 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 64 APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN APPENDIX B MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ic LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS Ec nom Planning Systems Public Finance Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Land Use Policy Prepared for : City of Fort Collins EDAW Prepared by : Economic Et Planning Systems , Inc . June 24 , 2009 EPS #18802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 59 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Community Commercial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Existing Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Historic and Projected Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Existing Retail Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Retail Trade Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sales Potential / Retail Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Retail Development Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Employment/ Industrial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Existing 1999 Plan Framework . . . . 60 * 0 1 6 * 01 6 * 01 6 * 00 6000 6000 10 * 0 60 * 0 60 * 01 6 * 01 676 Historic and Projected Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Employment / Industrial Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Employment / Industrial Development Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Employment / Industrial Development Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Historic Household Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Apartment Market Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Comparable Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Multifamily Development Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 December 2008 - Plan Alternatives Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Existing Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Framework plan alternatives analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Framework Plan —alternative A . . . . . 6 * 01 1 * 01 1 * 01 6 * 01 1 * 01 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 693 Framework Plan —Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Framework Plan —Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN List of Tables Table 131 - Comparison of 1999 Plan to Preferred Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 132 - Mountain Vista Subarea Permits , 2000- 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table 133 - Projected Mountain Vista Households , 2008 - 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 134 - Total Personal Income Growth , 2008 - 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table 135 - Retail Expenditure Projection , 2008 - 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 136 - New Retail Demand by Square Feet , 2008 - 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table 137 - Mountain Vista Supportable Square Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table 138 - Mountain Vista Subarea Development Program , 2015 - 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 139 - Fort Collins Commercial Permits , 2000- 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table B10 - Fort Collins Employment Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table 1311 - Fort Collins Employment Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table B12 - Fort Collins Industrial Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table B13 - Fort Collins Employment Land Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table B14 - Fort Collins Industrial Land Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table B15 - Development Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table B16 - Mountain Vista Development Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table B17 - Fort Collins Permits , 2000 - 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table B18 - Mountain Vista Permits , 2000- 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table B19 - Fort Collins Apartment Inventory , 2000 - 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table B20 - Rock Creek Drive Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table B21 - Rigden Farm Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table B22 - Multifamily Development Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Table B23 - Residential Land Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Table B24 - Summary of Plan Alternative Land Use Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 61 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN List of Figures Figure B1 - Existing Retail Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure B2 - Grocery Store Trade Areas . * * 69 Figure B3 - Location of Comparable Multifamily Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure B4 - Morningside Village Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure B5 - Morningside Village Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure B6 - Framework Plan —Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Figure B7 - Framework Plan —Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Figure B8 - Framework Plan —Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Figure B9 - Framework Plan —Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Figure B10 - Framework Plan —Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Figure B11 - Framework Plan —Alternative F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Introduction INTRODUCTION The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted in 1999 as an element of City Plan . Due to changing conditions including proposed development re - zonings as well as the impacts of changes from other City plans a multi - disciplinary effort to revise this plan was undertaken throughout 2008 and 2009 . The 1999 plan is compared to the 2009 Framework Plan to assess market support for land use changes . The proposed land use changes evaluated are shown in Table 131 . The most significant proposed change from the 1999 plan is the amount of Community Commercial zoned land , which would change from 78 to 30 total acres . The amount of land dedicated to Industrial uses represents the next largest change and would increase by 48 percent from 309 to 457 acres . Similarly , Employment land would increase by 25 percent under the proposed plan from 530 to 631 acres . Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood zoned land would decrease from 1 , 480 to 1 , 298 acres . The consistency of these changes with market demand is briefly discussed in the Summary of Findings and with greater detail in the body of this report . Table 131 - Comparison of 1999 Plan to Preferred Framework Land Use Type 1999 2009 % Change Community Commercial 78 30 -61 % Employment 530 661 25% Industrial 309 457 48% Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood 11480 15298 - 12% Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood 145 144 - 1 % School 108 108 0% Park / Natural Areas / Open Space 339 291 - 14% Total 2, 989 29989 0% Source: City of Fort Collins, EDAW , Economic & Planning Systems The Mountain Vista Subarea covers approximately 3 , 000 acres and is expected to accommodate a large portion of the Fort Collins ' future growth . The Plan update will provide land use designations , a transportation network plan , drainage ways , parks and open space , and trails . All of these aspects will guide future development of the largely vacant area over the next 20 to 30 years . The City of Fort Collins retained an interdisciplinary team including EDAW, Economic Et Planning Systems ( EPS ) , and Stantec to assist in developing the update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan ( Plan ) . This report evaluates the market demand for the major land uses under consideration for modification in the Plan update . The land demand forecasts provided the City and EDAW with a variety of inputs to develop the preferred draft Framework Plan . The specific land uses evaluated include : ■ Community Commercial (CC ) - Allows for mixed - use " that serves as the focal point of the community and provides a broad range of services , including commercial and shopping areas , civic facilities , recreation areas , as well as employment and housing opportunities . " ■ Employment/Industrial ( E/1 ) - The Employment District is " intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses , research and development activities , offices and institutions . " Whereas the Industrial District is " intended to provide a location for a variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 63 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLA " of work processes and work places such as manufacturing , warehousing and distributing , indoor and outdoor storage , and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations . " ■ Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood (MMN ) - The Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood District is " intended to be a place for attached and multifamily housing within easy walking distance of transit and " nearby shopping . BACKGROUND The Plan update evaluates several aspects of the existing Plan framework and provide alternatives including the following : ■ Assess options for land use / elements , ■ Locate a community park , ■ Locate a community commercial district , ■ Evaluate the realignment of Vine Drive , and ■ Identify the opportunity for and location of an enhanced travel corridor . The Plan update process developed six Framework Plank alternatives that include several consistent elements : ( 1 ) the land use designation for the Anheuser- Busch Industrial (ABI ) property , ( 2 ) the location of the future Poudre School District facility and adjacent land use designation , ( 3 ) regional storm water detention facilities , (4 ) enhanced travel corridor ( ETC ) routes , ( 5 ) grade separated railroad crossings , and ( 6 ) bicycle and pedestrian off- street trails . However , each alternative provides several options for consideration : ( 1 ) the location of a 110 - acre community park , ( 2 ) the location of a Town Center focal point for the Subarea Plan , ( 3 ) refinements to the Master Street Plan , (4 ) realignment of Vine Drive , ( 5 ) alignment of Conifer Street , and ( 6 ) the cost for major street infrastructure . The report evaluates the market demand for the land uses as described and utilizes the outcome of the land demand forecasts , which provided a basis to guide the development of the proposed 2009 Framework Plan . The final chapter of the report provides greater detail regarding the marketability of each of the plans and feedback concerning the land use and transportation choices represented by each of the alternatives . Community Commercial Uses The original Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was completed in 1999 . The plan includes a significant Community Commercial ( CC ) zone district located in the center of the subarea and envisions this as a mixed - use focal point for the subarea . This section of the report summarizes the retail land demand analysis . EXISTING FRAMEWORK PLAN The CC District is identified in the proposed 2009 Framework Plan as a place " that serves as the focal point of the community and provides a broad range of services , including commercial and shopping areas , civic facilities , recreation areas , as well as employment and housing opportunities . " The mixed - use area is intended to encompass a broad range of uses , including multi - story buildings with street front stores in a downtown - like environment . The Plan specifically identifies the need for both a grocery store / supermarket to serve the surrounding population and a 10 - to 15 - acre Neighborhood Commercial District to be embedded within the larger CC district as a whole . The approximately 80 acres included in the 1999 Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN designated CC area was intended to also provide adequate land for public parks , civic facilities , a transit station , as well as residential development . This analysis will focus specifically on the demand for retail land within the larger CC District . HISTORIC AND PROJECTED HOUSEHOLDS Over the past eight years the Mountain Vista Subarea has added 1 , 100 residential units , as displayed in Table 132 . On average , the area has added 138 residential units annually with single - family homes accounting for approximately 76% of units . A little more than half of all single- family units were permitted in 2001 and 2002 , as the southeast portion ( near County Road 48 and 1 - 25 ) of the subarea was built out . Table 132 - Mountain Vista Subarea Permits, 2000- 2008 Unit Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average Total Permits Single Family Attached --- - -- --- -- - --- -- - 3 --- --- 0 3 Single Family 46 252 169 54 26 83 96 44 62 104 832 Multi Family 176 13 13 35 17 8 3 — - 33 265 Total 222 265 182 89 43 91 102 44 62 138 1100 2008 data is through June 31 , 2008 Souce: City of Ft. Collins; Economic & Planning Systems The Mountain Vista Subarea will continue to be a focal point in the region for single - family home development because of its large amount of greenfield land and the short drive time to downtown Fort Collins and 1 - 25 . The subarea is therefore expected to have sustained demand for single - family homes , reaching its buildout potential of 7 , 774 housing units over the next 20 years . The buildout potential for the subarea was derived from an analysis of potential residential land compiled by City of Fort Collins staff. Staff estimates there are currently 1 , 085 households in the subarea with an additional 6 , 300 households expected at the time of buildout (derived from new units adjusted for 5% vacancy ) . The number of projected households provides a basis for the retail demand analysis discussed below . An expected timeline for buildout was estimated based upon the number of approved units , historic building trends , and building trends within comparable areas of Fort Collins . Acknowledging the depressed conditions for single - family homes in the current market , it was estimated the construction of approved units would have a two year delay . After that point , it is expected the development will proceed with the 1 , 011 housing units currently approved , and the annual absorption of housing units will likely return to historic highs as new units are entitled . Subsequently, as the subarea receives continued attention from developers , it is expected that the absorption of new housing units will increase in the overall share of Fort Collins ' housing construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 65 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table 133 - Projected Mountain Vista Households, 2008- 2030 2008 - 2015 2015 - 2030 2008 2015 2025 2030 Change Change # Avg . # Ann . Ave . % # Avg . # Ann . Ave . % Housing Units 1 , 147 29849 69199 71774 19702 243 13 . 88 % 4 , 925 328 6. 92 % Households 1 , 085 29707 59889 71385 1 , 622 232 13 . 950 4 , 679 312 6. 92 % 'Households based on building permit activity assuming 5% vacancy Source: Claritas , City of Ft. Collins; Economic & Planning Systems EXISTING RETAIL CONDITIONS Existing retail in close proximity to the Mountain Vista Subarea is primarily characterized as neighborhood - oriented retail which includes grocery stores , drug stores , and gas stations . Current grocery- anchored retail centers are located on the North College and Mulberry corridors , as shown in Figure 61 . Retail centers within or close to the subarea are listed below . ■ The northeast corner of E . Mulberry and Lemay is the largest of the retail centers surrounding Mountain Vista and is anchored by a Home Depot and Wal -Mart Supercenter . In addition to the large format users , the center contains a UPS store , a State Farm Insurance office , gas station , and fast food restaurants . Directly south of this site along Lemay is a Long ' s Drug Store . ■ The southwest corner of Riverside and Lemay contains an Albertson ' s anchored neighborhood shopping center . ■ The southeast corner of 1 - 25 and Mulberry contains a gas station complemented by a few restaurants . The northeast corner of this intersection is zoned to accommodate regional retail including large format retailers . ■ The northeast corner of Mulberry and College Avenue is anchored by a Safeway grocery store . The retail area also contains a number of restaurants including chains such as Old Chicago and Rio Grande Mexican Restaurant . ■ The southeast corner of North College Avenue and Wilcox is an Albertson ' s - anchored retail center containing a dollar store junior anchor . Most retailers in this center are second generation users . The age of the center and number of Albertson ' s closings indicates the site is unlikely to remain in viable retail use without redevelopment . The site contains some auto - oriented retail as well . ■ North College Marketplace is a neighborhood shopping center to be anchored by a King Sooper ' s Marketplace of approximately 123 , 000 square feet on the northeast corner of North College Avenue and Wilcox . The Mountain Vista Subarea is in this project ' s trade area and will provide a portion of the retail demand for this new format grocery superstore . It will also represent the closest retail center to the Mountain Vista Subarea . ■ The sole location of existing retail within the Mountain Vista Subarea is a neighborhood - oriented retail center located on the southeast corner of Lemay and Conifer Street . Included in the location is a gas station with a convenience store , quilting store , and ballet studio . Current and projected demand for regional retail is served by both the existing regional retail center at East Mulberry and Lemay as well as the area zoned for regional retail at I - 25 and Mulberry . Outside of the anchors , the tenant mix at the East Mulberry and Lemay consists largely of convenience retailers that service smaller trade areas than regional retail . Notably , the lack of junior anchors and orientation towards convenience goods reflects the lack of households in the area to support additional regional retailers . Furthermore , the I - 25 corridor provides ample opportunity at key intersections ( e . g . , Mulberry , Prospect , Harmony , and Highway 392 ) for additional expansion of regional retail shopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure B1 - Existing Retail Locations MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA : EXISTING RETAIL I 1IS I s C l,T 25 • � — ►� ;I I I i ■ i 4A A _ 101 � -- -K - G SOOFE Sr ■ -ALBERTSONS i ■ B SUBAREA PLAN OUNDARY I p SAFEWAY WAL - MART HOME DEPOT C.7 f_•, ALBERTSONS 14 L ' I FORT COLLINS WHOLE FOODS KING SOOFERRSxS — L� KING SOOFERS �= I I i TARGET HOME DEPOT x IND ' CI MIN COTTAG TARGET LOWES _ AL-MA TI H H SAFEWAY WAL•MART + SAM S CLUB — ❑ KIN'G:"*,SOOPERS SAFEWAY L' Grocery A King Soopers Marketplace per I Big Box ■ Proposed Big Box ezccmbffr■&� .. 4 .,_i• Miles .w.,..- ' •�.- O 1 2 4 LM ,M M1lln APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 67 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN The primary retail opportunities for the Mountain Vista Subarea will be linked to residential development . The retail opportunities will therefore have a neighborhood orientation and likely include grocery stores , drug stores , restaurants , and a small selection of independent retailers offering a variety of goods and services ( e . g . , flowers , salons , dry cleaning , and restaurants ) . The next section examines the expenditure potential for the Mountain Vista Subarea and resulting support for neighborhood - oriented retail stores . RETAIL TRADE AREA The trade area used to estimate future retail demand within the Mountain Vista Subarea was discerned by analyzing the trade areas of existing , planned , and future nearby grocery stores , as displayed in Figure B2 . A neighborhood shopping center is the primary retail format anticipated for the Mountain Vista Subarea . These centers are typically built around a supermarket as the anchor store . As a result , grocery stores were used as a proxy for determining the location of neighborhood shopping centers . Analysis of the trade areas indicates that the existing grocery trade areas cover most of the existing residential development in the subarea but do not cover portions of Mountain Vista planned for future residential development . As a result , the future residential development within the Mountain Vista Subarea can reasonably be assumed to indicate the locations and amount of future retail demand for the subarea . The spending in these households on retail represents an unmet segment of the current market . Dependant on timing , the planned and zoned grocery store site on East Mulberry Street could respond to a portion of new retail demand within the subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 132 - Grocery Store Trade Areas MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA : SURROUNDING GROCERY STORE TRADE AREAS I 25 op I 1Ilk ■ 46 p1 SUBAREA PLAN BOUNDAR 4 1 I KING SOOPERS AWERTSONS i TT v y. h _- -���_ - - S- �sue• y,�� _ SAFEWAY 14 , ' Grocery a Proposed Grocery A Zoned Grocery �e rM Trade Areas l� Potential Trade Area Emnnns Planning Sy l 0 0.5 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 69 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN SALES POTENTIAL/ RETAIL DEMAND This section addresses retail demand within the Mountain Vista Subarea incrementally as well as at full buildout . The analysis is based on the total personal income (TPI ) of the subarea and U . S . Census of Retail Trade expenditure by retail store spending trends from the State of Colorado . Total Personal Income To provide a basis from which to determine the extent of retail expenditures in the Mountain Vista Subarea , Total personal income (TPI ) was calculated for current and projected households . TPI consists of total households multiplied by average household income . Household projections were derived from anticipated households at buildout provided by City staff . Average household income figures for the subarea were determined from Claritas , Inc . , a national demographic research service . TPI in the Mountain Vista Subarea is currently estimated at $ 72 million and is expected to grow to approximately $ 500 million at the time of buildout , as shown in Table 134 . Table 134 - Total Personal Income Growth , 2008- 2030 Avg . Ann . Increase Location 2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 2008-2015 2015 -2030 Mountain Vista Subarea Households 1 , 085 21707 4, 322 5, 649 7 ,385 13. 9% 6 .9 % Average Household Income $66 ,802 $66 , 802 $66, 802 $66, 802 $66 ,802 -- -- Trade Area Personal Income ($000s) $72,480 $ 180 , 803 $2887688 $377, 393 $493 ,353 13.9% 6 .9% ' In constant 2008 dollars Source: City of Fort Collins; Claritas ; Economic & Planning Systems Retail Expenditure Potential The amount of TPI spent by residents on retail expenditures is determined by dividing the 2002 Census of Retail Trade spending figures organized by NAICS category by the TPI for the State of Colorado . Retail spending at the state level was used in an attempt to nullify leakage that may occur as consumers move from one jurisdiction to another . In total , it is estimated that Colorado residents spend approximately 32 . 1 percent of their income on retail purchases , as shown in Table 135 . The highest category of spending is in supermarket / grocery stores and eating and drinking establishments where 6 . 0 and 5 . 2 percent of TPI is spent , respectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table 135 - Retail Expenditure Projection , 2008- 2030 Pct . Of Resident Expenditure Potential Net New Store Type TPI 2008 2015 2030 2008 -2030 ($000s ) ($000s ) ($000s ) ($000s ) Total Personal Income $725480 $ 180, 803 $ 493, 353 $420 ,873 Convenience Goods Supermarkets / Grocery 6 . 0% $ 4, 300 $ 10 , 800 $295600 $ 25 ,300 Specialty Food Stores 0 . 2% $ 100 $400 $ 13000 $900 Convenience Stores 0 . 1 % $ 100 $ 200 $ 500 $400 Beer, Wine , & Liquor Stores 0 . 8% $ 600 $ 17400 $ 35900 $3 ,300 Health and Personal Care 1 . 4% $ 1 , 000 $ 2 , 500 $ 69900 $5 ,900 Total Convenience Goods 8 .5% $ 69000 $ 159000 $427000 $ 36 ,000 Shoppers Goods General Merchandise Department Stores & Other 1 . 5% $ 19100 $ 2 , 700 $ 79400 $6 ,300 Discount Dept . & Supercenters 5. 1 % $ 39700 $ 9 , 200 $259200 $ 21 ,500 Total General Merchandise 6 .6 % $ 49800 $ 119900 $32, 600 $ 27 ,800 Clothing & Accessories 2 . 1 % $ 1 , 500 $ 3 , 800 $ 105400 $83900 Furniture & Home Furnishings 1 . 6% $ 1 , 200 $ 2 , 900 $ 7, 900 $65700 Sport , Hobby , Book, & Music Stores 1 . 5% $ 1 , 100 $ 25700 $ 77400 $69300 Electronics & Appliances 1 . 3% $ 900 $ 2 , 400 $ 65400 $55500 Miscellaneous Retail 1 . 5% $ 1 , 100 $ 2 , 700 $ 7, 400 $6 ,300 Total Shoppers Goods 14 .6% $105600 $26, 400 $729100 $ 61 ,500 Eating and Drinking 5 .2 % $ 35800 $ % 400 $25, 700 $ 21 ,900 Building Material & Garden 3 .8 % $ 25800 $ 6, 900 $189700 $ 15 ,900 Total Retail Goods 32 .1 % $235200 $57, 700 $ 1589500 $1353300 Source: 2002 Census of Retail Trade; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 71 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN The retail expenditure projections indicate large retail expenditure potential growth corresponding with the projected increase in Mountain Vista households with total retail spending expected to grow from approximately $23 million to $ 159 million . Retail expenditure potential is translated to demand for square feet by store type by using industry standards of sales per square foot for new stores , as shown in Table 136 . It is estimated that demand will exist for approximately 104 , 000 square feet of new convenience goods retail space at the time of buildout with approximately 63 , 000 square feet of demand in the supermarket / grocery category . Total grocery store demand at buildout is estimated at 74 , 000 square feet . In addition , eating and drinking establishments are estimated to account for 53 , 000 square feet of new demand in the subarea . Table 136 - New Retail Demand by Square Feet, 2008- 2030 Supportable Square Footage New Sale Per Supportable Store Type SgFt 2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 Square Feet Convenience Goods Supermarkets / Grocery $400 10 ,800 27 ,000 43 , 300 56,500 74,000 63,200 Specialty Food Stores $350 300 11100 11700 2,300 2,900 25600 Convenience Stores $300 300 700 1 ,000 11300 1 ,700 11400 Beer, Wine , & Liquor Stores $250 2 ,400 5 ,600 9 ,200 127000 15,600 13, 200 Health and Personal Care $250 4 000 10 ,000 16 , 000 21 ,200 27,600 23, 600 Total Convenience Goods 18 ,000 44,000 71 ,000 93,000 122,000 104,000 Shoppers Goods General Merchandise Department Stores & Other $250 4 ,400 10 ,800 175200 22,800 29,600 255200 Discount Dept. & Supercenters $350 10 ,600 26 ,300 42 , 000 54, 900 72,000 61 ,400 Total General Merchandise 15,000 37,100 59 ,200 77,700 101 ,600 86,600 Clothing & Accessories $350 4 ,300 10 ,900 17 ,400 22, 600 29,700 25,400 Furniture & Home Furnishings $250 47800 11 ,600 18 ,400 24, 000 317600 26, 800 Sport, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores $300 3 ,700 9 ,000 14 , 300 19, 000 24,700 21 , 000 Electronics & Appliances $250 3 ,600 9 ,600 15 ,200 19,600 25,600 225000 Miscellaneous Retail $250 4 ,400 10 ,800 17 ,200 22, 800 29,600 25,200 Total Shoppers Goods 35,800 89,000 141 ,700 185,700 242,800 207,000 Eating and Drinking $250 159200 37,600 60 ,000 789400 102,800 87,600 Building Material & Garden $300 91300 23,000 36 ,700 47,700 62,300 53,000 Total Retail Goods 78 ,300 193,600 309 ,400 404,800 529,900 45 1 ; 600 Source: 2002 Census of Retail Trade; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems RETAIL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS This section evaluates retail development potentials for the Mountain Vista Subarea based on the existing retail competition and household growth derived demand . Retail demand alone does not create a development potential . The potential for a specific retail development depends on the demand for specific anchor tenants , the geographic dispersion of competitive retail centers and anchor tenants , and the availability of suitable land for retail development . Retail Center Formats Retail development focuses on a center ' s ability to generate traffic . Over time , this necessity has led to a variety of retail formats all centered on a different type and scale of anchor . The anchor tenant typically drives the greatest portion of visitation to a center . Supporting ancillary or junior anchor development depends on the anchor . This additional space exists because it creates synergy with the anchor tenant . Therefore , retail centers come in a variety of formats . Each configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN dictates the potential tenants included in the development . A description of each general retail center format follows . ■ Neighborhood Center - This category refers to supermarket - anchored shopping centers ranging from 80 , 000 to 150 , 000 square feet that generally contain a mix of convenience goods and personal services . Neighborhood centers typically contain a small mix of convenience oriented ancillary retail stores such as drugstores , dry cleaning , video stores , and restaurants . This format typically requires a population density of 20 , 000 people in a two - mile radius ■ Community Center - This category, anchored by a discount supercenter , is the modern replacement of the traditional community center featuring a supermarket and small department store . Community centers are generally around 300 , 000 square feet in total size , including a supercenter of 100 , 000 square feet or greater and ancillary retail space , and generally serve a three to five mile radius . ■ Power Center - This category refers to large , open strip centers with three to five mid or big box tenants as anchors . These anchors can account for as much as 75 percent of the gross leasable area in the center, with other small to mid - sized retailers integrated as ancillary space . Power centers range in size from 300 , 000 square feet to over 1 . 0 square feet . ■ Lifestyle Center - This category refers to more upscale , specialty retail centers featuring a " main street " concept in an open - air configuration . Lifestyle centers are generally between 300 , 000 and 500 , 000 square feet and include specialty retail tenants , upscale or " trendy" eating establishments , and often entertainment or civic components . One or more department stores may be included as anchors , but these are generally smaller than full - size stores . Recently , a hybrid of lifestyle and power centers has emerged . These typically range from 600 , 000 to 1 . 0 million square feet . The hybrid center is beginning to replace the traditional enclosed regional mall . Front Range Village on Harmony Road fits the definition of a hybrid center . ■ Regional Mall - This category refers to large- scale , enclosed or semi - enclosed malls anchored by four or more department stores with a high concentration of inline shops . As a result of the concentration of department stores and diversity of tenants , these malls serve a larger regional role than power centers . Regional malls range in size , but are generally around 1 . 0 million square feet in gross leasable area and serve a trade area of five to fifteen miles or beyond depending on population density . Due to a number of factors , few new regional malls are currently being built , and a greater number of existing malls are being redeveloped as lifestyle centers . Consistent with the existing version of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan , the update envisions a mixed - use CC zone as the focal point of the subarea . The zone district will require a central location adjacent to major arterial roads in order to attract successful retail development . As described , the type of retail development greatly depends on the anchor tenant that can be attracted to a development . Based on the sales potential and existing competitive retail development , the most likely anchors for the subarea include a supermarket / grocery store or a supercenter, which includes both grocery and general merchandise goods ( e . g . Super Target or Wal - Mart Supercenter ) . It is unlikely that the area will support both types of anchors over the time period evaluated ( 2008 to 2030 ) . As a result , the City should encourage the retail format that is most conducive to mixed - use development . A neighborhood retail center can easily be modified to fit into a mixed - use district . Stapleton and Lowry have both developed mixed - use town centers anchored by grocery stores . In addition , there will likely be support for additional neighborhood and convenience oriented retail throughout the subarea at key intersections and near large concentrations of residential development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 73 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Retail Development Recommendations A stated goal of the existing and proposed update to the Mountain Vista Subarea is to achieve a pedestrian oriented mixed - use town center at a central location . A neighborhood center will be the most conducive retail format to achieving this goal . Many neighborhood centers have recently been developed in the Front Range anchored by a grocery store and integrated into a larger mixed - use town center . The CC zone district proposed in the Subarea Plan should include a similar type of retail development . The existing competition and location of the subarea does not make it an ideal candidate for significant regional retail development aside from a potential supercenter anchoring a community center . However , this form of retail is not conducive to mixed - use development . The primary demand for retail will therefore be oriented towards convenience goods and locally oriented shoppers goods . Table 137 shows the likely capture of forecasted household - based retail demand over the 22 - year planning horizon . Included in the calculation was an accommodation for retail spending dollars in select categories by employees working in Mountain Vista as well as workers and students associated with the new high school . As shown , the total demand for retail space will equal approximately 200 , 000 square feet . However , this supportable retail space will occur over the next 22 years . Retail development will be supportable as the demand for retail reaches certain thresholds supporting a specific anchor tenant or retail center format . Table 137 - Mountain Vista Supportable Square Feet Resident Inflow Factor Supportable Square Footage Store Type Capture Employment High School 2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 Convenience Goods Supermarkets / Grocery 100% 0% 0% 10, 800 275000 43, 300 56, 500 74, 000 Specialty Food Stores 100% 0% 0% 300 11100 1 , 700 2, 300 21900 Convenience Stores 100% 10% 5% 345 805 1 , 150 1 ,495 1 , 955 Beer, Wine , & Liquor Stores 100% 5% 0% 21520 51880 9,660 12,600 16, 380 Health and Personal Care 75% 10% 5% 3 450 8 625 13,800 18, 285 23, 805 Total Convenience Goods 175415 43,410 69, 610 91 , 180 119,040 Shoppers Goods Clothing & Accessories 25% 0% 0% 1 , 075 27725 4, 350 5, 650 7,425 Furniture & Home Furnishings 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Sport, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores 25% 0% 0% 925 2,250 3, 575 4, 750 6, 175 Electronics & Appliances 10% 0% 0% 360 960 11520 11960 2, 560 Miscellaneous Retail 25% 10% 0% 1 210 2 970 44 730 6 270 8 140 Total Shoppers Goods 39570 85905 143175 18,630 24,300 Eating and Drinking 50% 10% 10% 91120 225560 363000 473040 61 ,680 Building Material & Garden 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total Retail Goods 30, 105 745875 1193785 156,850 205,020 Source: 2002 Census of Retail Trade; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Demand for retail will reach a sufficient threshold to support a small neighborhood oriented retail center anchored by a convenience and / or liquor store and restaurants by 2015 , as shown in Table 138 . 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 development on the corner of Vine and Lemay provides a likely location for this smaller neighborhood retail center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table 138 - Mountain Vista Subarea Development Program , 2015- 2030 Store Type 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Supermarkets I Grocery 0 0 609000 0 609000 Beer, Wine, & Liquor Stores 35000 0 9 , 000 49000 165000 Health and Personal Care 0 0 15 , 000 9 , 000 24, 000 Other Retail Space Other Convenience Goods 0 0 1 , 000 0 1 , 000 Shoppers Goods 9, 000 0 9 , 000 63000 24, 000 Eating and Drinking 23, 000 0 20 , 000 19 , 000 629000 Total Other Retail 32, 000 0 30 , 000 259000 875000 Total Retail Goods 355000 0 114 , 000 389000 187, 000 Services' 6, 000 0 63000 51000 17, 000 Total Commercial Space 41 , 000 0 120 , 000 43 , 000 204, 000 ' Calculated as 20 % of Other Retail Goods ; Includes services such as insurance, bank, and i Source: 2002 Census of Retail Trade; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Demand for supermarket / grocery space will achieve a sufficient threshold to support a new grocery store prototype designed to occupy between 60 , 000 and 65 , 000 square feet . The demand for a neighborhood center as an anchor to the CC district will coincide with the demand for a new grocery store . This threshold will be achieved through household growth by 2025 , as shown . Ancillary uses supported by an anchor retailer in 2025 are estimated to account for 10 , 000 square feet of other convenience goods and shoppers goods retail space , including florists , hobby stores , and greeting card stores . An additional 20 , 000 square feet of restaurant space is anticipated at this time as well . The total demand for a neighborhood center will include 60 , 000 square feet for a supermarket / grocery store anchor , an additional 16 , 000 square feet for a drug store , and approximately 40 , 000 square feet of ancillary space ( including a liquor store ) . In addition , the center will likely include approximately 6 , 000 square feet of service oriented retail uses . This retail format could occupy between 15 to 20 acres depending on density . Additionally , ancillary space is compatible with mixed - use buildings . However , the anchor tenants will still require significant parking field and prefer a low density development pattern . Finally, an additional small neighborhood retail center can be supported in the final years of development . This additional 38 , 000 square feet of retail space could occur in a separate retail center located at a secondary focal point within the subarea . An alternative would place this retail demand in the CC zone district as a second phase of development . The retail space could support an additional 5 , 000 square feet of service space in a 43 , 000 square foot retail center requiring between 3 and 5 additional acres of land . In total , it is estimated that future retail demand in the Mountain Vista Subarea will require between 22 and 31 acres . Of total required retail land , the grocery store anchored center is expected to occupy approximately 15 to 20 acres . The grocery store is expected to serve as the anchor for the CC town center . Complementary town center land uses will need to be appropriately sized to reinforce the location and density of the town center . If the CC town center includes a second phase of retail development , as suggested , the total need for retail land will range from 18 to 25 acres , in this location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 75 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN This retail development will form the nucleus of the proposed mixed - use town center . Therefore the CC district , which allows for a range of development types and uses , could be significantly larger than the supportable retail core . A district of 80 to 100 acres , including all zone districts ( e . g . CC , MMN , and E ) , would allow for higher density residential development , civic uses , and mixed - use office development adjacent to the retail core . A district that exceeds this size will likely not develop within the time horizon investigated by this analysis . Employment/Industrial Uses This section of the report evaluates the demand for employment and industrial land in the City of Fort Collins . The analysis uses the latest North Front Range Council of Governments ( NFRCOG ) forecast of employment growth . The growth projections are translated into demand for office and industrial space and then to land demand . Finally , the overall City demand is used to determine whether the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan requires more employment or industrial land . EXISTING 1999 PLAN FRAMEWORK The Employment District ( E ) , as identified in the existing 1999 plan , is " intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses , research and development activities , offices and institutions . " This district is primarily intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks , but may also accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary office uses , including hotels , restaurants , and housing . For the purpose of this analysis , land uses in the Employment District are considered office - using industries . The Industrial District ( 1 ) , as identified in the existing plan , is " intended to provide a location for a variety of work processes and work places such as manufacturing , warehousing and distributing , indoor and outdoor storage , and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations . " It is noted that industrial and manufacturing uses in the district may be characteristically incompatible with residential uses . HISTORIC AND PROJECTED TRENDS Over the past eight years the City of Fort Collins has added 1 . 95 million square feet of office and industrial space , as displayed in Table 69 . On average , the City has added nearly 200 , 000 square feet of office space and 44 , 000 square feet of industrial space annually over this period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table 139 - Fort Collins Commercial Permits , 2000- 2008 2000 - 2007 Employment Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008' Change Avg . # Total # Office/Bank/Professional 240A84 307748 87 ,986 157474 2925115 2025563 2405094 69,942 102,456 199, 801 1 ,598,406 Industrial 75 , 127 87,810 32, 325 0 57, 547 13, 995 55,059 28, 055 34 ,495 43 ,740 349, 918 Total Office and Industrial Sq . Ft. 3159611 3959558 1209311 157,474 3499662 2169558 2959153 979997 1369951 2439541 199485324 Includes permits up to August 2008 Source: City of Fort Collins, Economic & Planning Systems EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRIAL DEMAND Office and industrial development demand is primarily driven by employment growth . Fort Collins is the largest employment center in Larimer County with an estimated employment base of 99 , 200 in 2008 , as shown in Table B10 . This number is estimated to grow to 121 , 600 in 2030 , resulting in 22 , 300 new jobs and an annual growth rate of 0 . 93 percent over the 22 -year period . Table B10 - Fort Collins Employment Projections Growth Location 2008 2015 2025 2030 2008-2035 Total Annual Rate Berthoud 3 , 304 41872 119433 129361 99058 6 . 18 % Fort Collins 9 % 236 109 ,379 117, 730 121 , 612 225377 0. 93% Johnstown 3 , 690 15 ,372 17, 779 199984 169294 7 . 98 % Loveland 40 , 677 52 ,236 65, 177 69, 633 289956 2 . 47 % Timnath 910 11099 19308 19917 19007 3 . 44 % Windsor 6 , 215 7 ,228 99580 119677 57462 2 . 91 % North Larimer 21718 21592 21708 21783 66 0 . 11 % Central Larimer 11597 11597 19597 19597 0 0 . 00 % South Larimer 416 416 416 416 0 0 . 00 % Larimer 1505313 1755460 1979525 2079345 579032 1 .47% Source: NRMPO, Economic & Planning Systems Specific office and industrial employment is projected by comparing the proportion of office - using and industrial - using industries to total employment , as provided by the 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates for the Fort Collins MSA . This existing ratio was applied to the estimated employment growth for the City of Fort Collins to arrive at total office and industrial - using employment , as shown in Tables 1311 and 1312 . The Fort Collins Buildable Lands Survey estimates that , on average , employees in office - using industries require 400 square feet , while employees in industrial - using industries require 650 square feet of space . Applying these ratios to the estimated employment in each land use , results in demand for 2 . 95 million square feet of new office space and 3 . 47 million square feet of industrial space over the 22 - year period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 77 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table 1311 - Fort Collins Employment Demand Office 2008 2015 2025 2030 2008-2030 Employment 99 , 236 109 , 379 117 , 730 121 , 612 22 , 377 % Office 33% 33% 33% 33 % 33% Office Employment 32 , 690 365031 38 , 782 40 , 061 75371 Office Ratio' 400 400 400 400 400 Office Sq . Ft. 13 ,076, 034 14,412, 570 151512 ,958 161024, 542 2,9481508 ' Fort Collins Buildable Land Inventory-Employment District Source: Economic & Planning Systems Table 1312 - Fort Collins Industrial Demand Industrial 2008 2015 2025 2030 2008-2030 Employment 999236 109 , 379 1179730 1219612 22 , 377 % Industrial 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% Industrial Employment 23 ,694 26 , 116 28 , 110 299037 55343 Industrial Ratio' 650 650 650 650 650 Industrial Sq . Ft. 155401 ,372 16,975, 587 18,271 ,659 18, 8741219 3,4723847 Fort Collins Buildable Land Inventory-Industrial District Source: Economic & Planning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS The amount of land required to provide for new development demand in each land use category depends on various zoning and density regulations . According to the Fort Collins 2007 Buildable Lands Inventory , the gross floor area ratio ( FAR ) for the Employment District is estimated at 0 . 2 , while the gross FAR for Industrial Districts is estimated to be 0 . 15 . Based on recent projects in Fort Collins , Employment FARs have averaged 0 . 22 while Industrial FARs have averaged 0 . 27 . An office FAR of 0 . 22 was used in the analysis . The 0 . 27 industrial FAR average is pushed up by a project along North College ( 0 . 42 FAR) . Therefore a FAR slightly lower , but above the average estimate , for all Industrial districts is used , or 0 . 2 . Based on the above densities , the 2 . 95 million square feet of new office space demanded over the 22 -year period requires a minimum of roughly 308 acres of Employment- zoned land , as shown in Table B13 . Table B13 - Fort Collins Employment Land Demand Office Land Demand 2008 2015 2025 2030 2008-2030 Office Sq. Ft. 13,0769034 14,4129570 15,512,958 16,024,542 2,948 ,508 Office FAR' 0.22 0 .22 0 .22 0 .22 0 .22 Office Land (Sq . Ft.) 5994369518 6595119682 7095139447 7298389828 1394029310 Office Land (Acres) 19364 1 ,504 1 ,619 1 ,672 308 ' Fort Collins Buildable Land Inventory- Employment District Source: Economic & Planning Systems The 3 . 47 million square feet of new industrial space demanded over the 22 - year period requires a minimum of roughly 400 acres of Industrial - zoned land , as shown in Table B14 . Table B14 - Fort Collins Industrial Land Demand Industrial Land Demand 2008 2015 2025 2030 2008-2030 Industrial Sq . Ft. 1594019372 1699759587 1892719659 1898749219 394729847 Industrial FAR' 0 .2 0 .2 0 . 2 0.2 0 .2 Industrial Land (Sq. Ft.) 77,006,860 84,8771934 911358,297 94,3711097 175364,237 Industrial Land (Acres) 11768 15949 21097 25166 399 ' Fort Collins Buildable Land Inventory-Industrial District Source: Economic & Planning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 79 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY According to the 2007 Buildable Lands Inventory , there are 1 , 012 acres of vacant Employment -zoned land and 764 acres of vacant Industrial - zoned land in Fort Collins as shown in Table B15 . Based on the previous section , over the next 22 years , 308 acres of office land and 399 acres of industrial land will be demanded . These estimates represent minimums and must be adjusted upward by some factor to provide for choice of location and to avoid artificially increasing land prices by severely limiting developable land supply . Because office space is fairly flexible and can be accommodated in a variety of forms and densities , an upward adjustment factor of 1 . 5 was applied to maintain competitive land prices and to accommodate unique business needs . With the factors applied , 462 acres of Employment - zoned land are required . In other words , to accommodate the 308 acres of office land demand 462 acres must be zoned for Employment . A similar upward adjustment must also be applied to the 399 industrial acres demanded . New industrial development typically requires large amounts of contiguous land , and is therefore relatively inflexible in terms of location choice . A somewhat higher factor of 2 . 0 is applied . This results in 797 required acres of Industrial - zoned land . A Comparison of office development capacity with future required Employment - zoned land through 2030 , results in a remaining capacity of 550 acres ( 54 percent ) of vacant Employment- zoned land , as shown in Table 1315 . Comparing industrial development capacity with future required Industrial - zoned land through 2030 results in a capacity shortfall of 33 acres (4 . 0 percent ) . Table 1315 - Development Capacity Development Capacity (Acres) Office Industrial Total % Total % Vacant Land Capacity' 11012 764 Land Demand 308 399 Adjustment Factor 1 . 5 2. 0 Land Allocation Required 462 46% 797 104% Remaining Capacity 550 54% -33 -4% Fort Collins 2007 Buildable Land Inventory Source: Economic & Planning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Mountain Vista Employment/Industrial Land Demand Although a significant 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 proposed 2009 Framework Plan includes 131 acres of additional Employment -zoned land or 13 . 0 percent of the existing vacant land capacity as shown in Table B16 . Table B16 - Mountain Vista Development Capacity Development Capacity ( Acres) Employment Industrial Total % Total % Mountain Vista Subarea Existing 530 309 Proposed ' 661 457 Change 131 148 Total Land Capacity Existing 1 ,012 764 New 13143 912 % Change 13% 19% Remaining Capacity Existing 550 54% - 33 4 % Adjusted/New Capacity 682 60% 114 13% Based on preferred Framework Plan Source: City of Fort Collins, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc . The proposed 2009 Framework Plan 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 and interstate and railroad access . Therefore , it is reasonable to add Industrial -zoned land in the subarea . 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 . Impact on Jobs/Housing Balance The jobs / housing balance ratio is a tool frequently used to measure the balance between jobs and housing units in a community . As an easily calculated and understood metric , the jobs / housing balance ratio simply compares the total number of jobs with the total number of housing units in a community . A ratio of less than 1 . 0 means residents must commute outside the City for employment while a ratio of greater than 1 . 0 means that workers employed in the City generally reside outside the jurisdictional boundaries and commute inward . Theoretically , this provides a measure of "quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 81 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN of life " by indicating the amount of commuting required to or from a community for employment , and thus , indirectly measures the level of traffic congestion and commute times . The meaning of the jobs / housing balance can often be overstated . In reality , 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 shown in the proposed 2009 Framework Plan 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 exiting Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to 1 . 56 under the proposed Framework Plan . This small increase (well within the margin of error at approximately 2 . 6 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 . Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood As part of the reevaluation of the residential and mixed - use zoning districts within the Mountain Vista Subarea , the City of Fort Collins requested that EPS examine future multifamily demand . This chapter of the report reviews recent multifamily growth in the Mountain Vista Subarea and the City as a whole . Future demand is forecast considering historic trends and changes in demographic conditions and residential preferences . HISTORIC HOUSEHOLD GROWTH Over the past eight years the City of Fort Collins has added 3 , 415 attached residential units , as displayed in Table 1317 . The amount of attached units accounts for approximately 33 percent of the 10 , 396 units built over the time period . On average , the City has added 533 attached residential units ( including mixed - use ) and 776 single - family units annually . Table 1317 - Fort Collins Permits, 2000- 2008 2000 - 2008 Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change Avg . # Total # Mixed -use n/a n/a n/a n/a n /a n /a 301 26 87 138 414 Multi Family 601 738 312 425 308 244 127 160 431 372 39346 Single Family 982 11113 11222 985 988 736 439 308 208 776 69981 Single Family Attached n/a n/a n/a n/a n /a n /a 25 33 11 23 69 Total 19583 1 , 851 19534 1 ,410 1 , 296 980 591 501 650 19155 10 ,396 [Note] Mixed-use and single family attached included in multi family prior to 2006 1 Permits are through September 2008 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Over the past eight years the Mountain Vista Subarea has added over 1 , 100 residential units , as displayed in Table 1318 . On average , the area has added 138 residential units annually with single - family homes accounting for approximately 76% of units . A little more than half of all single - family units were permitted in 2001 and 2002 as the southeast portion ( near County Road 48 and 1 - 25 ) of the subarea was built out . Multifamily development within the subarea captured the highest amount of the City ' s total building in 2000 when multifamily units in the subarea accounted for 29% of the Fort Collins ' total . However, the subarea has more consistently ranged between 3 - 6% of the overall multifamily units . The subarea ' s capture of Fort Collins single - family is consistently higher than the multifamily capture , ranging from an average of 12% to above 20% in several years . Overall , the subarea has captured 4% of single - family attached construction , 12% of single - family detached construction , and 8% of multifamily construction between 2000 and 2008 . Table B18 - Mountain Vista Permits , 2000- 2008 Unit Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average Total Permits Single Family Attached --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 - -- --- 0 3 Single Family 46 252 169 54 26 83 96 44 62 104 832 Multi Family 176 13 13 35 17 8 3 — --- 33 265 Total 222 265 182 89 43 91 102 44 62 138 1100 % of Ft . Collins Single Family Attached --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 % 0 % 0 % --- 4% Single Family 5 % 23 % 14 % 5 % 3% 11 % 22 % 14 % 30 % --- 12% Multi Family 29 % 2% 4% 8% 6% 3% 2% 0% 0 % — 8% Total 14 % 14 % 12 % 6 % 3 % 9 % 17 % 9 % 10 % --- 11 % 2008 data is through June 31 , 2008 Souce: City of Ft. Collins; Economic & Planning Systems As demonstrated in Mountain Vista ' s higher capture of Fort Collins single - family construction , the subarea is expected to be a focal point in the region for single - family home development in the future . The large amount of greenfield land and the short drive time to downtown Fort Collins and I - 25 further underscore the historic trend . However , the comparable examples of multifamily development evaluated later in this chapter provide some indication of the future presence and size of the Mountain Vista multifamily market . APARTMENT MARKET CONDITIONS The Fort Collins apartment inventory expanded by 3 , 783 units between 2000 and 2008 as shown in Table 1319 . This expansion represents a 25% increase in the number of apartments in Fort Collins . Fort Collins added an annual average of 473 units during this period at a 3 . 1 % annual average growth rate . During this time period apartment development within the Mountain Vista Subarea is estimated to account for a very small amount of the total inventory growth . Mountain Vista ' s 2% share of growth results from a single apartment complex at the northwest corner of Vine and Timberline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 83 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table B19 - Fort Collins Apartment Inventory, 2000- 2008 Year Units % Change 2000 155399 --- 2001 16 , 147 4. 9% 2002 16 ,844 4. 3% 2003 175579 4.4% 2004 17 ,892 1 . 8% 2005 18 ,420 3. 0% 2006 185728 1 . 7% 2007 19 ,053 1 . 7% 2008 19 , 182 0. 7% Total New 35783 24 .6 % An n Avg . 473 3 .1 % [Note] Based on 1 st quarter inventory Source: North Front Range Apartment Survey; Eco COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENTS To estimate the size and context of future multifamily development within the Mountain Vista Subarea EPS conducted site visits within the Fort Collins suburban context . Single - family development , including a multifamily component as a part of a larger overall development , was analyzed to determine the likely density and amount of development expected within Mountain Vista . The two most prominent examples include the multifamily development within Rigden Farms and multifamily development along Rock Creek Road . All multifamily locations throughout the Fort Collins market outside of downtown and CSU had similar densities and architectural character to the selected projects . Price points and on - site interviews indicate the primary driver of demand for multifamily for- sale housing is affordability . The locations and relative size of the multifamily components of these developments is displayed in Figure 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure 133 - Location of Comparable Multifamily Development MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA : COMPRA��BLE MULTIFAMILY LOCATIONS e � a q* H US N17111 R � �'\ � �'•' ti � ti'� r IL L,t+'t" l� � \ •�• _ � H Eeaxrraoxps J ``�• G rvw IDxurr LY 1 � If uFM .YstS a � 9 � I _ a SUBAREA PLAN BOUNDARY -1 D T lot truer M Cr 5 4 ��F• � ] -1 ` � � 1� Si sl ILI n I l' `I `{4' rl 44 3f r iH , J' I�RD J 'j SOUN FIEW C. ,. I' 1 , „ { . _ K•iGIELL 'AA rv. w E `' ' fa. RIGDEN FARMS MULTIFAMILY 11 8 L w r V SfDiHIrL MULTIFAM,�I.LLY ,W — I iJ• u1 � I , 3 til ' all `1 � - I )PI m -..� �_ L , o f nxrz d m W a} t IFMkV t _ nT. i, Ft ,'I µMMxl. LN rD La Yp 1 2 � •�! tL � i0�—a ♦ � J r L JI HD 1 - /, _ DUNirHMn2 1 ,T n W J� P r F i K ck- `I t W 3T FY 4 a r Miles 0 0. 5 1 2 r � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 85 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Rock Creek Drive Developments The primary multifamily developments along Rock Creek Drive consist of both Morningside Village and Observatory Village . Observatory Village includes both single - family homes and multifamily units . The character of the development is similar to the mix of uses anticipated within the Mountain Village Subarea with a proposed mixed - use development directly west of Morningside Village , a proposed tech center at the northeast corner of Timberline and Rock Creek Drive , and the recently completed elementary and high schools . The developments are zoned in the Harmony Corridor District and Low- Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood District . The inventory of units constructed in the vicinity of Rock Creek Drive currently consists of 202 multifamily units and 341 single - family units as shown in Table 1320 . On average , 29 multifamily units were constructed between 2002 and September of 2008 . Although more multifamily units will be completed in the future , multifamily units currently comprise 37% of the development . The total residential development including single - and multifamily units is estimated to occupy 250 acres of which approximately 15% is devoted to multifamily uses . Table B20 - Rock Creek Drive Developments Change 2002 - 2008 Unit Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 # Avg # Multi Family 17 46 56 46 11 15 11 202 29 Single Family 55 36 71 44 65 40 30 341 49 Total 72 82 127 90 76 55 41 543 78 Source: Economic & Planning Systems; City of Fort Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Morningside Village 11 � � Morningside Village consists of three phases of residential development and is projected to include 298 units at buildout with a medium density mix of cottage condominiums , townhomes , and veranda homes . Units are priced between $ 170 , 000 and $250 , 000 . The site plan for the development is E displayed in Figure 134 . All buildings within the project are two stories and the development has an overall density of 11 . 7 dwelling units per Example of Morningside Village Condo acre . Independent analysis by EPS indicates that the Photo Credit : EPS development ' s gross density is 9 . 8 dwelling units per acre . On - site sales representatives indicated the project has experienced good sales with all Phase I units sold and 66% of Phase II units sold . Phase III is expected to begin construction after the completion of Phase II . Figure B4 - Morningside Village Site Plan li\RWA\ III11ha11aw,111WR iU IURl U6Yk10fMl.\l3 U I)V% SIIMMARY PP r. 1 II HJIAtnr3 M RR � 1J I iw�u VIMW It r 1 L I I111)I ITII %I k II 1 Q 111A1' AT IIgi111 RING Milli A InA I AII . I•ATN �r<nlon lL e (I— . Im���yyy _ 3F + .✓ 11 ' 1r .�4Lr .. r J >s' J�� 'x U ✓ J _ t . � W 01 11 .,yam WIU✓MI R, I K i SROI I 1 '.,II. . ', 1 1 V I1111 Morningside Village VAN iI II T PR1n•I RIi 1 ILLLLUSMME Pwa nw.rmm.wllmm wu.nnrv. Sepn rI). MI QSouth Harmony LLC t1T L.tiowalr111 Or.W lip W MII ObTIiN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 87 al, 4 Ir A. 1i { � �__� � " - r, • i YF � i } L irtl tea; 1i! *6.117 ```{ . � •r a r . F '! 1 Al S { t r kvv IN. . i �B'.a . • . i I'. ..i Yv� •rt a . � � � �. rl�. i . ' �i Fi rc�1 � Iip fa 1 4 e t i i i yi ,: 4r +d u MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Rigden Farm Developments The developments associated with Rigden Farm are part of a master plan first approved for the area in 1999 . Multiple developments currently occupy the site located at the southeast corner of Drake and Timberline including single - family , townhomes , apartments , and a senior living facility . The majority of the multifamily development falls within the Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood District and Low Density with some of the development also within the Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Development . Example of Rigden Farm Condo Through September approximately 687 units were built Photo Credit: EPS on the site , as shown in Table 1321 . A total of 364 units are attached and account for approximately 53 % of all units . An annual average of 50 multifamily units were constructed between 2000 and September of 2008 . The multifamily portion of the site is estimated to occupy 48 acres , or approximately 16% , of the 300 - acre total development . Gross density of the multifamily portion of the development is estimated at 7 . 15 dwelling units per acre . Table B21 - Rigden Farm Developments Change 2000 - 2008 Unit Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081 # Avg # Multi Family - -- 40 69 45 25 28 44 60 32 343 43 Single Family Attached n /a n /a n /a n /a n /a n /a 6 11 4 21 7 Single Family 21 52 32 49 32 50 73 8 6 323 36 Total 21 92 101 94 57 78 123 79 42 687 76 1 Through September2008 Source: Economic & Planning Systems; City of Fort Collins SideHill Rigden Farms is also in close proximity to the SideHill community located on the northeast corner of Drake and Timberline . The development represents one of the few examples of multifamily development in a Fort Collins suburban context greater than 2 stories ( 3 stories ) . The multifamily portion of the development is zoned Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood and the remainder of the development is Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood . The project is positioned as an extremely affordable project with sales prices marketed around $ 130 , 000 . The multifamily portion of the 310 - acre development site is approximately 22 acres , or approximately 7% . Gross density within the multifamily portion of the development is estimated at 6 dwelling units per acre . SideHill currently includes 131 constructed multifamily units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 89 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS Multifamily development sites considered in this report ranged in size from 21 to 48 acres , as shown in Table B22 . Gross densities within these projects averaged 8 dwelling units per acre , inclusive of right - of- way and other supporting land uses . Overall , the land devoted to multifamily in these projects averaged 12 . 9% . Table B22 - Multifamily Development Characteristics Project Site Characteristics Gross % of MF Units MF Acres Total Acres MF Density MF Land Sidehill 131 21 310 6 . 2 6 .8 % Rigden Farms 343 48 300 7. 1 16 .0 % Rock Creek Drive 410 42 250 9. 8 16 .8 % Total 884 111 860 8. 0 12 . 9% ' Includes full buildout Source: Economic & Plannings System ; City of Fort Collins Based on comparable development , future development of the multifamily market within the Mountain Vista Subarea is expected to be driven by affordability as residents seek lower cost alternatives to single - family housing . As a result , the percentage of land dedicated to multifamily use in comparable development indicates one measure of the proportion of multifamily housing to be included in the subarea . The average land allocation of 12 . 9% in comparable projects provides an upper range to multifamily development in the subarea . Mountain Vista represents a much larger development area than the comparables ; therefore the amount of land dedicated to multifamily will be lower overall . Based on a multifamily dedication factor of 8 . 5% , EPS estimates future multifamily demand in the Mountain Vista Subarea will occupy between 130 and 150 acres as shown in Table B23 . Under the residential land allocation scenarios provided by EDAW and the City , EPS ' recommendation ranges from approximately 209% less to 5% more than the proposed multifamily land dedications . A land use dedication matching EPS ' proposed residential allocation most closely aligns with the Preferred Alternative , recognizing that the majority of future multifamily development will occur at medium densities of 12 dwelling units per acre . However , a small amount of higher density development in proximity to the Community Commercial town center and in apartment units is also anticipated . Additionally , EPS acknowledges that outside market events such as City development incentives may result in an alternative density outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table B23 - Residential Land Demand Analysis Preferred Use Type Alternative (acres) Residential Land Area 1 ,680 Proposed Allocation Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods 1 ,298 Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods 144 Community Commercial 30 EPS Land Demand Estimate Factor Multifamily Land 8. 5% 143 Town Center Civic Land 10% 3 Town Center Commercial Land 65% 20 Total Proposed Multifamily Land 2 152 % Different from EPS Estimate 6 % 1 Includes mixed use and single use commercial space Z Includes mixed use space above commerical uses in town center Source: Economic & Planning Systems; City of Fort Collins December 2008 - Plan Alternatives Analysis This section of the report summarizes the findings from the above analysis relating them to the existing framework and the three draft Mountain Vista Subarea land plan alternatives developed in December 2008 (A- C ) . All figures and calculations are based on the best available data as of December 2008. City staff further tested three additional plan alternatives ( D - F ) in February 2009 . These three alternatives explored different street alignments , with no changes to land use designations . As a result , the market analysis did not include a comparison of these later alternatives . The summary discusses the amount of land within the CC , E / I , and MMN land use zones . In addition , the summary includes several qualitative observations concerning the market competitiveness of each alternative . A summary of the acres by land use designation is provided in Table 1324 . This summary provides context for the analysis of the existing framework and draft Plan alternatives which follows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 91 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Table B24 - Summary of Plan Alternative Land Use Acres Existing Alternatives Type Framework A B C Land Area (Acres ) 29989 39100 31100 31100 Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods 19480 19500 19620 11644 Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods 145 180 60 36 Community Commercial 78 30 30 30 Industrial 309 550 550 550 Employment 530 621 621 621 Community park 110 110 110 110 Institutional 108 109 109 109 Housing Units 71374 61407 61248 6 , 132 Jobs 119725 14 , 223 14 ,741 14 , 425 Jobs- Housing Balance (Citywide) 1 . 50 1 .56 1 . 57 1 .57 Source: City of Fort Collins, EDAW , Economic & Planning Systems EXISTING FRAMEWORK The existing Framework Plan was adopted in 1999 . Based on the market study , the following conclusions summarize the market position of this alternative : CC Zone District The existing framework plan includes approximately 78 acres of CC zone district land . This mixed - use zone district allows for a variety of uses ; however , it is primarily intended to foster commercial ( retail ) development . The 2009 market study indicates that approximately 18 to 25 acres of retail development is supportable at a central focal point within the subarea . The existing framework, to the extent CC zoning is intended to foster retail development , exceeds the amount supportable according to the market study . The amount should be reduced to an amount that can provide 18 to 25 acres for retail development and additional zoning for supporting uses such as high density residential , civic uses , and open space . E/I Zone District As indicated in the market study chapter dealing with Employment / Industrial land demand , there is sufficient demand to meet the Employment - zoned land needs of the projected employment over the next 22 years . The proposed 2009 Framework Plan shows an increase of 131 acres represents a 13% increase in the vacant employment land supply . Market demand as forecasted by employment growth should not prevent this adjustment from being made to the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan because of the unique attributes of employment land in the Subarea . The employment growth forecast and resulting land demand indicates a small shortfall in Industrial - zoned land of approximately 33 - acres . At a minimum , the Plan should include this amount of additional industrial zoning . Due to limitations on land supply imposed by the GMA , the City should consider providing a larger surplus of Industrial -zoned land to meet the demand beyond the 2030 time horizon . In addition , the subarea provides two unique characteristics that may give it a competitive advantage . These . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN characteristics include : 1 ) large land parcels allowing for maximum development flexibility and 2 ) direct access to the interstate and railroad . These two characteristics make the Mountain Vista Subarea a good location for long - term industrial development . Therefore , the 131 acres of additional Industrial - zoned land should be included in the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . MMN Zone District The existing 1999 Framework Plan includes approximately 145 acres of MMN land , located entirely adjacent to the CC zone . This exceeds the recommendation from the market study by 10 to 30 acres . With this 2009 update , the ideal locations for MMN land would be ( 1 ) adjacent to the CC zone district forming the core of the subarea , and ( 2 ) along any enhanced travel corridors . FRAMEWORK PLAN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section analyzes the Framework plan alternatives that were developed in December of 2008 in light of the market study findings . FRAMEWORK PLAN—ALTERNATIVE A This Framework plan alternative includes the realignment of Vine and Mountain Vista Drives . In addition , this plan includes the greatest amount of MMN zoned land . Based on the market study , the following conclusions summarize the market position of this alternative : CC Zone District At 30 acres , this zone district is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the supportable retail development in the subarea . The district will allow for a grocery store anchor integrated into a mixed - use town center including additional retail , residential , and office development . This 30 - acre zone district will form the nucleus of the town center , which should include other zone districts to encourage medium density multifamily residential , civic uses , and parks . The CC zone district is located at the intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and a secondary arterial . A location at two major arterials , such as Vine and Mountain Vista , would generate a greater amount of drive - by traffic to support retail uses . However , the proposed location is relatively close to the existing residential development and well positioned to take advantage of early residential development in the subarea ( assumed to move from the southwest corner to the east ) . In addition , the land demand analysis supports an additional smaller neighborhood - oriented retail district in the early years of development . An ideal location for this 4 - to 6 - acre site would be at the intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and East Vine Drive . The site will likely include between 30 , 000 to 40 , 000 square feet of retail , restaurant , and service space providing convenience oriented goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood . E/1 Zone District As indicated in the market study chapter dealing with Employment / Industrial land demand , there is sufficient demand to meet the Employment - zoned land needs of the projected employment over the next 22 years . The existing 329 acres of Employment -zoned land comprises a portion of the existing 1 , 012 acres of vacant land . Therefore , the existing zoning in the Mountain Vista area contributes to the excess supply of employment land citywide . The employment growth forecast and resulting land demand indicates a small shortfall in Industrial - zoned land of approximately 33 acres . The existing 530 acres of Industrial - zoned land in the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 93 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Mountain Vista Subarea was included in the land demand analysis . Therefore , the existing zoning both citywide and in the subarea do not meet the anticipated Industrial -zoned land needed between 2008 and 2030 , let alone the potential need beyond 2030 . The additional 176 acres of industrial land will preserve a supply of land for the projected industrial demands of Fort Collins . MMN Zone District This alternative includes approximately 180 acres of MMN zoned land . There is approximately 30 acres adjacent to the proposed CC zone district . This amount is the minimum amount that should be zoned around this focal point of the subarea plan . Similar subareas in Fort Collins have included between 40 and 50 acres of MMN land in their central districts . In addition , this alternative includes approximately 110 acres of MMN zoned land along the enhanced travel corridor . An enhanced travel corridor is an ideal location for medium density multifamily development . However, as indicated in the market study , the maximum MMN zoning supportable in the subarea ranges from 130 to 150 acres . Therefore , the amount of MMN along this corridor is likely more than the market will support in the time horizon evaluated ( 2008 to 2030 ) . FRAMEWORK PLAN—ALTERNATIVE B This framework plan alternative includes the realignment of Vine creating a focal point for development at the intersection of Vine and Timberline . Based on the market study , the following conclusions summarize the market position of this alternative : CC Zone District At 30 acres this zone district is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the anticipated retail development supportable in the subarea . The district will allow for a grocery store anchor integrated into a mixed - use town center including additional retail , residential , and office development . This 30 - acre zone district will form the nucleus of the town center , which should include other zone districts to encourage medium density multifamily residential , civic uses , and parks . The location of the CC zone district at the intersection of Vine and Timberline places it at a major intersection within the subarea . This location is well suited to generate the necessary drive - by traffic that will provide additional support to retail development . In addition , the proposed location is relatively close to the existing residential development and well positioned to take advantage of early residential development in the subarea ( assumed to move from the southwest corner to the east ) . In addition , the land demand analysis supports an additional smaller neighborhood oriented retail district in the early years of development . An ideal location for this 4 to 6 acres site would be at the intersection of Vine and Lemay . The site will likely include between 30 , 000 to 40 , 000 square feet of retail , restaurant , and service space providing convenience oriented goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood . E/ I Zone District As indicated in the market study chapter dealing with Employment / Industrial land demand , there is sufficient demand to meet the Employment - zoned land needs of the projected employment over the next 22 years . The proposed increase of 131 acres represents a 13% increase in the vacant employment land supply . Market demand as forecasted by employment growth should not prevent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN this adjustment from being made to the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan because of the unique attributes of this area ' s employment land . The employment growth forecast and resulting land demand indicates a small shortfall in Industrial - zoned land of approximately 33 - acres . At a minimum , the plan should include this amount of additional industrial zoning . However, due to the GMA limitations , the City should consider providing a larger surplus of Industrial - zoned land to meet the demand beyond the 2030 time horizon . In addition , the subarea provides two unique characteristics that may give it a competitive advantage . These characteristics include : 1 ) large land parcels allowing for maximum development flexibility , and 2 ) direct access to the interstate and railroad . These two characteristics make the Mountain Vista Subarea a good location for long - term industrial development . Therefore , the 148 acres of additional Industrial - zoned land should be included in the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . MMN Zone District This alternative includes approximately 60 acres of MMN zoned land . Approximately 40 to 50 acres of this land should be adjacent to the CC zone district to help create a mixed - use town center supported by medium density multifamily . The remaining 10 to 20 acres could be located elsewhere in the subarea . Ideal locations would include other major arterial intersections or along the enhanced travel corridor . These satellite locations would be ideal for apartment development . FRAMEWORK PLAN—ALTERNATIVE C This framework plan alternative includes the realignment of Vine and enhancement of Timberline to Mountain Vista . Based on the market study , the following conclusions summarize the market position of this alternative : CC Zone District At 30 acres this zone district is sufficient large enough to accommodate the anticipated retail development supportable in the subarea . The district will allow for a grocery store anchor integrated into a mixed - use town center including additional retail , residential , and office development . This 30 - acre zone district will form the nucleus of the town center , which should include other zone districts to encourage medium density multifamily residential , civic uses , and parks . The location of the CC zone district at the intersection of Timberline and Mountain Vista is the further away from existing residential and early future development of residential . This will likely delay the development of retail at the town center . In addition , the land demand analysis supports an additional smaller neighborhood oriented retail district in the early years of development . An ideal location for this 4 to 6 acres site would be at the intersection of Vine and Lemay . The site will likely include between 30 , 000 to 40 , 000 square feet of retail , restaurant , and service space providing convenience oriented goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood . E/1 Zone District As indicated in the market study chapter dealing with Employment / Industrial land demand , there is sufficient demand to meet the Employment - zoned land needs of the projected employment over the next 22 years . The proposed increase of 131 acres represents a 13% increase in the vacant employment land supply . Market demand as forecasted by employment growth should not prevent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 95 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN this adjustment from being made to the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan because of the unique attributes of this area ' s employment land . The employment growth forecast and resulting land demand indicates a small shortfall in Industrial - zoned land of approximately 33 - acres . At a minimum , the Plan should include this amount of additional industrial zoning . However, due to the GMA limitations , the City should consider providing a larger surplus of Industrial - zoned land to meet the demand beyond the 2030 time horizon . In addition , the subarea provides two unique characteristics that may give it a competitive advantage including : 1 ) large land parcels allowing for maximum development flexibility , and 2 ) direct access to the interstate and railroad . These two characteristics make the Mountain Vista Subarea a good location for long - term industrial development . Therefore , the 148 acres of additional Industrial - zoned land should be included in the revised Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . A sizable zone district is located immediately east of the proposed CC zone district . This alternative attempts to create a greater synergy between employment uses and retail development . However, the location of this employment serves to eliminate a major part of the proposed retail market area . Employees contribute significantly less expenditure potential than a residential unit , in some locations one - tenth to one - twentieth of the expenditure potential . Therefore , this relationship may not be beneficial for retail development at the core of the subarea . The relationship does achieve other land use planning goals that may still make it a reasonable zoning decision . MMN Zone District This alternative includes approximately 36 acres of MMN zoned land all of which is located adjacent to the CC zone district . This is the ideal location for the MMN land in this alternative . According to the analysis of competitive locations , the subarea could support more MMN land than is included in this alternative . Additional Framework Plan Alternatives In all , City staff developed six Framework Plan alternatives between the fall of 2008 , and March , 2009 ( See Figures 136 - 1311 ) . This Land Demand Analysis Report includes an assessment of the first three Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure B6 - Framework Plan —Alternative A Mountain Vista Draft Framework Plan FCort fty.Collins SUBAREA PLAN Advance Alternative A Pbrrwp Y AI I �'W� �� � 1 1 a ,i /,JOli�liie it M '4a t o400 gre g 114r Ifill L . -, 1 WNSRichards Lake Rd r a rve • �O�r r.aim e e r r e►.r re er e: It 9jmF�aO � I - �'•`_, LOlig AOnd�vti�y i 07 lil0l nit..o -••��:JSs• ■ C iVl�■� a•a•,i_ i �cIM. Pin ►, ■ Country � Club d At ® CC a WIN i Wi ` �� r♦A�p s� 1D rp�� S► ♦v\Oros. Y♦a elE�!Clair f` � .�,���,i rSC Ac s'�. ♦ s��QQi�'iuef - �If ' Mown m — OtI►yd• nip "' urni`a' co denmeier Lakeeo 1, ti . 1 0;. o MV ♦ ep a a� %. r 1' aul�nrfc�o'�`r: � a'►�,t6�CQ.. OLD .! . ,..� . .. .. er S \ - — Imo. - - Conift - I E Vine Dr o - ( I 101 t 6� Legend Zones Streets Other Features As . C¢mm�.y CommelcYl tCC) Lxal Road • ' Mw,.am VWa Y • •' Suosea 9olndry A Gale SeWraed Rau Crossmy EmIlil"era (E) -- Curslw �Wwer lJr / December 2008 l mn/ Rega We¢mn P¢ �_ IMu9raI Q1 L.w. Oee,•y M4a1 2-Lana Annul � frel 1 Inch = 2, 500 feet x u,e Wobcirl, , 0.,,,,.,, yE�1a w¢r 0 2, 500 5, 000 Med'un Cenary Mxed _6l,re ArterialTTTII Rabwd Feet use Rnigh ood llAlwl . Ra�ral aa,sr alto cxrwn . SoddtlPSt)I ehx Annul • 6tra�¢d Tnvtl COMdx C« Ay Pa* (CP) = traemiseE PaM aN Rde Gw1A ManeprlrMtA¢a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 97 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAt Figure B7 - Framework Plan —Alternative B MIA Mountain Vista Draft Framework Plan cftyof SUBAREA PUN Fort C� II.15 Alternative 8 nnNpn n MAI " -�:�- � � ;� INS ��► rd's Lake Richards Lake Rd _ �r w i71ee o r c Irt it c.�i - � I 9 9 I itis� -• , Long Pond ii�!cetLo -.:.`i.�tridd r I -O Country ` y �;_. . ' , Club Rd � u [e1 h4.r.4 jr 1 \ •a ;T�nry.` .� �lit��"p V` r�4' Ur .qr ; �i �f� T`v�C1ir C[Or 11 Mountain Vista Dr �s"o Lindenmefer Lake w; ` IJ ppppp MIA Will II E Vine Dr — d ❑ H ■ I I Conifer St� rr I ' II � o Legend Other Zones Streets Other Features ■ communey Commorril lCC) LOW Road MouMllnbL. Pond Y - Sueirta eouneiry A Gnee SePanto Roll Cros.,- December 2008 � °"y "m "' — - jj ' —Poiw Lni R /e edienM oeeman ❑ CRwmer Ineusrulll 1 inch = 2.500 feet Low oensoy Mned � 2 a"AAMal � Tud u_ Nogneorhooe µMN) j�J} wam F1Medlu In0enaey lowod lyprYnal W-HRwTad . 0 21500 51000 OVNeghoorhoodlMMN) Nalual A,, , , Fee t • khool )PW) F na ArYny - � FnhancM Tnral Cart4or Community PIM lcm Interwoven Pork ano lvq` Gmwrh Mannemenl Rni e - aaaa - a - a - - - - - ae . a . a . aaaaa - a - a - a - aeae . a . aaaaaaaaa - a - - - - - . - a - - a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a . aaaaa - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a - a - a - a - ie 98 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure B8 - Framework Plan —Alternative C Mountain Vista Draft Framework Plan C tcoulns Alternative C �811� .+. IF Plxwnq °+�i ., , , " 4 .40 C�ITnf grog �� ■ I I .� 1�..'�' _ _ �� iii .: ,�` Join!■➢�- - 1 Vawe I I e I at 1 1 O LN " rla ' Richards ke Rd � I .\� OH La I - AG 1 � .� rarr.•rr IvI�A S7J� Ow �ri�faF� t ; ! Long Pond Country _� .: Club Rd H ■ uuiir. Win arrttbapi,411 pill Ker y JL r Cl 2= fill •- IT �Il� 'o Cal s••e Cp d go 4 �0 A�eete • °gyp sa°ice.a r09F.a�,1 S°o�ti�`tr�6 R►xs�0�l U` �'!v+'•a�riI .,Sit,��i"creip► ��, w�.�oc�� n[a�c;�{{I �' � � .-- '��.tn _a.'i_cJ ' �O,E� �iC Of� oi iifMPFN u ,E�a - 1� a-' •E�l?�•!0 \sI:�iIi::1,' C� I I • 'I I Mountain Vista Dr 11rrdonmeier Lai 616 �tgt�'JII !Q06er+i`av_D'.\Ov�o� /h•eCl: rToh<��V`ATD�C' �• rNCi)t I I Conifer St t� lip I E Vine Dr o II �� _ . .•_ .._, •. � - ,tea � Legend Zones &reer pl her F e+tures . CummunnycomnertWlccl 1 41 Rose Is- wumuav11 Gra]e 5apanbJ RM Goa+m9 ® loss SUE.w Bwndary Empgymp11E1 f Its aoa �f Pore. Line '1J ,y°mad OgMlbn Po.'a December 2008 ❑ Inme.lalh 1 inch = 2,500 feet IDwMire I.un.nnew — iMl we N"hiso Nelrhoommd IEtMI y'°a� 0 21500 5, 000 ❑ hi ninr6mayWied ++# Redhead . NLnl aem ocn caaam III' XnooI1P5D1 61.m RnIN1 We Enlnnud irrvN Cem]or Feet _ cpmmunMy PIM ICPI MrrNale 36 Ported Rtle = GmM Manaymne qea a . a . a . a . . . . a . a . a • a . a . a . a . a . a . . . . a . a . a • aaa . a . a . a . . . . a . a . a . a . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . a . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . a . a . a . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . a . a . . . . . . . . . . . . a . a . a . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . a . a . a . a . . . . APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 99 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure B9 - Framework Plan —Alternative D Draft Framework Plan otyo( lfHNHFA PLAN _Foc tr S �l � H4NFA 1'I.AV Alternative D IN 3i t �� girl 'If1 11 LT O'v \ — V . Mitt: r 1144 1 �Ric s( I ' � -�°"lr. Ate.k.Yllkeaea.iA � Mardtake d ' -- i�iit>TacYiliFYiSia::Fai — t [ Off[ [ l [ [ gpq f ' Long Pond iiaOMae. �Y i'� � �� • .Vera1�110 PRElfMO`4 ON S ` mil? Nit Ulm ' .A iCr.�c i r - �� �i."Iffia5^a [y..a� I -Mountain ', � « K::.: ; .. Vista Dr � , � err Lt:K•;t � - - 'e•� 6 1 c �sy ` . d .� . 6 q_ d I •: �� m __C.onifer St 41, E Vine Dr � = r[ WIN, It nLegend Zones Streets Other Features ■ Community Commercial (CC) Local Road : Ni Mountan Vista February2009 ® NO Subarea Boundary Grade separated Rail Crossing Employment (E) Collector � . finch = 2, 500feet ❑ Power Line ® Regional DeentgnPond Industrial (1) Low Density Mired 2Lane Artenal Trail 0 2, 500 5,000 Use Neighborhood (LMN) Water Feet Medium Density Mired _y.Lane Artenal +++I Railroad Use Neighborhood (MMN) . Natural Areasl Ditch Corridors . School (PSD) 6-Lane Arterial ON NO Enhanced Travel Corridor Community Park (CP) Interstate 25 T Pad and Ride i GroI Management Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure B10 - Framework Plan —Alternative E Draft Framework Plan Fort ColUns sl:xARFA PI ,A\ Alternative E ) .r I ZO a ' ' P� IuIIII{r . e;re� Richards Lake . d riaaernece��. ycca' - la ■■�� a ■r � D1 Y'!.?Yijl 1 �� es Ow Long Pond '�• i ItM Vile r J S�CrrR�11�it �R �� • { ��•£££ is tLi viR � �tailisy sis�. Il i J"`-. �(.�. FOR t� „5'P■far ;F fyRai .js�+,3 �n� :, , _ Mountain — — `�%•i�Tr R; Vista Dr v� 7 oir > r l■' � a «�T a ' per i �' P! '� .. • ) — Conifer $t -- — — C. I •L 1 E Vine Dr a - E Mai r'� ( tr r I 41, a r Legend . Zones Streets Other Features ■ Community Commercial (CC) Local Road Manlaln Villa Y • a T Subarea Boundary _NR Grade Sepacnen Hn i L;ros np February 2009 Emp oymentlEl Gnnegor _ _ poantrune nduarml p,1 inch = 2 , 500 feet Regional Dnemlon PoM ❑ Low Density Pill — x.Lane Anenal Trell 0 2,500 5.000 Use Neghborbood (LM Water yy�a Feet ❑ IAedium Density 10 _a-Lane Anenal TTTrr Railroad Ilse Negheodioad (MMN) Natural Areal Ditch Cornd, . .... ... ._. .._. . . ._... ...._..... school lase) _._... _. ._..____.._ . _ .�.... __. .... -.. . .__. .. 6-LaneAnenal - � ' EManced TravelG«rN« .. ._. ._ _...- . .—....._ ....... _..._ . ....._.__ .. ... __..._.. 0. .... Parkand Ride . .._.... _ _... ... . .. . . -....._..,._.._.....- _..__._. ..... ' -- CommuMry Pars lCP) Interstate 35. _ ._.. = Growers Management Area APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS 101 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAt Figure 1311 to Framework Plan—Alternative F Draft Framework Plan CtYol SLy PLAN Foort�olhns Alternative F 41 ' 4 LV _ Y �p g• ts . N1111 lot.lank I Itl ■�■ 't■ !� w 4 �tk —�c� Ilee:— a`I' mf ntf'� . qon, : fa w - � i�f.. is .` • t<41ia �I�jL iChards Lake: Rd T `iiuieai:E3ii "aeift7i:trzst L z g.Amk-+e®IN Long Pond a 1.5lobtoo �,, dl ifdGy- w etl4[GGr �.•.� �f'' � •'i F.flir't r�.Sl't�iPFc"&�'d '-'S'C.��`���ri--^.•/ FF�_r� C t1� v ,r. ta �ts C�- al�h�. 5rau V -- e r � IsIt r , wKAss �a::;;.: ' c � � � -- Mountain +� Vista Dr i vt 1 . Q d rt �Cn,f•Sl�V����j.' �d,�P aaplll ,• I h I f/ =►Z Conifer St E Vine Dr tor m - +,a . I E r ' off - -_- -- - - - - - - � - - -� -- - - - - �� J. Legend Zones Streets Other Features . Canmunay CommerplallCCl Loral Road a kWrmain Vela �r e, . ' Sutarea Boundary x Gade SeparatedRNCrl February 2009 L1 Empkoyment (E) Cdkctn 0, 1 to Power L'ne 1 inch = 2 , 500 feet k uSUal (l, 1 R9C ut Derdt on ppW Low Density Maack 2-Larwe Arteral ® paw We Natf lwr W W ILIANI � Water 0 2 , 500 5. 000 W NegDhoMoo MMN) &Care Arterial l i l ll RalmaO Feet ■ Natural Areas CAni Co:.,. i ■ schw (FSD) &Lane Arteral ur I Eharced Travel Corridor . . . ■ D Munw Park 0 park araf Rode y � Interstate 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 APPENDIX B - LAND DEMAND ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN APPENDIX C RIVERSIDE L ^J LSA ASSOCIATES , INC . BERKELEY IRVINE ROCKLIN 132 MOUNTAIN AVENUE 970 . 494 . 1568 TEL CARLSBAD 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 Proposed Framework 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 proposed 2009 update to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . Greenhouse gas emission rates were computed based on the last 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 ( CO2 ) , Methane ( CH4 ) , and Nitrous Oxide ( N20 ) in units of equivalent CO2 . CO2 Equivelant Emission Rates 2500 2000 E m w Y 1500 C O .N h E Y — Surface Street c v 1000 � — Freeway o- w N U U 500 ra 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average Vehicle Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C - GREENHOUSE GAS and AIR QUALITY IMPACTS MEMO 103 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN These emission rates were used to compute GHG emissions for the land use and transportation system defined by the previous 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as well as the proposed 2009 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 Previous Updated Tons / Day Plan Plan Mountain Vista Subarea 93 . 7 93 . 7 Fort Collins and Vicinity 11662 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX C - GREENHOUSE GAS Et AIR QUALITY IMPACTS MEMO MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN 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 (VHT ) 71342 71706 Other Emissions - Mountain Vista Subarea (Tons/Day) �1999 Plan 2009 Plan Carbon Monoxide (CO ) 4 . 10 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 / Day ) 1999 Plan 2009 Plan Carbon Monoxide (CO ) 56 . 53 56 . 73 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC ) 1977 1 . 79 Nitrogen Oxide ( NOX ) 1938 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) . 11 1111111010101111111 11 1111111110111111111 11111111111011111 11 11 . APPENDIX C - GREENHOUSE GAS and AIR QUALITY IMPACTS MEMO 105 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 APPENDIX C - GREENHOUSE GAS Et AIR QUALITY IMPACTS MEMO MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN APPENDIX C MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT Prepared for : City of Fort Collins 250 N . Mason Street Fort Collins , CO 80522 Prepared by : Felsburg Holt Et Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way , Suite 600 Centennial , CO 80111 303 / 721 - 1440 FHU Reference No . 08 - 164 July 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT 107 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN 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 D1 ) 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure D1 - Mountain Vista Subarea and Noise Measurement Locations v . S „�. 'IT V Mulberry Street ` �. ro l t ,• . Mountain Vista Drive '' c� lr Detail Map �, R �. � o - It I tit * Fort *, Co1nns -- I,1 1 =;Q R, { ; Mulberry Street `t ilw; ITy� Horsetooth Road ► y�� } -1 ,r• ri Prospect Roads fit: � �h �:-� �• 'rv.�a; ;�;' , '-:TlS��.�If ., ''a i •l`• et J� kA 'i , } Warren Park 1 " "F Drake Road ' i • ,` �two ; A s Y , _ De tad Map HorsetoothlRoad y C 01A TT Legends O Measurement Location � _ 0 0. 5 1 11 FA Miles Mountain Vista Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT 109 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN 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 D1 : ■ 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 5113 ) , 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 D1 - Residential Noise Limits Included in Analysis Acceptable Residential Type of Sound Agency 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 D1 ) . 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 D2 ) . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Proposed 2035 street alignments were used . Because the streets have different traffic volumes , each street will have different traffic noise characteristics . 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 D1 . 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 D2 - Noise Model Roads of Interest ( 2035 Alignments ) I G: Mountain ista D64 rive IE i I xry , ®af: Conifer Street``=- - s r ' OIdkVine Drive RZ Legend o 11500 37000 Noise Analysis Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT 111 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Traffic Noise Results The measurement results are summarized in Table D2 . 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 D1 ) . 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 may have been due to park activities , not traffic . ) Table D2 - Results from Noise Measurements Hour of Location 1 Location 2 Measurement Hourly Leq ( dBA) Hourly Leq ( dBA ) 0000 58 . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN The modeling results are summarized in Table D3 . 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 D1 ) . 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 D3 ; properties within the shaded areas would be incompatible with residential uses according to the indicated agency noise limits . Table D3 - Results from 2035 Noise Models (without Mitigation ) Distance from Future Edge of Street Pavement to Residential Noise Limit ( feet ) Street CDOT HUD EPA Lemay Avenue north of New Vine Drive 160 110 600 Lemay Avenue south of New Vine Drive 120 100 570 Conifer Street 50 55 290 New Vine Drive 95 80 450 Old Vine Drive 35 25 260 Timberline Drive north of New Vine Drive 160 150 580 Timberline Drive south of New Vine Drive 160 150 550 Mountain Vista Drive 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 D1 ) . ( 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT 113 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure D3 - Calculated Residential Set Backs for Major Mountain Vista Subarea Roads ITA^ ' r�+ IN 4 IN J � LL ` • ' 'a _ _ Mountain1Vista Drive a N y K 3sF � + jy Conifer Street r • F =,ram ., I "�^ f.fo .' q �: New Vine Drive OId �Vine Drive --- _:.. �. . I ' •` '� „� :' '1 Legend Noise Analysis Road CDOT ( & HUD ) Set Back Area sv= =r 0 11500 31000 EPA Set Back Area it U Feet Summary A traffic noise analysis was performed for the proposed major road improvements in the Mountain Vista subarea ( Figure D2 ) . The adjoining properties were examined for 2035 traffic noise levels for comparison to three common residential traffic noise limits (Table D1 ) . Without noise mitigation , a set back of at least 100 feet from the major 4- lane arterial streets in the subarea (Table D3 ) 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC NOISE EVALUATION REPORT MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN APPENDIX E TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS Analysis Elements Summary Prepared by : City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning 250 North Mason Street Fort Collins , CO 80524 Revised : August 19 , 2009 The variety of commercial , industrial , employment , and residential land uses is one aspect of updating the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan having widespread support . The project team plans for a street network to provide increased access and mobility to serve current and future land uses . Transportation related issues generated significant discussions throughout the update planning process , in particular, the concerns of some residents within the Lindenwood neighborhood of a potential de facto truck bypass connecting through the subarea . This staff analysis is in response to these concerns raised . 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 1 - 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 brought forward a Framework Plan that balancing all of the input received . As part of this planning process , some residents of the Lindenwood neighborhood 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 analysis was 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 which 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 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 ( See attached transportation context map ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS 115 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN 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 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 1 - 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 , see Figure E1 below . Figure E1 - LCUASS Speed Standards Street Classification Design Speed Limit Street Examples Extension of Realigned Vine Drive 4- Lane Arterial 35 -45 mph Lemay Avenue Mountain Vista Drive Timberline Road Conifer Street 2 - Lane Arterial 30-45 mph Giddings Road Turnberry Road Collector 25 - 35 mph Country Club Road Existing Vine Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN The speed limit analysis presented at the March 18 , 2009 Transportation Board meeting by the Lindenwood neighborhood was 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 / 1 - 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 ( See Figures E4 and E6 ) . Figure E2 - Speed Limit Analysis Average Posted Street Route Speed Limit SH 14 / US 287 42 mph Existing Northeast Streets 52 mph Draft Plan (Vine @ 35 mph ) 46 mph Draft Plan (Vine @ 40 mph ) 49 mph Draft Plan (Vine @ 45 mph ) 52 mph Timberline (Vine @ 35 mph ) 41 mph Timberline (Vine @ 40 mph ) 43 mph Timberline (Vine @ 45 mph ) 44 mph TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS There are many factors which 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 estimates an average travel time for the proposed 2009 Framework Plan of 12 minutes . City Traffic Operations 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 . WEIGHT LIMITATIONS The maximum permitted vehicle weights 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS 117 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AIR QUALITY The project team prepared an air quality analysis comparing the proposed 2009 Framework Plan and the existing 1999 Framework Plan and Master Street Plan street networks . This analysis included estimates of the annual amount of 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 1999 and proposed 2009 Framework 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 US Environmental Protection Agency standard and a 66db Colorado Department of Transportation standard . Figure E5 highlights 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 Both City of Fort Collins and Colorado Department of Transportation ( CDOT) adopted the SH 14 / US 287 Access Control Plan ( available at fcgov . com / transportationplanning / 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 . With additional access points along arterial streets , the result is reduced traffic speeds and delays at intersections . This can slow traffic 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 2 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 Figure E6 ) . This does not include any additional controlled intersections which may be required at the time of development . There will likely be many more controlled and uncontrolled intersections along the local streets . RAILROAD CROSSINGS Both 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 Avenue between Mulberry Street and Lincoln Avenue . Both are secondary lines providing additional capacity to other BNSF and UPRR railroad facilities in Weld County . The railroad tracks along Riverside / Jefferson are owned by UPRR and operated by Great West Railway (GWR ) . GWR provides train car switching between UP switching yards 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN 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 . If traffic has to wait at a railroad crossings , travel times are increased and average speeds reduced . 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 providing greater operational efficiencies . Analysis and Street Design Supports the SH 14/US 287 Truck Route The project team will plan for a street network providing access and mobility to current and future land uses . The street network will serve all modes of travel , including trucks , needing 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 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 updating the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan , the project team suggests several street design elements to help discourage long - haul through truck traffic along the proposed arterial streets . Final street design and a traffic impact study will occur concurrently with the development review process . This would give both the public and 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 4 - lane arterial streets . City Traffic Engineer indicated 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 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 . City of Cheyenne currently plans a roundabout on an arterial street , though it will accommodate trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS 119 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN ■ Street Design Speed: The design speed of new streets is adjustable 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 a 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 1 - 25 . In the event 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 was 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure E3 - Truck Route Comparison SH 14 / US 287 in Average MPH (Total / Distance ) Mulberry ( 1 - 25 to Link ) 2 . 7 mi x 50 mph = 135 . 0 Mulberry ( Link to Mountain ) 1 . 2 mi x 35 mph = 42 . 0 Jefferson (Mountain to Cherry) 0 . 6 mi x 30 mph = 18 . 0 256 : 6 . 1 mi = 42 . 3 mph College ( Cherry to Vine ) 0 . 2 mi x 35 mph = 7 . 0 College (Vine to SH 1 ) 1 . 4 mi x 40 mph = 56 . 0 Totals 6 . 1 mi 256 . 0 Existing Northeast Streets 1 - 25 (Mulberry to Mountain Vista ) 2 . 0 mi x 75 mph = 150 . 0 Mountain Vista ( 1 -25 to Timberline) 1 . 5 mi x 50 mph = 75 . 0 Timberline (Mountain Vista to Vine ) 1 . 0 mi x 45 mph = 45 . 0 438 . 5 : 8 . 4 mi = 52 . 2 mph Vine (Timberline to College ) 2 . 5 mi x 45 mph = 112 . 5 College (Vine to SH 1 ) 1 . 4 mi x 40 mph = 56 . 0 8 . 4 mi 438 . 5 Draft Preferred Plan 1 - 25 (Mulberry to Mountain Vista ) 2 . 0 mi x 75 mph = 150 . 0 Realigned Arterial ( 35 mph ) 4 . 5 mi x 35 mph = 157 . 5 355 . 5 : 7 . 7 miles = 46 . 2 mph Realigned Arterial (40 mph ) 4 . 5 mi x 40 mph = 180 . 0 378 . 0 : 7 . 7 miles = 49 . 1 mph Realigned Arterial (45 mph ) 4 . 5 mi x 45 mph = 202 . 5 College ( Realigned Vine to SH 1 ) 1 . 2 mi x 40 mph = 48 . 0 400 . 5 : 7 . 7 miles = 52 . 0 mph 7 . 7 mi Mulberry / Timberline / Vine Route Mulberry ( 1 - 25 to Timberline ) 1 . 7 mi x 50 mph = 85 . 0 Timberline 1 . 3 mi x 40 mph = 52 . 0 (Mulberry to Realigned Vine ) Realigned Vine - 35 mph 2 . 5 mi x 35 mph = 87 . 5 272 . 5 / 6 . 7 miles = 40 . 7 mph (Timberline to College ) Realigned Vine - 40 mph 2 . 5 mi x 40 mph = 100 . 0 285 . 0 / 6 . 7 miles = 42 . 5 mph (Timberline to College ) Realigned Vine - 45 mph 2 . 5 mi x 45 mph = 112 . 5 297 . 5 / 6 . 7 miles = 44 . 4 mph (Timberline to College ) Mulberry ( 1 - 25 to Timberline ) 1 . 7 mi x 50 mph = 85 . 0 6 . 7 mi APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. . . . TRUCK. . . . . . . . . . . .BYPASS. . . . . . . . . . . ROUTE. . . . . . . . . . .ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121. . . . - MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure E4 - Truck Route Analysis Context Map Mountain Fort Collins Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan Update Truck Route Analysis Context Map Doucilas Road 0 ° _C ti Terry \7 Lake ✓q O °a A -B Brewery 00 N D \ aP7 .I 1 Q I v v I ° I Realigned Vine Drive � I I I E I Airpark "Old Town " I Mulberry Street / SH 14 � I Six-Lane Arterial Street Interstate 25 (four-lane) O 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 O Institutional Collector Street (two-lane) Timberline Road Route Q Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure E5 - Calculated Residential Set Backs for Mountain Vista Subareas Major Roads I� 3.. -- z -------------- , - - -T L ti ' T / - 1 .��•� ( -/�,. VMS � > � 1 • J Y� y IS. Q Mountain Vista Drive � E I� 1l y Conifer Street Ira ` New Vine Drive ,� r� ( . 'Old Vine Drive ; r � Legend .. ' Noise Analysis Road r CDOT ( & HUD ) Set Back Area , 500 3, 000 h. ry , � Feet EPA Set Back Area �a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS 123 MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Figure E6 - Existing Et Planned - Controlled Intersections `1Qvn1A10_VhP Fort Collins SUBAREA PLAT Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan Update Existing and Planned Controlled Intersections Dou las Road 0 N V V Tetry Lake `0> Poo °a A -B Brewery 000, ry P C Q Vine Drive v s c � .` M F Airpark "Old Town " Mulber t SH 14 + Six-Lane Arterial Street Interstate 25 (four-lane) 0 Low-Density Mixed Use 0 Employment � Four-Lane Arterial Street Railroad 0 Med.-Density Mixed Use 0 Community Park � Two-Lane Arterial Street SH14/US 287 Truck Route 0 Community Commercial 0 Institutional Collector Street (two-lane) — — Draft Plan Streets 0 Industrial Controlled Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 APPENDIX E - TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ANALYSIS RESOLUTION 2009-087 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP TO COMPORT WITH THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS,by Resolution 2009-086,the City Council has adopted the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,because ofthe adoption of the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the City Council has determined that certain amendments should be made to the City Structure Plan Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Structure Plan Map are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Fortcollins City of Fort Collins Structure Plan r� ti VAlellin� ton 1 uxnrxsn, ,p • a ` Raserv,i � � U •� ` -- -�' Il F rt Collins- Nvellinoton GR-196 1 eparator a Cdn o-lnlns i La orte e Bellvue' t 'i roL,rr cv_ehll; __. I,i� �Villr� �• 1 Meunlain Vi5!a i 0 E a �r';� u e } r m CSU `� 'T Imo• fs%-A � � � a..L r � Foothills L7 Vino .•-••_•• _..� i' �• T° Campus 'f Lr.� •\' _� ' GMA Expansion __ i, �, \��, --°•_.._.�lC _.._.. Area Mrllhc rfyaNaaa _ — Ski-14 Lory + State 1 Csu Park P-I:ospert v I Csu A • Drake--,L�- 1 Fort C Ilins- R°S°^'O1• � I Tim ath Sepa ator Horsetooth Mountain Horsetoolh •• 1 Park ��_ ' Ct } Jth Hdumony z 1... . r \ -"� j 1 •�' W idsor •.-•. .,��- ;.! �••-• 1 �• d Se orator EXMA ✓" ..... C.a ypehtter off-392 1 1 Fort Collin - i ,•�•,� ) r.i� Loveland Separator Windso 7 Loveland i .. T7 1 I Boundaries Districts Fort Collins GMA Downtown District Industrial District Edges Corridors I��1 i'- 'y__l�l��II Community Separator � Enhanced Travel Corridor(Transit) f�,1J Potential GMA Expansion Community Commercial District Neighborhoods ,��'] ``��LL��+ � Foothills I-� Poudre River Corridor Commercial Corridor District [ Urban Estate Other City GMA � Rural Lands Poudre River Planning Area Neighborhood Commercial Center Low Density Mixed-Use Open Lands,Parks, Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas Campus District Medium Density 0 Mixed-Use City Limits - Employment District n , e L a tie,aal TMrie map pmdums aral al vrid"09 dala are developed nor UM by me O y of For Calbrm for no Imamcl purposes wry and ware w,caravan or ImeMed for general use by nmmben W of me Publc The Cry moos rn pip...Wn w wernmy as to M acw ,fnnabneari,or cwrpaM.,ern m p..1ro.ns aca.q n Iabalap or daplaymg darnnnmri,contour°. W — E h.l pmparM ecnm bounames.or plm of Iocalan m any mop tenures manton THE CITY OF FORT COLONS ALINES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR _ W FITNESS OF USE FOR PARToM1a,Y ICULAR PURPOSE,EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA.AM users of gorse map '`t laal pre.i rep nm appp[aa w Ana etteplf same AS IS.PATH ALL FAULTS.eml euumea BI reapmad4ry oI1M1a uN Hereof,nn tWnM Wrerunb end agmaa n ndd Ins Gty M1YTNas Lam and,.09 aA 0amage,aria,or Iiabigry amend from any um of this map Woduq,in cmeidera0on of 1M Cry a miffing made min information avallabla.Indepirmhol verricnion of.11 dub S [on..d foram snnun M amarcd Many users o1 ma-Waduma.or usneMfng ana.Tara Cry OWN...and atoll nor ne ndd LW k Ito BM Arm M damage,lose,or Aebdry,w W mr°n. inmred Adopted. 0911512009 RESOLUTION 2009-088 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR PLAN TO COMPORT WITH THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS, by Resolution 2009-086,the City Council has adopted the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,because ofthe adoption of the 2009 Update ofthe Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the City Council has determined that certain amendments should be made to the North College Corridor Plan to change the location of the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer Street to realigned Vine Drive; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment to the North College Corridor Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the North College Corridor Plan is hereby amended so as to change the location of the enhanced travel corridor from Conifer Street to realigned Vine Drive, as more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A City of North College Corridor Plan 4%, North College F6rt` ins FRAMEWORK PLAN Corridor COUNTRY CLUB RD tERRY Lpy,E RD y j i W WILBOX LN ,EA LLOX LN W Q • w J W W_ J N � . . a e � aFT,. ffr�t, . ml�-., r ur ■ er r,�bnr -.� �t o r r z'rrrr� p W VINE DR �.,._:: ` , E VINE DR 3 S a; Legend N Adopted: 9/15/2009 Pxicels ®FEMA Pouare Flwdway Features Wate'9 ies Land Use O Low Denvty Mixed-use Nognbomona 1 •- Pm sedi ils ` - Study Area =Galweay De9gn Gpporluny Streams Im CommunM Commerdal NOM Cdkge O Med.Dansiy MuedUse Neghbddww A Exiwng Sllc is Enman Tavel Comdor =�� Needed Storm Delenbon Radroab PER Communay Commeraal Powre River PurimOw La° ws Needed Streets/Connections 2U, Trees -"^ Ensng Tads M-1Cmnmemial Nonh Cdlege ®Raer Downtown Redevebpment ii Mtub d Qlndustnal W.Denny ResidenbW 0 650 1,300 2,6010et RESOLUTION 2009-089 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN TO COMPORT WITH THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS,by Resolution 2009-086,the City Council has adopted the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,because of the adoption of the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the City Council has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan to reflect additional Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods zone designation near the intersection of realigned Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Northside Neighborhoods Plan is hereby amended so as to the reflect additional Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods zone designation near the intersection of realigned Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue as more particularly shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Northside Neighborhoods Plan s -i ;"d verg Ereen Eastj ' Evergreen Park P Redwood Pond j CITY ♦ ,� s MeadowsI - i i r i � > Future Vine Drive Realignment Z - • - A- ,r - . . . . e e `' Alfa ista 6 i .�.AJta Vist AmesD11ch/DryCree6 ..~ Leutur may ,de- Underpass ( ke • i; r_.w. t+, E.Vine Drive j - - _ _ -_ An sonvill�ia Lopez/ ez/ -� P i o/ I gnbornocd ' San Cristo �, +"---- Connectwzc Existing Industrial Area omgus House ai fit r .iftCornfro r F rf i IL- � tr @ A B�ICk9kghrtlJ Future Lemay Ave •.= f� =� � Realignment i Buckingham 'l �! 1 y Existing Industrial Area Ah �* � • - ,\ � � ". � .___ _ :�� UP Fe FRAMEWORK PLAN Legend Adopted: 9/15/2009 Plan Boundary Future Land Use Streets & Trails Other e1ieiir City Limits Existing Low Density Residential ;; Industrial M Arterial (4-Lane) ••Green Corridor Water Features Low Density Mixed-Use Residential_ Downtown Mixed Use 1•Arterial (2-Lane) • Gateway/Art Existing Trails 9,r,* Industrial/Residential Interface _ Public Open Lands M Collector (2-Lane) Existing/Potential x Neighborhood Services Stream Corridor - Future Multi-Use Trail Parks CC (Existing/Potential) 001 Future Widened A IV MUltl-Use Sidewalk For Collins North 500 250 0 500 1.000 Feat CLARION �"'��- RESOLUTION 2009-090 ' OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER STREET PLAN TO COMPORT WITH THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS, by Resolution 2009-086,the City Council has adopted the 2009 Update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,because of the adoption of the 2009 Update ofthe Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the City Council has determined that certain amendments should be made to the City's Master Street Plan which refine the street network in the Mountain Vista Subarea concerning collector streets, define the extension of the realigned Vine Drive from Lemay Avenue to Timberline Road,eliminate the extension of Turnberry Road south to of its current terminus at Mountain Vista Drive,and make several minor alignment changes to streets in the Mountain Vista Subarea; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Master Street Plan are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City's Master Street Plan is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk J City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan I ` � N �� Jr. — f � e .n. OURc4 v fff���--- •a 5 wppwo w L .ww Lj. • I �v I - klpnmeier 0. p I �9PLcra d�mca — Z��� s =L UIL-, yess f l LI' I I rrT "4 51 \ q le�.. so ``_—__ � -_� � , \emu � a«aw � ` i\ 1 laity ---�•_-- I :t.. .31j J \ ,1 , G si te ke NY�� `• elsenpy e* NR e L, LppbyeLaka _ „J � .+ - wEcmaemx Er to �` .In ;M V )t _;•ire,_. 1 q.T_6.9_ r N emw1°` I ' wuxe EY uxE a. i yy wxR4 c E I Reoa o Ern. w Eon e � gq ca 1 1 k � _•� � C f �l �1. ,F' � I\ 1 f if in ' I C � � Par a eoRAxew eRo I_ ••l•._ �\. $ l_ wE9ep OR y ))) l ��` Le set, If Rnwx , E a Rnxw '°x* N. a 11 w JJf��� \4 •� g I:' 4r� 'r'w'[m`°�IEON/ oxe� � @ �\ <.l 1 0 ` 11�' pf , / � - Y pVn _�.. EMERweNY RpJ ka fly r A ° �� _ r- t•.- sires, rim cwrEA k, oReak. • L_1J \ y 6OUNIT In D is e^ 4 �` l �� �• tr �-. Eoua o°E°e0e+. I I I-- � �x^'� cx� �I- �11 I ! _ _ �E cam. s �_•_I @ t-7 d 4 r l •� IL 1 ,Nu a E,aavpo pe I L OR \ 4t Fnsso Creek Reservoir Qenaw Lake so... 1 Dlkk Latio 1-'- •rI\ 1 r City tof Legend For` Collins F Collector 2 Lanes ---- Collector 2 Lanes-Outside GMA GIS Arterial 2 Lanes -- Arterial 2 Lanes-Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes ---- Arterial 4 Lanes-Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes -as Major Arterial 6 Lanes-Outside GMA Mlles — Interstate 0 oas oR I e 2.7 3.6 �••_-I City Limits — Railroad Lines Note: other Collector and local streets not shown will be developed in accordance with adopted ED Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing sub-area,Corridor,and neighborhood plans of the cityStraetS streets andArtena/s outside of GMA are shown for contextual purposes only and are not part of the Masher Street Plan. ®Growth Management Area O Potential Interchange The City of Fort Collins is not fiscally responsible for these improvements. These Coup goeuga eN ep enaenyin0 eels aw devebped for use I Me City of Fort Coping for Its internal purposes only,and were not dewpnen or offended for penewl Mis by mamben H •�il WIN public. The Cry mak4 m wPreeenMlron a werrarKy a to Iw eccun°y.unwdmsa.or mmplefene4,aid m pallwlf e.Its amnq m bbdmp a dlepky'np dl em�s•hinters. 11 /I�er'• aoesety penderei w gr.Nne i d N4ben d any re,testures thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLONS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR w 1 F Wj,,.l FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE."PRESSED OR IMPLIED.WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDER LYING DATA.Any Many of these msp '5 prmu Trey,apPe eNns or tldone,a,e,es sane AS IS,WITH ALL FAULTS,eM...4 responnots"el tow tow Mered.aw hadher COveNllIs and sprees the ride pro CM hsmpesa from end puts ap darcpe,Wes.or begbe anafq ham any ua of'his mine proatoo,m aooedeny having pon of the City's mane W s idomlaion avapage.IndePmdenl venflralmn°I eF sele 1--- Rissil Wnlared I1NEn sM1XWd be agNned by arty Yon of lhesa ploMKl9 dr YnderNdp new.The CXy diEdame.end Nell rql N 11de Nebo hn eIry and aN denlape,b99.Y!IwblNly,w11e1119!dllecL �nnveol Adopted 09/15/2009