HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/01/2003 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 098, 2003, AUTHORIZ AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 14
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 1, 2003
STAFF: Steve Comstock
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2003, Authorizing the Transfer of a 151-acre Portion of the
Resource Recovery Farm from the Wastewater Utility to the Natural Areas Program in Exchange
for a Total Payment Amount of$1,890,306.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Wastewater Fund will receive three annual payments that total $1,890,306 from Natural
Resources. The first payment of $620,000 is due on August 1, 2003, and two additional
payments of $635,153 each that include interest of 1.625 % per year are payable on August 1,
2004, and August 1, 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 1982, the City developed the Resource Recovery Farm ("RR Farm") at Prospect Road and I-
25 as a beneficial reuse site for wastewater biosolids. The City land applied biosolids on the site
through the year 2000. As the City has grown, the site has become less functional for this type
of use. In 1993, the biosolids program began its move north to Meadow Springs Ranch. With
the move now complete, the Utilities is no longer using the RR Farm land for biosolids
application.
In 2000, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas program purchased 174-acres of the RR Farm
along with 3.6 shares of the Lake Canal water for the Running Deer Natural Area. In discussion
at the City Council study session regarding the draft I-25 Corridor Plan on August 27, 2002,
there was general support for the City's Natural Areas program to purchase the 151-acre portion
of the RR Farm from Utilities. This 151-acre transfer to the Natural Areas program would
include the 2.4 shares of Lake Canal water associated with this portion of the RR Farm.
The property was appraised at $1,860,000 in October 2002. The purchase price has been set at
this appraised value, and at Natural Resources' request will be paid in three annual installments
beginning August 1, 2003. An interest rate of 1.625% will be charged to offset the cost of the
delayed payments to the Wastewater Fund.
DATE: July
' ITEM NUMBER: 14
This transfer to the Natural Areas program will not adversely impact the Wastewater Utility so
long as it is subject to the understanding that access and utility easements or other easements will
likely be needed for the sale and development of the remaining portion of'the RR Farm, which is
currently being marketed for sale to the general public. This remaining property is a 25-acre
parcel known as "field one". Field one is located on southwest corner of I-25 and East Prospect
Road and it is currently for sale at a minimum price of$2,000,000.
The RR Farm purchase was discussed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board at a work
session in early 2003. Although no formal action was taken by the Board, members of the Board
expressed support for the purchase of the parcel by the Natural Areas program, and no objections
were raised in the Board's discussions.
A map of the property is attached.
• ORDINANCE NO. 098, 2003
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF
A 151-ACRE PORTION OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY FARM
FROM THE WASTEWATER UTILITY
TO THE NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM
IN EXCHANGE FOR A TOTAL PAYMENT AMOUNT OF$1,890,306
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is the owner of that certain real property located in
Fort Collins and known as the Resource Recovery Farm, which was purchased by the
Wastewater Utility for Wastewater Utility purposes (the "Resource Recovery Farm"); and
WHEREAS, the Resource Recovery Farm, which is located southwest of the intersection
of Interstate 25 and Prospect Road, was developed in 1982 by the Wastewater Utility for use as a
beneficial reuse site for wastewater biosolids; and
WHEREAS, as the city has grown, the Resource Recovery Farm has become a less
desirable location for its originally intended use, and in 1993 the Wastewater Utility began
shifting its biosolids reuse operation to its Meadow Springs Ranch property; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility discontinued use of the Resource Recovery Farm for
its biosolids operation in the year 2000, having completed its relocation of the program to
. Meadow Springs Ranch; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that there is no longer a wastewater related use
appropriate for the Resource Recovery Farm, except as expressly set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, in March 1998, the City Council approved Resolution 98-43, authorizing a
50-year Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado State University that required that portions
of the Resource Recovery Farm be used and developed in accordance with the "Poudre River
Environmental Learning District Conceptual Land Use Plan" (the "IGA"); and
WHEREAS, in March 2000, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 199, 1999,
authorizing the conveyance of a mining lease on the western portion of the Resource Recovery
Farm for sand and gravel mining purposes (the "Mining Lease"), which Ordinance further noted
that the 174-acre site subject to the Mining Lease had a total fair market value of $1,270,000,
and that in exchange for a payment of the first of three installments in the amount of$540,000,
the first of three portions of said site would be transferred to the Natural Areas program from the
Wastewater Utility; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility has now received all payments due from the Natural
Areas program in the total amount of $ 1,270,000 for the Mining Lease site, along with the
associated 3.6 shares of Lake Canal Irrigation company, and a portion of said site has now been
named and is in use by the public as Running Deer Natural Area; and
. WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility is currently in the process of marketing for sale the
25-acre portion at the far northeast of the Resource Recovery Farm known as Field One, which
is excluded from the terms of the IGA and which offers more development and revenue-
generation potential for the Utility ("Field One"); and
WHEREAS, Natural Areas program staff has determined that the remaining 151-acres of
the Resource Recovery Farm not previously transferred to the Natural Areas program and to the
south of Field One offers natural area and open space values of sufficient significance to warrant
purchase of that property, more specifically described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), for its appraised value; and
WHEREAS, the Property was appraised in October 2002 to have a fair market value of
$1,860,000; and
WHEREAS, Utility and Natural Areas staffs have proposed that the funds for the
Property be paid to the Wastewater Fund in three installments, the first installment in the amount
of $620,000 to be paid on or before August 1, 2003, and the remaining two, in the amount of
$635,153 each, to be paid on or before August 1 of the next two years; and
WHEREAS, the total amount to be paid for the Property, $1,890,306, reflects the
addition of total interest in the amount of$30,306, based on an annual interest rate of 1.625% on
the amounts due in future years from August 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, certain buildings located on the Property are currently in use by the
Wastewater Utility, and, in order to allow for a smooth transition from this use of the Property,
staff has proposed that the Wastewater Utility's use of the buildings be allowed to continue
through October 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid the creation of impediments to the sale and development of
Field One, and to preserve the revenue generating potential of Field One for the Wastewater
Utility, Wastewater Utility staff has requested that the transfer of the Property to the Natural
Areas program be subject to the acknowledged future need for access and utility easements or
other easements across the Property for the sale and development of Field One, which easements
will be subject to City Council approval by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of real property owned by the City, including
leasing of the property, provided the Council first finds by ordinance that any sale or disposition
of real property owned by the City will not materially impair the viability of any City utility
system as a whole of which the property is a part, will be for the benefit of the City's citizens,
and will be in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the transfer of the Property from the Wastewater Utility, consistent with
the terms and conditions set forth herein, will not materially impair the viability of the City's
wastewater utility as a whole, and will be for the benefit of the City's citizens, and in the best
interests of the City.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
July, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of July, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of July, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF A PORTION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESOURCE
RECOVERY FARM
A tract of land located in Sections 21, 22, 27 and 28 , Township 7
North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer
County, Colorado, the said tract is also a portion of that certain
tract of land described in a Warranty Deed recorded October 2 , 1979
in Book 1992 at Page 280 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the
said Larimer County, the said tract is also a portion of that
certain tract of land described in Exhibit "B" as attached to an
Easement Agreement Recorded September 6, 1995 at Reception No.
95055231 records of the said Clerk and Recorder, being more
particularly described as follows;
Considering the south line of the Southeast quarter of Section 21
as bearing North 88 degrees 44 minutes 39 seconds West between a LS
20605 Aluminum Cap monument at the south quarter corner of the said
Section 21 and a LS 17497 Aluminum Cap monument at the southeast
corner of Section 21, based upon G. P.S. observation and with all
bearing contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the said Section 21;
THENCE along the south line of the said southeast quarter,
North 88 degrees 44 minutes 39 seconds West fcr a distance of
• 300 . 61 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description;
THENCE leaving the said south line, South 19 degrees 13
minutes 46 seconds East for a distance of 84 .31 feet;
THENCE South 04 degrees 13 minutes 14 seconds East for a
distance of 593 . 72 feet;
THENCE. South 23 degrees 43 minutes 07 seconds East for a
distance of 336 .44 feet;
THENCE South 36 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds East for a
distance of 422 .60 feet;
THENCE North 62 degrees 39 minutes 07 seconds East for a
distance of 28 .49 feet;
THENCE South 39 degrees 56 minutes 06 se-conds East for a
distance of 94 . 04 feet;
THENCE North 87 degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds East for a
distance of 159 . 71 feet;
THENCE South 59 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East for a
distance of 135 . 83 feet- ;
THENCE South 03 degrees 16 minutes 50 seconds East for a
distance of 107 . 19 feet;
THENCE North 85 degrees 41 minutes 26 seconds East for a
distance of 48 .38 feet;
TIIFNCE North 43 degrees 51 minutes 33 seconds East for a
distance of 68 .66 feet to the westerly right of way of 2-25 as
shown on a Boundary Survey of the Strauss Cabin Trailhead Property
performed by LS17497 (myself) for the said City of Fort. Collins in
October 1986 ;
. THENCE along the said westerly right of way the following
PAGE 1 OF 3
three (3) courses and distances, (1) North 12 deg::ees 32 minutes 55
seconds West for a distance of 991 . 19 feet;
(2) North 02 degrees 42 minutes 21 seconds West for a distance
of 304 .35 feet;
(3) North 12 degrees 25 minutes 28 seconds West for a distance
of 321 .64 feet;
THENCE continuing along the said westerly :right of way as
shown on a survey by LS14023 and as defined in the property
description shown in the said Book 1992 at Page 280 the following
seven (7) courses and distances, (1) North 12 degrees 38 minutes 14
seconds West for a distance of 968 . 84 feet;
(2) North 25 degrees 25 minutes 54 seconds West for a distance
of 425 .50 feet;
(3) along a curve to the right having a radius of 11680 .00
feet a central angle of 03 degrees 00 minutes 01 :a.=conds and an arc
length of 611 .62 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 09
degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West for a distance of 611 .55 feet;
(4) North 06 degrees 05 minutes 36 seconds East for a distance
of 417 .50 feet;
(5) along a curve to the right having a radius of 11583 . 00
feet a central angle of 06 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds and an arc
length of 1324 .49 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 03
degrees 07 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 1323 . 77 feet;
(6) North 00 degrees 11 minutes 08 seconds East for a distance
of 53 .90 feet;
(7) North 06 degrees 05 minutes 24 seconds West for a distance
of 345 . 66 feet to the north line of a Permanent Easement as
recorded in Resolution 88-66 recorded June 13, 1968 at Reception
No. 88026808 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THEM along the said north line and along the east line of
the said easement recorded at Reception No. 88026808 the following
seven (7) courses and distances, (1) South 89 decrees 5'7 minutes 13
seconds West for a distance of 1059 .64 feet;
(2) North 36 degrees 10 minutes 43 seconds West for a distance
of 3.17 .93 feet ;
(3) North 17 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds East for a distance
of 404 .31 feet;
(4) along a curve to the left having a radi•as of 612. 96 feet
a central angle of 40 degrees 05 minutes 20 seconds and an arc
length of 428 . 88 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 02
degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds West for a distance of 620 .18 feet;
(5) North 22 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance
of 110 .41 feet;
(6) along a curve to the right having a radius of 532 . 96 feet
a central angle of 14 degrees 20 minutes 52 seconds and an arc
length of 133 .46 feet, being subtended by a chord of North 15
degrees 13 minutes 34 seconds West for a distance of 133 .11 feet;
(7) non-tangent from the previous curve, North 44 degrees 22
minutes 29 seconds East for a distance of 1:36 . 14 feet to the
existing south right of way of East Prospect Rca.d;
THENCE along the said south right of way, being a line which
is 30 . 00 feet (measured at right angles) south of and parallel with
PAGE 2 OF 3
Sthe north line of the said northeast quarter of the said Section
21, North 88 degrees 21 minutes 25 seconds West for a distance of
394 .38 feet to the east line of that certainn tract of land
described in a Special Warranty Deed recorded May 1, 1997 at
Reception No. 97026804 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said east line, South 32 degrees 18 minutes
02 seconds East for a distance of 560 .68 feet to the south line of
the said tract described at Reception No. 97026804 ;
THENCE along the said south line, South 88 degrees 25 minutes
55 seconds West for a distance of 127 . 80 feet to the east line of
the Mining and Reclamation Agreement Regarding Resource Recovery
Farm Property as filed with the Clerk' s Office of the said City of
Fort Collins having an "effective date" of April 24, 2000;
THENCE along the said east line of the Mining and Reclamation
Agreement the following three (3) courses and distances, (1) South
O1 degrees 12 minutes 28 seconds West for a distance of 3588 , 51
feet;
(2) South 39 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East for a distance
of 229 .49 feet;
(3) South 06 degrees 41 minutes 55 seconds East for a distance
of 1197. 3.0 feet to the north line of that certain tract of land
described in a Bargain and Sale Deed recorded September 6 , 1995 at
Reception No. 95055229 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
TIiFNCE along the said north line, South 88 degrees 40 minutes
11 seconds East for a distance of 103 .42 feet to the northerly line
• of that certain tract of land described in a Bargain and Sale Deed
recorded September 6, 1995 at Reception No. 95055230 records of the
said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said northerly line, North 61 degrees 21
minutes 01 seconds East for a distance of 306. 09 feet to the said
south line of the southeast quarter of Section 21,
THENCE along the said south line, South 88 degrees 44 minutes
39 seconds East for a distance of 564 , 61 feet: to the point of
beginning.
Containing 156 .487 Gross Acres more less , The above described tract
is subject to the said Easement granted at Reception No. 88026808 .
The said easement contains 5 ,118 acres more or less. The net area
for the above described tract• is 151.369 acres more or less.
The above described tract is also subject to any other easements
and rights of ways now existing or of record that encumber the
property.
I. hereby state that the above description was prepared by me and is
true and correct to the best of my professional knowledge, belief
and opinion. This description is based upon previously compiled
descriptions and not upon a actual field survey.
WALLACE C. MUSCOTT COI,ORADO P.L.S . 17497
P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
• PAGE 3 OF 3
PROSPECT ROAD
SF10
i FIELD ONE
(25 ACRES)
SF3•'��, i SF2
RUNNING DEER
NATURAL AREA
(174 ACRES)
r p sF. FW 02 N
i •O
flm4
1 .0°o sF* SUBJECT PARCFI,
sFef 06 ( 151 ACRES)
•� �
1 •
I1 em sFu
FOLD to
• EXISTING MONITORING WELL SFit $Flo
• NEW MONITORING WELL / •
4
- ,✓� PgLO H .
i
RESOURCE RECOVERY.FARM
G SFu
•
ARCHERY
- RANGE
- &7�'" ,
. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY
I-25 SUB AREA PLAN
AUGUST 27,2002
The meeting began with an overview of fundamental aspects of the Plan presented by
Ken Waido of the Advance Planning Department. The key aspects are as follows:
• The Plan covers the area one-half mile on the west side and one mile on the east
side(to C.R. #5)of the interstate. The north boundary is C.R. #54(Douglas Rd.)
and the south boundary is Carpenter Road.
• The Growth Management Boundary does not change.
• The future land use plan for the corridor calls for mostly Urban Estate zoning with
the exception of one-half mile on either side of East Mulberry which calls for
Low Density Mixed-Use.
• The Plan includes adopting a set of design standards to be incorporated into the
Land Use Code. The primary goal of the standards is to prevent the corridor from
• being stripped-out with commercial development. Secondary uses are prohibited
within one-quarter mile of the interstate(as measured from the outer edge of the
frontage road boundary)which matches the Mountain Vista Area Plan.
• No single family detached housing allowed within one-quarter mile of the
interstate. Single family within the corridor will have a clustering option to
preserve open space.
• Commercial development will be set back from the interstate by a minimum of 80
feet similar to the Harmony Corridor east of Boardwalk. Commercial buildings
along the highway can have no more than 5001.of the site devoted to building
frontage.
• Access is to buildings are from the rear along a secondary road system,not
between the building and the highway along frontage roads.
• The Resource Recovery Farm should remain in open space with a small portion
reserved for future development.
• There are two options for the future retail/activity center. Option One is the
northeast comer of East Mulberry and I.25. Option Two is the northwest comer
of East Prospect and I-25. A chart describes the relative advantages and
disadvantages of both. Council can provide direction on emphasizing one over
• the other or preserving both.
Td Wd9Z:90 £00Z EST 'unf LLT9 7ZZ 0L6 : 'ON 3 C*id 530HIM3d -WLLON WOad
r
• Providing opportunities for affordable housing is goal that is carried over from
the Regional Plan. A chart describes the relative differences between the housing
densities allowed in the Urban Estate(U-E)zone versus the Low Density Mixed-
Use(L-M-N)zone. Most of the City's affordable housing opportunities are in the
Medium Density Mixed-Use zone. The L-M-N contains an incentive for
affordable housing projects on ten acres or more to achieve a density of 12
d.uJacre. The U-E zone is capped at a maximum of 2 d.uJacre and contains no
affordable housing bonus. L-M N,therefore,is a better zone district to offer the
affordable housing opportunity.
There are two parcels in the Sub Area that are vacant and within one-half mile of
East Mulberry,and, therefore,eligible for L-M-N zoning. One is 27 acres north
of Mulberry and one is 47 acres south of Mulberry.
• Multi-family housing is a permitted secondary use in Activity Centers which
would provide an opportunity for affordable housing.
This concluded Ken Waido's overview of the major Plan elements. The Mayor then
opened up the floor to Councilmembers for questions.
Mayor:The Mayor had some questions about increasing the opportunity for affordable
housing and stated that he sees a need for more affordable housing potential.
Marty Tharp: Concerned about existing County zoning within the Plan boundary.
Ken Waido: Within the Plan area,County zoning includes O,Open which allows a
maximum of one unit per 10 acres,F4-1 zoning which allows a maximum of one unit per
2.29 acres, or with sewer, allows two units per acre. There is a mix of County zoning
along Mulberry with M-i for manufactured homes and R,Residential which allows 3
units per acre.
Marry Tharp: Concerned about floodplain issues;
Ken Waido: The Cooper Slough is on the west and Boxelder Creek on the east side of
the interstate. The Boxelder floodplain includes the main channel as well as a small
break-out area at a sharp bend in the channel. This break-out area is a spillover where the
water flows south and then works its way back into the main channel. Density can be
shifted out of the floodplain by clustering as long as density does not exceed the
mandated maximums.
David Roy: Does the County need to be involved?
Ken Waido: Yes, we meet with the County planning staff as we have on other Sub
Area Plans in the Growth Management Area like Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek. The
County grants us the ability to plan areas within the G.M.A.
2
Zd Wd9Z:S8 C00Z 81 'unf LLi9 t?ZZ 8L6 : 'ON 340FU SBOHMS38 -kWUUN WMJ
s
David Roy: Concerned about the northeast corner of I-25 and Prospect. Do our
proposed land uses match the existing County toning? Would like to see an aerial of
existing uses compared with the proposed land uses and concerned about role the County
plays in development of our Sub Area plans.
Karen W.: We always work with the County as part of all our Sub Area plans.
Ken Waido: In this case,the County is involved but not a partner like in the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Bill Bertcby: Concerned about the setback for housing. What about Waterglen?
Kea Waido: Waterglen would have to be setback on"uarter mile under the proposed
design standards.
Bill Bertchy: Questions about L-M-N zoning.
Ken Waido: L-M-N zoning is proposed for the area one-half mile on either side of East
Mulberry to match the established land use pattern approved,developed and developing
in the County.
Bill Bertchy: Why not L-M-N on one-half mile either side of Prospect?
Ken Waido: This area is vacant with no established land use pattern.
Greg Byrne: The Plan suggests that L-M-N is appropriate for either side of Mulberry
but not Prospect. Further,L-M-N would not be palatable for the east side of the interstate
along Prospect Road.
Eric Hamrick: Do we got to boards and commissions after study session?
Ken Waido: Yes we go to boards for input but we come to Council for policy direction.
Eric Hamrick: What did the P&Z think? Why don't we have minutes? Would prefer to
review minutes.
Ken Waido: We had a forum earlier in the year.
Eric Hamrick: What about P &Z's big packet?
John Fischbach: That's what Council received last time we had a study session on
this item.
a( Marty Tharp: Can you tell me more about open lands?
3
£d WdLZ:SO root eT 'unr LLi9 7ZZ OL6 : 'ON 3NOHd SBONMSE21 -MWJ.UN WMA
Ken Waido: There are three areas on the plan designated as open lands. First is the
Resource Recovery Farm. Second is the west side of Boxelder Creek on the Kaplan
property. Thirds is up north.
Greg Byrne: Keep in mind that the new rainfall criteria for stormwater management
results in larger stormwater detention ponds providing de-facto open space.
Eric Hamrick: Could you explain the design standards?
Ken Waido: Our intent is to adopt the design standards for inclusion into the Land Use
Code at the same time as the adoption of the Plan.
Eric Hamrick: Could go into some detail about the 80-foot setback and the one-quarter
mile setback? How are these measured?
Ken Waido: These setbacks are measured at the outer edge of the public right-of-way
for I-25. This means that as the frontage roads bulge out away from the highway,the
setbacks bulge out correspondingly.
Eric Hamrick: Do we have these setbacks in place now?
Joe Frank: No.
Greg Byme: In fact,under the current condition,we have just the opposite with our
"build-to"lines.
Eric Hamrick: I think that 80 feet is too close to an interchange or highway.
Joe Frank: Keep in mind the setback is measured from behind outermost edge of the
right-of-way.
Eric Hamrick: Could you explain more about the one-quarter mile setback?
Ken Waido: Within one-quarter mile of the interstate right-of-way, secondary uses and
residential single family lots would be prohibited. Between one-quarter and one-half
mile of the interstate,residential lots are encouraged to be clustered leaving open vistas.
Eric Hamrick: I am concerned about air quality and the impact of residential so close to
the interstate. I suggest that one-quarter mile setback is not adequatc and could pose a
health risk. Have we done a study air quality? I recall seeing a study that it is not healthy
to have residential near the interstate. I recall that Nancy York may have some
knowledge about this study.
Mayor: I'm concerned about a reference to a study. Do we know if its factual? Is
it scientific?
4
Vd WdLZ:SO £00z 8S 'Unf LL19 4ZZ 046 : 'ON 3NOHd S30WOS38 -Mn.FiN WOad
Ken Waido: We will try to obtain this study and evaluate it.
Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about having sufficient land for affordable housing. City
Plan calls for a 20-year buildable supply of land. This ties into the inventory ofland
analysis. This is one of the bullet items in City Plan.
Ken Waido: Yes,the City Plan Monitoring Report indicates that we are in a 13-15 year
timeframe of land inventory.
Kurt Kastein: Do we still want a 20-year buildable supply of land? I suggest expanding
the L-M-N to provide more housing.
Kurt Kastein: I have a question about the 80-foot setback. Does this apply to the L-M-N
area?
Ken Waido: Actually, in both the L-M-N and U-E areas,the residential setback is one-
quarter mile.
Kurt Kastein: Does this go beyond the current L-M-N standards?
Ken Waido: Yes.
David Roy: How many affordable units are vacant right now?
• Marty Tharp: The Fort Collins Housing Authority has a vacancy rate of 11-12°!o which
is unusually high. I don't know if this is just a blip.
Karen W.: Let's leave our options open. I suggest we keep the L-MrN and
that we keep the 20-year buildable supply timeframe.
Kurt Kastein: Secondary roads are preferred for primary access to properties versus the
frontage roads?
Ken Waido: Yes.
Kurt Kastein: I'm concerned about the parallel road system and its potential cost. I
would like to see a diagram or a master street plan,including the proposed zone changes.
Eric Hamrick: I'm concerned about the general direction we are going regarding this
whole area.
There followed a long discussion among the mayor and Council about City Council
direction from the last study session on this matter. Topics included roadways,the
master street plan,downgrading four-lane arterials to three-lane, and the funding of
highway interchange improvements.
•
5
Sd WdBZ:SO £00Z BT 'unf LLT9 VZZ 0L6 : 'ON 3NOHd S30WCS3N -Vd8r bN WOW
Mayor:Let's now move from questions to providing some direction for Staff.
Kurt Kastein: My preference is to elevate the Prospect site as the commercial area.
Marty Tharp: My preference is that the commercial should be along Mulberry since that
interchange is on a higher priority for future improvements. Mulberry already has four
lanes whereas Prospect only has two lanes.
Kurt Kastein: Looking back at Ken's comparison chart on the two sites,I see that it
favors Prospect. I wonder if we could preserve both as an option.
Greg Byrne: That possibility is not unreasonable. Our primary objective is to keep
local arterial traffic off the interstate. This requires a circulation system of collectors and
minor arterials.
Kurt Kastein: I am interested in creating more LrM-N.
Ken Waido: This may cause some re-classification of some roadways to be up-graded.
Bill Bertchy: We need to move forward. I feel positive about the design standards. I
prefer that the Resource Recovery Farm remain open as this will add value to the
corridor. Regarding the choice of the two locations for the future activity center, I like
preserving the two options. Perhaps the Mulberry site could be more regional in scope
and the Prospect be smaller. I am comfortable with the land use pattern.
Eric Hamrick: I also agree that we should move forward and bring the Plan to the various
boards and commissions. I am concerned about air quality and the proximity of
residential next to the interstate. I prefer that we purchase the entire Resource Recovery
Farm. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the activity center. I prefer limited activity at
Prospect with a feathering of density east toward the edge of the G.MA. I have some
concerns about placing affordable housing near the interstate and near the Boxelder
floodplain.
Ken Waido: Most of the Urban Estate land is away from the floodplain.
Mayor: I prefer that we keep houses out of the floodplain.
Kurt Kastein: I have an idea If we sell the Resource Recovery Farm,we should take the
proceeds and provide a rebate to the rate payers. We should keep a portion for.
development and capture the value of property and sales tax revenue. The Mulberry
option for the activity center is fine,but I prefer that we keep the option open at Prospect
as well. The 20-year buildable supply of land is important. Our kids are growing up and
need to be able to live here. Only 13—15 year supply is available. I prefer swapping
some Urban Estate land in favor of L-M-N land. I am concerned about future costs of
roads.
6
9d Ndez:50 £002 BT "Unf 4419 728 046 'ON 3NOHd S30NIOSS8 -N*M k*4 IJOHA
Marty Tharp: The design standards are good in that they avoid the strip mall
development pattern. I like the idea of preserving the Resource Recovery Farm;as open
space. I prefer Mulberry as the site of the regional activity center since it's already a
commercial corridor. Prospect is more employment and industrial oriented with limited
road access. Regarding affordable housing,I don't like it so far out on the fringe. I
prefer that it be closer in and convenient to services. I prefer the feathering of density out
to the County open lands.
Karen W.: The design standards are good. I prefer that we sell the Resource
Recovery Farm on the open market. Regarding the location of the activity center,I
suggest we keep our options open on both sites. Affordable housing is best allowed in
the L-M-N where the opportunity for the density bonus is available,not in the U-E. The
present vacancy rate at the Housing Authority is a cyclical blip.
David Roy: I am also comfortable with the design standards but concerned about the
economic impact of parallel roads. This could become expensive. I prefer thatithe entire
Resource Recovery Fart remain open. Mulberry should be the priority for the1regional
activity center but keep the option open on Prospect as a second choice. Affordable
housing should be closer in near services with less distance to travel. I am concerned
about air quality and the relationship of housing near I-25.
Karen W.: Keep in mind that L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing.
It does not mean that if we zone land L-M-N,it automatically develops as an affordable
housing project-
Mayor:I agree, and just as L-M-N provides an opportunity for affordable housing,it can
support high-end housing just as well. I agree that we should preserve the Resource
Farm
Recovery Fa as open space but I like Kurt's idea about a rebate. I think either
Mulberry or Prospect are suitable for an activity center,both are workable,buVI have a
preference for Prospect. Keep in mind that development is market driven. I am not
convinced that the density bonus allowed for affordable housing in the L-M-N really
works.
7
Ld Wd6Z:90 £00Z 8r '�r - LLr9 4ZZ 0L6 : *ON 3,04d S30d1OS3d lFRMUN W083