HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/19/2003 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE I-25 SUBAREA AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 37 A-B
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 19, 2003FROM
Ken Waido
SUBJECT :
Items Relating to the Adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan as an Element of City Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and.implementing Land Use Code amendments. On June 19, 2003, the Planning and
Zoning Board voted 5-2 to recommend adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan and implementing
Land Use Code amendments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2003-095 Adopting the 1-25 Subarea Plan" as an Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City(City Plan).
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2003, Amending the City's Land Use Code to
Implement the I-25 Subarea Plan, Which is an Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
The I-25 Subarea Plan encompasses 10.8 square miles, roughly one-mile on either side of the I-
25 right-of-way for a distance of 10 miles, extending from County Road 52 on the north to
Carpenter Road (County Road 32) on the south. Approximately 8.7 square miles of the planning
area is located in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. The Subarea
Plan includes an inventory of existing conditions; overview of corridor issues; and, vision, goals,
principles and policies and plans for land use, transportation, community appearance and design,
economic sustainability, housing, environment, natural areas and open lands, and growth
management. In addition, the Plan describes a variety of implementation actions that should be
taken if the Subarea Plan is to be successful. A series of proposed amendments to the City's
Land Use Code are also being recommended for adoption in conjunction with the Subarea Plan.
The planning process included extensive opportunities for comment by the public, property
owners, City and County boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials.
ACKGROUND:
In March 1997, the City Council adopted City Plan, as the new Comprehensive Plan. The City
of Fort Collins Structure Plan, a map showing the distribution of future land uses and
transportation systems, was also adopted as a component of City Plan. The City Plan documents
identified the need to do additional planning for the I-25 corridor by designating the area an 1-
25 Special Study Corridor". In addition, the City Plan Principles and Policies document
contained the following:
August
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow adoption of these
City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to
individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority for future
subarea planning:
• I-25 Corridor(emphasis added)
• Mountain Vista
• East Mulberry
• Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 17, 1998, the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted on March 16, 1999, and the East Mulberry Corridor
Plan was adopted on September 17, 2002. These plans, along with the Harmony Corridor Plan
(rev. 2003), established policies and land uses for areas west of I-25, thus, the I-25 Subarea
Plan's focus was mostly directed to areas east of the interstate highway.
Two I-25 Corridor Plans
At the time of development of the Fort Collins I-25 Subarea Plan there was also a multi-
jurisdictional planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25
Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the regional and subarea planning efforts overlapped.
The regional plan studied the 32-mile interstate corridor from County Road 52 on the north to an
area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan studied the ten-mile long corridor
from County Road 52 to Carpenter Road (County Road 32). The regional plan focused on
design, transportation, and open lands and natural areas. The objective of the subarea planning
effort was to focus on these same issues and more as the regional plan but in a more focused
manner than the regional plan. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor
Plan was adopted by the Fort Collins' City Council on November 20, 2001.
I-25 Subarea Plan
The development of the I-25 Subarea Plan began in October 1999 as a commitment to complete
City Plan for the areas adjacent to the I-25 corridor. Thus, City Plan's basic philosophies and
policies are inherently included in the I-25 Subarea Plan. Eventually, the land use and
transportation policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan will lead to amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Structure Plan, and the Master Street Plan. Implementation techniques will include
amended zoning districts, annexation and zoning, and new development design standards.
The planning process developed two sets of three land use alternatives and a draft land use plan
(a.k.a. "preferred alternative'). All were subjected to numerous reviews by the general public,
property owners, City and County advisory boards and commissions, and City and County
elected officials. In September 2001, two draft land use plan options were developed, one that
included a GMA boundary expansion and one that restricts development east of I-25 to
properties already inside the City's GMA boundary. The two options formed the basis for
discussing and eventually providing the direction on whether the I-25 Subarea Plan should be
completed with, or without, an expansion of the existing GMA boundary east of I-25 as well as
other major land use policy issues. The most critical issues were as follows:
DATE: August 19, ZUUJ J
ITEM NUMBER:
• Should the plan be developed to include an expansion of the City's GMA boundary, or
should the plan be developed for only areas within the existing GMA boundary?
• Should large tracts of land be preserved for the potential location of industry and
businesses in prime locations for such uses (most are currently zoned for such purposes),
or should some, or all, of these areas be planned for different uses and rezoned?
• Should residential neighborhoods of differing types be provided in close proximity to
future employment and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and
shop in their own neighborhood?
Listed below are the key points, conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan:
• Due to the recent adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (1999), the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan (1998), and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (2002), along with the
Harmony Corridor Plan (rev. 2003), the I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area
located east of I-25 from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south, to County
Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east. The Northern Colorado Regional
Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (2001)provided the framework for the Subarea Plan.
• No change to the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary is proposed as a
result of the Plan.
• Two mixed-use activity centers are identified for the planning area, one at the I-
110 interchange and the other at the I-25/Prospect interchange.
• Future employment and industrial adjacent to I-25 will develop in campus-like settings in
between the Activity Centers. This will be achieved through zoning, the use of design
standards, including setback requirements and maximum building frontage allowances,
minimizing building heights, and the proper management of floodplain areas.
• The Corridor contains approximately 416 acres of commercial, 390 acres of employment
and 698 acres of industrial lands.
• Boxelder Creek is to be preserved as a green corridor. The City's Resource Recovery
Farm is to be preserved as public open lands. Approximately 1,184 acres in the corridor
will be open lands (including river and stream corridors; and, city-owned open lands and
natural areas).
• Secondary uses (retail and highway oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in
industrial and employment districts will be required to be set back at least 1/4 mile form
I-25 in order to avoid the development of a "commercial strip" appearance along the
interstate frontage.
• Low-density, detached single-family residential development shall be prohibited within
one-quarter (1/4) mile of I-25 through various means, including zoning patterns and land
use restrictions. Development that creates new detached single-family lots in urban estate
areas located between one-quarter (1/4) and one-half (1/2) mile from the I-25 right-of-
way shall utilize a clustering technique to concentrate densities away from the I-25 right-
August
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
I
of-way, and to maximize views, preserve landscape features or open space, and provide a
buffer to any adjacent industrial uses.
I
• Low-density, mixed-use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within one-half(1/2) mile
on either side of Mulberry Street east of I-25 (with the exception of the 80 acres located
southwest of the Mulberry Street/County Road 5 intersection which are to be urban estate
i areas). The low-density, mixed-use neighborhoods could have densities as high as eight
(8) dwelling units per acre, with affordable housing projects obtaining a density up to
twelve (12)dwelling units per acre.
• The balance of the areas planned for residential uses are to be urban estate developments
with a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per acre.
• In total, the residential areas within the planning area will generate approximately 2,512
new dwelling units on 1,743 acres, for a total population of approximately 6,154.
• The study area is planned to eventually be served with multi-modal transportation
options, including mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian connections. A supplemental
street system is planned allowing movement within the corridor, thus, diminishing the
need to utilize the interstate highway for shorter length trips. The employment and
industrial districts adjacent to I-25 will be designed in such a manner that they eventually
obtain their access from the supplemental street system, thus, minimizing the need to use
the frontage roads adjacent to I-25.
• The proposed changes to the Master Street Plan have been analyzed by staff, and along
with the eventual extension of transit and improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities
in the area have been found adequate and appropriate to handle the multi-modal
transportation needs of existing and future land use development in the I-25 Corridor.
Any infrastructure improvements shown outside of the City's Growth Management Area
boundary are not the financial responsibility of the City of Fort Collins and reflect
recommendations from other adopted regional plans. Similarly, improvements deemed
necessary to Interstate 25 interchanges at SH-392/Carpenter Road, Prospect Road, and
Mulberry Street, are the financial responsibility of the Colorado Department of
Transportation and any development interests creating impacts.
• Most of the undeveloped land within the City's Growth Management Area is expected to
annex to the City prior to development as required by the Fort Collins-Larimer County
intergovernmental agreement. Thus, when development does occur, such development
will be subject to all of the provisions of the City's Land Use Code, payment of the
City's development impact fees,etc.
Planning Process
The development of the I-25 Subarea Plan began in October 1999, as a commitment to complete
City Plan for the areas adjacent to the I-25 corridor. Also, as indicated above, various drafts of
the Plan were subjected to numerous reviews by the general public, City and County advisory
boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials.
DATE: August ITEM NUMBER:
The planning process included meetings with the City's Planning and Zoning Board, Natural
Resources Advisory Board, Transportation Board, Affordable Housing Board, and Air Quality
Advisory Board. Key meetings included a public forum and two public hearings before the
Planning and Zoning Board as well as two City Council study sessions and a regular Council
meeting where Council provided specific direction on policies issues, including preservation of a
portion of the Resource Recovery Farm as open lands, no change to the City's (GMA) Growth
Management Area boundary, and restricting residential densities to less than urban densities for
areas east of I-25 (see attached copy of Resolution 2001-135).
Meetings were also held with the Latimer County Planning Commission and Agricultural
Advisory Board, as well as the Board of County Commissioners. Organized community groups
involved in the process included Citizen Planners, the Chamber of Commerce's Legislative
Review Committee, the East Mulberry Subarea Plan Citizens Steering Committee, as well as the
I-25 Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force. General public open houses were also conducted to
provide information to the public and the project maintained a web site where the public could
access information and drafts of the plan. The Plan was also given extensive coverage by the
local media.
Changes to the Draft I-25 Subarea Plan
Some minor wording changes have been made to the draft 1-25 Subarea Plan from the version
presented to the Planning and Zoning Board last June. The changes are based on comments
from the Planning and Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Transportation
Board. Deletions are shown as a stria-ethrottgh, while additions are shown as bold and
underlined.
Development Regulations
The Council is being asked to adopt certain amendments to the City's Land Use Code by adding
a new Division 3.9 Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor as well as some minor
amendments to provide cross reference provisions in the C,E and I zoning districts.
The Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan produced a Development
Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document that contained recommended development
standards so there would be some consistency in development quality throughout the corridor.
It was anticipated that communities would adopt a variation of the document based upon their
existing regulations and community preferences. The document contained a series of"Regional
Baseline Standards" often along with additional "Recommended Design Standards" for
additional control over development design.
City staff completed an exhaustive review of the Development Design Standards for the I-25
Corridor document and compared the regional baseline and recommended design standards to
provisions already included in the City's Land Use Code. In many cases, development
regulations in the Land Use Code already met, or exceeded, those recommended in the
Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document. Where there were gaps, or
tighter standards recommended in the regional document, staff has prepared amendments to the
Land Use Code to be approved in conjunction with the adoption of the Subarea Plan.
DATE: ugus ITEM NUMBER:
Key new development regulations for the I-25 Corridor are as follows:
• Secondary uses (retail and highway oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in the
industrial and employment zoning districts will be required to be set back at least 1/4
mile from I-25.
This provision expands an existing provision, Division 4.22 Employment District(E), (D)
Land Use Standards, (3)Locational Standards within the Mountain Vista Subarea, of the
Land Use Code and applies it to all Industrial Employment zoned properties within the I-
25 corridor.
• New, detached single-family residential units are prohibited from locating within 1/4
mile of I-25.
• Minimum 80' landscaped setback requirement for buildings and parking lots from the I-
25 right-of-way.
Currently there are no minimum setback requirements for developments in the I,
Industrial, and E, Employment, Districts. This standard is recommended in the
Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor document and currently exists in the
Land Use Code for the Harmony Corridor District(H-C).
• Building heights are restricted to 20 feet (one story) for buildings located between 80 and
100 feet of the I-25 right-of way, and restricted to 40 feet (two stories) for buildings
located more than 100 feet but less than 600 feet from the I-25 right-of-way.
This standard is recommended in the Development Design Standards for the I-25
Corridor document. The proposed regulations represent a significant change in Land Use
Code building heights in the Industrial and Employment zoning districts that currently
allow structures to go to a maximum of 4 stories (up to 100').
• Maximum building frontage of 50% on parcels adjacent to I-25.
• No wireless telecommunication towers within 1/4 mile of I-25.
Transportation Impacts
The proposed changes to the Master Street Plan have been analyzed by staff and, along with the
eventual extension of transit and improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities in the area, have
been found to be adequate to handle the transportation needs of land use development in the I-25
corridor.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
On June 19, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and voted 5-2 to
recommend to the Council that the I-25 Subarea Plan be adopted as an element of City Plan and
adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code. A copy of the Board's minutes are
attached.
DATE: August
ITEM NUMBER:
Comments/Recommendations from Other Boards
110 Attached are comments/recommendations from the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the
Affordable Housing Board, the Transportation Board, and the Air Quality Advisory Board.
RESOLUTION 2001-135
• OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE COMPLETION
OF THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN
WHEREAS,in October 1999,the staff commencedthe development ofthe I-25 Subarea Plan
as a part of the City's commitment to complete City Plan for the areas adjacent to the I-25 Corridor;
and
WHEREAS, since 1999, the staff has engaged the assistance of various boards and
commissions of the City,the County,and other local entities,as well as various task forces, and has
held open houses on numerous occasions to gather public input; and
WHEREAS,as a result of the foregoing effort,the staff has developed a draft land use plan
along with two sets of three land use alternatives; and
WHEREAS,before proceeding further with the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan,the
staff has sought direction from the City Council on the questions of whether the plan should be
developed to include an expansion of the Growth Management Area boundary or not,whether large
tracts of land should be preserved for the potential location of industry and businesses in prime
locations for such uses, and whether or not urban density residential neighborhoods should be
. provided in close proximity to industrial and shopping areas; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined to provide such direction to the City staff in
order to assist in expediting the completion of the I-25 Subarea Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the I-25 Subarea Plan should be developed without an expansion of the
City's Growth Management Area boundary.
Section 2. That City staff is hereby directed to further review the alternative land uses
that might be appropriate in the area to be governed by the I-25 Subarea Plan,including the possible
acquisition of open space,and to present those alternatives together with an analysis of the projected
impacts of such land uses on transportation in the planning area, to the City Council prior to the
Council's final consideration of the Plan.
Section 3. That residential neighborhoods at less than urban densities should be provided
in close proximity to industrial and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live,work and
shop in their own neighborhood.
•
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 16th day of October,
A.D. 2001.
Mayor Pro Tern Ll
ATTEST:
n �I
IL r
City Clerk
g and Zoning Board
June • 2003
6:30
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435
Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Colton, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon, Craig, Carpenter, and
Torgerson.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Waldo, Frank, Jackson, Byrne, Shepard,
Wray and Dairies.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agendas:
1. Minutes of the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board
. Hearings.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Recommendation to City Council for the Adoption of the 1-25
Subarea Plan as an Element of City Plan.
3. Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the
Harmony Corridor Plan and the Harmony Corridor Standards
and Guidelines.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1, February 20, 2003
minutes. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved
7-0.
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the
Adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an
element of City Plan
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for
adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an
element of City Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 2
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation-recommending approval.
He stated that the Subarea Plan specifically deals with the area east of 1-25, with
a few exceptions. The policies that have been developed apply mainly to the
east side from the Prospect interchange north to the Anheuser Busch area.
During the development of the Subarea Plan there were actually two planning
efforts going on dealing with the 1-25 Corridor. The Northern Colorado Regional
Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan, which is a multi-jurisdictional effort that looked
at the 1-25 Corridor from Anheuser Busch to Berthoud. The Regional Corridor
Plan focused in on developing a unified set of Design Guidelines establishing
plans for a multi-modal transportation network, developing policies and
mechanisms to protect significant natural areas and open lands. The 1-25
Subarea Plan includes all of the above major efforts and also does detailed land
use planning.
Planner Waido summarized what staff considered to be key points, conclusions
and policies of the Subarea Plan:
• There will be no change to the city's Growth Management Boundary as a
result of this Plan.
• Keeping with the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan and the key recommendation
in the Plan to develop some Activity Centers. This Plan identifies two mixed-
use Activity Centers centered around the Mulberry Interchange and the
Prospect Road Interchange. If a Regional or Community Shopping Center
were to locate in the Corridor, it should be located at the Mulberry
Interchange, specifically in the northeast quadrant.
• The Employment and Industrial Districts are concentrated within a quarter
mile of the Interstate. There are a couple of exceptions, which is currently
annexed and zoned Industrial in the city extends to %: mile.
• Boxelder Creek is being recommended to be preserved as a green corridor.
One of the values that we continue to hear was the openness of the Corridor and
how we should attempt to preserve that openness to the greatest extent possible
and balancing development potential. What we are proposing is a combination
of Design Standards, setback requirements, and maximum building frontage
allowances and the proper management of floodplain areas. Staff is proposing
that there be a minimum 80-foot setback of buildings from the right-of-way of the
Interstate to the buildings. Staff is also recommending that buildings only be
allowed to extend no more that 50% of the frontage. There is an incentive in the
Design Standards if the setback is increased to 120 feet we would allow an
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 3
expansion of their frontage to be up to 60%. Development that occurs adjacent
to the interstate, we would like designed so that ultimately access to those
properties would come from the parallel road system.
Another value staff heard is to not let the Corridor develop into a strip commercial
corridor. With the exception of the predominately Commercial Activity Centers
along the Interstate, most of the frontage on the Interstate is planned to be
Industrial or Employment Districts. There would be a policy that would eliminate
secondary uses or retail and highway oriented uses from locating within a quarter
mile of the interstate. The policy states that you cannot have any highway
oriented or retail commercial uses in the Industrial or Employment areas within
one-quarter mile of the Interstate. Properties that only go to a one-quarter mile
depth would have to be Employment or Industrial uses. They could not add any
retail or commercial uses. Staff believes that is the way to eliminate the
commercial strip along the Interstate.
Regarding residential, the direction from the Regional Plan was to push single
family housing at least one-quarter mile away from the Interstate and staff has
attempted to do that. In addition to the quarter mile separation, we are calling for
rear detaching of family lots in the Urban Estate areas, which are along the
eastern edge of the current Growth Management Boundaries. Those housing
units would also be developed in the cluster development option that is included
in the Urban Estate Zone. That would help maximize use, preserve open space
features and also provide a buffer to any adjacent Industrial or Employment next
to those Urban Estate neighborhoods.
The Plan does include Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods and staff is
proposing that they be concentrated within one-half mile of Mulberry Street.
There is one exception of 160 acres located at the southwest quadrant of County
Road 5 and Highway 14. The balance of the residential areas outside of the
Mulberry Corridor will be designated in the Plan as Urban Estate areas.
The Plan does show the Resource Recovery farm on the western side, at least
most of the southern portion, the part that is currently zoned E, Employment to
be preserved as Open Lands.
In addition to the Land Use Plans, there are transportation related plans and one
is to extend multi-modal options for travel into it, including mass transit, bicycle
and pedestrian connections. There is a map in the Plan that shows the potential
location of those facilities. Planner Waldo explained the parallel roadway
system. He also differentiated the parallel roadway in the Subarea Plan with
• what was in the Regional Plan. The Subarea Plan was more of an internal
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 4
collector street system that we have throughout the community that deals with
inter-connections within and between neighborhoods within the Subarea.
There is a plan to increase or change the function of classification of some roads;
the roads are more less in the east/west direction, from what they currently are to
minor or 4 lane arterials.
Most of the undeveloped land within the Growth Management Boundary is
expected to annex prior to development. Most of it is already contiguous to the
city limits. According to the inter-governmental agreement with Larimer County,
those properties would have to annex if they went to the County for rezoning or a
development proposal. What that means is that when development does occur,
that development would be subjected to all the provisions of the city's Land Use
Code as well as the payment of any of the city's impact fees.
Member Gavaldon asked about the southwest corner of 1-25 and Prospect Road
and the Land being sold by the city. He asked for some background on why the
city is selling the land and why could the city not use it.
Planner Waido responded that the property that is currently for sale is the area
that is bounded by the existing frontage road. It is part of the Resource Recovery
Farm and is for sale and is zoned C, Commercial. The balance of the Resource
Recovery farm that is zoned E, is the area that is being converted to open lands.
The decision was made to keep this property commercial and sell the property on
the private market and preserve the balance of the Resource Recovery Farm as
Open Lands.
Member Gavaldon asked why the city could not leave one of those corners Open
Lands and not try and develop it. He asked why the city did not want to retain
the land and what was the reason for selling it. He asked what the comparative
market value of the land was and was the city making money on the land.
Planner Waido replied that he has not been involved in all the discussions
between the Utilities and the Department of Natural Resources on the
negotiations of purchasing this property, and what the appraised value is.
Director of Advanced Planning Joe Frank added that the Light and Power Utilities
and the ratepayers of that utility own the Resource Recovery Farm. It is not a
city of Fort Collins property that you can just transfer from one department to the
other. There is something in the way the charter is set up for the Light and
Power utility that they are to get a fair market value if another department were to
purchase that property. The corner is prime property, which is some pretty
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 5
expensive property for open space. From a land use perspective a better use
would be for a commercial type of land use. The balance of the property had
more natural resource value and is connected into the river. The corner would
be very expensive for the Open Lands program to purchase.
Member Gavaldon asked what the appraised value of the property was.
An audience member stated that the property was for sale for $2,000,000.
Member Gavaldon hoped that the city used the money wisely on that because
budgets are being cut. He does not see Utilities as separate. He sees them as
part of the city.
Director Frank explained that during study session with Council, their direction
was, as shown on this plan, was to maintain the property as an investment and
the value of that property back to the city and the rate payers and maintain the
balance as open space.
PUBLIC INPUT
Steve Pfiester works for Realtec in Fort Collins and has over 30 years experience
in commercial/retail development. He wanted to address the northeast corner of
Prospect and 1-25. He believes that that site will do more to boost the sales tax
than other sites he has worked with on South College or on Harmony Road.
Many of the developers and major retailers he has worked with have identified
that site as the best retail site in the city. That is because of its relationship next
to Fort Collins and also being on an interchange on Interstate Highway. While
Fort Collins is a major source of consumers for shopping centers, southern
Wyoming, southwestern Nebraska and other towns in Northern Colorado also
shop in Fort Collins. It is a very convenient location for people to come to.
About a year and a half ago a group called Cousins Development had a series of ,
meetings with John Fishbach and Greg Byrne. Cousins Development represents
Dillards Department Store and selected that site as the number one site in this
market area. Because of the anticipated delays and complications that they saw
with that site, they went down the road to the Windsor interchange. Now as it
stands now, a letter of intent has been signed with Windsor and it looks as
though Fort Collins will loose the Dillards Department Store. There are a number
of things that are important to retailers in deciding their locations, they found that
the locations that are on interstate highways produce substantially greater sales
and that means greater sales tax for the city. They want to locate where,they
can maximize their sales.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 6
Over the course of the last three years he has worked with many of the private
consultants and staff on the 1-25 Regional Plan. The Regional Plan identifies
Prospect and 1-25 as an Activity Center and he thinks it has been confirmed on
many occasions as being one of the best sites. It also satisfies the two most
basic requirements in retail real estate, which are visibility and access. This site
has visibility and access, which is what they are looking for.
Paul Gallenstein, represents a community called Sunflower, an active adult
community. The residents in that community have spoken very strongly to him
about the need for services in this area. They like the idea of not having to cross
1-25 to gain services such as shopping. On the northeast corner of Prospect
there is a collector street, which connects in two different fashions that people
could walk down to or ride bicycles to shopping and get other services. That
would be a benefit to their community. There are other residential areas that
have the same needs. The things that they, as a community, are trying to
emphasize are the idea of walking, promoting health and alternative
transportation here in the city of Fort Collins. In their community they also
sponsor hiking and walking clubs, things like that. The idea of having a retail
facility close to their community would be very important to these active adult
people.
Betty Willis owns a farm south of Prospect and just south of Homestead Estates.
Her east boundary is on County Road 5. She asked if this Subarea Plan passes
and she wants to develop her farm in the future, would she have to annex into
the city of Fort Collins before she could do it.
Les Kaplan, property owner of a 47 acre parcel which is in the subject area. The
area is in Larimer County and has not been annexed into the city limits. It was
petitioned for annexation in April of 2000, over three years ago. At that time, he
was asked by staff to delay the processing until the 1-25 Subarea Plan was
adopted. He did move forward after waiting about 2 % years for the Plan to be
adopted. He brought the annexation before the Planning and Zoning Board,
which recommended approval of the annexation and the zoning. It went to the
City Council and based upon the three hour discussion at City Council, it
appeared it would be prudent to withdraw the annexation and continue to wait for
the 1-25 Subarea Plan to get to them. He wanted to update the Board on the
status of his annexation. Just for the record he reminded everyone that this has
been over a three-year effort. The committee working on the 5-year update to
City Plan regarding the Growth Management Area east of 1-25 delayed the effort
in part so that there could be a recommendation. As Ken has referenced, that
recommendation is to keep that area where it is and City Council has decided to
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 7
do that. He encouraged the Planning and Zoning Board to adopt the Plan
tonight. There has been an enormous amount of work that has been done. He
has been to over 40 meetings and well over $200,000 has been spent and
hundreds of hours. This has been about the longest planning effort of anything
that he could possibly remember despite the fact that this is consistent with the
Regional Plan the city has already adopted.
Harold Einarsen owns two parcels along 1-25, between Mountain Vista and Vine
Drive. It is the piece of Industrial Land that goes clear back to the Urban Growth
Area Boundary. He has owned those parcels for over 23 years with the idea of
eventually doing something with it. If the setback is put in force, what could be
put closer to the highway than a quarter mile? A quarter of a mile takes up %z of
one parcel and takes the entire other parcel. It makes it tough with an
investment going down the drain. He asked again what it could be used for.
Mr. Einarsen asked about the setback of 1,320 feet, which he felt was a lot of
ground. If people can't use it maybe the city would like to buy it as open space.
He asked if the setback would affect Anheuser Busch or the parcel at Prospect
. and 1-25 that the city owns, because if it does, then they can't use it for anything
that is commercial. He just wanted to make sure that everyone is treated on an
equal basis.
Norm Korasa, owner of part of the property at the northeast corner of 1-25 and
Vine stated that he had lived in various communities over his short and fun filled
years. He has found in the long run that an aerial plan like this expedites
decisions and helps everybody to coordinate in a judicious manner. He sees this
as a comprehensive plan that has a cohesiveness that has a transportation
concentration so you don't have cars driving all over the place. It has
neighborhoods next to each other and next to the transportation and employment
districts. He would like to see this Plan adopted by the city to keep from having
unnecessary conflicts when petitions come before the Board and City Council.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Torgerson addressed some of the questions raised during public
input. There was a question about annexation and when annexation is required.
Planner Waido replied that Mrs. Willis' property is currently outside of the current
Growth Management Area boundary. Therefore is not required to annex upon
development. Whatever the zoning in the County is and whatever County review
. processes would be required for that property would apply upon development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 8
Chairperson Torgerson asked about the question raised about the quarter mile
setback.
Planner Waido responded that there must be some confusion between when we
are talking about a land use setback and a design setback. Planner Waido
reiterated that most of the Employment Districts are located within % mile of the
Interstate. The land use restriction that we are talking about is secondary uses
or other uses that are permitted in Industrial or Employment District are going to
be prohibited within % mile. Any of the primary uses listed in the Land Use Code
will all be permitted within the % mile area. That is the land use setback. The
other setback we are talking about is a design setback of 80 feet. Any primary
use could locate within the Employment or Industrial Districts but would be
required to have an 80-foot setback and consume no more than 50% of the
frontage.
In the setback area is where the city would expect these properties to do the
engineering wise with their floodplain issues. It could be retention ponds,
detention ponds, channelization, landscaping and buffers to parking lots. A lot of
things can happen in that 80 feet.
Member Craig wanted to talk about Activity Centers. She looked through the
Plan and could not really find a definition of Activity Centers. Since we really did
not adopt the Design Standards, she wondered why we don't have a definition.
She also noticed in the Design Standards, that they had two definitions. There
was one for Activity Center and one for Mixed-Use Activity Center. She would
like some clarification of what was being put in this Plan.
Member Craig also asked if Activity Centers could locate in an Industrial or
Employment corridor as long as they follow the "nebulas" definition of Activity
Center.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner responded to Member Craig's question. He stated
that there was not a specific definition in the Plan itself. Staff would probably
supplement this by borrowing from the Harmony Corridor definition, which is what
we had in mind when we came up with the concept of the Mixed Use Activity
Centers. The terms for Activity Center and Mixed Use Activity Center are
interchangeable.
Member Craig was getting confused because there were two definitions in the
Design Standards which were never adopted. Supposedly, part of this Plan was
directly or indirectly adopting the Design Standards. She really did not get a
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 9
clear definition of Activity Centers and whether we are trying to compact them
more than anywhere else in the city, whether we want them to specifically
address multi-model transit off of 1-25, can they be incorporated through out the
Subarea Plan, and can they only be the two that have been mentioned in the
Plan. Member Craig noticed in the Plan that in one place it mentions "two,"
another place it says "several". She felt it needed to be clearer if we want
development to come in the way we want it to come in.
Planner Shepard replied that staff would like it to be clear as well. Staff will add a
definition and it is staffs understanding that we would refer to the map and there
are only "two"Activity Centers. If there is a narrative in the Plan that refers to
"several" it is an oversight and it will be corrected. He does like the word "Mixed
Use" in front of Activity Center because he thinks that is more descriptive.
Member Craig agreed and felt that would bring in residential, business, etc., it
gets us away from just commercial.
Member Craig asked about another component of the Design Standards that was
. not incorporated into the Subarea Plan and that was the area between the
Activity Centers. She asked staff to address how they feel like they addressed
that in this Plan.
Planner Waido replied that staff is somewhat limited between theory in the
Regional Corridor Plan and reality in the Subarea Plan; in that between the two
Activity Centers in the Regional Plan it was intended to be less density, less
intensity development. In our particular case we have areas that are already
planned and in most cases zoned for higher intensity uses.
Director Frank added that the vision of the I-25 Regional Plan was to have the
concentration of activity at the interchanges and lesser concentration between
those spaces in addition open space. The idea was in between was office,
parks, business parks and then some open space. When you look at the
Subarea Plan he felt like it comes pretty close to meeting that vision. The
concern was that we did not have a continuous commercial development along I-
25. This Plan having Industrial, Employment and Open Space between really fits
nicely into that vision.
Member Craig's impression was that the point of the Activity Centers was to
"cluster" so we did not have a strip of something from one end to the other. But
what Planner Waido was saying is that from Prospect up we are going to have
high density and we are going to end up with a lot of development and we are not
. going to see any spaces in between.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 10
Director Frank responded that that part of 1-25 is going through an urban area
and it is going to be urban. What we were trying to prevent in the 1-25 Regional
Plan was strip commercial along both sides of the frontage road and concentrate
them. Lower intensity uses were discussed as being office and business parks.
Member Craig asked about the height of the buildings in between and is that
discussed in the Plan.
Planner Shepard replied that there is no specific height except what is already in
Article Three of the Land Use Code. There are also height specific standards in
the Industrial and Employment Zone District.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the I-
25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Schmidt asked what the difference in commercial acreage was at the
Mulberry and Prospect interchanges.
Director Frank explained that the vacant commercial areas are going to probably
develop in some sort of community, regional or highway oriented type uses
versus oriented toward the adjacent neighborhoods. The size is not based upon
a neighborhood being a neighborhood center. He would not doubt that within the
mix of uses he described, there could be a grocery store or video serving the
needs of the neighborhood, but the size is not neighborhood oriented.
Planner Waido showed a zoning map and explained that the quarter section
south and east of the Prospect Interchange is basically all commercial, there are
a couple of properties that are zoned FA1 Farming. We are just carrying forth
those designations as part of the Plan.
Member Schmidt asked about the list of recommended street improvements that
are not currently in the city's Master Street Plan. She wondered that if the Plan is
adopted, do they become part of the Master Street Plan.
Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning responded that this is being done
differently than Subarea Plans in the past. It is not uncommon that with Subarea
Plans that a more focused transportation analysis is done in that area and then
staff makes recommendations of any amendments to the city's Master Street
Plan if necessary. That is usually done concurrently with the adoption process.
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 11
Staff has opted not to do that this time for timing purposes. We are in the middle
of updating the Transportation Master Plan. The analysis and modeling work
that was done for both the 1-25 Regional Plan and the Subarea Plan was done
using an older version of data and an older version of the model. What he has
opted to do is rerun the analysis and check the recommendations again because
we have new demographic data we have incorporated from the census, and the
model has been updated.
Mr. Jackson explained that the Master Street Plan alignments are not engineered
alignments, they are conceptual in nature. They do change and they can vary a
little bit as long as it stays within the spirit and the context of what the Master
Street Plan is showing. Certainly, the neighborhoods that are impacted will have
a chance to comment when speck development applications come in and as
they go through the process.
Member Colton wanted to follow up on the southeast corner of Prospect and I-25
and asked if something was zoned commercial in the County does that not mean
that as part of this Plan it could be zoned something else.
. Planner Waido replied that was true.
Member Colton found that to be very large compared to the other corners. The
Prospect interchange is not funded and requires a lot of improvements. He feels
that something should be done with the south half of that southeast corner.
Member Colton also referenced the proposed rezoning of Mr. Kaplan's property
and he felt that when we are trying to get a feathering into the County and
allowing 5 to 8 up to 12 units per acre in that location, he believes, is
inappropriate. The fact that there is no Mixed Use Activity Centers there, no
neighborhood commercial, parks or schools in the area to service that housing.
We are going to make the problem worse by putting all this LMN out there.
Planner Waido stated that staffs thinking is obviously different than his
perspective because when we look at the Mulberry Corridor east of 1-25, between
1-25 and County Road 5, the characteristic is clearly urban to staff. The current
housing projects out there range from 3 units per acre to 7 units per acre. The
edge is Urban Estate with no more than 2 units per acre. The context of this is
more in line with what is surrounding it and it will be adjacent to an Industrial area
with a connection to the Activity Center.
Staff agrees with the transitioning and that is why we show the properties along
. the eastern edge of the Growth Management Boundary as Urban Estate where
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 12
the transitions will come from. Staff did not see Mr. Kaplan's property fitting into
that transition and it made more logic and more good planning sense to have that
as an Urban Estate area. Staff has not had any discussions with the property
owner for affordable housing purposes because when you look up and down the
corridor, affordable housing is going to happen in the LMN areas or it will not
happen at all. That means that it is either the little piece of property that is 25
acres or this piece of property. That is why we are recommending the zoning
change to LMN for Mr. Kaplan's property.
Member Colton asked if there would be a park or a place for a grocery store to
locate for all the people that would be moving out there.
Planner Waido explained where a current proposal for a neighborhood shopping
area that is being processed through the County would locate. There is also the
Mountain Vista Activity Center and it is hoped that a grocery store type facility
would locate there. It also does not preclude a facility like that locating in the
commercial areas within the Activity Centers.
Director Frank added that there are so few residential units being generated by
this Plan that it would never generate the money to purchase any public park. In
the residential portion of the Land Use Code, there is a requirement as part of the
LMN to have some small neighborhood park.
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning added that in the LMN zone there
are requirements for small neighborhood parks to be included within the
development. Similarly, there is also a requirement for neighborhood centers
after you hit a certain threshold of the development size. Within a certain
proximity of the development you have to have a neighborhood center and there
are certain elements of those centers for trying to have some of the essential
services that have been mentioned. When we say LMN zone, it is truly a mixed-
use zone, not just a residential district.
Member Craig asked Doug Moore of Natural Resources about Page 10 in the
Plan and where it says 2.6 Environmental Conditions. Her concern was that
when this was originally put together as a draft, it stopped at "other resources
along the Poudre and Boxelder Corridor will need to be protected as
development occurs in the future". What has been added is that "these areas will
primarily be protected by the standards contained in the city's Land Use Code,
specifically Division 3.4 that contains Environmental Natural Area, etc." She
appreciates that staff put that in so there would be a point of reference. On the
other hand, if we look at some of the new City Plan Update Characteristics and
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 13
we are behind in getting them into the Code, was it smart to "pigeon hole" them
and not just leave it as "need to be protected".
Mr. Moore replied that he always likes to reference the Code. He is used to
dealing with the Code and the language in the Code. It is very strong to work
with and when it is pointed out, that brings a little more emphasis to it. He
understands that she would like it to be more of a "broad view" and maybe more
could be applied. He thought that the way it has been written and bringing
attention to just this section of the Code works better the way this is written
where we can go back and implement it and hold them right to the Code.
Member Craig asked about Goal Environment 1. Originally it said "significant
natural areas including wetlands, drainage, floodplains, flood fringes and
waterways will be preserved and development will be successfully integrated with
natural features in the Subarea". It has been changed to direct people
specifically to the city's Natural Areas Inventory Map.
Mr. Moore replied that it should be the city's Natural Habitat and Features
Inventory Map. Those are what he says is a "broad brush" map where different
features have been identified in there that would be protected by our standards.
They have recently updated that so it clearly communicates.
Member Craig wondered if that was limiting them so if it is not on the city's
Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map; and if staff was to go out and a
hawk has taken over a nest or a wetland has developed and it is not on the map
would it be protected or buffered because of that.
Mr. Moore replied that how that is picked up is a more detailed environmental
characterization study that is required at PDP. It is not just limited to what is on
the map.
Member Craig asked about Page 15 and the city's area of influence, what was
the definition of"area of influence".
Planner Waido replied that there was a map of the "area of influence" in City
Plan. Basically it extends about 2 miles past the Growth Management Area
Boundary.
Director Frank added that it is just a description of a community influence area
that would be established. We never have established a community influence
area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 14
Planner Waido explained that by County policy they refer anything within 3 miles
of the GMA boundary to the city, which is a mile further than the requirement and
State law.
Director Frank said that the wording is a little misleading and makes it sound like
we have one, we do not have an area of influence. He thought that it would be
more accurate to say, "areas outside the Growth Management Area will remain
under the control of the Larimer County Land Use Planning".
Member Craig stated that made more sense to her also.
A friendly amendment was added to the motion to change the wording of
that statement.
Member Colton commented that he would not be supporting the motion. He
believed that the commercial at the southeast corner of Prospect is way too
large. There is no reason why we would have to carry the County designation of
zoning forward. There are many other areas where we have changed the zoning
to something, which is more appropriate. He believes it should be made smaller
by making the bottom half Urban Estate or Employment in lieu of the County
Road 50, northeast comer having any Employment. He thought we should not
do the big upzoning from O, Open in the County to Employment. He thought that
whole area within the Urban Growth Area at the northeast corner of County Road
50 and 1-25 should be all Urban Estate. He also has concerns about putting
more LMN in an area where people obviously are going to have to get in their
cars to drive to the two Neighborhood Centers.
Member Craig stated that she would also not be supporting the Subarea Plan.
She concurred with Member Colton and also was worried about the funding and
financial realities that is one of the goals that we have in this Plan, especially
when we are putting that much commercial in the southeast quadrant of Prospect
where there is no funding. She felt we are not being fiscally responsible to put
that much commercial in an area where it would be a long time before the
infrastructure could bear the kind of zoning that is being put in that area. She
could not support the way the transportation—the 1-25 Corridor improvements
have been incorporated into the Plan. If staff brought to her the Subarea Plan
like other Plans that she has been involved in where the road system is the road
system that is within that Plan then she could agree. But when you are putting a
whole region in front of her and telling her that is what she has to approve, she is
not going to do it. If she understands correctly, the Council has not approved the
1-25 Regional Master Plan and this is telling her that she needs to approve it, and
she is not comfortable with that.
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 19, 2003
Page 15
Member Carpenter would be supporting the Plan. She thinks that there has been
a lot of good work done. She felt there has been a lot of input from numerous
citizens. She thinks that it has been compromised to death and if we keep going
we will end up with no Plan at all. She thought to have no Plan at all for the 1-25
Corridor would be a grievous mistake and we should move forward. There are
things in the Plan that she does not agree with as well, but she felt that we need
to move forward.
Member Gavaldon would be supporting the Plan. He agreed with Member
Carpenter and other comments. Member Craig and Colton brought up good
points, but he felt that we should not have a government that paralyzes
everything. This Board was not going to paralyze this Plan. You have to have
something in place to make it systematically work. He thought that we should
recommend the Plan to Council and move on.
Member Schmidt stated that she would be supporting the Plan so it moves along
to Council. She has some serious reservations and she hoped that staff has
answered honestly from the standpoint of what is written in the Plan that the city
. is not responsible and will not commit financially to any of the roads that are
outside the GMA even though they are drawn on the map. Her feeling on the
commercial is that although she is concerned that it is a very large area, on the
other hand it will take commercial to pay for the improvements at that
intersection. If it was Urban Estate, there will never be enough money coming
together in a pot to pay for those improvements and people will come to the city
and ask. She felt that comments have been made and some things are not
changing so the best thing to do would be to vote on this, move it forward to
Council and they would have the final decision to make any changes.
Member Torgerson would be supporting the motion. He thought all we have to
do is look south of us and see what poor planning and inaction results in. He
thought this is a logical step forward for good planning.
Two other friendly amendments were made. Goal ENV1 on page 17, the
wording changed to read "significant natural features will be preserved".
Also, add a definition for Mixed Use Activity Center.
Member's Gavaldon and Meyer accepted the amendments.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the
negative.
•
Community Planning and Environmental Serviceslwycw�a
Natural. Resources Department
. MEMORANDUM
City of Fort Collins FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: August 11, 2003
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Randy Fischer on Behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: NRAB Recommendation on the 1-25 Subarea Plan
At its July 2, 2003, regular meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)voted
unanimously to recommend against Council adoption of the current draft of the 1-25 Subarea
Plan until significant issues raised by the board have been addressed through the Incorporation
of appropriately revised text and maps and the schedule for Council consideration is
synchronized with the currently ongoing City Plan Update process.
The NRAB identified the following problems and issues in staffs current version of the 1-25
Subarea Plan:
General Comments
1. The Subarea Plan Is Out of Sync with the City Plan Update—Board members believe
the schedule for adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan should be delayed until completion of the
current update of City Plan. NRAB members are concerned that new policy direction
stemming from the update of City Plan is not addressed in staffs current version of the plan.
2. 1-25 Design Standards Do Not Reflect Community Values— NRAB members believe the
proposed 80-foot set back from 1-25 is inadequate to protect existing scenic views and will
ultimately create a "tunnel" effect for highway travelers, i.e. a wall of industrial and
commercial buildings on both sides of the highway that drivers cannot see over as they
travel the interstate east of Fort Collins. The Board believes this tunnel effect runs counter
to the values of most City residents, would adversely impact scenic values, and would
create an unacceptable image for our City.
3. Upzonings Work Against Agricultural Land Conservation and Open Space Protection
- Despite repeated comment by the NRAB, staff is still proposing an upzoning of 200+ acres
of property east of 1-25 at the County Road 50 intersection from the County's "O open" and
FA-1 zoning districts to the City's employment and urban estates zoning. This upzoning
represents an unacceptable "giving"of private property rights to the land owners for which
the citizens of Fort Collins will receive no benefit. In fact, when built out,the UE zoning will
represent a net cost to the taxpayers. Much of this 200+ acres falls within the Boxelder
Creek flood plain and flood way and is prime for conservation under a new"Rural
Residential"zoning district that is already being developed under the Fossil Creek Subarea
Plan. There are several other examples of upzonings from FA-1 and M-1-to the City's LMN
zoning. The board believes high density development should be discouraged to the
east of 1-25 in order to maintain the rural character that currently exists and to protect
the natural features and valued agricultural lands located east of 1-25 in the Boxelder
Creek drainage.
281 North College Avenue " P.O.Box 580 " Fort Collins,CO 80522-0380 " (970)221-6600•TAX f970)2?4-6177
4. The Plan Fails to Address the New City Plan Characteristic for Boxelder Creek-The
plan fails to address the recently adopted City Plan characteristic that states: 'The Boxelder
drainage shall be enhanced and protected." Staff can and must do a better job of
incorporating this characteristic into the subarea plan before the NRAB is willing to
recommend Council adoption. The Boxelder drainage is a key natural feature that should
be protected as a future community separator to the east of 1-25.
5. Including Roads Outside the GMA Boundary is a Fatal Flaw-The inclusion of County
Road 5 as a major 4-lane arterial represents a fatal flaw in the Plan. The inclusion of this
road in the plan creates a clear perception and expectation that the City will, in the future, be
responsible for the tremendously costly improvements needed to upgrade County Road 5 to
our 4-lane arterial standards. In addition to the obvious cost implications, the Board
believes the City's designation of County Road 5 as a major arterial will have adverse
impacts on the implementability of the Timnath and Windsor community separators by
creating the expectation of higher future traffic volumes. The members of the NRAB are
concerned that simply designating County Road 5 as a major arterial will drive increased
commercial and residential development pressures in areas already slated for low density
rural development, i.e.within the Timnath and Windsor community separators.
6. Commercial Zoning is Over-Emphasized -The NRAB believes the presence of two huge
commercial zoning districts less than a mile apart is unnecessary and represents bad
planning. The commercial zoning district around the Prospect interchange must be
significantly reduced in favor of more appropriate employment and highway industrial
zoning. The large Prospect commercial zone will create unsustainable demands on
existing infrastructure, thereby creating the need and expectation that the City will improve
the failing infrastructure, such as the Prospect/1-25 interchange. Additionally, the Board A
anticipates that the juxtaposition of staffs proposed Prospect commercial district on the l
edge of the Fort Collins Timnath community separator will make it impossible to implement
the separator plans by increasing the development pressure within the already designated
separator.
7. Community Separators and Open Lands Are Slighted -The plan contains not the
slightest mention of the community separators studies and protection of open spaces and
natural features has been de-emphasized from previous drafts of the plan. The lack of
attention to these popular community programs needs to be remedied. Previous examples
of text emphasizing protection of view sheds and natural features has been eliminated from
this draft of the plan. Board members all agreed that the Plan's text and maps need to be
revised to increase the emphasis on land conservation opportunities and community
separators plans that exist within the 1-25 Subarea.
Specific Comments
1. Page 10. Section 2.6, Environmental Conditions—Reliance on land use code standards is
an ineffective means of protecting natural features. Indeed, staff is currently planning to
bring changes that will weaken the natural resource protection standards contained in the
land use code before Council in the autumn of 2003. The NRAB is not willing to accept
reliance on the land use code standards until we can be assured these standards will not be
weakened and are, hopefully, strengthened.
2. Page 12, Section 3.2, Issues Identification, Agricultural Activities—The Plan identifies
agricultural land protection as an issue but fails to address this issue in any substantive
manner. The NRAB recommends that a Cooperative Planning Area designed to protect
NRAB Recommendation 2
1-25 Subarea Plan
August 11,2003
existing agricultural land uses and rural character be incorporated into the Plan through
means of an IGA with Larimer County.
• 3. Page 13, Drainages, Wetlands, and Water Courses—Protection of water courses is
identified as an issue but is not addressed in the plan. This deficiency needs to be
addressed.
4. Page 15, Section 4.2, 1-25 Subarea Plan Vision—The following paragraph from the previous
April 2003 draft was deleted, "Significant views and other natural resources within the
subarea will be respected and preserved. Where appropriate, open lands will be
incorporated into the subarea, including substantial green belts along the interstate to help
preserve the rural character that currently exists along the corridor." Why was this text
deleted? This statement reflects the type of emphasis the Board believes is lacking in the
plan.
5. Page 17, ENV1 —We should not rely on the Natural Areas inventory map to identify land
parcels for protection or conservation. Other types.of open lands than just natural areas
need to be considered for conservation, such as valuable agricultural lands, floodplains,
scenic views, and community separators.
6. Page 34/35— NOL1.1 —The text gives the impression that Boxelder Creek will become
something like the Spring Creek drainage. More needs to be done to preserve and protect
the Boxelder Drainage as a natural feature, such as expanding and strengthening the buffer
standards and prohibiting the filling or channelization of floodplains.
7. Recommended Road Network Map—The Board finds it unacceptable that staff is proposing
• new collector roads through lands currently zoned "0" Open and "FA-1" Farming where no
roads currently exist. Including these new collector roads in the Plan will impede the City's
and County's land conservation efforts by creating the expectation that these lands will be
developed to urban standards in the near future.
In summary, the NRAB recommends that Council vote against the proposed 1-25 Subarea plan
until the above-referenced problems and issues are remedied and the City Plan Update process
is completed.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any comments or questions regarding our
recommendations.
Yours truly, _
Randy er, it
Natural Resources dvisory Board
226-5383, e-mail: karand@frii.com
cc: John Fischbach
Greg Byrne
Ken Waldo
NRAB Recommendation 3
1-25 Subarea Plan
August 11,2003
July 28, 2003
TO: City Council
FROM: Kay Rios
On behalf of the Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board
As Council continues its review of the I-25 Subarea Plan, we would like to interject
a reminder as to the possibility of the future impact on affordable housing.
We applaud the effort to put a plan in place. We certainly support the need for a
plan so that any development in the area will be done with regard to standards our
community has adopted. However, we previously expressed opposition to Urban
Estate (UE) zoning in this area in a memo to Council dated August 26, 2002. This
opposition has not changed. If this is still in the current plan to be adopted, then the
Affordable Housing Board does NOT support this plan. We are very concerned
about limiting residential density to Urban Estate (UE) in areas that border
industrial or commercial zoning. The UE designation would absolutely eliminate
any potential for affordable, work force housing in this area. With this designation,
any idea of offering density bonuses would be contrary to the City's Land Use
Code.
As the I-25 subarea plan develops, more job opportunities will appear and, as that
happens, it is essential that those who work in the area also have the opportunity to
live in the area. It is reasonable to assume varying income levels that might result
and, so, would be reasonable to provide the potential for a variety of housing types.
With more than 1250 gross acres already designated as UE, it would appear that
there is sufficient opportunity for those who chose to live in that designation. We
would again request that Council look at the subarea as LMN rather than UE.
And, again, we would stress the need to keep options open for affordable housing
so that ALL of our citizens may continue to live and work in this community should
they so choose.
Natural Resources Advisory Board
July 2, 2003
Page 5 of 7
• Donovan: I'm concerned about consistency. We had input on those characteristics.
We wont review every policy document. How is the continuity of the process
maintained?
• Donovan: On page 6 in bold letters in the middle of the page, it says,where feasible,
does that mean dollars, or design constraints?
• Jackson: When you're doing a vision, it's design constraints.
• Ohlson: I've hears that there are three different City employees that deal with bike
issues, is that true?
• Jackson: Not in Transportation Planning. Most of those folks are in SmartTrips. I
don't know if they wear different hats.
• Ohlson: I would like to know.
• Bryne: What you're asking for is more global than the City, you might want the MPO
too.
• Ohlson: All of it would be good. How many FTE go to bike stuff.
• Donovan: On page 8 where it says to "pursue available long term funding", is that to
deemphasize one time funding?
• Jackson: That comes from the Transportation Board. A big issue is finding a
consistent funding source so we're not doing capital projects by beauty contest.
• Donovan: I would like to see what the community commercial district looks like on a
map.
• Donovan: Can we get Chapter 6 in a draft form when it's done?
• Fischer: In the CAC there was some movement of staff to use a different metric than
VMT as a performance thing for our street system.
• Jackson: We've talked before that people are concerned we're going to do away with
VMT as a trigger. I don't think that's necessarily the case. We've tweaked the
language. There has been discussion with air quality staff. What we are seeing
around the country is that vmt is not equal to the rate of population growth. It's not
uncommon for VMT to surpass population growth. This reflects different things. We
need to determine if we are driving more in Fort Collins, or are more people driving
in Fort Collins.
Jackson will return to the NRAB on August 6, or September 3.
Board Action on I-25 Subarea Plan, Ken Waido
Waido said this was originally scheduled to go to Council on July 15,but has been
changed to August 19.
• Ohlson: My understanding is that the AQAB has voted for Council to not adopt this,
and that the Transportation Board voted 6/0 to recommend denial of the plan, and that
the P&Z Board voted in support.
• Fischer: Is this version pretty much the same as what we've seen before, and we
shouldn't expect to see any real changes?
• Waido: We're incorporating some of the wording changes.
Natural Resources Advisory Board
July 2, 2003
Page 6 of 7
• Ohlson: I'm in support of Randy's memo. I couldn't support the I-25 Subarea plan as
it's currently presented for the reasons stated in the memo. Arvind asked why we do
things to encourage the destruction of the things we're charged to protect.
• Knowlton: On page 16, it talks about the I-25 subarea plan goals and references
they're from City Plan. Are these the goals in the current '97 version?
• Waido: They will be supplemental to the ones in City Plan
• Knowlton: So, these are not in the City Plan document now?
• Waido: Not in these terms.
• Knowlton: Isn't it possible that updates to City Plan could affect this?
• Waido: I don't think so.
• Fischer: Your point is well taken. One of the major things I brought out in my memo
is the characteristic of Boxelder Creek. It doesn't exist in this plan. I would like to
see additional work for addressing the intent of that characteristic.
• Waido: I cant respond to that, I haven't seen the memo. When they were adopted I
organized a couple staff meetings. There was another meeting that looked at the
broader range of open space. We considered Boxelder. The meetings were attended
by storm drainage and open lands people from the City, and Council. They're the
experts, and said the focus needs to be on the creek itself, and not with overspill and
overflow flood plain. I was told there was nothing significant and there's no reason
for special attention. Based on that feedback there was not a need to amend the
subarea plan in relationship to that particular characteristic.
. • Knowlton: You say that with development in the subarea planning area there are
needs for more infrastructure. Will that be included,with some estimate of the costs
of the facilities?
• Waido: We can provide some of that. Our position is that most are covered by the
impact system.
• Fischer: We need to focus on our recommendation. I assume our comments tonight
won't influence the direction of the plan.
• Ohslon: It might not affect the plan,but we advise Council. Our recommendation
could influence the Council vote. This is not a slam dunk.
Nate Donovan made the following motion:
Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend that Council not adopt
the I-25 Subarea Plan as presented by staff.
The motion was seconded by Phil Murphy.
• Murphy: I looked at your memo and they're all good points. We need to get more
into the natural resources background of these points.
• Donovan: I don't see how an 80' setback promotes the view shed. I think that's a
community value.
• Waido: The 80' comes from the Harmony Corridor. We're trying to balance
community goals, and allowing a reasonable amount of the ground to be developed.
Natural Resources Advisory Board
July 2, 2003
Page 7 of 7
• Fischer: I went through this pretty carefully. We've seen enough examples of how
the standards don't protect anything at all. It can all be waived without any input
from this board on specific development proposals. Right now we cant comment on
specific development proposals. That's a major obstacle to the protection of natural
features. It seems this plan relies heavily on the Land Use Code for the protection of
natural features in the corridor, that's a major deficiency.
The motion passed unanimously—6/0.
New Business
• Ohlson mentioned how helpful the"Monthly Feedback"was, and hopes it will
continue.
• Ohsson: Mark said that the County fixed Cathy Fromme Prairie, but I'd like to know
how they fixed it, and does it meet City standards.
• Ohlson: Ron Mills, and the new person, Kimball have left the Real Estate office.
• Ohlson: The board asked staff to talk to folks at the Hort Center, and look at ways we
could partner with them for plantings and the Education Center. Has that been done?
• Donovan: What is the tall fence going in along Taft Hill?
• Ohlson: When the water district got an easement we talked about fire hydrants, tall
pipes, and blue stakes. This has been about nine months ago.
• Bryne: Mark wrote one letter, and then wrote a second letter to the district. He has
also made a phone call. We'll give you more detail at the next meeting.
• Donovan: I understood there was communication with the district.
• Ohlson: Was the pink rip-rap at the Hort Center buried.
• Ryan Staychock will be unable to attend the August meeting.
• Stokes: Staff is working on a revision to the NAPP. The important chapter is the land
conservation portion of the plan. Hopefully we'll have a rough draft next week that
we can mail to you.
• Murphy: Larimer County has begun taking the#7 mix.
Future Agenda Items
August 6,2003: Water Supply& Demand Mgmt Update
Electric Conservation Strategic Plan,
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Submitted by
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
May 21, 2003
5:45 p,m.
City of Fort Collins
215 N. Mason Street
Community Room
FOR REFERENCE:
CHAIR: Bruce Henderson 898-4625
VICE CHAIR: Heather Trantham 206-4255
STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224-6049
ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass 224-6058
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT:
Bruce Henderson Joe Dumais
Edward Jakubauskas Dan Gould
Tim Johnson Neil Grigg
Christophe Ricord Brad Miller
Brent Thordarson Ray Moe
Heather Trantham
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:
Don Bachman Gary Thomas
Cynthia Cass George Walton
John Daggett John Long
Mark Jackson Ben Herman
Cam McNair
Ron Phillips
Kathleen Reavis
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m.
Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21,2003
Page 3 of 9
It was also agreed that Chair Henderson would draft a letter of support for the Mason
Transportation Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail project to City Council. The
letter will convey to them that this shared bicycle &pedestrian trail system will
provide a vital north/south multi-modal link within the city, something that does not
exist today. Connecting the southern part of the CSU campus with the Harmony
corridor will provide valuable incentive for more north/south commuters to use to use
other modes. If this project, funded by the 1997 'Building Community Choices" is
aggressively pursued, it will demonstrate tangible results to the taxpayers of Fort
Collins.
b. ALLEGIANT AIR SERVICE—Phillips
Phillips gave a brief report on how the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport has
been approached by Allegiant Air to start scheduled service into the Airport.
Negotiations have been successful and both Cities have signed a letter of intent to
provide certain funds and facilities to accommodate the service by Allegiant Air.
This item went to City Council last night and Phillips reported that Council approved
the authorization of funds for expenditures for Capital Improvements and operating
expenses to improve the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport Terminal building facilities
and for funds to promote scheduled service into the airport by a 5 —2 vote.
. 7. ACTION
a. I-25 SUB-AREA PLAN—M. Jackson
Jackson introduced Ben Herman with Clarion Associates. Jackson then distributed a
graphic showing the sub-area and how it relates to the current Growth Management Area
boundary and City limits, which was a request from the board at the last meeting.
Herman stated that he would go over all the things that have changed as a result of
council and planning commission direction. Using a large map for reference, Herman
briefly went over the changes and the key points, conclusions and policies of the I-25
Subarea Plan (same information as in the packet materials). He then turned the floor over
to Jackson.
Jackson went over transportation elements of the Plan (located on pages 28-31). He
referred to a graphic showing City limit boundaries. As a result of some of the decision
and direction staff got from council, they took another look analysis wise at the
transportation tax and such and as a result, now there are no proposed improvements on
the west side of I-25. There are cast/west upgrades to facilitate the increased intensity
along the county road 5 corridor, which basically forms most of the significant parallel
roadway east of I-25. There are some new collectors that take some of the burden off of
the frontage road system. Carriage Parkway is an existing collector that is being built in
the county area. One of the recommendations is to extend that down and have a
connection between Mulberry and Prospect.
Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21,2003
Page 4 of 9
As for east/west improvements, there aren't any basically north of Mulberry. It is
recommended that Mulberry east of I-25, from I-25 to LCR5 is upgraded from a 2 lane
minor arterial to a 4 lane arterial. Similarly Prospect and Harmony. Kechter is currently
shown as a local road east of I-25, it is recommended to be upgraded to a 2 lane arterial
status. In concert with the analysis that was done by Larimer County, the intensification
is being planned for LCR5.
Jackson stated that the above changes would not be taken forward when the Subarea Plan
is adopted. Staff will take them forward in batch format when the TMP is taken forward
this fall. He reiterated that the recommendations are contained within the text of the I-25
Subarea Plan and again, staff will make a recommendation to adopt as part of the TMP.
Board Discussion:
Ricord: How flexible is the zoning per se that that area may become industrial? The
reason I think that is because the trip generation and the different indices between the
designation of commercial versus the designation of industrial and the fiscal liability that
the City will have to... The Prospect interchange is not a state facility, it is a city facility
and the city will end up having to pay for whatever improvements occur there. The
extent that the city will have to pay for those improvements depends largely upon the
zoning.
MJ: The only area that the City will be on the book for picking up the cost to improve
Prospect if it's driven by development, will be an area contiguous to the natural areas on
the Prospect corridor. But on the interchange,the City is not on the hook for any
interchange improvements and to the degree that impacts to the Prospect corridor east of
I-25 or approximate to the interchange that are caused by development, then they are on
their own for those improvements.
Johnson: When you talked about LCR5 outside the GMA, if you put something like that
in the MSP, I think the overall assumption is that at some point we will build it and we
will fund it. I think the direction from Council in March was that we would have a GMA
that would not incorporate up to LCR5 and so since in reality, our capital situation is
such, I propose that we do with LCR5 what we do with interchanges such as Prospect—
we recognize that those interchanges are not a City responsibility. I think we should
recognize that LCR5 is a County responsibility and not a City responsibility.
MJ: As far as LCR5, to be fair, there are 4,000 linear feet of it within our GMA boundary
so that would be something the City would be concerned with. The reason that LCR5 is
on here, and I feel it is important to keep it on here, is for regional context. The MSP
isn't just to imply financial responsibility,but also to show regional context. I hear what
you're saying,but with the number of plans and the work that's gone in with Larimer
County's Transportation Plan,with the Crossroads Sub-area and the North Front Range
plans, I would have a problem with not showing that.
Johnson: Larimer County can show it,we don't have to. If we do, it implies that we
have a responsibility. People see these plans and think that it is something that we as a
city will do.
Ricord: As a sub note to that, you mentioned something about no implied fiscal liability.
Is that legally defensible? What is Roy's opinion on that?
Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21,2003
Page 5 of 9
• MJ: It is state law that communities can show up to three miles outside their GMA on
their MSPs and it doesn't hold you to any financial responsibility.
Ricord: That is something that will withstand a litmus test in court?
MJ: Yes, as I understand it.
Thordarson: Is it possible to show those types of roadways in a different color?
MJ: Maybe. Perhaps we could do it in a different line style such as going to dashes or
something. It's good time to look at some of those things because with the TMP work,
we're taking a hard look at what the MSP looks like. Yes, I think that to mitigate some
of the concerns, we can look at that.
Ricord: I have a couple of questions and comments on the text. On page 20 in the Goals,
T1, coming back once again to the LCR5 question, can you have something in there that
specifically addresses that the county is fiscally liable for those improvements?
Something that says it is NOT a City responsibility.
MJ. So you're looking for some sort text that reflects that outside the City's GMA
boundary, the City is not responsible for reflected transportation facilities.
Ricord: Yes, and I'm particularly concerned about that along LCR5.
Ricord: Next, if you would turn to page 22 where there are Growth Management Goals, I
would like GM 1 deleted. The reason is that if you look at GM2, it says that the I-25
Subarea plan will be consistent with the Northern Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan.
In my view, this I-25 Subarea Plan, whenever it comes chronologically, it has to follow
City Plan. So if we're going to fashion the I-25 Subarea Plan, we should do so with City
Plan as a framework instead of the I-25 Corridor Plan. So if you strike the "Northern
. Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan" in GM2 and you insert "City Plan" there then you
can delete GMl altogether.
Ricord: In GM3, line 2, the words"or are planned"should be deleted also.
Herman: The words "planned and funded" are meant to go together.
Ricord: Still, there is a vagueness there that I would like to see deleted.
Johnson: I would ask that you go back and make it subordinate to City Plan and
recognize that those transportation elements that are in the county -- state that they are in
the county. Once that's done I might be interested in entertaining this plan,but not until.
Ricord: One more point that I would like to share that frustrated me a lot had to do with
the Citizen's Task Force (CTF). Can you help me understand about what the role of the
Task Force was? Somewhere in the document, it talked about how the CTF didn't have a
consensus as such. So generally it sounds like their role was to go to the public meetings
and give their input.
MJ: They also gave their input at regular meetings of the CTF group to the project team.
They worked through a lot of the major issues in depth.
Ricord: So they didn't make a formal recommendation to any governing body, but they
did have individual opinions?
Herman: They met as a group on probably 6 or 8 occasions,but by direction of the City
Attorney, advised that they were not to make a group recommendation.
Ricord: I see that we didn't have representation from the Transportation Board. Mary
Waning was there, but she's been off the board for well over a year now. It would have
been good to have somebody there.
Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21,2003
Page 6 of 9
Herman: She attended all the meetings that there were. Once it went on to council, I
don't think the group met beyond that point.
MJ. I believe Mary was at every meeting that the TF had, so there wasn't a time that the
Transportation Board wasn't represented.
Ricord: On page 4, I also noted that the last third or so of the names on the Citizen Task
Force are property owners, developers,realtors, etc. My concern here is one of
imbalance. You can certainly argue that these folks are stakeholders from a
development/profiting perspective. I don't see the names of representatives of other
interested parties such as Citizen Planners, Sierra Club,Audubon Society,Nature
Conservancy, etc.
Johnson: I would like to add just one comment. I think we should recommend that
Council not approve this Plan. If you'll note at the bottom of page 30, the last paragraph
starts with, "Interchange improvements are the responsibility of the Colorado Department
of Transportation". I think we need to rewrite certain parts of the plan, recognizing that
those things that are outside of the GMA are the responsibility of the County and make
no bones about it to make the statement straightforward and clear so that it is understood
by everyone who looks at it.
MJ: So you would like a similar statement as the one you referenced on page 30,
elsewhere in the plan.
Johnson: Yes. Be very clear.
Chair Henderson closed the floor to discussion and asked for a motion since this is an
action item.
Johnson moved that the Board ask Council to not adopt the I-25 Subarea Plan for the
reasons brought up tonight. There was a second by Ricord.
Discussion:
Ricord: I offer a friendly addition to your motion. Some of the real basic categories
are 1)the I-25 Subarea Plan does not uphold the principles of City Plan over the
principles of the I-25 Corridor Plan.
Johnson: Yes, I think we could attach these to the motion. Supply the reasons.
Ricord: For me there are two. The second one is that it addresses areas outside the
Fort Collins GMA.
Johnson: I think I made the points clear with regard to financial liability, LCR5 and
other parts of the road system being outside and not recognizing them as being a
county responsibility as being some of the serious problems we have with this plan.
Trantham: I agree with Johnson that City Plan should be the governing document
behind the land use along the corridor.
Thordarson: It sounds like it basically boils down to two statements we can attach.
One is the financial responsibility outside of the GMA and the other is that City Plan
should supercede the I-25 Subarea Plan. To me they're both just points of
clarification more than a dramatic change.
Ricord: It will be a dramatic change to the plan in what it says.
Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21,2003
Page 7 of 9
Ricord summarized the motion/discussion thus far: The motion is to not recommend
approval of the I-25 Subarea Plan because:
a) The City Plan issue and
b) The fiscal responsibility outside the GMA
Johnson agreed with the modification. Chair Henderson asked for any additional input.
There being none, Chair Henderson asked that Cass read the motion in its entirety.
Johnson made a motion that the Transportation Board recommend that City Council
not adopt the I-25 Subarea Plan. The board would like to seethe Plan recognize these
two points:
a) I-25 Subarea Plan should be subordinate to City Plan and
b) Financial responsibility of the road system outside the GMA should be
recognized as County responsibility, not City responsibility
The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 6—0.
It was agreed that Chair Henderson would work with staff in preparing a memo addressed to
Council regarding this recommendation.
b. CITY BUDGET PREPARATION—Bachman
Bachman suggested relegating this assignment to the Board's Finance Sub-committee.
Johnson asked that members give their brief comments. After a brief update on the
. budget process from Bachman,the board agreed that the statement they want to convey is
that if any funding becomes available then the first place it should go is to the Pavement
Management Program.
Johnson then suggested a couple of minor changes to the Council Policy agenda that the
board crafted at the last meeting. He read them aloud and the board agreed to them.
Chair Henderson will make those changes to the memo and send it to Council.
There was a motion to authorize the board chairman to make changes. There was a
second and the motion carried unanimously. The motion carried by a unanimous vote,
6-0.
Board Member Thordarson had to leave the meeting at this point,meaning there
was no longer a quorum.
Discussion Items continued
6.c. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN (DSP)—J. Daggett
Daggett stated that this item is going to City Council on May 27 to talk about downtown
parking at their Study Session. He stated that staff is still waiting for peer city
information to arrive. There are five cities in all.
•
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
June 18,2003
5:45 p.m.
City of Fort Collins
215 N. Mason Street
Community Room
FOR REFERENCE:
CHAIR: Bruce Henderson 8984625
VICE CHAIR: Heather Trantham 206-4255
STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224-6049
ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass 224-6058
• BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT:
Joe Dumais Dan Gould
Edward Jakubauskas Neil Grigg
Tim Johnson Bruce Henderson
Brad Miller Ray Moe
Christophe Ricord
Brent Thordarson
Heather Trantham
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:
Don Bachman Eric Hamrick
Cynthia Cass Gary Thomas
John Daggett Nancy York
Randy Hensley
Mark Jackson
Dean Klingner
John Lang
Cam McNair
Ted Shepard
J.R. Wilson
Pete Wray
•
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 9 of 18
Page 5:
Thordarson—Policy T-4, Change the word"viable"to "practical".
Page 6:
Johnson—Policy T-5, Change the word"viable" to"practical".
Page 10:
Policy TC-5.1, Add"Timberline/Powers Trail"to the description so it's not just seen
as a recreational only item.
Dumais: What about putting in the need to have something in here regarding the
ability to adapt to new or novel transportation technologies? Jackson: That's the first
time it's been brought up, I'll make note of it.
7. ACTION
a. 1-25 SUB-AREA PLAN—M. Jackson
Jackson apologized for Waido's absence. He stated that he heard the board's concerns
last month as follows: That the verbiage didn't go far enough in specifying that City Plan
is the"mother document." That this plan is a part of City Plan and not necessarily the I-
25 Regional Plan. The second issue that was raised was that we needed stronger
language specifying that any infrastructure improvements that are shown outside the
City's GMA boundary needed to be specifically called out as not the financial
responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. There was a graphical concern that there
needed to be a way to show those proposed infrastructure improvements outside the
GMA in a different manner to help reinforce that. We took those to heart and included in
your packet was a memo that stated your comments were heard and we went back we
word smithed the text to where we thought it was appropriate and the bottom line is, we
hope we have addressed the board's concerns and if we have, I think it was stated pretty
clearly to us that those were the sticking points last month and I feel we have addressed
them. If that's the case, I would like to respectfully request another memo saying that the
board had a change of heart, that staff heard our concerns, addressed them and if you see
so appropriate, now endorse the Plan.
Ricord: The initial memo,which in the minutes stated that was being co-written by Bruce
and staff, did that get sent to Council?
Bachman: No, it didn't get written or sent yet.
Johnson: Yes, well it says here in the minutes that"it was agreed that Chair Henderson
would work with the staff in preparing a memo addressed to Council regarding the
recommendation."
Jackson: I guess that would mean then that if the Board does feel it appropriate now to
endorse the Sub-Area Plan, then a memo to that effect would work since you don't have
to counteract the previous memo.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 10 of 18
• Ricord: I have a procedural issue based on... given that that memo should have gone on
to Council and it didn't. I think the only time it is appropriate to ask for essentially an
appeal where a decision that a board or commission makes is either if that board or
commission, under Robert's Rules, feels it's appropriate to revisit the issue by the
majority of the dissention, raising the issue of can it be voted upon or does City Council ..
but in any other instance that I've known... it's staffs version to essentially hijack a
memo.
Jackson: I know it's late, but I certainly hope you aren't accusing me of hijacking
anything.
Ricord: I don't know that "hijack" is the appropriate term,but in any case,the memo
didn't arrive Council's office.
Jackson: I can't speak to the whole memo,but as I recall the conversation from last
month, Chair Henderson was going to write that memo and forward it through Don. If
that didn't happen, that's a breakdown somewhere in the system. I don't think you can
hang that one on staff.
Bachman: Chair Henderson was going to put together the essence of what the board said,
then,just as you and I did many times(referring to Ricord) is get together and word smith
it. In any case, where we sit here at the moment, this item has not gone to Council.
Many times we try to attach a memo in the packets to the current recommendation that's
going to Council. The schedule, as you know has been moved back and presented an
opportunity to revisit the language and to see if staff incorporated the language which the
board asked for, if they would endorse it. Again, we have an opportunity here since the
• item was moved back on Council's schedule.
Ricord.- This sends a precedence that makes me uncomfortable in terms of process and
the board's recommendation and whether staff agrees with it or not and what happens to
it if they don't. Had you sent the memo that Bruce agreed to write and then if you
wanted to revisit the issue, you could come back with it as a discussion item and we
could talk about whether or not it is appropriate to revisit the issue at that time...
Jackson: If may insert,just from a practicality standpoint, it will be after the fact if we
come back to you in July. Council is hearing this in early July before you meet again.
Bachman: What he is saying Mark, is that the memo should go regardless of whether you
change the Plan.
Jackson: I have no problem if you want to send a separate memo. All I'm saying is staff
heard your concerns, staff feels that this board's endorsement is important enough that we
wanted to mitigate or address your concerns and then come back to you and see if we
have truly indeed addressed those concerns,would that please merit some sort of
acknowledgement to Council saying that, "Hey, you know what, staff heard our concerns
and they addressed it and this puts things in a different light."
Johnson: The reason this is a touchy point, is that two years ago, we were dealing with
the I-25 Corridor Plan and a similar thing happened. We made a recommendation from
the board and it did not get to the Council. There may have been a breakdown what with
Bruce interacting with staff and so on and Bruce isn't here to address that,but I think it's
a disservice to bring something back like this, one would expect to have major kinds of
changes instead of some kind of semantic kind of approach that Ken went to in this
memo that he sent us. City Plan equals Regional Plan equals I-25 Corridor Plan and
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 11 of 18
therefore by some kind of logic it's supposed to follow that the changes that are
suggested in the I-25 Corridor Plan are something that we need to and must incorporate
into City Plan when in fact as you look at the hand out that I passed around, it's a
resolution that deals with the I-25 Corridor Plan that was adopted by the Council two
years ago. I would like this to be added to the record that we come forward with tonight.
It says in the statement that Ken has here that(page 2, in the middle of the page):
"Whereas,the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest in the citizens of
the City that the Plan, as modified below, be adopted as an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan." So he stated that in the document he sent to us, but now under
section 2, in the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED section, 2 B), he omitted, and
this to me is a real serious omission, from someone who is supposed to be submitting
information that is supposed to help us guide us along with this decision,but it reads:
"That the City Council's adoption of the Amended Plan should not be construed as
evidencing support for a future regional transportation authority"—that's one item,"nor
as an implication that roads shown,on the Amended Plan will automatically become,part
of the City's Master Street Plan." That was omitted and it's a very serious omission in
my view.
Jackson: That was omitted in what?
Johnson: In this information that we had first presented to us in the I-25 Sub-Area Plan
and then especially where we're supposed to be dealing with substantive changes so that
we amend our recommendation so to not put that in place, I just find that
incomprehensible.
Jackson: I have to confess. I am really lost as to what your sticking point is.
Johnson: The point is, is that the Sub-Area Plan is asking us to make all these adoptions
to the Master Street Plan to streets outside the...
Jackson: Okay, point of order. The Master Street Plan is not being amended with the
adoption of the I-25 Sub-Area Plan.
Johnson: But the map that you have shows us that we're going to be asking for Master
Street Plan amendments based on this.
Jackson: That's the recommendations made by the I-25 Sub-Area Plan. They'll be
revisited as part of the Transportation Master Plan where we can look at it a little more
systemically. In fact, and I want the board to be extremely clear on this, the adoption of
the I-25 Sub-Area Plan does not amend the Master Street Plan(MSP).
Johnson: But it sets the stage for it and you know when they put things in the MSP like
that then people assume that we're going to be doing these things. Right now, we have
the major problem that we've gone through this exercise in November and in April
looking for funding for unfunded transportation capital. We've identified$550M worth
unfunded capital. Presently Council is designating$1 M a year. Natural Areas will be
giving us about$400,000 a year from their tax issue that they passed in November and if
we are able to renew Building Community Choices we'll perhaps add another$3M. And
now you're talking about coming to us with elements that are outside the GMA, it just
makes no sense. So my recommendation to the board is to let our recommendation from
last month stand and to forward that to Council.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 12 of 18
Jackson: Last month when we talked, the objection was that we weren't specific in
stating that... I think everyone understood that you could show MSP road classifications
outside the GMA boundary for the sense of regional context. You're allowed to show up
to three miles outside,but the sticking point that this group had was that we weren't very
clear in specifically stating that that's not the financial responsibility of the City of Fort
Collins. We went back in a made that change and now I'm hearing that that's not good
enough.
Johnson: If you come back to us with a plan that deletes any recommendation of these
roads that are outside the GMA to the MSP...
Jackson: But they are just there for contextual purposes. That's what's shown in the
Larimer County Transportation Plan, the Regional Significant Corridors Plan and you
want to just ignore that?
Johnson: When we get plans for the East Mulberry Corridor we have that area outlined
and where the roads left the plan area there were arrows. We didn't talk about those
things that went outside the plan area. (Jackson referred to the legend on the map.)
Miller: Not having been here last month doesn't help, but doesn't it help to have the
legend lay things out?
Johnson: Part of the problem that I have Brad, is that in the 3rd or 4`s paragraph that he
gives us where City Plan equals Northern Colorado I-25 Community Corridor Plan. I
think that what's happening here is that there's been a strong effort through the whole
course of City Plan to find a way, by any means possible, whether it's amoeba-like
growth or something like that to extend this out to the Weld County line or at least as far
east as possible and I think that this is another attempt at that. City Council made its will
clear in March when they said that the GMA will essentially be the same, they might do
minor tweaking here or there, meaning a few acres, but not tens of thousands of acres or
anything like that. I think we have to focus on the enormous deficiency that we have in
front of us. We've tried, I've tried. I know I've put an enormous effort this last year into
trying to find capital, twisting arms of Council members who were reluctant to be
twisted. But for us to be bringing anything forward to the citizens that's outside the
GMA, I think we just have to throw it to the county and say look, it may be of regional
importance, but it is in the county, put it on your master plan, you work with it.
Jackson: I want the group to be very, very clear that the I-25 Sub-Area Plan is in no way,
shape or form endorsing or changing the GMA boundary.
Dumais: So what's the significance of having the changes that are shown on the
map/legend?
Jackson: It was simply to show that we understood what the Transportation board's
concems were as they were stated last month.
Dumais: I'm song, what I mean is for instance, CR5 is in green and is already there.
Jackson: Yes, it's already on the MSP shown for contextual purposes.
Dumais: What roads here are new?
Jackson: There are just a couple. The only new roads per se are these collector network
here and the extension of this existing Carriage Parkway. Those are the only new roads
shown within the GMA boundary. The rest are simply upgrades of facilities types on the
east/west, 36, Harmony, Prospect, and Mulberry. If we're looking at items that are
•
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 13 of 18
actually within our GMA boundary, they are very, very slim. There's a piece of
Mulberry and a piece of Prospect and that's it.
Dumais: So the main change was to CR5.
Jackson: As far as big ticket stuff, yes, that's a big change and it's reflected in Larimer
County's Transportation Plan. The NFR MPO is in the process of designating CR5 as a
regionally significant corridor.
Dumais: Are they up to this standard?
Jackson: Yes. All this is, is reflecting existing plans and if they're shown, they're not to
imply that the City has a financial stake in it,but rather to set the context—we don't exist
in a vacuum and it's showing how this works as part of the regional system.
Dumais: So if it's just a contextual issue, but it's making people feel uncomfortable, how
important is it to you that you contextually show county roads on a city map?
Jackson: In the Plan document, I won't fall on my sword on that one,but I do think it's
important for the MSP. I'm kind of the gatekeeper for that and I think it's important to
show how things link up with the regional system and important to show for regional
context purposes what's going on, with say the northern piece of Loveland or the
southern piece of Wellington/Larimer County. Like I said, it's not unusual. People do it
all the time with their master street plans. They show them for contextual purposes and
don't imply responsibility at all from a Street Oversizing standpoint.
Ricord: ...(inaudible)...from a Traffic Impact Study... new development and I believe
that the TIS (inaudible)... that developers will count on whatever is shown on that map.
Jackson: I think it takes it into consideration, but it doesn't default to that. It is one of the
factors you look at, you're right, but what you look at is what the development is; the
intensity and the type of development being proposed in this site and what does it
generate and how does that play out.
Bachman: I think the context is a little bit different. Having the street shown on the MSP
means that if there is to be a facility that is where it will be. It doesn't necessarily mean it
will be funded.
Jackson: It does preserve the ability of the community if necessary to reserve the ROW
necessary for that if that's the ultimate designation or the ultimate future of that. And
that's an important piece. We're talking concern about finance, you compare the price of
securing ROW initially versus going back and purchasing on existing development or
worse yet,condemnation, you're talking a whole different ball game financially. As an
example, look at T-Rex in Denver.
Ricord: I was hoping Ken would be here tonight as I have an issue with(inaudible) as
well. It has to do with Prospect and I-25 and how that is zoned.
Jackson: There is no change being made to that, it is commercial.
Ricord: That it is commercial is also a concern. I'm concerned that there hasn't been
some(inaudible)... industrial because then you have a different set of traffic generation
data which would greatly lessen the impact on the system. I have a newspaper article that
came out about three weeks ago that speaks specifically to (inaudible)... A gentleman by
the name of Pfister is one of the developers and he said he is confident that upgrades to
the interchange could be done in conjunction with the project and he is quoted as saying,
"we are assuming the City will work with us to identify money for the interchange."
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 14 of 18
• Jackson: I've spoken with Mr. Pfister on many occasions and made it explicitly clear that
it is the City's policy that we do not participate financially on interchange improvements
and what came out in the paper is in spite of what he heard and he and his team nodded in
agreement that they heard what I said in meetings.
Ricord: But it also points to the concerns that this board has about fiscal responsibilities.
Jackson: People can go to the paper and say whatever they want.
Ricord: But it does indicate the development community does have a certain expectation
that the City is going to help ante up for these improvements. I have a concern that once
these things are in print and become part of the process of the development community,
we'll find ourselves ...
Jackson: I hear what you're saying and that's why I would think then that if you adopt
the text of the I-25 Sub-Area Plan, which specifically states that the City does not
participate financially in interchange improvements that will get you further to your goal.
Ricord: Well, the zoning issue for me on Prospect is a concern.
Johnson: I think the question before us is that we made a recommendation last month and
I think the recommendation in my view should stand and I would add to it that we would
send just send to the Council the resolution that we have on the I-25 Corridor Plan and
reference them to the paragraph under section 2 paragraph B as how our thinking is
working and that we forward the recommendation that we made last month and that we'd
like in the future, when we make a recommendation, that the recommendations go to
Council. I think that's critical, no it's crucial, that the process works and that if we
wanted to come back to have the review of the recommendation that we made I would do
. it in a heartbeat if Council asked us to do it because we advised them—that's our job and
if we had, as in Roberts Rules of Order works, a number of the dissenting group come
back and say they've had a change of heart for reasons "xyz"that's the way the process
always works and if we get away from that process and into some kind of willy-nilly
back lot sand lot approach then our meetings can get carried on forever if we're going
back to old business over and over again. It just won't work that way.
Hamrick: I've always been under the assumption that boards can communicate directly
with us and don't have to go through staff.
Johnson: Yes, it's another option that can be used. In this case we didn't use that, but
I've been part of the process too in times past where the staff has asked to share. You
write the memo and you share it with staff so they know it's going forward. It's fair and
legitimate to do that. Staff also has many times helped us to write the memo, put it
together, email to everyone for comments and things like that so we have used both
processes.
Hamrick: I would encourage you to communicate directly with Council on anything you
wish.
Johnson: I think it's a prerogative we know we have and I guess it's just a question of
when do we feel we have to use it. Sometimes the board wants to communicate
something to the council which is difficult for the staff to for all different kinds of reasons
and then it's appropriate for us, for sure, to do that. There's no reason to get staff in a
position of negativity with Council when it's the Board's comment, the Board's policy
and not the staff's policy to make that kind of comment.
. Miller: Do we know what broke down here? Was it that Bruce...
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 15 of 18
Bachman: I think we came away from the meeting without a clear understanding of who
was going to do what afterwards and at the same time what we were doing was the
project leader was reconsidering the language of the Plan itself and since there had been a
delay in the project schedule, it presented an opportunity to see if some word smithing on
the Plan would be accepted by the board, rather than sending a letter saying that the board
didn't endorse it because it doesn't say these things, that doesn't give the board the
opportunity for the board to say this is the part that we would endorse.
Miller: So did you and Bruce sit down and ...
Bachman: No.
Johnson: So there was a breakdown and I just acknowledge that.
Thordarson: As far as the MSP illustration, and roadways outside of the GMA boundary
I'm okay with the way it's shown. I also am comfortable with the bold text in the memo
it stands out and addresses the issues we had last month.
Vice Chair Trantham: There is still the issue of procedure and I'm not sure what to do
about that. I don't know if we should hold this until next time.
Johnson: My recommendation is that we send forward our past recommendation and that
we attach the resolution that dealt with the I-25 Corridor Plan to it referencing section 2B
as how our thinking was developed.
Dumais: I think we should acknowledge that staff did attempt to address our concerns,
but that procedurally it wasn't sound.
Johnson: We could mention that it wasn't procedurally acceptable but I also have the
comment that any indication that we're going to forward these things that are outside the
GMA for the MSP are unacceptable. I feel real strongly about that.
Miller: Do you feel this letter from Ken and the editing changes he made does not
strongly enough reflect what you want?
Johnson: No, in fact I have an enormous problem with paragraphs 1-4,where he says that
one plan equals another equals another, etc.
Miller: But when he revised, he says he amended the text to read and then below that it
talks about...
Johnson: I do because he didn't bring into context this over here. This isn't a
requirement to bring these into the MSP. The council acknowledged that in the I-25
Corridor Plan so I object to that as partial information and neglect on the part of Ken on
doing that.
Miller: Maybe I'm just confused because I'm not getting that. It looks like you're
focusing on this paragraph right here,but this is the amended stuff starting below there
and it talks about the I-25 Sub-Area Plan is subordinate to City Plan and talks about the
funding and the transportation infrastructure improvements are not our financial
responsibility ...
Johnson: If you would acknowledge this paragraph in here too, that would not require
that any of these things to the MSP, I mean that's the policy of the council when they
adopted the Corridor Plan.
Miller: I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just trying to understand what it is about this
that doesn't cut it for you.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 16 of 18
• Johnson: Because of the omission and the fact that it's been the course of the
development of City Plan, Brad, there was this enormous effort to stretch the city
boundaries and council didn't want to take that direction, that's a policy direction that
they have given. So I think that they should acknowledge that and acknowledge this
paragraph and that we aren't going to be considering the addition of those things that are
outside of the GMA, then I would fee comfortable with it. But to me, this pushes us in a
direction that's unacceptable.
Dumais: To me, it seems like the biggest item shown on this is CR5 which is shown on
the previous MSP so we're asking to delete something that was previously shown.
Thordarson: I don't think it's really part of the MSP.
Jackson: It's only shown for contextual reasons. I don't think the MSP will change the
way they portray that. It's too important from a regional document, maybe in a plan type
of setting. The MSP is going to go a couple steps further soon anyway. I think I've told
this board that instead of the MSP just being a simple map,we're going to be adding text
that talks about the history, the background, the legal ramifications, the financial
ramifications, etc. All of that's going to be in there.
Johnson: One of the other things we talked about last time was adopting City Plan first
and then let this follow.
Jackson: Ken Waido and Ben Herman have explained in the past that the critical question
that was on the table was the GMA boundary and those land uses—how we envisioned
that with the CAC—that phase 1 of the City Plan effort answered those questions and the
I-25 Sub-Area Plan effort was put on hold until those questions were answered. You
could probably hold it until November or December or whenever Ken brings City Plan
home for adoption, but that would basically mean that this would just sit.
Vice Chair Trantham: I think it's important that Council didn't see the procedure that our
board went through. The middle step is missing. I think it's important that they know
how we arrived at our decision. I recommend that we forward the memo from last month
to Council.
Bachman: Would it be appropriate for the Chair to sign the original memo and then draft
a second memo which says that in addition to the action taken, we have these concerns?
Ricord: I suggest that on the agenda, we change 7a to a discussion item and say that due
to a procedural problem, we forward the memo from our discussion last month to the
council and include the resolution referring to section 2B.
Miller: That sounds reasonable to me,but again, I'm working from a deficit here not
having been here last month,but I sense that there is a lot of agreement here on the board
in principle on all these things that we're talking about and we're down to some of the
fine dash versus solid lines and what's in and out of the GMA and things that to me are
pretty clear when you read the legend and I think the edits are pretty clear, but I would
say that your suggestion is good. I think that whatever was suggested last month should
be forwarded on and augment that with some additional information.
Johnson: Christophe, did you make that as a motion then?
Ricord: Yes.
Johnson: I'll second it.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 17 of 18 -
Ricord: To repeat it, the motion is to change item 7a on tonight's agenda to a discussion
item due to a procedural problem and that we forward the memo from our decision on
May 21, 2003, along with the resolution, specifically referring council to section 2B.
Thordarson: Can you make that into two motions?The first one would be changing it to
a discussion item and the next one would be.. I guess I'm not clear on what's going on.
All: More discussion went on about the motion and whether or not to break it out into two
motions.
Ricord: I retract my original motion.
Johnson: I retract the second on the original motion.
Ricord:I move to change item 7a on tonight's agenda to a discussion item. Johnson
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7- 0.
Ricord: I move that the memo from May 21, 2003 be forwarded to Council and attach
the resolution from 2001 referencing section 2B to help highlight the board's concern
and as a guide to the board's thinking on this issue. There was a second and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Thordarson: Don't we want to comment on Ken's memo?
Vice Chair Trantham: That would mean taking action on this item and we just moved to
have it as a discussion item.
8. REPORTS
a. BOARD MEMBER
Johnson: Bike Trail. Along the bike trail right where the BN tracks and the south end of
the old Wards shopping center,there is a cow path that goes across is and a
company is now putting their ads there. Business opportunities and the
development of the Mason Street are still with us and it was pretty interesting.
Left-Over Debris. Nancy York and I wanted Cam to check this out—when
they did the curb and gutter at 130 S. Whitcomb, she noticed that the people
who were doing the work ended up covering the debris and then just putting
grass over, but not cleaning up the debris, concrete and other things like that
out. Nancy can probably point you to the right spot. The work was done in
2000 or 2001.
Bike Mans. Again, I ask everyone to take a handful. People really like them
and it's a good way to get the word out about what we're doing for cycling in
town.
Bike Plan. I mentioned earlier that Magnolia was suggested as an east/west
connector and also Sherwood because it connects Martinez Park with the
Lincoln Center and perhaps south to CSU if we can find a way through the
parking lot at the center.
Air Quality Advisory Board
May 15,2003
Page 4 of 5
• • Sunthankar: I would like to see this list published in the Coloradoan. It would be nice for
people to see this whole thing.
• Jackson: Some version of it will make it to the public outreach phase.
• Stanley: What's the time frame for recommendations to Council?
• Jackson: Council will need recommendations by early September.
• York: Would you get us the cost per mile for a four lane, two lane, and one lane, costs for
widening, and cost per mile for a new road?
• Jackson: I will see what I can do about that.
I-25 Subarea Plan, Ken Waido
Waido provided a brief back ground of the project and distributed a handout summarizing the
key points, conclusions and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan.
• Moore: I hope we have a major activity center to provide a lot of neighborhood services.
• Trine: Will you need to improve intersections?
• Waido: Mulberry, Prospect and Windsor will need to be funded.
• York: Will there be an adequate facilities requirement?
• Waido: Yes, new developments will have to meet the land use code.
• York: Street oversizing fees take care of streets in the development. The impacts to the
intersections haven't been taken into consideration.
• Waido: There are several procedural things that grew out of the Walmart process that deal
. with off-site improvements.
• Jackson: The scope of what a development project needs to look at are determined by the
traffic engineer.
• Jackson: If you have a linkage you can require mitigation. Can't require more of a
development than is proportional to their impact. This is an issue cities and communities are
dealing with all over the country.
• York: I'm a native of Colorado, and this looks like the "califomication" of Fort Collins.
That's what's happening to Fort Collins, instead of farm land.
• Waido: This plan is to keep that from happening.
• Moore: I live in a family home built in 1950 in that area. I like the idea of a shopping center.
Expansion is going to happen, to plan it is a good idea.
• Waido: There will be a parallel road system to minimize the need for people to get on the
interstate for short trips.
• York: This plan is really auto dependent. We should plan for mass transit. Maybe some of
this can be minimized so we don't have to have 4 lanes on the parallel road. Let's figure out
how we're going to manufacture hydrogen, and what it's sources will be. We need a longer
view.
• Trine: Was anything cancelled because of the transportation tax?
• Jackson: Some of the developments where there were existing deficiencies can't move
forward until the City does? Or they can do it themselves.
• York: This plan will reduce air quality standards.
• Waido: In my opinion it may help air quality. There will be shorter trips for folks who live
in that part of the city.
• Stanley: I'm glad you're not expanding the GMA. I personally would like to see
redevelopment within our City boundaries. I'm not a fan of the parallel road system.
Air Quality Advisory Board
May 15,2003
Page 5 of 5
Nancy York made the following motion:
Move that we not approve this because of the parallel road system, congestion on I-25, the
detriment to the air quality, and that it will detract from the core of Fort Collins' business.
The motion was seconded by Cherie Trine and passed with 3 votes in favor (Nancy York, Linda
Stanley and Mandan Sunthankar), 1 opposed (Katie Walters), and 1 member abstaining (Ken
Moore).
• Stanley: Ken, you might be a good choice to meet with Karen and Ray as a citizen. You
have a lot more credibility, and it sounds like you know a lot about the radon issue.
• Trine: We should form a subcommittee and put a packet together. I would like to do it, but
won't be available till the end of June.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40.
RESOLUTION 2003-095
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 1-25 SUBAREA PLAN" AS AN ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY (CITY PLAN)
WHEREAS,Principle LU-4 of the City Plan"Principles and Policies"document directs that
the staff conduct subarea planning so as to tailor the City Plan City-wide perspectives into individual
neighborhoods, district,corridors, and edges; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-4.5 describes various priority subareas within the City as needing
future subarea planning, among which is the I-25 corridor; and
WHEREAS,in pursuance of Principle LU-4 and Policy LU-4.5,the staff has,after a lengthy
public process, prepared for Council consideration the 1-25 Subarea Plan" to be adopted by the
Council as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS,the Council finds that City Plan is in need of the adoption of the I-25 Subarea
Plan in order to fulfill the expectations established pursuant to Principle LU-4 and Policy LU-4.5 of
the City Plan "Principles and Policies"; and
WHEREAS,the adoption of the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan
of the City will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals,principles
and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and its various elements.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the I-25 Subarea Plan,a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, is hereby adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City(City Plan).
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of August,
A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2003
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S LAND USE CODE TO IMPLEMENT
THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN,WHICH IS AN ELEMENT OF THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2003-095, of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, the
Council adopted the I-25 Subarea Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to implement the I-25 Subarea Plan the Council has determined that
the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins ("Land Use Code") should be amended by the
addition of a new Division 3.9 for the purpose of establishing "Development Standards for the I-
25 Corridor" and that the Land Use Code should further be amended as it pertains to the urban
estate, commercial, employment and industrial zone districts to make cross-references in the
regulations for such districts to the I-25 corridor regulations and should be amended by adding a
definition in the Land Use Code to define the term "I-25 Activity Center"; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the foregoing amendments to the City s
Land Use Code are in the best interest of the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code of the City is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.1.1 Applicability
All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with
the applicable standards contained in Divisions 3.1 through -3.&JJ inclusive,
except that single-family dwellings and accessory buildings and structures and
accessory uses that are permitted subject only to basic development review as
allowed in Article 4 need to comply only with the standards contained in Article 4
for the zone district in which such uses are located and the standards contained in
Division 3.4.7 and Division 3.8. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code
shall also apply to the use of land following development to the extent that the
provisions of this Land Use Code can be reasonably and logically interpreted as
having such ongoing application.
Section 2. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Division 3.9 which reads in its entirety as follows:
YM�za`4fi';.t;`e
i
m �4!
11 1 a��+•�' f�;l#�i��(BF 0�11�O i«�'A� v :94• �Ljt 1b.1„15 .�9.t3<3.in 3�,. ;pl. :]�(., .3�� „] ^4(.yti�''
.l^•�14 bS.
«. v
Ja+'s�>:eae4 e €�;tfb,",n«s. ,l irs, .Ss4, a_ s9p✓ .
#�'�' -�?' °.'t-'� {,a s� eT->,"T 't°6"a�•1C e ias �i'n a�.'!A9.,
i a r i 1] i1 e r •.`(„a5 3 sY $ iTa; Sic-{ k' b)"A
. 'M"`]z'k:�•€'�?it"Ii':�..''i>w4mf i`6���t'vmet
"..S�`irb81�§��.`e��sTi`� .d:12":"i� �" =� ��ia`$'w� :r�i-i Pe�"> aJ�,aSd iel`1s� "1,S.,mS Y" a.a ' iTi`�•7�.•.
Y ji` 1"'_ rgja
« Yi�geT iiT(i[a. i�� ,.•' xi�i`{c'e)t 'r:>, `ai i'te;"a`« =irl_ aal+i9Y+P;`:"Ca €, fz :i(_;r .'�fe airii
�8 i-'.i ;'aa< st•�i�:.'. .('1 d�ra5 ,t.L' ji 7s r: ti�tis ;.ti's'a• Baia v`-. �a•e vit:4'i
a°a s?iii�(�i t� iaL ;;3,3tF pia Y{
£� �4�t 'e��'tJ-i'ssi�s;. al'� Jagen�i `.ta;;I' �]i a�{d{'aa •. aJ i' is 4 a=:�,- : r + .ire .l -�' CaF�
Ta�af t3'iisS•. rs. - .`361: a � id,li b i ispi4 r � ,. _, =3u?anv
r.
IY � tJi it C)t«
i iY Yi.rdl jbv `n aY�. 7s iejCi:�'x tieu.nti«.¢1 li l:i..�-.iris a 1`� !
��'� sr a �• a dda( Yo"r' dV.a'+f �Sjy,�Y ..�'�"#� i��'MP`9�„"La.;a.^i{'�ep
-.L��°n,$�.t!i;,7 ,:75"1 i�� 4 t • ' i�3'i,'v��t"T=.1��� �-'7v q,a i�+ i�i�'tiT 1 rge`�' Igy��.:
SK;�awg��;dl�eJi +a' a a at:'d
°7i'xi`. rjTa 'ai'e:Y'aSii{Tfli:
�ja?t�i}.'Ti Gli{ai ,f{d+ �-S•fa ,x-,a ,.ii to 'aY�a l+a:,sjYt, ag_�;;+:ii'a 'figti iy":��e''
1 ;-.a"a !i�• "�=fit' XXP �i�-.`-t .i�f�t"i` ';'�vY r Y e' aS.`C'"+)a s":'i'� ®a.�!m�74!�iYir°�. ^'�'x. 'L°.^'.
g_�n»-aft] '1 YiT'i(_ e1 �4 q,al•.';ia§•.. is oYal sii-"'{31r".+{i{�k..l
i o. "•4: It�ra"i Yip'+ , t++t'N_ .i...., yigi M� i�T�f m,.- ,.H i.i o4ii, q� ._
«`a aa3elnr.�SrEr� �>lrei n,w+uaaieP, .9jla = 1{ itliiSgt'aitt f.
y(y q,a i-yt ::iaa gtr r+ifurfst � •r--�,;�.I da1,�6yH ij.s " .
. ;.:..�,> l" lf( 0 . 'e '` ^.$rJ�.
a-+411p t
.'gT•7iT^'a i'i•;¢:: °:"TaY T ,31�'f"glr[aa 2(:ii�v C,ra>msa
zN1'
�,x. ��'{� ., �J S � 'l..i ..• .,rm �yam, -
Ct' S'1er: -it rsSsHt
Ii6 +)alYi is oy�tl.l l�q; al a- ,o'�yo> :11'i .I1'a ii�j
a Adjjf ,e ;STI a` ®i. ;r:e Iai`�ti p,liT+kAytt"i(rl aiiiv�.Tr e�>a i� d? a<;igY`.Tj
1 fir'; � ay l u t :�yH_ $g�� Y i�"��{�yF�-��,ti�'j � }1 1, q 1 �h ;•,�,.+,�=.-4«�ix'.>r
pi:h�i '4.�Ti17 !>.9�114 ✓Ilf ti'p ;��paS�e��}'�:ai i� �4 &Gf1�9��R M ��. t r;,. ' r
R.:Jf •.\1Syff A`C,r8+1T;i 1nlYllY.t!'"M1.E"•.f1eTrM 9'1t9 1d1f::.a4 TB3(:i}IY ,4.1fYi"Il^�{+�.`l:'Ij V:al
T.aT'ai Yi�iK._��°�'vf6t�9e1d0�.�..aag3t iq �_Y 7t°Y:11�
_ if'di`-a:i�• rt.:a't C-� o" o��: - sa'e aT�aPa .�.IY<lYii• fs aT
"ayi-•..+�eii• ,�ti9*'(sly= +t- 'iii- tea? ��e - 4.- to yyw.it_ iTY::
�:Jz•3:r:e1r:-3 aai;:-jtt ivtc=r�ae ;®'v}^. 4nS .ti:'9i�:- yaT i76- aigS!z�r7t Y
raal"IJy'!; t atalla£` + 7i'�.i�e _
1� v_`�iYijf til`r„+ Yx�`�i iaf( 4;.r�.��el?�lew®P4
• a ''.''. ,+" a,e 6.h3'a la'q°m1 t"i` `;;E9 a #i a 1 d*s5 ax`"lr`j`'moma a:'',
9 3.(#ASrP y; •:Ta$,l`. i. (14 Al" 'i ' C , q',•,s", a, la`.. £�'+51�a# t�ia
� k#• . .�ama"tAq,f��. 'l.. "Yfg3'a°sx3iY„4m hy','..'i e( ii'y�i.Pi aw a�lsl�+� ,..,'o �'i�w�f..��'
`';'i use#ii�e;�'. :t•11., ;;a'ar t'e ate.• :. Y�.f;i iil " a -'a'tai'f
ch1i�"a`a>36Ft1'a �'-i riC" .yfs. .x'. [... •�ais' +•..:yid:: to is >'e;
a !e}4'�7eXji%P�gin;
.�,e 1 t �e a" i�ja ej;11w3i�eJi{FY:(" 1's,Y93 r'-% 'iattnl"i d`iiwyt�" �ya ,law sr a �I�s
3•�
loom .;,II 'i!yit 4j }ls ia,,y. C isW}.; ;,.'..( .C,.f
�t3 y.sgiT,fePv:4
v iill lYl u;9,.I �x'a' (BSaq j�j(
•'.�e5,.. ,ryJp /r3 ili 9lrSa.i'+'A. pp y q. g
mF i„# �""jSNB ,, t , '� #flY,{�(•1%P90. eafr ISb f1�i�91 S: 111161. :�A a@.%:.p
n,;�� .a' %,I�mrt':1#1('�" liJ d3. Sfi£1�Bltif l4� �tlifill�Ii 1(��9ii 11 If F�'$'�JIY I'Ss'�fT.
jm� + e,fi3'{:SY e"3{'ji r+) 3iYa� a r{ar ",yaja e eaY:+f.1ii�,EY.Y..3tK� Cl�a"a�9+,gym@�'+P
°iv £ rplri '`}� ! r��p<.'3 t•,91 i rfil:.1 i,e7" yaa$ti �:
1}H�1i-tii9 .
�"��' y��`..+rl` 4,i5gyi r+`I ef'if:a S� eiiSYi{M ,'a r<.;(aS� aivt;•«i-.i.t �r �If.i:-- ,i a
+ i�*K*•g'+�Y'P" iJ®)(e}`e., :��:ll.!. +1r1�'- ,'i:.. �sr'gle ;i'ai a�'x?'.?aj Co)"r.,. ;:itliti"::. '< i�X3,".
,, i;� fiYyij ei]'�;4�"153�+1>1t �V`4p1" �fi g,ti ey��� 3 �m�y�fi i,�tlyfi.��y� +ice y+pa a A
" y' .j4i TfarS'+�o„Ym ...a:iq tim}'q �+i`=.•r .}!'m'"iozrr`� 7i+"+7 a, kt :9;�'e" +l"r Vr':it i:.i a`i
��,r,•%SyeoT.,+�Y'£iY 1;:liC�... m=.-;whir �,a" :'4:Yla is i� �T�'{`x44r. 7i°- :.�+. e iarm; ri'z ro';-;:
a a4 til m)U FYi ejlitl =3i=- am={: ✓+Yna . ,aafs i� �.�:�; '++ ::�e rm( a- � ifS€a°;
a r�7�lt.Tfi9 q�a;dm�a�rl Nm ib-iJer y ,i r; ; .,yNy�
�. x` B7Pa- is'rT:b°xl nlirti"" .*+7,7 ij< .:«n,. �,.,1.n r_ pets(:',Si :7`n• a'Ya€ tEY..ti;a
3 } ,q�.Ff+�9K)�} �3 u.I F3 . i'.4➢ 4et. .w.. - p. i3S. iil tai Nrr>«`x�a
Yi�e?ia r%i"iii ti d{Pi�Xi -�ii:f s� o Buis '14i� Yi r JeY' •roa.L .i(+P_uajl w _e
a I Y{�,�##��,, �a�"��'i`�`1�,3t C+'*�Q`k a'j I♦.�,i`i9"1"cT� t(a�"�Y�_�.�,��kri�!�,a�rl a''�if„C`�,,�q� -
�
a 1 1 • Itl{�I�Y ii 1 '�
i'�lY �%rj a`(a r.'i_(� °{tq(zti€ �, {s�Paa3;i&•s (1�`o a7 a. r"`na3{r y`� lk e:al i
a'1t f"5'aa`sia{S i;T'.v 4t-i .tS` 'aj Cs`;` -`: Yi n"tt:5f i ni+:fir ilttii'�•' z
eYa 11 fl'aT.ii7=�z lili< �r"- `eu•lt°KVa U'f3 - , , ^
Yi ^ °aYa s, A`L e Zia ."rii`%i:.. ,iiit arY. ...::. ., ''- .. • f�,
���7 }ail%Mija t'e�� iaR( i'§a77a I-iti:v3a i`C-� aaixs•.. iN`_ [a
i i`i°{ 'ildJ (t lajr hJ`yg +a a� =ie: i F r a••a_: ;,'a P- .e�Si
y'Itaa,a"}iiiai�iT� taY§`ia"i'.}rb'a ��3§'." Y°. Vadis v}fy7 wi%a7{a '�n _..4wye� �.;�-ayfy
�� 1aC,,"i�'"i U} iSd ��aS`,'; nt-- dai'(me .=+;`{y IY viT+�i!!'a aYa �,+d§, s"•'J`m`rl""A,
all
1 e eV"� e C^`r 4 'YiYf
1 '.•°�'Y'�"'.F`•Sa�uit�,a�!��!c�#`0.�k�r i «�'°.n,�, tea .'t""1i�"a a:a"reYi� a r-;:1 tiY.a� C
1 11a° 1 -re al a ",t IXd e c4� ae.3 [ v,§°a iY t®� {y#aF#i� q 917 {T�. °' °a' 'aS tlt
a 11 1 �. 1tl�IT."i'Ky ai lY a (i����.�.'.�=.\:r-�3�£A_'.t. '7'.A.1.'�.irT1 ,: IY�p.�e 9�a�� ••:1.
s'
�l"f��:� � s.=ease. sa 7 ar Fi... ia'e'iP: -i tC•_ :ip .-s• as ��i a+t.+.� :ra
ait,al i�aY':� F..ela7:%-".'r9 gat .fe'•. " .-_.'_. -
..v
up-� •, ��I•,X,fI g't , .-'�`:f�;�� ��i(;` i:rl st�i§5iai ��a laid`s' >t` st aiaoet!'f`j 5S tSi r'h i',a5.'+{�s :%i�i
leYj{'<
f a'(T�� aaae5+f•Yi" 3i- t6?- .xt ,'uui5?#, iar„F;a t�%ad°. .ia: <.5�,. ieT.,a
.'-.R�I{a}ak
yE ,.. ��,j�J/`J;di+p)l'l:Fi�rtl'r lx7lrY�i'iili7.�' s»
. ed, 71 1 �e a � �3,a�1'i, Tej'aP iaTa:j--^.a In+i�t�:IR'.4aai r• �dl� :1 s Y,'"
a! � a`�$�3i� Cs 'ag�lit"fl L4•.rt�,`y=
1��gll 11 Ifr�011 .r3 t'fl y i. '.t�/ �,•�IgHlil( -..`�'s`•f*]i:�B�\.1�:��,4 elf v':�`1 Bx i�
� ®�a`y"�`i�:'i,�``�&3!,�:�'It,"�;�afY �'w g'+.'sv+'Y"1,'"ia tf Niin::1 e.}ilt•fvii�< i Ila`51; .:5�'�3�ii��1,�
%.t�`.7-?i54`�'ffit`�93',�?...�:.r+a'�la`�il r1 I . .ejlii 1{+ vet i§�ii3 al �.,.+)•tile �'. �::us eattif�_
�= arofraa rih r'iii:•'+ . d 3: .!«*3- a. ta`.f- s{7 iT C'aa�^•,�t.�'-
r. -"NSI .n_ at ,ae✓. i xoj via, '�i%-E.`_ sk��iti7 a fSirlo a`s� eT(eaT'a
'ACxYfl"a`i'di`- ,i,'(Iiiid£f3a t, ,5=4�f� s .�rP'eti Iga�li :e'F%, +,r-.r-'isasa;' �ierriG�a�r
"5� I )11iy;111 �1 yq.�ul�.d1 1 i` a d! Y R MI } }1 "f.•
1 11 41 1 1 1 1
I
4
. 11 1 1 - 11 J11 I 1 I 1 1
. Section 6. That Section 4.22(D)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(3) Locational Standards
Within 4he kleuntain Vim , any secondary uses shall
be located at least one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-
quarter ['/4] mile) fiefa the eewer4i ' MWmtate
u' 5 right-of-way y' 6 . Such secondary
uses shall be located so that they have direct access from a collector or
local street.
Section 7. That Section 4.22 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph(F)which reads in its entirety as follows:
Section 8. That Section 4.23(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph(2) which reads in its entirety as follows:
mom= .
Section 9. That Section 4.23 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph(F)which reads in its entirety as follows:
loops=
Section 10. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "1-25 activity center"which reads in its entirety as follows:
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 19th day
of August, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of September, A.D.
2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 2nd day of September,A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk