HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/16/2001 - RESOLUTION 2001-135 PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF O AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 24
DATE: October 16, 2001
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ken Waido
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2001-135 Providing Direction to Staff on Completing the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the 1-25 Subarea Plan be completed without an expansion of the existing GMA
boundary east of I-25. Staff believes the GMA boundary issue needs to be discussed in the greater
context of the City Plan update to be started in January 2002. The Planning and Zoning Board
provides its own set of recommendations for the Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Option A
Resolution 2001-135 Directing Staff to Complete the 1-25 Subarea Plan Without an Expansion of
the City's Growth Management Area(GMA) Boundary.
Option B
Resolution 2001-135 Directing Staff to Complete the I-25 Subarea Plan With an Expansion of the
City's Growth Management Area(GMA) Boundary.
Staff is seeking direction whether or not the 1-25 Subarea Plan should include an expansion of the
existing Growth Management Area(GMA)boundary east of1-25,as well as direction on other major
land use policy issues. The development of the 1-25 Subarea Plan started 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 1-25 Subarea Plan. There is also a
section reserved in the City Plan document for additional principles and policies to be specifically
applied to the I-25 corridor. Eventually,land use and transportation infrastructure decisions will also
likely lead to amendments to the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, the Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan,and the Master Street Plan. Implementation techniques may include,but not be limited
to,new or amended zoning districts,rezonings,and new and/or increased development impact fees.
Over the past two years the planning process has developed two sets of three land use alternatives
and a draft land use plan(a.k.a."preferred alternative"). All were subjected to review by the general
public, 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 includes a GMA
boundary expansion and one that restricts development east of I-25 to areas already inside the City's
DATE: October 16,2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 24
GMA boundary. The two options form the basis for discussing, and eventually providing the
direction on whether the 1-25 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. However,the
central growth management issue that needs to be decided is as follows:
• 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?
Staff is not asking the City Council to specifically approve either of the draft land use plan option
maps, per se. The Council may choose to provide direction on any of the other land use policy
issues at this time,especially those that may affect the decision on the GMA boundary. These issues
have been raised during the public review process. Staff would like to indicate that if the decision
is made to expand the GMA boundary as part of the 1-25 Subarea Plan process, unless directed
otherwise, the land use pattern would likely resemble the draft land use option map showing the
GMA boundary expansion. Likewise,if the decision is made not to expand the GMA boundary as
part of the 1-25 Subarea Plan process,unless directed otherwise,the land use pattern would likely
resemble the option map showing development limited to areas within the existing GMA boundary
expansion.
The other issues include:
• 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 urban density residential neighborhoods be provided in close proximity to industrial and
shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and shop in their own
neighborhood?
Staff recognizes that there are some risks in recommending the 1-25 Subarea Plan be completed
without an expansion to the GMA boundary. These include:
• Some properties east of the current GMA boundary will receive development approval under
County zoning and development regulations. These developments could be difficult to integrate
into the City's urban fabric (land uses, residential densities, and street connections) at a future
date.
• There may not be sufficient residential development to provide adequate market support for the
neighborhood shopping activity center on County Road 50. This would likely require area
residents to travel further for daily goods and services.
• The City's participation in an expansion of the County's Transfer of Development Units(TDU)
Program based on the Fossil Creek TDU Program model as a tool for helping preserve open
lands would be eliminated.
DATE: October 16, 2001 3 ITEM NUMBER: 24
BACKGROUND:
In March 1997,the City Council adopted the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan as a component of
City Plan,the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan identified the need to do additional
planning for the I-25 corridor by designating the area an I-25 Special Study Corridor. In addition,
the City Plan Principles and Policies document contained the following:
PRINCIPLE LU4. More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption ofthese
City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor CityPlan'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
• Mountain Vista
• Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 17, 1998,and the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted on March 16, 1999. These plans established policies and
land uses for the areas west of I-25. The 1-25 Subarea Plan fulfills the commitment for additional
planning for the I-25 corridor.
Two Corridor Plans
At the time of development of the Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan there was also a multi-
jurisdictional cooperative planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities
1-25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied
the I-25 corridor from County Road 52 on the north to an area south of Berthoud,while the subarea
plan studied the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32. The most significant difference
between the two plans was that the subarea plan was to deal with land uses in a more detailed
manner than the regional plan because the regional plan was to be based on existing land use plans
of the participating jurisdictions. The regional plan was limited in its scope in dealing with land uses
and, thus, focused on developing a set of Design Guidelines, a transportation element, and open
lands and natural areas policies. The subarea plan will include the regional plan's efforts too, in a
more detail manner.
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan—Planning Process
The 1-25 Subarea Plan's planning process has reached the stage where staff needs further direction
on the GMA boundary issue as well as other major land use policies. Two land use plan options
have been developed to aid discussion and reach a consensus on the appropriate direction to be
followed regarding the GMA boundary issue and other issues in completing the plan. A brief history
of the planning process to date is presented below:
October 1999
Three land use alternatives developed for public review and comment. The
alternatives were titled:
DATE: October 16, 2001 4 ITEM NUMBER: 24
1. Natural Resource Protection
2. Urban Corridors
3. Activity Centers
February 2000
The three alternatives were redrafted based on initial public comments. The
alternatives were subjected to additional public review and were titled:
1. Existing Zoning/Approved Subarea Plans
2. Pro-Active Open Lands Acquisition
3. Activity Centers
June 2001
A "Preferred Alternative" was developed based on public comments on the three
alternatives.
September 2001
Two draft land use plan options prepared for public review. The options are titled:
1. Land Use Plan with an Expansion of the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area boundary
2. Land Use Plan within the Existing Fort Collins Growth Management Area
boundary
City Plan's Community Goals. Principles and Policies
As indicated earlier, the 1-25 Subarea Plan will be a part of City Plan and, thus, City Plan's basic
philosophies and policies are inherently included in the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
Presented below is a discussion of City Plan's Community Goals and Principles and Policies that
deal with the issue of a growth management boundary.
Community Goals: Land Use
Our community will have a compact land use pattern within a well-defined boundary.
City Plan Principles and Policies: Land Use
PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact development
pattern within a well-defined boundary.
City Plan Principles and Policies: Urban Growth Boundaries
PRINCIPLE UGE-1: The City's development will be contained by well-defined
boundaries.
DATE: October 16, 2001 5 ITEM NUMBER: 24
The process to modify the GMA boundary is covered under the following policy:
Policy GM-1.2 Community Growth Management Area Boundary.
"... The City's Community Growth Management Area boundary will be reviewed,
and if necessary, modified no less than every five years according to established
criteria and procedures,and/or will be reviewed in conjunction with a comprehensive
update of City Plan."
City Plan clearly places an emphasis on the use of an urban growth area/growth management area
boundary as a major growth management tool in achieving the community's future vision. Among
the purposes of the boundary are: to promote a compact development pattern, to provide for the
provision of cost-effective public facilities and services, to preserve environmentally sensitive
natural areas, to direct preferred directions of growth, and to provide community separators.
Modifications to the GMA boundary are possible under a subarea planning effort, as was the case
in the implementation actions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Subarea Plan,and/or as part of regularly
scheduled updates to City Plan.
City Plan also directs the GMA boundary to be sized and configured to provide sufficient land to
accommodate growth over the next 20 years. The current GMA boundary contains approximately
74.6 square miles and has a capacity of about 185,000 people(City Plan Monitoring Project: 2001
Indicator Report, August 2001). The current populations estimate of the City is 122,000, with an
estimated additional 20,000 living in the GMA outside of the city limits. City Plan's 2015
population estimate for the city is 150,000. The 2001 Indicator Report concludes that the existing
GMA boundary has a 10-15 year supply of land for new housing and a 10-12 year supply of land
for employment. The estimates are based on a 2.2%-2.7%growth rate in housing units and a 2.4%
- 3.0% growth rate for employment and assume City Plan's expectations for residential densities,
mix of land uses, and employment centers are achieved.
The draft land use plan option that includes a GMA expansion would add 1.4 square miles the GMA
boundary,making the GMA total to be approximately 76.0 square miles in size and would raise the
capacity of the GMA to approximately 191,800.
While the data suggests the City's GMA does not meet the requirements for a 20 year supply of land,
the GMA boundary expansion east of I-25 issue is an important community issue that staff believes
should be discussed in a much broader planning process,such as the update to City Plan scheduled
to start in January 2002.
Other Issues
In addition to the GMA boundary decision,there are a series of important policy decisions that need
to be made within the I-25 Subarea Plan. These other issues include:
• 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?
Staff recommends areas currently planned/zoned for commercial and industrial uses remain so
with one exception for the northeast quadrant of the Prospect/I-25 interchange which is currently
DATE: October 16,2001 1 6 ITEM NUMBER: 24
zoned primarily for industrial uses. This area should be changed to a community/regional
commercial designation so the City has an option concerning the location of future
community/regional shopping uses.
• Should urban density residential neighborhoods be provided in close proximity to industrial and
shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and shop in their own
neighborhood?
Staff suggests the areas within the existing GMA boundary and not designated for
industrial/commercial uses should be designated for urban density residential development and
the area have housing types affordable to families at all income levels.
As indicated,one negative aspect of the recommend option is that a TDU Program using the Fossil
Creek TDU Program as a model would not be possible. A similar program under the expanded
GMA boundary option has the potential of preserving between 2 and 1/2 and 3 square miles of open
lands.
The plan options propose that future development occur with a high quality of design. These design
aspects are not apparent if one were to just view the colors on the land use maps. The more
significant design aspects include:
• Requiring industrial development outside of activity centers to have certain setbacks
from I-25 (e.g.,minimum 80' with perhaps a graduated scale requirement depending on
building size) and requiring buildings to be clustered to retain views/open space.
• Requiring low-density mixed-use residential neighborhoods to be setback at least 1/4
mile from I-25.
• Establishing gateway design features for Mountain Vista, Mulberry, and Prospect.
• Restricting commercial development outside of activity centers that would prohibit a
strip development pattern along the interstate frontage.
The next two sections present summary descriptions of the two land use options and the key issues
and implementation techniques of the options.
Draft Land Use Plan- Expanded Growth Management Area(GMA) Boundary Option
This draft land use plan option calls for the expansion of urban development to the east of I-25 and
an expansion of the City's GMA boundary to County Road 5. Urban development in the area would
be supported by an integrated multi-modal transportation network that focuses auto travel within the
area away from 1-25 and the existing frontage road system and onto a supplemental street system.
Urban development within the area would also be designed to encourage and provide for the use of
alternative modes (transit, cycling, and walking).
Industrial and employment districts will be located primarily within'/<mile of I-25 and will provide
locations for future basic employment jobs. Uses in the industrial and employment districts will be
required to have appropriate setbacks and buffering from the I-25 highway and any adjacent lower
intensity uses. Commercial and highway oriented businesses typically permitted in industrial and
DATE: October 16, 2001 7 ITEM NUMBER: 24
employment districts as"secondary uses"will be limited in order to prohibit a commercial strip from
being created along the interstate highway and to keep residential uses set-back at least''/<mile from
the highway.
Regional,community,and neighborhood shopping districts will provide locations for retail sales and
commercial services. Regional and community shopping will locate primarily in planned activity
centers adjacent to the interstate interchanges. A 12-acre neighborhood shopping activity center is
proposed about 1/2 mile east of I-25 on Mountain Vista Drive (County Road 50) to provide
consumer goods and services needed on a daily basis.
The higher intensity industrial/employment and commercial districts and activity centers will
become the focal points for the expansion of transit services into the area. The higher intensity
districts and activity centers will be supported by mixed-use residential neighborhoods. Residential
densities will average at least 5 units per acre. Within activity centers residential densities will be
a minimum of 12 units per acre. These residential densities are critical for the success of a Transfer
of Development Unit(TDU)Program,a proposed implementation tool for the plan. Residentialuses
would provide a land use transition from the higher intensity uses near the interstate highway to the
rural residential areas east of County Road 5. In the mixed-use neighborhoods, lower residential
densities would locate adjacent to existing rural subdivisions. The mixed-use neighborhoods would
have supporting uses, such as churches, parks, and convenience retail and services.
Boxelder Creek, the only significant natural feature in the area, will be preserved as a "green
corridor"through floodplain protection and natural area setback requirements. Boxelder Creek will
also provide an opportunity for the development of a recreation trail through the area.
Key Issues/Implementation
• Expansion of the Growth Management Area (Urban Growth Area) boundary east to County
Road 5 from County Road 52 on the north to 1/2 mile south of Prospect Road. This would add
880 acres (about 1.4 square miles)to the existing 1,760 acres (about 2 and 3/4 square miles)of
the GMA boundary east of I-25.
• Establishment of a Transfer of Development Units(TDU)Program so that increased residential
densities from existing County zoning to higher urban densities results in the preservation of
open lands in areas designated as community separators and/or for agricultural preservation.
• Annexation would be required of properties prior to development, and/or there would be a
requirement for properties to annex at the time of development if processed through the TDU
Program.
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from I-25 and
onto a supplemental street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system (e.g., impact fees, taxing district, etc.) to generate
sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements.
Draft Land Use Plan - Existing Growth Management Area(GMA) Boundary Option
This draft land use plan option limits expansion of urban development east of I-25 to areas within
the City's existing GMA boundary. Urban development in the area would be supported by an
integrated multi-modal transportation network that focuses auto travel within the area away from I-
25 and the existing frontage road system and onto a supplemental street system. Urban development
r
DATE: October 16, 2001 8 ITEM NUMBER: 24
within the area would also be designed to encourage and provide for the use of alternative modes
(transit, cycling, and walking).
Industrial and employment districts will be located primarily within`/<mile of I-25 and will provide
locations for future basic employment jobs. Uses in the industrial and employment districts will be
required to have appropriate setbacks and buffering from the I-25 highway and any adjacent lower
intensity uses. Commercial and highway oriented businesses typically permitted in industrial and
employment districts as"secondary uses"will be limited in orderto prohibit a commercial strip from
being created along the interstate highway and to keep residential uses set-back at least''/.mile from
the highway.
Regional and community shopping districts will provide locations for retail sales and commercial
services. Regional and community shopping will locate primarily in planned activity centers
adjacent to the interstate interchanges.
The higher intensity industrial/employment and commercial districts and activity centers will
become the focal points for the expansion of transit services into the area. The higher intensity
districts and activity centers will be supported by mixed-use residential neighborhoods. Residential
densities will average at least 5 units per acre. Within activity centers residential densities will be
a minimum of 12 units per acre. Residential uses would provide a land use transition from the
higher intensity uses near the interstate highway to the rural residential areas east of the existing
GMA boundary. In the mixed-use neighborhoods,lower residential densities would locate adjacent
to existing rural subdivisions. The mixed-use neighborhoods would have supporting uses, such as
churches, parks, and convenience retail and services.
Boxelder Creek, the only significant natural feature in the area, will be preserved as a "green
corridor"through floodplain protection and natural area setback requirements. Boxelder Creek will
also provide an opportunity for the development of a recreation trail through the area.
Key Issues/Implementation
• No expansion of the Growth Management Area (Urban Growth Area) boundary east of its
current location thus containing future development within the existing 1,760 acres(about 2 and
3/4 square miles) of the GMA boundary east of I-25.
• Annexation would be required of properties prior to development.
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from I-25 and
onto a supplemental street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system (e.g., impact fees, taxing district, etc.) to generate
sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements.
Issues Anal
During the planning process,various issues related to growth and development were raised by the
general public,advisory boards and commission,and elected officials. Perhaps the most important
of these issues was the cost of road infrastructure improvements. Traffic modeling of the three
alternative land use plans indicated the need for a supplemental road system to provide travel
opportunities in the corridor aside from the interstate highway. Presented below is a summary of
the estimated costs for road improvements:
DATE: October 16, 2001 9 ITEM NUMBER: 24
$ 3,888,800 New Roadways
$ 39,282,600 Widened Roadways
$ 69,000,000 Interstate Interchanges
$112,171,400 Total
Of the above costs, the City's Street Oversizing Fee obligations would be as follows:
$ 1,088,864 New Roadways
$21,864,800 Widened Roadways
$ 0 Interstate Interchanges
$22,953,664 Total
Estimated revenues from development under the two options would be as follows:
$34,991,668 Option with an expanded GMA boundary
$29,897,574 Option with the existing GMA boundary
1-25 Subarea Plan—Land Use Element-Public Review Process
The three land use alternatives and,starting in September 2001,the two land use options,have been
through the following public review process.
1-25 Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force
July 20, 2000
August 14, 2000
March 6, 2001
July 9, 2001
General Public Open Houses
November 1, 2000
February 22, 2001
April 10, 2001
September 12, 2001
Public Forum
June 25, 2001
4
City's Planning and Zoning Board
November 13, 2000
December 1, 2000
May 18, 2001
DATE: October 16, 2001 10 ITEM NUMBER: 24
City's Natural Resources Advisory Board
December 6, 2000
April 4, 2001
May 9, 2001
October 3, 2001
City's Transportation Board
July 18, 2001
September 19,2001
City's Air Quality Advisory Board
July 24, 2001
September 25,2001
Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board
December 13, 2000
March 14, 2001
April 11, 2001
May 9, 2001
July 11, 2001
Larimer County Board of Commissioners and Larimer County Planning Commission
October 4, 2000
January 10, 2001
March 14, 2001
East Mulberry Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force
April 25, 2001
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee
April 6, 2001
Public comments are attached.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On Thursday October 4,2001,the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and voted
to recommend the following to the City Council regarding the I-25 Subarea Plan:
I. The Employment designation for a portion of the City's Resource Recovery Farm should be
changed to Rural Open Lands and Stream Corridors. The Commercial portion of the Farm
should remain Commercial. The City's Utilities and Natural Resources Advisory Board
DATE: October 16, 2001 11 ITEM NUMBER: 24
should work together on a plan to compensate the ratepayers for acquisition of the open lands
10 portion of the property.
2. The designation of the 80 acres located at the southeast portion of the I-25/County Road 50
interchange should be changed from the Employment and Low-Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood classifications to an Urban Estate classification.
3. Staff should re-look at the Regional I-25 Corridor vision and determine if any changes are
necessary to the Industrial designations on the east and west sides of I-25 north of Mulberry
Street.
4. The City and County should look at the lakes and the Boxelder Creek areas east of I-25 and
north of County Road 50 as a natural resource management area.
The Board also discussed, but motions for changes failed on a 3-3 vote on the following:
1. Whether staff should be directed to complete the plan with an expansion to the City's
Growth Management Area(GMA)boundary,or should the plan be completed only for areas
currently within the City's GMA boundary.
2. Changing the designation of properties east of I-25 and north and south of Prospect Road
from Commercial to Industrial,and changing the designation of property northeast of the I-
25/Mulberry Street interchange from Industrial to Commercial.
3. Reducing the GMA boundary for the area northeast of the I-25/County Road 50 interchange
to be used as a regional detention pond to reduce flooding potential along the east side of I-
25.
The Board also discussed and rejected the following:
1. Change the designation of residential areas east of I-25 from the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood classification to Urban Estate classification.
A copy of the Board's draft minutes will be sent under separate cover.
I-25 Subarea Plan Land Use Alternatives
This section is presented for historic purposes. It presents a summary of the thee land use
alternatives reviewed during the public review process.
In October 1999,three alternative land use plans were developed to solicit public comments on the
policy options available to the City and County is dealing with growth and development east of I-25.
The alternatives were presented to the general public at a series of open houses and also presented
to City and County advisory boards and commissions. The alternatives were revised in January 2000
after there seemed to be a general misunderstanding that if the City of Fort Collins were to cease
annexation of land east of 1-25 the area would remain undeveloped. The initial set of three
alternatives were revised with one alternative specifically depicting a land use pattern which would
likely develop over time based on existing City and County zoning. Another alternative was
presented based on a proactive public acquisition program. And, the third was based on
DATE: October 16, 2001 12 ITEM NUMBER: 24
implementing the "activities centers" concept promoted in the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan.
Essentially, the three alternatives were designed to solicit public opinion on the major policy
decision, should the City of Fort Collins grow east of I-25?.
These alternatives are summarized below:
#1 —Existing Zoning/Approved Subarea Plans Alternative
This alternative depicted a land use pattern likely to occur if no new planning policies or land use
regulations were prepared and adopted by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins for the area
east of I-25. Development east of I-25 would,thus,proceed as allowed under existing County and
City zoning regulations. Development to the west of I-25 would be in accordance with the land uses
planned for under the adopted Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek Subarea Plans. High intensity urban
uses,such as,industrial and employment uses,regional,community,and neighborhood retail would
be concentrated within the area 1/2 mile on either side of I-25. These uses would utilize the existing
street and frontage road system for access and circulation and would likely congest I-25 and the
frontage road system to the point of failure. Lower density residential uses allowed under the FA-1,
Farming (1 unit/2.29 acres), and the O, Open (1 unit/10 acres) County zoning districts over time
would consume the balance of the area to the east of I-25. The area would likely resemble an"urban
sprawl" type of land use pattern as the housing market consumes lot sizes not currently or readily
available within the city limits. The area 1/2 mile on either side of Mulberry Street would remain
basically urban in character due to the existing developments and approved development projects.
The area 1/2 mile on either side of Prospect Road and starting 1/2 mile east of 1-25 would also
become a low-density residential development area. The Prospect Road/I-25 interchange would
likely develop with high intensity industrial and employment uses as well as regional and
community retail uses. An employment district would extend along the west edge of I-25 from
Prospect Road to the Poudre River Corridor. The remainder of the western portion of the I-25
corridor would develop as depicted on the City's Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Subarea Plan.
Key Issues/Implementation
• No new annexations into the City and no expansion of the Growth Management Area(Urban
Growth Area)boundary.
• Existing County and City zoning and design regulations would guide development.
• Development would utilize the existing street/frontage road transportation network.
42—Pro-Active Onen Lands Acquisition Alternative
This alternative presents the public land use policy position of making I-25 the eastern"hard edge"
of urban development within the City of Fort Collins that would be accomplished through a
proactive public land acquisition program. Development to the west of I-25 would be the land uses
planned for under the adopted Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek Subarea Plans. The area east of I-25
and extending to County Road No. 5 would be acquired through a new, or expanded, public land
acquisition program. Ultimately, the area east of I-25 would be an open lands edge to the city,
similar to the open lands edge being created west of the city in the foothills region. The area from
roughly 1/2 mile north of Mulberry Street to Prospect Road east of I-25 remains basically urban in
character due to the existing developments and approved development projects. The southwest
quadrant ofI-25/Prospect Road becomes an employment district,however,not all lands west of I-25
become developed with urban uses under this alternative. Starting at Poudre River Corridor and
DATE: October 16, 2001 13 ITEM NUMBER: 24
extending south to Fossil Creek Reservoir, the area is also, for the most part, designated as
rural/open lands. This area incorporates the Poudre River corridor and floodplain and existing
publicly owned open lands. However,the balance of the area would not likely be acquired through
the public land acquisition program developed for the areas east of I-25. Development in the area
west of I-25 and south of Prospect Road would be limited to low-density residential uses and would
provide a"soft edge"to Fort Collins' urbanization. An Employment District would develop south
of Harmony Road and east of County Road 7 (this is actually just the eastern terminus of the
Harmony Corridor District).
Key Issues/Implementation
• Establishment of a proactive public open lands acquisition program.
• Establishment of new funding source(e.g.,sales tax,bond issue)to raise about$70 million
for property acquisitions over a relatively short(3-5 year)time period.
• The need to negotiate for willing sellers of land (no use of eminent domain to obtain
property).
• No new annexation of property into the city limits.
• Some properties, after public acquisition, could be leased back to farmers to remain in
agricultural production.
#3 —Activity Centers Alternative
This alternative presents a land use plan for urban level development of the I-25 corridor
incorporating the "activity centers" concept developed for the regional I-25 Corridor Plan. The
activity centers concept is dependent on the establishment of an integrated transportation network
that focuses travel within the corridor away from I-25 and the existing frontage road system onto a
supplemental parallel street system. Land uses cover the full range of urban uses, intensities and
densities,including,industrial and employment uses;regional,community,and neighborhood retail;
and multi-family and single-family residential development at a variety of densities. The activity
centers themselves are mixed-use areas with an urban design that helps promote the utilization of
alternative modes of transportation within and between the centers, as well as within the regional
corridor. The main new activity center in this alternative is centered 1/2 mile east of I-25 on
Mountain Vista Drive (County Road 50). Additional urban development east of I-25 attempts to
incorporate existing uses into the urban fabric while dealing with the limitations, especially the
impacts on providing street connections caused by that existing development. Activity centers are
also depicted on the east side and west side of both the I-25/Mulberry and I-25/Prospect interchanges
to encourage redevelopment of these areas or to manage new development in a manner friendly to
pedestrians and the use of transit.
Key Issues/Implementation
• Expansion of the Growth Management Area(Urban Growth Area)boundary cast to County
Road 5 from County Road 52 on the north to 1/2 mile south of Prospect Road.
• Establishment of a Cooperative Planning Area(CPA) east of the GMA from County Road
40 on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and then extending north of the GMA
boundary along County Road 52 for potential future urban expansions.
• Annexation of properties prior to development,and/or requirement of properties to annex at
the time of development.
DATE: October 16, 2001 14 ITEM NUMBER: 24
• Establishment of a Transfer of Development Units (TDU) Program so that increased
residential densities from existing County zoning to higher urban densities result in
preservation of open lands in areas designated as community separators and/or for
agricultural preservation;preliminary estimates are that about 1,700 acres could be preserved
through a TDU Program.
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from I-25
onto a supplemental parallel street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system(e.g.,impact fees,taxing district, etc.)to generate
sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements.
M Option A
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 commenced the 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 large tracts of land should be preserved for the potential location of
industry and businesses in prime locations for such uses.
Section 3. That Urban density residential neighborhoods 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
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4 '
• RESOLUTION 2001-135 Option B
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 commenced the 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 to include an expansion of
the City's Growth Management Area boundary.
Section 2. That large tracts of land should be preserved for the potential location of
industry and businesses in prime locations for such uses.
Section 3. That urban density residential neighborhoods 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
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Data Comparisons -1-25 Subarea Plan -Draft Land Use Plan Options
Land Use Comparisons-1-25 Subarea Plan Options within Study Area
Undeveloped Acres With GMA No GMA
Classification Expansion Expansion
Rural Residential 0 648
Urban Estate 127 88
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods 1,027 629
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods 85 20
Neighborhood Commercial 12 0
Commercial 164 164
Employment 603 544
Industrial 338 338
Residential Units 4,668 2,568
Population Estimate 11,670 6,420
Cost Estimates for Proposed Road Improvements
New Roadways $3,888,800 $3,888,800
Street Oversizing Obligation -New Roadways $1,088,864 $1,088,864
Widened Roadways $39,282,600 $39,282,600
Street Oversizing Obligation -Widened Roadways $21,864,800 $21,864,800
Interstate Interchanges $69,000,000 $69,000.000
Total (including interchanges) $112,171,400 $112,171,400
Total (excluding interchanges) $43,171,400 $43,171,400
Total Street Oversizing Obligation $22,953,664 $22,953,664
Estimated Revenuses from Development
Street Oversizing Fees
Residential $6,437,123 $3,622,570
Commercial $6,217,317 $6,217,317
Neighborhood Commercial Activity Center $252,817 $0
Low Density Neighborhood Commercial $986,431 $604,153
Medium Density Neighborhood Commercial $73,284 $17,243
Employment $16,234,035 $14,645,630
Industrial $4,790,661 $4,790,661
Total Revenues $34,991,668 $29,897,574
Estimated Revenuses from Development
City Parkland Fees
Residential $4,860,191 $2,733,521
OCT-09-01 TUE 09: 19 AM P. 06
RECEIVED
OCT 0 4 i00•
CITY MANAt3ER
October 4, 2001
To: Fort Collins City Council
CC:John Fischbach, City Manager
Dear City Council;
Citizen Planners would like to comment on the 1-25 Subarea Plan which you will be
voting on in the near future.
Citizen Planners does not believe that an exponsion of the Fort Collins Urban Growth
Area is warranted.A broad-based discussion of future city size should take place before
arty boundary expansions are considered. This is a positive and necessary discourse for
Fort Collins in order to effectively plan our future.
The development of the northeast comer of Praspetct and 1-25 as a regional shopping
center is totally inappropriate if the burden for upgrading this interchange rests on the
Fort Collins taxpayers.A better place for such a shopping cuter might be at the
Highway 14 interchange where iftastruet4re exjsts and imprgvernents are already being
made.Another alternative would be to have all the developers in that area share in the
cost of upgrading the Prospect interchange. The city should also not further encourage
or plan for large scale commercial uses adjacent to 1-25 without carefully evaluating
impacts to existing downtown area businesses.
Citizen Planners supports a more comprehensive TDU program and feel it will have
potential even as the City stays within its present boundaries.We encourage the City to
actively pursue enabling agreements with all entities neighboring Fort Collins. We would
like to see Fort Collins lead the effort to make the TDU program a centerpiece of land
conservation.
Finally, Citizen Planners feels that the overall density being proposed for this subarea
will be too high unless the plan encourages feathering and buffering to increase
compatibility with county levels.
'thank you for your time and consideration4C ' n
Michael Doter r
Direao. l Citizen Planners nners
1-25 Sub Area Plan
. October 4, 2001 Presentation to P&Z Board
(By Les Kaplan)
I have come here this evening to express some concerns about the land use
element of the Plan and to offer some suggestions for improvement. I am also
here to support the open space objectives of the Plan and to offer some
suggestions on how these can be better realized in the course of modifying the
land use element.
(Show Slide). As you can see the draft Plan shows on both sides of 1-25 a band
of commercial land uses, namely "Commercial Corridor', "Employment", and
"Industrial" that stretch over a four mile area. The combined land area for these
commercial land uses is nearly 3 square miles. This is enough land area for 42
Foothill Fashion Malls. The "Employment" district alone represents over 400
acres, itself a 60 year inventory. This not only creates non-viable land uses but,
more importantly, it misses opportunities for land uses that would actually
advance the public interest, such as land uses supporting affordable housing.
One wonders why an expansion to the UGA would even be considered, if
properties already in the UGA are assigned land uses relegating them virtually
unusable and opportunities to promote public interest objectives are ignored.
Additionally, the repetition of commercial land uses on both sides of 1-25 sets the
stage for an undesirable image of Fort Collins along this corridor, an image which
the current planning process should be discouraging, not promoting.
Such an expanse of commercial land uses is certainly inconsistent with the 1-25
Regional Plan as already adopted by most of the participating jurisdictions and
as currently before our City. There are repeated statements in the Regional Plan
attempting to discourage the very type of"linear pattern" of development along
frontage roads depicted in the Sub Area Plan. The Regional Plan calls for
employment and industrial land uses to be clustered in campus like settings
adjacent to activity centers. The configuration of the Employment district in this
draft is neither clustered nor is the majority of the Employment land use
adjacent to activity centers.
A second concern is that the draft offers no suggestion on an implementation
strategy for acquiring the limited lands designated as Rural/Open Lands. (Slide
enlargement). I am both a supporter of the Open Lands component of this plan,
and a representative of one of properties where an Open Lands designation
appears in the draft.(Show). I have heard from staff that a possible strategy for
achieving the Open Lands objective could simply be for the City to prohibit
development in the floodplain, where most of the Open Lands are indicated. As
you will see from the next slide, this floodplain has been routinely modified by
FEMA, most recently less than one year ago. Relying upon a federal floodplain
designation as a tool for acquiring Open Lands could be legally questionable and
is unreliable at best. (Slide of alternative) (Show floodplain & Interstate Bus. Pk.)
My recommendation to the P & Z Board addresses the excessive amount and
strip configuration of commercial land uses in this draft. It also offers an
opportunity for achieving the Open Lands objective for this portion of the corridor.
As you can see from this slide, this alternative land-use arrangement interrupts
the continuous strip of commercial land uses along the east side of 1-25 and
replaces it with a residential land-use buffered by open lands. The beauty of this
lies not only in interrupting the strip, but also in creating a vehicle to achieve the
open lands objective. Let me explain: An Employment zoning district underlying
the Open Lands, as the draft intends, would not allow the transferring of any
development value to elsewhere on the property. Residential zoning would,
thereby reducing the likelihood that public dollars would be necessary to pay for
taken value.
The east side of 1-25 represents excellent opportunities for affordable housing.
The Sunflower Subdivision adjoining this property is an existing example.
Certainly, the City should use land-use designations to advance identifiable
public needs and not as a means to inventory land for the next 60 years and
beyond. This location provides easy access to 1-25 for family members working in
the Tri-City area, proximity to shopping and employment, access to Transfort and
the trail system, and would have little impact on the worsening traffic problems in
town. While promoting land use efficiency is a hallmark of City Plan, it seems to
be of little importance in this draft.
Visibility and readable access are important Iocational criteria for the placement
of Employment land uses. It makes no sense to place such uses along 1-25 at a
location that is setback 1000 ft. and screened from view (Slides). While this
landscaping is the death knell to Employment land uses at this location, it would
serve as an ideal, natural buffer and a significant amenity to residential uses
adjoining Open Lands to the east, as shown on the previous slide.
Hopefully, the information and recommendations I have presented this evening,
will assist this Board in making this draft more consistent with the goals of the
Regional Plan and in improving it as a planning tool for the future. Thank you for
your time.
September 28, 2001
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
I would like to enter the following comments concerning the I-25 Corridor Plan and the
staff-selected revision of the I-25 Corridor Sub-area Plan into the public record. I
prepared these comments as a long time resident of the Fort Collins area, who deeply
cares about its future.
• The basic premises of these Plans are that current growth rates are inevitable and the
development will happen anyway, with or without a plan. These assumptions are
false and seemingly meant to squelch any discussion of alternatives to whatever plan
takes shape. The current abnormally high rate of population growth in this region
(2.5%to 4%compared to the US growth rate of.9%) is in large part the result of a
long history of local subsidies for development. These subsidies come in the form of
`incentive' packages to corporations wishing to locate in the area, inadequate impact
fees that effectively result in taxpayer subsidization of most development-related
infrastructure and public services, and failure to account for the environmental
impacts of development. It is well known to freshmen in economics that more of any
product will be produced the more it is subsidized. The assumption that development
will occur anyway is partially true. Some development will occur, but not on the
massive scale envisioned by the Corridor Plans. The County and individual
communities do not have the funds to build the massive road system envisioned in the
. Plans. Without the planned roads the scale of development envisioned by the Plans is
not possible. The I-25 gridlock argument is specious also, unless local governments
are so incredibly irresponsible that they would knowingly"cause" gridlock along the
Interstate by approving excessive development there.
• The Corridor Plans violate the City's Land Use Plan, which among other laudable
goals, mandates policies to encourage development within a well-defined and
enforceable GMA, preserve community separators, encourage development in the
urban center, reduce auto-dependence, preserve open space and critical wildlife
habitat and improve air and water quality. Now city staffers are leading people to
believe that the Corridor Plan is not only consistent with the Land Use Plan, but
arose because of the Land Use Plan. The cynical gall of this kind of representation
of the relationship between City Plan and the Corridor Plans is remarkable. All of
you know quite well that the Corridor Plan represents a fundamental breach with the
City's Land Use Plan, Air Quality Plan, Master Street Plan and other plans aimed at
preserving community identity, assets and values that most residents support.
Recommendation: Do not approve a plan that negates approved city planning
documents.
• The Corridor Plan, breaches accepted land use planning principles aimed at
promoting distinct, efficient and attractive communities, including those principles
accepted by the National Governors Association (see the attached NGA report). To
represent these Corridor Plans as `regional planning' is an insult to anyone with even
a modest knowledge of what the term `regional planning' implies. The Plans are the
result of an instance of regional cooperation whose central purpose is to provide
developers with the road infrastructure that they want. Faint lip service is paid to
transit and open space and design standards are optional. The Corridor Plans seem to
exist primarily to secure public support for a new taxing authority that will enable,
facilitate and fund open-ended development along the Interstate. Recommendation:
Develop a corridor plan that conforms to good planning principles not to the desires
of developers and out-of-touch city staffers.
• No cost-benefit analysis has been developed for the plan. The assumption is that
there will be a net positive revenue growth from the development. Where are the
figures? It is well known that the kind of speculative annexation and development
that the Corridor Plans envision have had mixed results in terms of tax revenues and
net fiscal benefits to communities.Recommendation: Do not approve a massive plan
such as this until you show the people the figures and analysis in clear language.
• The Corridor Plans imply the intention to make massive public expenditures for
roads and other infrastructure. One basic planning principle is to make growth pay
its own way(see the attached National Governor's Association report). Under the
Corridor Plan, developers and local landowners will effectively receive tens of
millions of dollars in subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Additionally, larger
communities such as Fort Collins will subsidize smaller communities such as
Johnstown and Berthoud, whose tax bases are too small to cover their share of the
proposed road network. Also, communities with traditionally higher land use
standards and impact fees structures will subsidize communities with lower standards
and fees. Development subsidies are unfair, fiscally irresponsible, encourage faster
population growth, accelerate sprawl and benefit one business sector(those around
the interstate) at the expense of others (those in the city center). Recommendation:
Any plan should incorporate a development fee structure that makes development
pay its own way.
• The Corridor Plan `activity centers' do not remotely resemble the land uses that
many communities, most notably Loveland, have already approved. How can
Council members support a so-called Plan that does not resemble what is happening
on the ground and contains no provisions to make individual cities conform to the
plan where such differences exist. This fact, lends to the appearance that the
Corridor Plans are relatively meaningless in terms of land use, and are more likely
intended to provide a vehicle by which developers can secure public subsidies for the
road infrastructure they need to realized their business plans. Recommendation: Any
plan should reflect reality and propose policies that will meet broad community goals
rather than to simply accommodate irresponsible past planning decisions.
• The proposed road infrastructure is the antithesis of what the `region' should be
doing to facilitate quality land use planning, particularly on the edges of communities
and with regard to future transportation systems. Some of the likely impacts of the
proposed road system will be to increase traffic congestion around the Interstate,
damage or destroy valuable natural and agricultural assets, drain public revenues for
expensive improvements, result in increased taxes, negatively impact the quality of
public services, accelerate regional population growth, threaten large rural areas with
more sprawl, reduce housing affordability and increase air and water pollution,
among others. Recommendation: The parallel road plan has to be eliminated and
replaced with a detailed multi-modal transit plan(with specified funding
mechanisms) to restore any resemblance of the Corridor Plan to a quality 21 st
century land use plan.
In summary, I strongly urge you to vote against the I-25 Corridor Plan and the I-25 Sub-
area Plan. I urge you to begin anew and adopt quality and effective planning for the
corridor area. For additional specific recommendations refer to the matrix attached to
this message. It is not for lack of altematives that citizens expressing serious concerns
about the I-25 Plans have had little impact on this process. I urge you to pay attention to
your constituents and act in the public interest rather than on behalf of a tiny well-to-do
minority who stands to gain substantially from the irresponsible and incompetent
"planning"that the I-25 Corridor Plan and its companion Sub-area Plan represent.
Sincerely,
Ken Bonetti
•
•
Ken Waido-Comments on Subarea Plan Page 1
From: <KNOWLTONLQaol.com>
To: FCI.CFCPO(APLANNING)
Date: Thu, Sep 13,2001 9:42 AM
Subject: Comments on Subarea Plan
I attended the first part of the Open House at The Plaza Inn last night
before leaving to attend a remembrance service at my church and want to offer
my comments on the two Subarea Plan "options"presented at the Open House.
My preference would be for the City to make 1-25 a hard edge to the City.
There is simply no city anywhere that is improved by having an interstate
highway through the middle of it. Who wants to look like Colorado Springs?
Since stopping at the interstate is not one of the"options"presented, I
hope that City Council will adopt the Existing GMA Boundary option.The
current GMA population capacity is 185,000 and the City Plan population
projection for 2015 is 150,000,so we have more than enough room for
expansion within the existing GMA for more than 15 years. We can reevaluate
whether we need to expand the GMA at that time.
Most of all, I am opposed to asking current residents to fund the
infrastructure needs envisioned by either of these"options,"whether it be
through a special taxing district, increased mill levees to build schools,
higher utility bills, etc.
Linda Knowlton
3230 Monarch Court
Fart Collins, CO 80525
970.223.9328
CC: FCI.CFCPO(wbertschy,ehamrick,cwanner,mtharp)
p Commute,
aA
-
V�.Z �
a frDF,r:
¢. _
How to get your o )to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 !a
Plan Comments?
.._... ..... ... ...._....
?least, _rc«t5 -r L&%ts z-
qk L"dS �c - after ielA tc.r. beer use
04 �((W- s =c� w>4- deAAeJo o-f-
caCbzo.._ ftuifA S easy- cP-_ T 25 `: �r"C t taeds
OLCI+%� 0 4- ?rt dieueto
f o s �5e E X C
Ca4 ►Ak *- as 5,Io(e �_ lae rra T D L
� axa
QuBi� _ t�traS�Ycxx
How to get your comment(s) to us:—tD `W?4b vc
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com --phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) ` -fax: 970-224-6111 CRY of Poo COW,
�v,di �turc eg
Plan Commentrq
mot. 4? Id'a -z"1 s-25 rrr.
sae
,
Ovate e
&Q� >. ,
C
How to get your comment(s) to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 City of Fort Col n
Plan Comments
How to get your comment(s) us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone_«2i g*d5s-"
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) fax: 970-224-6111 a.�rra�coC
� 1�0 r�,4i,(51o� aF 6M1�
Plan Comments?
a.* u&D—GMA v.
14
How get your comment .N1
s)to us: 3 xa may;
email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone: 970-221-6376
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) fax: 970-224-6111 cu•orr��con;�.
' ' Plan Comment 9
P,Xls�t� 6Vvt fl 13ovnd Ql a� �-r lDre�'er4,�p(�3-
tx���otao2�olanboo a10 NA "Poi Poi (Alp Q h . Tao m ucA gra-w4A I 4xc ll kk/4
w, U t Oto Rase.4Kff,c & ,Pa((o 4-10 h to ere a Rs-
,v¢¢�,
o� /�(� � �wc�� � ►nay
SJc—e 0.eQ �t�rt3D}t I�Z1/�! �wpnu¢u+o,^ of 1,6 4�
d¢velvp*4AJ &f 1 "spe-J } I- xelmS in6pp apyoze
fkt aAe.A,. -T41 tit yavSkbvlO Serap`4P (ID ( �aQer�
How to get your comment(s)to us: GLCI t i 0 UQ at
cowlnc lN{�-
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com o p 221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 cu.�rrancow
Plan Comments?
How to get your comment(s) to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 cuYo«oncou�.
Plan CommentsOJ
• _ Cr/h..-t ham;p�ca� � �
Sr /hgf vY4�
a re�s ._ al%�HQ�'ue
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com -phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 c e,arb„cw.
« Pian Comments
�4 <kl t S 1 uva si o c i L �---ZKJC l l nU.Ll �vL l �) n" 4e r
Mlv1��I V1U"K C'
01 ✓04�a eztr ,,1P) 20"etc
be
�jj,,��l
L H-E�L7l+.
How to get your comment(s) to us:
- email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone: 970-221-6376
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) fax: 970-224.6111 ca,•ar�ncom
Plan Comments?
t1 ,2 I )� ii aNa� f�e- II wr 'l'( cbnG '�f
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 Ctts�tbn cnutn,
Plan Comments4
r ,
�%: Jf -17,✓r?% / r 17.., n/ �`Y�,JN�h / ,
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 cu��r�ncom
PIM Comments'
�105 � 1`in Ae�BPS
How to get your mment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone: 970-221-6376is
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 ctt.araeCol
_��
AFFIX
POSTAGE
Advance Planning Dept nL^3,�A�. �f
PO Box 580 r�rL�.�
Fort Collins.CO 805?�-OSKO A
City of Fort Collins
Advance Planning Dept
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
•
ply CommentP?
r wow li/�z �p z� eow{-sidZ FoS�ee��'a-S
Zone-4dua�/rJ� b,/Pc�aJ� cz if7 � c2 �{r6P
tas�s`pyl 416o iv;K Z Cd / Zone &lid
�2 C0�7t/H'uirci2� � �2S $ �s�e,sf- /moo P(50 1- i s tu-�l lOw
t
w e l✓C, aLV o cu a giloL LY
How to get your comment(s)to us: 2 l�C��X���/y�l/��0y��.7L �
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com a �phoiV 70 1 93'9m
mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) fax: 970-224-6111 cfaof�ncwu�=
f Plan Comments?
4)2AI" /JC2Z PA U�, L
How to get your comment(s) to us: t C
-email. aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 City of Fvrl Col4ne
Plan Comments,
_ _
es f� 74 14
C 00,
27
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com -phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 2i,,�
•
I-25 .Subarea Plan
Rating the bad and the bad-er
Between these two, the "current GMA" is less harmful because it has significantly less urban development.
Neither is really acceptable. Instead, we must opt for a third alternative with true low county density
(rural I unit per acre or so) east of I-25, instead of the urban s le development in these plans.
The time has come to define the ultimate size of Fort Collins. Our current population
now tops 122,000. At current runaway growth rates we will top 150,004sometime in
the year 2007! Those who favor these plans envision a city of 500,000 to 1 million
or more. Setting boundaries will give our city a more sensible size along with lower
taxes, better transportation, more open lands, and a cleaner environment.
• Both versions include an expanded four lane parallel road system along county road 5. County Road 5 is
nearly 3/4 mile east of I-25, paving the way for uncontrolled sprawl onto the eastern plain.
• Both versions show a regional shopping center at the comer of 1-25 and Prospect. This is an
inappropriate location for a shopping center that would require enormous infrastructure improvements
(including widening E. Prospect road and putting in a new interchange).
• Both versions show extensive commercial and low density (5-8 units per acre city density) residential
development east of I-25. This goes against the popular desire that 1-25 define our eastern boundary.
• The plan is costly to taxpayers: (preliminary: all final costs likely to be greater)
$70Million for new schools
$69M for new interchanges
$18M for widened corridors
• The plan never even mentions Air Quality. It is likely that this massive expansion far from the core,
with its attendant traffic. will cause a serious degradation of air quality.
• The plan does not acknowledge any defined growth boundary to the east. This is contrary to City Plan
policy UGE-1. "The Citv's development will be contained by will-defined boundaries."
• The plan contains no community separators, contrary to the wishes of 85% of those surveyed. This also
runs contrary to City Plan policy UGE-2. "Community separators will provide permanent physical and
visual separation between Fort Collins and adjacent communities to maintain and enhance the separate
identities of each community."
• Sets the precedent (or lack of) for all future annexations.
SIERRA CLUB COMMENTS ON THE I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN(MAY, 2001)
SUBJECT: PROBLEM: SOLUTION:
Planned Vision This plan's vision for maximum development in the According to the community study surveys, 82%of the region's citizens want
linear 1-25 corridor is fatally flawed and at odds with separation between the Cities with distinctive and healthy downtowns.
\ established City policy.The result would be
continuous sprawl with loss of community identities,
large costs,increased VMT,declining downtowns,
worsening air quality and less preserved open space.
Land Use Planning The plan has no land use component, and there is Fort Collins must take a leadership role and promote serious discussion of
no evidence that transportation has been integrated presently planned and future land use along the corridor.
with existing land use plans. Land use is planned
before transportation, since land use detennines As an initial step,jurisdictions should put their current urban growth boundaries,
transportation origins, destinations, and densities. proposed and approved projects,and zoning on a regional map for inclusion in
This plan effectively puts an end to much needed the plan and further land use discussions.The plan needs to identify the location
dialog on land use by deliberately excluding it. of activity centers and place limits on their number,size,and traffic generation.
Activity Centers:
The preferred vision(page 15) misrepresents reality,
since this plan was chosen to maximize the number,
size, density,and traffic generation of activity
centers. For example, the intense development that
is planned for the Crossroads subarea will likely be
a prototype "activity center," yet its size and scale
far exceed what is presented in the plan's vision.
Community This plan retreats from the community separators The communities need to commit to the already agreed upon separators in their
Separators: identified in the Northern Colorado Community land use plans and indicate them on the regional map. The region needs to
Separator Study as adopted by our region. initiate actions to provide separator funding.
Open Lands and The plan contains no maps of specific parcels of The plan needs to identify and map the number,size, location,setbacks,cost
Natural Areas prime agricultural land, floodplains,wildlife habitat estimates,and funding mechanisms for preserving these lands.
or wildlife corridors. The failure of the plan to limit
the size, number, and coverage of activity centers
makes it unlikely that the open lands or resource
protections can be realized.
Costs to taxpayers The plan does not provide for the full costs of Agreements to provide adequate infrastructure for all corridor development must
growth on each community's transportation system, be reviewed and worked out by the jurisdictions before the fact. Agreements as
or growth's impacts on adjacent communities. to who should pay for existing transportation shortfalls must also be addressed.
Communities with weak impact fees may gain tax
revenues while others pick up the transportation
shortfalls they've incurred.
r
SIERRA CLUB COMMENTS ON THE I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN(MAY,2WI)
SUBJECT: PROBLEM: SOLUTION:
Rail and Transit Rail and transit are listed as an afterthought,with no mention of Rail and mass transit need to be addressed with land use planning
costs, timelines,or funding. and given cost estimates, funding mechanisms,and approximate
timetables.(similar detail to the road plan)
Roads The continuous parallel road system will stimulate growth and The plan should first establish a solid land use plan. As a
thus put all undeveloped lands under the threat of imminent prerequisite, the public needs to see detailed maps showing open
development,without regard for the appropriateness for such lands, land uses,densities, boundaries,etc.,along with current
development. Prime agricultural lands,open space lands, and land use options.
sensitive habitat all become equal targets for development.
1 Conflicts with Many key elements of the plan conflict and are in opposition to Though we should not require other communities to follow Fort
City Plan well established City policies,principles,and programs,either Collins specific policies, we should likewise not adopt regional
directly or by omission. Therefore,adopting this plan effectively agreements which run contrary to our most important principles
abrogates our commitments established in City Plan. of responsible growth and transportation management.
Contiguity The Plan facilitates leapfrog development and increases sprawl Maintain City Urban Growth Area policies: UGE-1.3: "Th�City
miles from city facilities and services.This runs contrary to Ft. will cooperate with adjacent governmental entities to ensure
Collins' growth policies. contiguity QLdevelopment that limits Sprawl and forms communjU
separators."
_Agricultural Lands There are no implementation actions for open land preservation in Maintain City Rural/Open Lands Policies: ROLE-1.2
the Plan, such as locations, acreage, cost funding sources, etc. Partnerships: "The City will continue to develop effective
This nets contrary to Ft. Collins' land policies. partnerships with the County, other governmental organizations
and jurisdictions, and the private sector for the preservation and
protection of open lands.
OTHER A Sampling of other Conflicts with City Plan includes the following:
CONFLICTS WITH Maintain ROLE-2.2:"The City should cooperate with the County
ESTABLISHED Land use: LU-1.1 Compact Urban Form. in its efforts to develop policies and regulations for preservation
CITY POLICY Land use: LU-2 The City will maintain its sense of place. of county-wide agricultural resources."
Transportation:T-1 Support trans.alternatives that reduce auto dependency.
'transportation: T-2 Mass transit is an integral part of transportation.
Environmental: ENV-1.16 The City shall initiate, and lead regional City plan was developed through great effort and with broad
efforts to improve air quality. public participation and support. It not only defines our vision for
Natural Areas: NOL-1.2 The City will conserve natural areas by our city, it also defines how we work with other communities in
directing development away from sensitive areas. developing regional lane compatible with our commitments to
Growth Management: GM-3.2 The City will work with adjacent P gP
municipalities to try to assure that their plans are consistent with City Plan. responsible growth.
Growth Management: GM-10 The City will involve citizens in the
planning and decision-making processes of government. We should not commit resources or taxpayer dollars to regional
Transportation Corridors:TC "...are developed primarily to increase plans which run contrary to our city's policies and principles.
nobility, [and]provide multi-modal transportation options..."
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
Dear City Council,.&na 71Pn
After studying the I-25 Corridor plan, I have come to the conclusion that the plan is a
lightly disguised road and development plan which will NOT significantly reduce traffic
and improve our quality of life; rather, it will open more areas for development, which in
turn will attract more people, more cars,and more traffic.
I am a survivor of the San Francisco Bay Area, where I lived for 35 years. I got to
experience, first hand, the complete destruction of agricultural land and elimination of
open space, and the horrible replacement of those areas with homes, strip malls,
freeways, and expressways ... and the resulting, unbelievable traffic.
I think it's time for the Front Range to look closely at the mistakes made by the Bay
Area, and learn from those mistakes, rather than repeat them. As a former resident of the
Bay Area, I learned several lessons the hard way:
1. Adding roads only opens up more land for development, which in turn attracts more
people, which in turn attracts more cars, and creates more traffic.
2. Widening roads to accommodate increased traffic NEVER works ... the roads
simply fill with more cars, and the widening continues, often removing trees and
homes in the process. Besides, you cannut widen roads forever, eventually you run
out of space.
3. Building more homes and stores, no matter how well planned or how attractive,
only encourages and accelerates growth into an area. Eventually you end up with one
city merging into the next to create a single, gigantic suburb, where each city is
identified only by its exit sign on a freeway.
Unfortunately, both I-25 Corridor plans that Ken Waido has developedrepeat every
mistake that I saw made in the Bay Area:
1. You are adding more roads.
• The four-lane"parallel road system along County Road 5 needs to be removed
from the plan. This plan only encourages more people to drive.
2. You are widening roads.
• Prospect Road will probably have to be widened to accommodate your
development plans, and the widening will certainly jeopardize the open space in
the area and increase traffic.
3. You are building more homes and stores.
• The planned regional shopping center at the corner of 1-25 and Prospect should
be removed from the plan. This center will require enormous infrastructure
improvements and will attract huge numbers of people with cars, which in turn
means more traffic.
• The commercial and low-density residential development east of I-25 should be
removed from the plan. This goes against the desire that many of us have,to
allow I-25 to serve as the eastern boundary of this city. We do NOT want Ft.
Collins to expand indefinitely. Our quality of life will be too degraded.
1
Having said all this, in my mind,the answer to our problem is simple,though perhaps
NOT simple to implement. We must STOP taking any actions that encourage or
accelerate growth. If we are going to grow,why not allow that growth to occur naturally,
rather than artificially stimulate it with more roads, more development, and more
advertising?
So, what are we going to do? We do not need an I-25 development and road plan ... we
need a Front Range Rapid Transit system ... some type of high-speed monorail that
runs along I-25 and gets cars off the road. Once again,why not look to the Bay Area for
guidance ... in this case,for what TO do,rather than what NOT to do.
One of the few actions that appeared to significantly reduce traffic in the Bay Area was
the construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART), a regional,high-speed monorail
that paralleled some of the major freeways above or below ground, and occasionally ran
down the middle of the freeway. BART did NOT encourage more development,other
than building BART stations, but it did encourage more people to get out of their cars to
commute. You cannot BELIEVE the number of cars BART took off the road. I shudder
to think what traffic would be like without BART!!
Bottom line is this ... the I-25 Corridor plan should focus on a Front Range Rapid Transit
monorail along I-25. It should not focus on any more road building, more housing, or
more commercial development. We must STOP encouraging and accelerating growth
now!
Martha Roden
1967 Massachusetts St.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
(970) 225-2572
✓na/ce, a- he§e�10ta_-.�7 ( Ur ha,,
2
i ! !
eawlyn J{aaat
2307 csAeCoLaield T ue
80526 [
9oRE�e�o[c�;,���, eo[a�to Bo526
yv v Z4/
toe
C�C�C..`c�'� - 1� � i llt¢ec.si �r•�e� �ii�2
�AUu L y dL1U De - •--— "" luau- tt Saaaens me We want yl]- Is u ue rovers ryl It- Pendent OC
mumtYcriticizedhimforhisharsh- that so many Brigitte children to have the
cur again Hess. I will always be grateful to children are be Dempsey Privilege to become Americans in long
amp
him for his vision The immersion I ing deprived of spInn it is essential that we allow n8 t h e experienced in another country the opportunity Soapbox them to be surrounded by other for not he
and another language was the that I had as a re- Americans in an American envi- enough Ye-
age learning experience I have salt of being ronment. Segregation can only gram has br
ever had and has opened man nag channeled into bilin- lead to a ghetto mentaG y because it's
doors of Opportunity Y B education in our schools.Giv- feel safe at first but like�olt may rem as
PP ty throughout en that the American culture has "feel-goods."it is lethal e o many Bost all
my life. developed integration skills and
Thanks to friendly teachers and mechanisms that every other n- tun. it, ,itsrro-p
students,I was comfortable in Eng- tion on earth can only dream about, likely to happen,I learned to spell
ell workers put
As your article mentioned is relatively m.
Yea within three months. Two this is a great loss indeed I know, well in English but remained a income--or
Yeats later, I passed P Women a
with better English tests because I am an immigrant who poor speller in my native tongue. ers. We earn
grades than many chil- once looked at this nation from the Guess what. It is not important! I cents a the c
dren for whom English was their other side of the fence native language. I also learned to B" disagree with Tracy Stanford, average speak without any accent All this Bilingual schooling segregates who states that bilingual students worrce c
learning came naturally, children and keeps them out of the are in "asset that employers are 30 percent a
any effort on my part The greatest Spanishmainstre(�or azt�sure they stay looking not on for." I am trilingual and pensions An,
catalyst to my personal growth, may preserve cultural d versit} companies that I have woe of the four rked for longer.
air
sident however,was not the language but but only too open translates into
test in
the fact that I became integrated in- low-paying jobs, a lack of interest thas
est in ever shown
consider the able Ian- by
is
gam,
to another culture and learned that in educational achievement and guage in myiry and experience women and retire
there were values that had not been ]ow self esteem for women Those ...but that may be because thanks What nd n
6. taught to me in my community.For aze the two sides of the same coin to my education I have been ap- takes even th
rounded b the first time in my life,I was sur- Don't kid yourself that values can erating at a manager's level, are talking ab
u�tion for People fle M valued ed- be changed by verbal teachings in- where the whole world s eaks Cases and put
rec y potential M Principal cipal stead of experiential integration English p
ogntzed m g into another culture! We aze talk- ket? Not only
Subarea plan m �9ttte D& °se"lives in Fort colrns, the testhes its ndr
fall,S more growth for city Nobody knc
The best analogy relating to our Growth Manage- k•:, such private
city's growth was one heard at the ment Area is yet Police, lib work. Martha
recent Fort Collins Planning and to be developed library and s tiler services the Nation.
for those newcomers, We can't af-
Zortingfotvm "If you're getting fat, 'a have areas ford it. For exam le, not only °men's Org
the way to deal with it is not to buy within our cur- would we have to provide electric "Who'Would a,
a bigger pair of pants." rent GMA, such service to those within the GMA, A husband can
Growth issues are not resolved as the city's we'd have to "buy"the customers Security nt
by more growth but by managing northeast quad- from the Rural Electric Awacia- Can he a
the growth within our existing lim_ rant, where we tion We'd have to deal with the CO gtrtuienc
its. are limiting de- Box Elder Sanitation special sewer But those pal
I am not interested in stopping velopmen[ be- Marty district With an expanded popula- question:"Rrlta
growth but only in doing the best cause we cannot Thar tion,we'd be looking for more wa- p�bad invest
we can to manage growth. afford t provide p ter(the cost of row water is rising retire as the ro!
That's the way I look at the pro- adequate infra- Soapbox very fast), expanding sewer fac!li- ket heads down
posed expansion of the city's structure.Can we ties, more electric power, more mine
he really
Growth Management Area. This take on an even larger area and ex- eyathan ecartt bet cost far more expected from hce mme the percent
"Subarea Plan"is a euphemism for pert to be able to afford the infra- development a that area? my two percen
is the opinions more growth in our city that a!- wai
structure? Perhaps in another five ■The _ t become a ar.
;days.The ready has one of the highest years,we can explore expanding to need the regument is would come
1 meeting or growth rates in the state. the east, after we have adequately from the expanded tax base.We�_ Not long ago, G
ormation,call Do we really want to grow even developed the land within our ex- read have crossed I-_5 at both that younger wo
733. faster than we are now growing? sting GMA Y 2 well be saving
um;public This plan proposes expanding ■The Mulberry and Prospect — two ar- their mattresses.
x opinions are the d 1-2 potential growth area be- less we include thetaduddo ale a ontmer�aVicean of expect
dty�tna)d see terly report on
•otos receive yond I-25 east to County Road 5.. in our looks pretty goo,
733.Send, The original alternatives were: 1. we'll have controlge ernhowea, ealionptmlreeit ' t e cloitersi u the latest from
2 Riverside To do nothing.It suggest- nologies.
24-7899.In cup on buyingg Expand but to fo- develops. That's true. That land is We'll get additional tax revenue as I am not oppc
,tters to the fPen space to create within Latimer County's control, those areas develop. sometimes thin
an eastern buffer between the city and 54 percent . that land s al- one of us want to harm our ex-
iles submit- and the county lands to the east.3. read developed. That leaves us itino businesses. business are too
tributed in The development model, which is with only some 40 percent that we We have our solid downtown you don'[begin b}
the only one on the table now.This could impact.The county zoning, our top-notch Foothills Fashion the retirement do.
�I make no "Preferred"alternative includes ex- that area is for much lower density Mall, and lots of businesses aloe Stuart, Stuart
prohibiting panding the GMA about 1.6 square You? Pennsylva-
dom of miles with high-densityhousing pan that proposed in the rues ex- Harmony Road and throw e keep your
a's house
g panded the plan.That serves . a city. Encoura bout the keep your hands
ale peace- and cluster development. buffer to the east of Fort Collins. ment along I-25 wotildn'tdbe that
:tit for a re- These are my reasons for o _ a book.
ing this alternative. ppOS ■ If we expand with higher den- advantageous. Write to Ellen Goc
Constitution ■ sity housing as proposed, we'll Marty Tharp is the District 5 Fort Boston Glob 'to
77tirry percent of our existing need roads, streets, sewers, parks. Collins City Council member. or e-mail ells din
cam.
AUG-06-01 MON 13:01 AM P. 01
July 30,2001
RcCZ?VEL'
Bill Bertschy and clntc�k Wade{ _ t7 Ctt3� v:!_�C�:4e�17
Thanks for letting me send you a few comments and thoughts concerning the expansion
of Fort Collins. It certainly has changed over the years since I attended Laporte,
Washington and Laurel grade schools as well as the old Lincoln Junior High and Fort
Collins High one of my classmates made an interesting comment at our 500,class
reunion that I continue to quote. When he graduated from high school be lived five miles
from the city limits of Fort Collins. Today he lives two miles from the city limits of Fort
Collins and he still lives at the same home site east oftown_ During these years the
schools have consolidated so Box Elder,District 35 by the brewery,Timnath andall of
the other small distnets have disappeared, Other consolidations such as the 1982
agreement creating the Poudre Fire District have occurred,.We look at these as
unProvements in the structure of the city and of the county.
Expansion or growth is going to occur through out the Front Ranpe..Btvilder isstrriWed
to be a no-growth area but when you took at the growth ofNiwot, Longmont,and other
cities around Boulder it's difficult to see a lack of growth.. We see a ion all sideso€Fad
Collins. When we built ten years ago the M%kOrs and builders said no one wants to live
east of I-25,which was fine with us. But today developments east-4&2,5 are coming
especially between Prospect and Highway 14—actually north to Vine with a business
park,expansion of existing commercial areas and housing on two or.thnee levels. These;
include Clover Leaf trailer village,a senior housing area utilizing:nodular homes, low
and medium density housing and some multiple housing units. The latest of these
developments are designed under the County's newest land use code while the older
developments seem to have come under earlier codes. The nice thing about some of,
these new developments is that the developers themselves have looked at how the
better
os tie together. This has happened at the planning stage and.has allowed a
better flow of traffic to be developed. Kitchel Estates and the roadway to tie into State
Highway 14 is an exception.
When it comes to the thought of Fort Collins extending across I-25 to the east, it has
already happened. But how far should it go? Timnath,with its current state of thinkigg is
not going to expand north beyond Prospect Road,Perhaps not north of County Road 42.
They may be forced to expand east to County line Road and perhaps into Weld County
by one or more of the developers working in that area Ault is not going to expand west
ten or eleven miles to include lands up to I-25. But development isgoiug to occur east of
1-25. Perhaps the courny land use code is sufficient to provide adequate development
guidelines for this area when it is combined with REA and the specialdis�tricts(water,
sewer and fire). But it would truly appear that as trbanization of the area comes about it
would only be natural for the city to extend over to include those urbanized areas. When
we look at the attempts to provide a"natural area"between cities it is difficult to see that
this is happening. There is commercial development along 1-25 almost all of the way.
from county road 32 to county road 36, Fossil Creek reservoir not with a
. There is
housing and additional commercial development from Earhart Road at the airport north to
county road 32 and more to come. We are probably too late to provide a strip of
AUG-06-01 MON 10:01 AM p, 02
sufficient size between Fort Collins and Wellington to since both cities seem to be
moving together.
Land use and development need to be considered very strongly by the Council. The
planters should quit kidding the Council and citizens with their use of words. I would
call it semantics but it is not that. Low-density development should be what it says-
Low Density. One realtor told me once that people liked the smaller lots with less
upkeep so that the family could devote more time to other pursuits such as trips to the
mountains. When I looked at the lots be was talking about and the construction I knew
the people were talking about the cost ofthe house and lot and not the trips to the
mountains. What is wrong with calling a lot that's 7500 square het a.house lot? if we
are talking esthetics then we are talking larger lots and nice tree lined streets and
mountains in the background. If we are talking about the best use of the land, let's rank
about the high density use of the Hog Backs and the lower foot hills which would leave
the farm land available for 5rming.
Which leads me to the thought of streets. Why is a house on Mountain Avenue more
expensive(perhaps not worth more)than a house on LaPorte Avenue or WAC,. hblgton
Street or McKinlc3l Why is a house on Whedbee Street north of Prospect more
expensive than one on Whedbee south of Prospect? Could it be that the street design.
something to do with this? A few years ago the planners came up with the concept of
narrow streets with an parking and a garage accessed by an alley in the back. But the
question has never been answered as to what agency enforces this ban. Does the fire
department hire extra personnel to go to each fire in that area so trucks can get to tbt fire
or does the police department hire extra to precede the fire trucks? I really doubt that the
City Council really wants to spend money on manpower so that a greater density of
housing can result. I suggest the planners try driving Washington or McKinley in Fort
Collins or worse yet Columbine,Cherry or Dahlia in the park Hill District of Denver-.A
discussion of streets would not be complete without a comment on"traffic calming"and
how to do that. Out here we have two traffic circles and they don't cause any real
problem. Ifyou want to go to the left you just go on the left side ofthe circle;if you
want to go to the right you go to the tight of the circle. If you are picking up your nkdl
you have to decide whether the driver or the passenger is going to get the mail. Of course
if the trash truck or some other large truck is coating you just wait until they decide
which way they are going.But I have to agree with Ed Stoner who said roads could be
designed to carry relatively heavy traffic but"calmed"by curves. Of course this is
another heavier use of land than straight roadways. Then there will always by your 16-
year-old(or 40 year old)exception who will cause an accident with high speed suchas
the one that occurred on the new stretch of Timberline. Designs for this require more
planting to achieve the needed result and probably some longer distances of roadway,
Finally let me comment upon how nice it would be to have greater
cooperation/consultation with Poudre School District. Large schools with a great nusoher
of students generate a great amount of traffic. This traffic is generated at Flementary,
Junior High and High school with buses,parents and as they get older,students
themselves. Titnnath,Dunn and even the Harris bi-lingual schools are prime examples of
traffic situations that exist because they are old schools that were designed as
neighborhood schools but now have parents driving to them for various reasons. The
new schools coming on line,including FCHS really do not seem be consider how marry
AUG706-01. MON 10:02 AM P. 03
. cars will be involved at that site. The five high school clasanwtes'car-pooled so they
could attend FCHS rather than T903aat11. But that was another time and really another era
long past.
Now about traffic lights. Ah,as that writer for a long gone Fort Collins newspaper used
to say,"That's another story.-
The City Council moat consider further annexations east of I-25. It in:.not.a barrier just as
the Foudre River is not a barrier. Both of tbem are tough to get over but it can be
achieved.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board, Ted Swanson, Chairman.
DATE: July 30, 2001
SUBJECT: I-25 Sub Area Plan
CC: Jill Bennet, Larimer County Advance Planning, Ken Waido, Ft. Collins Advance
Planning, City Council, CSU, City Natural Resources Advisory Board, County
Environmental Advisory Board, County Open Lands Advisory Board, Anhueser-Busch
We offer the following comments regarding the I-25 Sub Area Plan. Our comments are
in response to requests by Jill Bennet, Larimer County Advance Planning and Ken
Waido, Ft. Collins Advance Planning on March 7 and subsequent to our discussion at the
May, June, and July AAB meetings.
First, we see the East Mulberry, I-25 corridor, the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and the
I-25 Sub Area Plan as all interrelated regarding the effort to minimize the loss of the good
agricultural land along 1-25 between Vine Drive and Wellington. This area for two miles
on either side of the interstate was identified by the AAB during an exercise with the
County Open Lands Advisory Bd. as a priority area for using the incentives and programs
available to protect agricultural open space and production. These are farms with
excellent soils, infrastructure, and, unlike most farms, can be irrigated by either well or
surface irrigation making them much more versatile. Colorado State University has made
a large investment with their agricultural facilities there. The added presence of CSU and
Anheuser-Busch as partners and a number of other factors converge to make agricultural
land protection in this area feasible.
We would summarize our position on the alternatives at this point as a qualified support
for portions of the "preferred alternative" as follows:
* We support an alternative that has Transferable Development Units (TDUs) as a key
component- as does Alternative 3. Supporting this, in turn, is a Nov. 15 memorandum
from the AAB and the EAB to the County Commissioners urging them to expand the
TDU program and create sending areas that include agricultural lands targeted for
voluntary protection.
* Secondly, the good agricultural lands described above is a contiguous block of
excellent agricultural land that should be the sending area for that TDU program. We
would be glad to assist in specifically describing that sending area. An expansion of the
TDU program into the I-25 Corridor would enhance efforts already underway to create a
revenue stream and incentives for voluntary land protection between Vine Drive and
Wellington along I-25. We realize that protection of this area will require some
combination of fee simple purchase, conservation easements, TDU's and limited
• development options. Fortunately, the first landowners have already stepped forward
with interest in placing easements on those farms and doing limited development via the
RLUC. We need the added TDU tool as City and County open space monies, CSU
monies etc. are limited.
* We would ask the City and County to be more assertive in developing receiving areas
within the UGA. In addition to the receiving areas that would be created by a UGA
expansion and activity centers, we urge the City and the County to transfer density into
the current UGA. There is substantial unincorporated infill area in the current Urban
Growth Area including the East Mulberry Corridor that should be considered for TDU
receiving areas. Any TDU program should minimizes encroachment on agriculture to the
north of CR 52 by allowing density to be transferred to receiving areas within the existing
UGA as well as potential activity centers created by an expanded UGA.
* Whatever mechanism is used to finance the transportation improvements (Regional
Transportation Authority/District etc.) should include a fee for the purchase of
development rights for the lands to be protected.
*All of these pending plans should recognize the need to maintain an enterprise zone
(annexes or not) that offers incentives to businesses that support agriculture (e.g. the
livestock auction, agricultural cooperatives, vet supply, implement dealers, auction sites,
and a place for value-added processing facilities). This is an important component of the
overall strategy to minimize the loss of the County's remaining agricultural lands.
* AAB members were unable to reach consensus on support for Alternative 3 as it is
currently described. Some members do not see the need to cross I-25 at all, a good
number opposed a boundary north of Vine because of the pressure it would put on the
area we have identified as important for protection and especially on the CSU
Horticultural Farm. Others were willing to extend the UGA north of Vine in order to
create additional receiving areas for the TDU's that would come from the area AAB and
OLAB have targeted for incentive based protection(and which corresponds to the
Corridor Plan's "Agricultural Gateway").
* We feel that the County is doing a considerable amount of planning directed towards
maintaining farm or ranch land and rural character. The Rural Land Use Center and the
Conservation Development options are more likely to be compatible with agriculture—
especially in the O Open zoning—than previous development options. The County Open
Lands Program is now investing in "working landscapes" as part of its portfolio. We
would ask the City to join us in these efforts and the growing momentum to minimize the
loss of the area's remaining ag land and water.
In closing, we urge the highest level of cooperation between City and County and the
development of an intergovernmental agreement that makes the voluntary protection of
the farms in this Corridor more likely. The ag land protection concept or component
should not just be tucked away in the I-25 Sub Area Plan or the Corridor Plan as part of a
section on"open lands"as it seems to be now. It should be_a defining feature of any final
alternative. A strategy to help protect these lands will do much more than merely make
the drive along I-25 more enjoyable. It will help maintain the economic diversity
provided by irrigated agriculture and a part of the landscape that produces wealth and
jobs year after year from renewable resources (soil, water, sunlight). It will provide open
space,wildlife habitat, cultural diversity/rural character and the capability to produce
food and fiber close to home. We feel that City and County residents will look back on
this as a wise and prudent choice.
Ken Waido-Ask the Cit Mana er Web Forth P e 1
From: <webmaster@fcgov.com>
• To. FC1.Exec_Net(HBrooks,DATTEBERRY,KDIMARTINO,JFISCHB...
Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2001 9:16 AM
Subject: Ask the City Manager Web Form
Name: Cherylann and Jim Mauro
Address: 4900 Ruidosa Dr.
City: Ft. Collins
State: CO
Zip: 80524
Phone: 416.8730
EMail: morganmauro@aol.com
Question:
Dear Sir,
We are glad to see some planning along the 1-25 corridor and do have some questions about the
annexation of our area into the city. Formost is the services we will be receiving. Will we switch over to
city water instead of Elco?We will be your biggest supporters if we can! Will we get some parks and
open space to compensate for the loss of farm land?We are concerned with the high density of housing.
Will everything have to be a minimum of 7 houses per acre? Will they all have to be beige? It really
saddens us to see the miles and miles of beige boxes on postage stamp lots that has permeated the
south of town. Could we get the developers to maybe be a little more quality creative. The book,The Not
So Big House by Sarah Susanka, should be mandatory reading for all City Planners. All in all, we are
very impressed with the thought and consideration the city has put into this and really do appreciate the
meetings that have been held.. Will there be more? Thank-you for your!
i
• time and for doing such a great job in Ft. Collins.
Sincerely,
Jim and Cheryl Mauro
•
REALTEC
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. 255 E Monroe Av, Ste 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 229-9900 Tel
(970) 282-1080 Fax -
www.CommercialSearch.com/Realtac
July 12, 2001 realtec@newamerica.com
Ken Waido, Chief Planner
Advance Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: I-25 Sub Area Plan
Dear Ken:
Thank you for reviewing the June draft of the above plan at our meeting Monday.
There are two items that were discussed that are of major concern to the land owners of
the "Galatia Annexation" at the NEC of I-25 /Prospect as follows:
1. The property line is not correct between the PR-1 School District portion (eastern
100 acres) and the "Horton" land(129 acres). This is very important because the
"MMN" land must be on the Horton portion of the land since the District does not
build anything but schools (SEE ATTACHED DRAWING);
2. With reference to The Kaplan Company letter to you dated July 10, 2001, the Horton
land is immediately south of the location described in Les Kaplan's letter to you. The
northerly portion of the Horton land fronts on Boxelder Creek; in addition, the ODP
(that was filed but withdrawn pending the adoption of the I-25 Sub Area Plan)
incorporates a transition from the activity center as shown on your June draft and the
proposed LMN area. Accordingly, the same reasons and suggested solutions as are
set forth in Les Kaplan's letter directly apply to the Horton land.
Dallas Horton and I are available to meet with you and Ben Herman at any time to
discuss any matters that would assist you in considering our concerns.
rPfiyster
cc: Ben Herman
Dallas Horton
NI
New America International
HIGHWAY 144 A �� a
lit
�� ``� _ LARIMER i
F, .•,��.�. •�. (. 1 ��\a° •'! /h to
COUNTY f
FA1 io
IlAj
!E , J Jam/ • ./ :- � / /�► � � Z
In
LARIMER
N �'' i `j% �ij', COUNTY
PROPOSED
REZONING
`;,I I ;'"./. ._-.._.,.._.""�� J'ir i�ii• '�'iiiiii .ir.•
ROWS ECT RD.
LARIME LoU
T H E
KAPLAN C OM P A N Y .
I N C O R P O R A T E D
July 10, 2001
Ken Waido, Chief Planner
Advance Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: 1-25 Sub Area Plan
Dear Ken:
As a follow-up to yesterday's meeting on the June draft of the 1-25 Sub Area
Plan, the following is a summary of some major concerns and the discussion of
these concerns at the meeting:
1. Extent of Employment District Zoning
Concem:Along the east side of 1-25, the draft shows a largely uninterrupted 1/4
mile deep strip of Employment District zoning for approximately three miles of
four miles of frontage. The size and uniformity of this strip pose two problems.
First, the approximately 400-acre volume of this Employment District and its
repetitious placement along 1-25 will create a non-viable land use for much of this
area. There is no community benefit to a band of Employment District land use
with slow absorption and questionable placement. Second, the linear
configuration of this District and uniformity of land use could eventually lead to a
repetitive, strip development appearance along much of this four mile stretch.
The 1-25 Regional Plan calls for employment and industrial uses to be clustered
in campus-like settings adjacent to activity centers. The configuration of the
Employment District in the draft is not "clustered" and the majority of land area is
not adjacent to activity centers. The explanation for this inconsistency you
presented at the July 9 meeting is that there is already extensive industrial
zoning in the County along this four-mile stretch and that nothing can be done.
This being the case, it would seem that the Sub Area Plan would strive to
interrupt this strip appearance wherever possible by not further contributing to it
and by adding variation through other acceptable land uses.
Solution: First, for the limited number of properties where there is no immediate
adjacency to an activity center and no existing County industrial zoning,
introduce the opportunity for a residential land use. To maintain consistency with
the 1-25 Regional Plan, within the 1/4 setback from 1-25, single-family and duplex
1666 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970/226-6819 • Fax 970/207-9256
/1"0 6Me� 0�.
units would not be allowed. Second, allow residential "secondary uses" only for
the Employment District properties which are either adjacent to activity centers or
where the continuation of the County industrial land use is considered necessary
politically. By introducing the opportunity for higher density residential land uses
along this four-mile strip, the potential for a linear configuration is significantly
reduced. Additional, there are numerous community benefits from a mixed land
use approach that includes multi-family. Some of these benefits are
a. promoting housing affordability through additional multifamily opportunities,
b. locating additional multifamily close to employment and activity centers,
c. more efficient use of multi modal and mass transit routes opportunities, and
d. reducing rate of increase of in town traffic by locating additional multifamily
near 1-25 corridor.
2. The 1/4 Mile Limitation on Residential Land Uses
Concem:The 1-25 Regional Plan does not intend to prohibit, as does the draft,
all residential within 1/4 mile of 1-25, only low-density such as single-family and
• duplex lots. The input process for the Regional Plan acknowledged the site
planning opportunities for multifamily placement within this 1/4 mile area and the
land use benefits to the public from such multifamily opportunities. Including
multifamily as an additional land use contributes to the objective of discouraging
a linear strip of similar land uses. It also makes public advantage of the inherent
difference between office/iindustial vs. multifamily along portions of 1-25, that
being the need for visibility of the former vs. the mitigation of visibility through
screening, setbacks and landscaping of the latter.
Simply allowing multi- family within a 1/4 mile but within an activity center, as you
are suggesting, does not go far enough. There are no planning arguments for
accommodating multifamily within activity centers but not at nearby locations.
From a "noise" avoidance perspective, there would be no difference to a building
inside or outside an activity center. Certainly, the concern for unattractive sound
walls can be addressed through site planning and landscaping elements.
Solution: Remove the 1/4 limitation for residential and uses outside of activity
centers and make the Sub Area Plan consistent with the 1-25 Regional Plan.
3. The Rural/Open Lands Classification
Concem:There is no implementation strategy for acquiring open lands, and the
stage is unnecessarily being set for public acquisition. Please note that the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code requires a 100-ft. setback along Boxelder Creek,
while the draft Sub Area Plan shows in places a 300-ft. setback. The floodplain
area along the 1-25 frontage road between Highway 14 and Prospect Street
could provide an attractive interruption to development between these two
arterials. However, the Sub Area Plan should not simply designate all Boxelder
Creek floodplain area as open lands without an implementation strategy.
Certainly, prohibiting development in area where floodplain conditions can be
mitigated is a taking. The City needs to be prepared to compensate property
owners for open lands restrictions placed on their properties.
Solution:The opportunity for density shifting from the open lands area into the
developable area on the same property would reduce the extent of public
"taking". A natural open space with a landscaping along Boxelder Creek is also
more compatible adjoining a residential land use than industrial. Of course, only
a residential classification, not the Employment District, would allow value taken
from the open lands area to be shifted elsewhere. Additionally, the City should
explore opportunities with the Larimer Land Trusts to accomplish conservation
easements for open lands in a manner that creates attractive tax benefits to the
landowner.
I hope that these thoughts help summarize certain concerns discussed at
yesterday's meeting. Of course, I look forward to getting together with you and
Ben Herman at any time to discuss the Sub Area Plan.
Very truly yours,
Lester M. Kapla
cc. Ben Herman
HIGHWAY 14_
LARIMER
COUNTY
FA1 Q
tv
�r %f r; f V
X lie
1�1✓ FAN�'1�'
17; LARIMER
N i i ,�,� , r 1 1i COUNTY
or
PROPOSED
REZONING
ROS ECT RD.
1 LARIME ! OU
Ken We!do-Fw: Draft 1-25 Subarea Land Use Plan Page 1
From: "Ray Martinez" <raymartinez3l @home.com>
To: "Diane Jones'<DJONES®fcgov.com>, "John Fischbach"...
Date: Mon,Jul 2, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Draft 1-25 Subarea Land Use Plan
Are we expanding the GMA?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Randy Fischer" <karand @f rii.com>
To: "Ray Martinez" <ramartinez@ci.fort-collins.co.us>; "Eric Hamrick"
<erichamrl @home.com>; "Bill Bertschy'<bertschy®sacc.colostate.edu>; "Chuck
Wanner'<cwanner@poudreriver.org>; "Marty Tharp"<mtharp@fcgov.com>; "Kurt
Kastein"<kkastein®ci.fort-collins.co.us>; "Karen Weitkunat"
<kweitkunat@ci.fort-collins.co.us>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: Draft 1-25 Subarea Land Use Plan
July 2, 2001
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
There are many reasons the City"s Draft Land Use Plan for the 1-25 Subarea
(the Draft Plan) should be rejected by Council. One important reason to
reject the Draft Plan is its failure to protect approximately 1,060 acres of
county lands currently zoned O-Open by enabling development to occur at a 50
TO 120 FOLD INCREASE IN DENSITY over that allowed by the current county
zoning! (At least, 800 acres of this 1,060 acres is currently outside the
GMA boundary.)
County lands zoned O-Open can only be developed at 1 unit for each 10 acres.
If the City expands its GMA boundaries as staff is proposing, this land
would be rezoned as LMN which would allow development at 5 TO 8 UNITS PER
ACRE, with some areas as high as 12 UNITS PER ACRE! City staff justifies
this huge increase in density by making the expanded GMA a receiving area
for a limited transfer of development rights (TDR) program designed to
protect farmland north of the study area. Under the Draft Plan, City staff
proposes sacrificing lands that are essentially already protected by their
O-Open zoning for the uncertain promise that farmers will participate in
their TDR program that, at best,would protect 1,500 acres north of the
study area.
O-Open zoned lands are already protected in several ways. First, under the
county"s land use code, any parcel more than 30 acres must be developed as a
"conservation development" or CD. CDs are required to cluster the
development allowed under the applicable zoning on 20 percent of the land.
The remaining 80 percent is perpetually protected as residual open lands. As
a CD, a 100-acre parcel would have 10 units on 20 acres with 80 acres
protected as residual open lands, compared to 500 to 800 units and no
residual open land under the Draft Plan.
Second, lands outside the GMA are eligible to be developed under the Rural
Land Use Process (RLUP). The RLUP is an alternative to 35-acre development
under which some of the subdivision requirements are waived in exchange for
decreasing the density to a maximum of 1 unit per 17.5 acres and clustering
the development to protect the residual land. Under a typical FLUID, a 100
parcel could have a maximum of 4 units on 10 to 15 acres with 85 to 90 acres
Ken Waido-Comments on 1-25 Plan Page 1
From: Glen Colton <glen@flyshop.com>
To: Sally Craig<salcrg@aol.com>,Jerry Gavaldon <jjg1...
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2001 1:44 PM
Subject: Comments on 1-25 Plan
Dear Board Members,
Because I will be out of town I wanted to send you my thoughts on the
1-25 corridor plan to be read at the P&Z meeting this Thursday. They
are as follows:
While I appreciate the work that staff and the consultants put into this
plan, I believe it falls fall short of what is necessary and the plan is
indeed worse than no plan at all. While regional planning should be
pursued, regional planning by itself is not the goal. The goal should
be to develop a plan which helps meet the goals of Fort Collins first
and the other communities second. In this case I am afraid the plan
meets the needs of sprawling communities like Loveland and Johnstown,
but not the goals of the Fort Collins city plan which envisions a
compact city with community separators. I ask the members of the board
look beyond the pretty pictures and hopeful talk and think about what
will actually occur as a result of the plan. I urge my fellow board
members to reject this plan and send it back for reworking. Below is a
list of my thoughts and concerns:
o The plan as currently written is worse than no plan at all.
o The plan endorses and encourages the worst type of sprawl. It is
taxpayer financed, away from the core cities involved, and it will
dramatically increase the vehicle miles traveled in the region (there
are many jobs and much retail planned along the corridor and little
housing. Therefore, there will be a tremendous flow of traffic to and
from the neighboring towns.)
o "Expansionist` cities like Loveland and Johnstown, eager to annex to
the interstate to get tax dollars, will love this plan. They already
are getting millions of$ of state tax dollars to expand HW34 and HW402
out to the Interstate so they can expand, they now will be getting more
regional taxpayer$to build more roads parallel to 1-25.
o There is no land use element to the plan. It is bad planning to
develop a transportation system with no land use plan.
o Everything in plan is voluntary. Communities can choose to ignore it
and there are no teeth if it is ignored or violated.
o Most of the effort was put into the design standards and
transportation element of the plan. The 'open space'element, intended
to sell the public on the entire plan, was largely an after thought.
City planners admit that the open space element was shortchanged in
terms of time and effort put into it.
o Plan was conceived and formulated largely by developers, real estate
speculators, and other growth interests with little participation by
average citizens
o Open Space element
o Looks good at first glance, but"'
The 'open space'element so vividly described and pictured in
the plan is completely voluntary, unfunded, and there are no detailed
plans for the open space actually happening.
o The document is misleading in that it describes 'compact activity
centers'around interchanges with open space in between and /4 mile
Ken Waldo-Comments on 1-25 Plan Page 2
set-backs between 1-25 and any development. The reality is that
LovelandMindsor/Johnstown 'Cross-Roads`plan already on the books has
solid development from south of highway 34 to County Road 32 (the
Windsor exit). In addition,the Fort Collins sub-area plan as currently
proposed envisions urban development with commercial and retail
(including a huge regional mall at 1-25 and Prospect) with urban level
residential (5 units per acre)from County Road 52 to 1/2 mile south of
Prospect' hardly the compact development talked about in the plan)
o Transportation element:
o The*parallel road system'described in the plan will encourage
more development and faster development than would occur without the
road system.
• If the parallel road system is built, not only will you have
development on both sides of 1-25,you will also have it on both sides
of the parallel roads!!!
o The parallel road system will cost hundreds of millions of$and
most of it will be at taxpayer expense
o The alternative modes envisioned in the plan are just that: a
vision
o The parallel road system is a temporary fix at best. At first it
may result in less traffic on 1-25, but within a few years 1-25 and the
parallel road system will be clogged with traffic due to the development
induced by the parallel roads.
o Design standards element
o This part of the plan is the most well conceived part of the plan
and will help the corridor"look better'than it would otherwise.
However, even these were rushed and the final draft largely written by
developers.
o Adopting this plan before the 1-25 sub-area plan is putting the cart
before the horse. We need to determine what we want our city sub-area
plan to look like before adopting a regional plan.
o Bottom line:
o This plan is worse than no plan
o This plan is premature (before our own 1-25 sub-area plan)
o Kill this plan now and send it back to the drawing board for more
work to include the following at a minimum
o Don`t approve any plan that doesn't have a comprehensive open
space element with mandatory land use provisions and a funded open space
element
o Do not build the parallel road system without ensuring that it is
a limited access road with no development allowed along it (similar to
the Foothills Expressway in Boulder)
o No public funding of the parallel road system
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and hope you
seriously consider them. The decision we are making will have a great
impact on Fort Collins/Northern Colorado and we need to make the
decision that is right for the average citizen of Fort Collins who is
tired of all the growth.
Sincerely,
Glen
From: "Karen Wagner" <possibility@frii.com>
To: "Glen Colton" <glen_colton@agilent.com>, "Sally Cr...
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2001 1:35 PM
Subject: 1-25 Corridor Plan
Dear Members of the Planning &Zoning Board:
On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Larimer County, I am forwarding
the comments and positions of our organization concerning the 1-25 Corridor
Plan. We have been following the development of the plan, and several of
our members have participated in the focus groups, which meet three times
during the course of the study. In spite of the fact that the final draft
has only been available to the public for about two weeks, we hope you will
nonetheless have an opportunity to consider our observations as you
deliberate the merits of the plan. We apologize for not having them
available to you sooner.
Please see either the attachments and/or cover letter(signed by our
spokesperson, Carol McDivitt) and comments which follow.
Sincerely, Karen Wagner
for the League of Women Voters of Larimer County
LETTER:
June 19, 2001
TO: The Larimer County Commissioners
• The Ft. Collins City Council
The Loveland City Council
The Berthoud Town Board
The Timnath Town Board
RE: 1-25 Corridor Plan
The League of Women Voters of Larimer County has a long history of
advocating for responsible land use planning by all levels of government and
also supports the creation of intergovernmental structures to address issues
that transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Since Northern Colorado lacks
such a regional body, we are encouraged that eight governmental entities
have come together to address the status and future development of the 1-25
Corridor, from Berthoud to just south of Wellington. We commend those
efforts.
Those commendations notwithstanding, we wish to address several elements of
the 1-25 Corridor Plan, some of which are at odds with the League's
long-standing criteria for land use planning, natural resource protection,
and an equitable balance between current taxpayers and future development
interests in the funding of capital improvements.
To summarize our recommendations, the League proposes fine-tuning the Design
Standards, as well as expanding the Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies before
adoption. The League believes that both of those elements serve a valuable
purpose. The Transportation Element, on the other hand, raises serious,
long-term implications that require greater study, in conjunction with a
land use plan and potential funding mechanisms. We cannot support the
Transportation Element, but encourage adoption of the Design Standards and
•
Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies, with suggested alterations.
With the phenomenal growth experienced in our area,we believe regional
planning and cooperation are essential. However, it seems ill advised to
adopt a largely conceptual plan, and to put the necessary intergovernmental
agreements in place, when so many vital issues remain unaddressed.
We would appreciate your consideration of the attached comments, as you
deliberate the critical questions raised by the proposed 1-25 Corridor Plan.
Sincerely,
Carol A. McDivitt
Spokesperson
League of Women Voters of Larimer County
COMMENTS
POSITIONS &OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE 1-25 CORRIDOR PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The League believes encouraging community identity is critical to
maintaining our sense of place. We feel that those who have made the choice
to settle in our communities, or locate businesses here, have done so
precisely because the area is not a suburb of Metro Denver. Unfortunately,
we fear that the plan sets the stage for the type of unbroken development
that already characterizes many segments of the 1-25 Corridor from Pueblo to
Ft. Collins.
We oppose that inevitability, and ask you, our elected officials, if
such intense development along the interstate corridor is in the best
interest of current residents and taxpayers, many of whom have moved here to
escape environments found in places like Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta?
Is Colorado Springs, divided by 1-25, a worthy land use model to emulate?
We can think of no intensity or quality of interstate development that
promotes the individuality of communities or a sense of place.
Therefore, we take issue with the assumption that it is necessary to
stimulate corridor development through the proposed transportation network.
While this scenario may appeal to some financial interests, we contend that
it is not acceptable to the majority of citizens, who regularly cite the
myriad impacts of sprawl as a reason for a declining quality of life.
The League consistently maintains that land use and transportation
planning are inextricably linked. Considering the scope, expense and
long-term impacts of the proposed transportation infrastructure, we are both
perplexed and dismayed that the study recommends an expansive transportation
network, without the benefit of a concurrent land use plan. In that regard,
it appears the transportation element is, at most, only half complete.
The League advocates a balanced, multi-modal transportation system for
our state, region and communities. In contrast to continued road
construction and widening, we believe a broad spectrum of transportation
modes is needed to reduce congestion and maintain air quality. We are also
surprised that such a sprawling transportation plan includes no mention of
air quality.
Another major concern relates to the lack of a detailed cost and
funding analysis for the phenomenally expensive transportation network
proposed. The implementation strategy states that transportation funding
mechanisms should be investigated, presumably after adoption. Whether the
recommended improvements are within the boundaries of small towns, such as
Timnath and Berthoud, or larger cities, such as Ft. Collins and Loveland,
i Ken Waido - 1-25 Corridor Plan Page 3
individual jurisdictions need some sense of what their financial
contributions will be, and when that funding will be required.
Knowing there is not an accompanying land use plan,we suggest that it
is wrong to build community expectations that are not supported by
well-researched funding options. We note that there are already deficits of
hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation maintenance and
improvements within the county and its communities. The cost of maintaining
the proposed infrastructure, if built, is also a financial consideration
that is not addressed by the plan.
We are likewise concerned that the North Front Range Transportation &
Air Quality Planning Council, the established metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) charged with planning for the region's transportation
needs, has not been intimately involved in the development of this plan
since its inception. Had the project been a part of the MPO's process,
perhaps it might have been included in the prioritization of projects for
the just-completed 2025 Plan. Although hundreds of regional projects are on
the MPO's wish list, there is funding available for only a limited number,
which meet designated criteria.
The League believes that the cost of providing transportation
infrastructure should be equitably borne by those who benefit from the
provision of those capital improvements, and that infrastructure must be in
place at the time of development. A Rural Transportation Authority is also
mentioned as a possible funding source for transportation needs in the 1-25
Corridor. It is important to note that such a taxing authority is simply a
means of shifting the costs of development to current residents, who may
enjoy few benefits for their tax dollars.
DESIGN STANDARDS
Design standards for new construction in the interstate corridor will
create a more attractive appearance for commercial and industrial areas.
Standards for signage, screening and landscaping will also enhance the look
of corridor development. Many years ago, the League worked for the adoption
of the Ft. Collins sign code, and feels the code has been an important
factor in creating a visually attractive community.
The designation of activity centers at interchanges is valid. However,
without specifying the size or boundaries of these centers, there is nothing
to prevent a continuous band of commercial, industrial and retail
development from one interchange to the next. We think it is a mistake to
restrict multi-family units to the activity centers, which may include
commercial, retail, industrial and employment development. In fact, we
believe that urban-level residential development along the interstate
corridor should be discouraged through sensitive land-use planning.
However, if such development is contemplated, we would suggest a mix of
housing types (multi-family, single-family and affordable units) in
residential areas, which are sensibly removed from the interstate.
OPEN LANDS & NATURAL AREAS ELEMENT
With riparian corridors, open lands and viable agricultural properties
prime for development, Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies are greatly needed
in the corridor. The League has supported the county's Open Lands Program
for the acquisition and maintenance of such properties, and backs the use of
Transfer of Development Units (TDU's) to preserve both agricultural lands
and the priceless river corridors bisected by 1-25. We believe TDU's may
also have a role in creating community separators, vital to individual
community identities and sense of place.
[Ken Waido - 1-25 Corridor Plan Page 4
In the current draft,the provisions for wildlife habitat are too weak
and vague to have much value in protecting existing wildlife and natural
areas. In general, these policies need further development and coordination
with Larimer County's Open Lands Master Plan. We are also curious how such
preservation will be funded outside Larimer County, as Weld County does not
have a similar program for maintaining open lands and natural areas. In
areas where open space is desired to buffer development from the interstate
or to preserve viewsheds for interstate drivers, the suggested
development-funded resource protection program is more appropriate than
siphoning tax dollars from the county's Open Lands Program.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT &AWARENESS
The League actively promotes citizen involvement in land use planning.
In the case of the 1-25 Corridor Plan, we question whether the public has
been adequately informed and involved in this critical plan. Likewise, it
is not clear to us how public input has been considered or integrated into
the final recommendations.
It's an acknowledged fact that major development interests in the
corridor have had an active role in crafting the plan, most notably through
the Oprivate sector lead team." While it is imperative that such financial
interests should participate, no such integral involvement has been afforded
to citizen and community interests. As a result of that imbalance, the plan
appears to facilitate development within the corridor, rather than
strengthening the values and visions of individual communities. We believe
that unfortunate oversight may prove detrimental to the future quality of
life we are privileged to enjoy in Larimer County and its communities.
CC: "Cameron Gloss" <cgloss@ci.fort-collins.co.us>, "G...
• I-25 Subarea Planning and Zoning Board
Open Public Forum
Chairman - Good evening everyone and welcome to the I-25 Subarea Planning and Zoning
Board Open Public Forum. This is a first for the P&Z to conduct an Public Open Forum and I
just want to go over some ground rules and we'll have a presentation and then we'll give
everyone an opportunity to come and speak to the Board and share your thoughts and I'll work
my way through the process so at least everyone knows what this Forum is for, for tonight.
The purpose of the Forum is to solicit public opinions on a Draft Land Use Plan for the 1-25
Subarea Plan. The Forum is not a debate; the Forum is not intended to be a question and answer
session. However, the Planning and Zoning Board will not be discussing the plan tonight nor
will the board be making any recommendation tonight on the plan to City Council. We invite
one and all to come and speak before the Board; we ask that that you all come to please be brief.
We'll allow up to three minutes, an opportunity for everyone, three minutes each, so everybody
has an opportunity to speak. We ask that you please sign your name and address so you can be
added to the national,mailing list for future notifications of the meeting on the plan. As for the
audience, we ask for your help in the following area: please speak to the topic at hand, the
Subarea Plan, please be respectful of all speakers, even those who have opinions that may be
different than yours. We are here to listen, to seek all inputs. Our Chief Planner, from Advance
Planning, Mr. Ken Waido, will give a brief ten minute introduction and... of the Subarea Plan,
and then we will be able to open it up for discussion, for people to come and speak to the board,
. not discussion, but your comments and thoughts. We have two microphones and we ask you to
sign in and please utilize both of them and this will help everybody get through in a timely
manner and get your thoughts shared in a very comfortable environment. Mr. Waido. turn it
over to you Sir, welcome.
Ken Waido —Thank you *vIr. Chairman. I will attempt to be brief, but I also want to cover some
points. I think in the audience we have people who have been involved in this process for the
past 18 months or so. And we also may have people who are attending their first a session
regarding this plan. The I-25 Subarea Plan is a plan to deal with growth in the I-25 Corridor;
growth east of I-25 is an important issue for the community. It is during the process of
developing this I-25 Subarea Plan that new public land use polices will be adopted for this
Interstate Corridor Area. First, I would like to give some of the historic perspective. In 1980 the
city of Fort Collins and Larimer County established an Urban Growth Area Boundary which was
an area delineated to identify areas expected to develop with urban types of land uses and be
provided with urban types of services and eventually annexed into the City. The initial Urban
Growth Area Boundary included land east of the Interstate and extended actually as far east as
County Road 5 and the Mulberry Street and Prospect Road Corridors. In 1984 when the City
annexed the Anheuser-Busch property on the west side of the Interstate the Urban Growth Area
Boundary was extended to include additional land on the east side of I-25 around the Mountain
Vista Interchange Area. Now the City's interest in lands adjacent to the Interstate and the
Interstate Interchanges I think are perhaps, fairly obvious, but they are represent areas for
potential economic development and additional employment opportunities for the community.
additional tax revenues — both property and sales taxes for the City plus the Interstate
• Interchange represent gateways into the community so the design of these areas is extremely
important to the community. So for the past 21 years it has been part of the City's plan to grow
east of I-25. Today there are two and three quarter square miles of area east of I-25 in the City's
Urban Growth Area Boundary, which is now called the Growth Management Area Boundary.
About one square [Wile of this area has been annexed into the City. The I-25 Subarea Plan
purposes adding about another square mile and a half to the Growth Management Boundary.
Now dealing with the Draft Land Use Plan, let me back up...The entire study area looked at the
I-25 Corridor from basically the Anheuser-Busch Area on the north, to the Windsor exit on the
south, which is County Road 32 on the south, County Road 52 on the north. As we went through
the process over the past year and a half we have basically determined that the planning that was
done for the west side of the Interstate and the recently adopted Mountain Vista Area Plan for
this portion, the northern portion of the Corridor, and in the Fossil Creek Subarea Plan, which is
for the southern portion, were recent adoptions and we did not need to pay much attention to the
areas west of the Interstate. So our efforts have concentrated particularly on the eastern portion
of the Interstate, basically a four and a half square mile area from, again, County Road 52 on the
north to about a half mile south of Prospect road, the Interstate Highway on the west, and County
Road 5 on the east, which is shown in greater detail on this map.
Basically, I'll summarize what the map shows starting with the Interstate Highway, which runs
through sort of the center of the study area. These purple and pink areas represent industrial and
employment district and they are all located within one half mile of the Interstate Highway. As
you can see this purposed land use is very similar to the purposed land uses that are in approved
plans for the areas west of the Interstate with the major difference being the depth of the
properties planned for those uses. On the west side there are at least a half-mile deep and in
some areas go a full mile deep up here in the Anheuser-Busch Area, whereas the plan that we are
purposing has just a quarter mile depth. What the colors on the map do not show are the
intended design guidelines for this area which would be very similar in nature to the design
guidelines that are in place for the Harmony Road Corridor, which includes a landscape buffer
and setback very similar to what you can see at the Hewlett-Packard Plant. The second
component of the plan is to locate regional, community, and neighborhood shopping centers in
distinct activity centers. Regional and community shopping would be located around the
interchanges particularly the Mulberry Interchange and the Prospect Road Interchange. A third
neighborhood center is on the map proposed for about a half mile east of the Interstate on County
Road 50. This is a twelve-acre sight, which is similar in size to the Toddy's Shopping Center at
Lemay and Drake surrounded by a relatively higher density residential area, which we call a
medium density residential area of twelve units per acre. The balance of the study area east of
the employment and commercial areas to County Road 5 is in what we call low density mixed
used neighborhoods. We feel that these residential neighborhoods are critical to provide
residential support to the commercial and employment areas in conjunction with the Interstate.
We think we have a philosophy in our City Plan that people should have the opportunity to work,
live, shop, and play within their own neighborhoods. Most of this area is in this lighter yellow,
or this yellow color which is a five to eight dwelling unit per acre density. Twelve units per acre
again would be in conjunction with the neighborhood shopping center on County Road 50 and
also in the employment and industrial districts. Also, a key component to the residential portion
of this plan is in an attempt to establish what is known as a transfer of development units
program. Currently, most of the properties north of County Road 50 and east of the Interstate are
outside the Growth Management Area, as is the half section between County Road 50 and Vine
Drive. We are proposing that urban level development residentially not be aloud to occur in this
area unless those properties were to participate in a transfer of development units program. This
is what would be called a receiving area for additional units which would come into this area
from outside of this study area and where we are talking about the study area being is in a
Community Separator that would be located north of the study area between Fort Collins and
Wellington so a Community Separator would be established as an open lands or agricultural
preserve north of the study area, instead of having development occur in that Community
Separator, it would be transferred in and relocated into this portion of the study area. All
development within this area would be supported by a Supplemental Street System, which is
depicted by some of the lines on the map here. In addition we believe an integrated multi mode
of transportation network designed to encourage and provide for the use of alternate modes
including transit, cycling, and walking is also an integral policy within this study area and is a
part of the Plan. The last thing is the Box Elder Creek which shows up in this green area here,
basically transversing the center of the study area between the Interstate. We are recommending
that this be what we call a Green Corridor. That it would be preserved through Flood Plain
Regulations and Natural Areas Set Back Requirements that are currently in our Land Use Code.
Now this is what we are proposing as a Draft Plan.
I would like to just briefly cover some of the other land use patterns and densities that we
considered and rejected for various regions. One of the first was instead of having urban type
residential densities in the five to eight dwelling unit per acre range between the Interstate and
County Road 5 would urban estate residential development at two dwellings units per acre or
even the rural residential development that currently allowed under county FA farming o open
zoning. We looked at that very carefully and believe that lower residential densities in that area
would not support transit services and would also not generate sufficient revenues to pay the
costs of improving the supplemental street system without......
(Interruption...Ken was asked to use pointer...light is not working)
So, what we did consider was a lower residential density, and as I mentioned, we didn't think
that that density was sufficient enough to help support transit service to the area, nor would it
generate sufficient revenue to help pay the cost of improving the street system, the supplemental
street system, without the need for additional public subsidies. So we rejected that option.
Another thing we considered was what about urban densities west of Box Elder Creek with
either urban estate or rural residential densities east of Box Elder Creek. So we would have a
transition from the employment commercial areas along the Interstate to a band of urban
residential density between the Interstate and Box Elder Creek and then from Box Elder Creek to
County Road 5 we would have lower density residential before we would got into the rural type
of development we are seeing east of County Road 5. Again, we rejected that option because the
urban estate or rural density east of Box Elder Creek would eliminate from further consideration
we believe the establishment of the TDU program that would help preserve the community
separator between Wellington and Fort Collins. So basically higher residential densities are
thought to be needed in this potential receiving area in order to make this program work. So, we
rejected that option.
And the last one, major land use pattern we considered was an open lands edge to the
community. Again, in the area between east of Box Elder Creek and west of County Road 5 so
we would have the employment and industrial areas adjacent to the interstate urban density
residential between—west of Box Elder Creek and then an open lands agricultural preserve area
between County Road 5 and Box Elder Creek. And again, we rejected that option because again,
the negative impact it would have on the establishment on the TDU program. Essentially it
would wipe out any receiving area for the TDU program which we believe is a major policy of
the City. So, that's a quick summary of the Plan as it currently sits, and also a summary of some
of the options that we looked at and rejected for various reasons. This is still a work in process;
we are interested in hearing the public's opinions on this Plan. And hopefully over the next
month or so we will be able to prepare a Plan for official adoption. So with that, Mr. Chairman,
I'll turn it back to you.
Mr. Chairman- Thank you very much Ken, again I apologize for interrupting........
So, at this time we've heard from Ken and the overview of the Plan, and we invite public input
on the I-25 Subarea Plan, so at this time we will open it up unless any board members have any
additional questions.
Board Member—The only question I had Ken, was the Plan made available to everyone in the
public?
Ken Waido —We have plans available—anybody who contacted our office could receive a copy
and, you know, we still have copies available. I did not bring them tonight.
Board Member—But they're available for anyone who wants one.
Ken Waido — Yes, and if they sign up and next to their name if they just put map in parentheses
we'll make sure and send them a copy.
Board Member- Great, thanks.
Mr. Chairman— Any other thoughts? So at this time, if you would please, we invite all inputs,
please sign in - that way we get you on the master mailing list for notification as well as indicate
if you are interested, if you would like a map.
Ken Waido — Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing. We know public speaking can be
intimidating to some people, so we have some comment cards and a box, and I'll put these in the
back on the table. So if somebody wants to add a comment and is afraid to get up and speak in
public, they can write the comments on the cards and put them in.
Mr. Chairman — Okay, so you can bring them up and we will add them as well. So at this time,
we are very interested in your input so we invite you to please come down and share your
thoughts and we would be glad to hear and Ken will consolidate the information. We have two
podiums here, with microphones so we invite you all. Again we ask that we can keep it brief and
three minutes so everybody gets a fair opportunity to speak. And, Judy was going to be our
informal timer, so we will manage it that way.
Janna Six— Okay. Thank you very much for the opportunity to collect input from the
• community on this. My name is Janna Six and I live in Fort Collins. And I just heard about the
Subarea Plan about six weeks, maybe two months ago. Which is unusual because I am a very
active citizen in the community. So despite any public outreach that's been done, it isn't getting
to the mainstream community and it has a huge ramification on the future of our city. So I
appreciate you being very deliberate and any kinds of recommendations that you make to City
Council. When I read the draft of the Subarea Plan, I found phrases like "Mixed Use Integrated
Multi-Modal Transportation Network, clustering, transfer of development units, Ring Corridors
and Cost Recovery Systems" wow, you know, that sounds like really good community planning!
So what could be wrong with this proposal? Well, basically it violates one of our raining
features of the City's vision. It expands the City, east of I-25. And despite what Ken said, that
that's always been our vision, I disagree. I think the public has always though that the City
would stay west of I-25 and I've heard it repeated by City Officials and staff, even just five years
ago. That would be the eastern boundary of the City. By crossing that major barrier, of the
Interstate 25, you are guaranteeing division of the community, creating sprawl with all of its
symptoms including increased driving times to get to basic community needs, increasing
infrastructure all the way across I-25, and directing activity away from the core of the current
community towards the east. While it seems innocuous only to add a hundred, excuse me, a
thousand and forty acres to our Urban Growth Boundary, that's how sprawling development
happens. One little grab, or gobble, of land at a time. So if we don't stop now, where do we
stop? That's a question I would love an answer to. ------ I'm skipping some points so that I can
make sure to get to some other kernels. Besides the philosophical opposition to expanding the
City east of I-25, I and many city residents are opposing any subsidization of
• infrastructure to create Urban Level Development. If the City didn't expand its Urban Growth
Boundaries and encourage Urban Level Development over there, we wouldn't even need this
parallel road that is being purposed by the I-25 Corridor Plan. We wouldn't need the extra
infrastructure. Yes the County would continue to develop its rural estates, but it would continue
to be rural in that affect. There are some things that I support about the Plan that I hope that you
will use - Transfer of Development Rights in any form that you can because that's the only
leverage we have when we annex and give away development rights. So I continue to support
you using very strong will to keep the community's vision - as a community. Thanks.
Ken Waido —Thank you very much.
Janna Six — And I would like to suggest five minutes.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you. Let me - Janna before you go, let me ask, who would be interested
in coming up to speak so at least we have a head count? Okay, we'll go five minutes to be fair, to
add more time. We didn't know if everybody wanted to speak, so, we'll go five. Janna, if you
want to add more thoughts to it, we would surely appreciate it.
Janna Six — Okay, I would like to tell you what I support. If the City feels some greedy kind of
need to have some tax revenue, from the I-25 Corridor, then I would only support the industrial
kinds of development that benefit from the regional transit along the Interstate but don't
encourage the daily transit from the community members to go do retail shopping. It's
• inappropriate to have retail on the I-25. Second, I support any kind of Cost Recovery Systems
that make all development pay their own way so that current citizens are not having to subsidize
new growth. And I suggested that the Transfer of Development Units is an innovative and very
positive way to help encourage development where we want it to occur. So I do hope you will
encourage an alternative proposal that creates a firm edge along I-25 and if we have already
passed certain development projects on the east of I-25, so be it, but we can stop further
degradation of that area so that we can keep our Community Separator in tact. So, thank you.
Mr. Chairman— Again, thank you very much. If there is anyone else that would like to come
down, we surely invite your inputs.
Ken Bennetti—My name is Ken Bennetti, I was a long time resident of Fort Collins and I am
now a resident of Loveland but this all affects me just the same as the Plan is part of the larger I-
25 Corridor Plan which seeks to create a massive road infrastructure the length of I-25 from
Berthoud to Monta Vista, I believe. A,just a few things, I believe in everything that Janna says,
about the dos and don'ts with this Plan. I don't see this plan as an integrative Plan. In general,
the I-25 Corridor Plan was first a road Plan and then a little lip service is paid to multi-modal,
maybe some right aways, but no real funding or any real push in that direction. And a lip service
is paid to open space to be queried if possible. So really it's really a road Plan. Then in the early
development of Plan there was only a road infrastructure, a Plan, and no open space Plan or
really any serious multi-modal Plan, so it's not really an integrated Plan. Seeks to integrate I-25
along it's length for the sake commercial and residential, industrial development, I guess. It
would be a major adjustment to the City Plan and would take the City Plan way beyond anybody
who conceived of it, thought it would go. It also, goes way beyond concept of Urban Growth
Boundary that we all had grown up thinking would endure in this town. This plan, being part of
the I-25 Corridor Plan, contributes to the worst kind of strip development —32 miles of it, two to
four miles wide with a complete infrastructure, subsidized by someone, probably the general tax
payer. I was looking for the numbers for this Plan and it barely covered the over sizing costs, but
there's 112 million dollars worth of costs and only forty million, in, something, worth of
revenue, half of that for parks and for extended public services, not for infrastructure, the vast
majority of infrastructure costs are not covered in the numbers that I saw and I expect that the
Plan is to create a district or some kind of integrated into the general budget which I oppose
strongly. The public process is way too short —these votes in July and August for the Fort
Collins City Council and Levins City Council are absurd considering the gravity of this whole
thing. Potential to affect everyone's lives profoundly, change the whole concept of the City and
you're giving us until July? Come on. I think we really need to extend this thing for several
months and allow for the proper public input including the opportunity to take this, almost door
to door on it, because this is a very important plan and it shouldn't just be written off with a
quickie vote, and call it Advance Planning, whatever you want, it's still rushing the issue and
giving developers the inordinate input that they've had all along in the I-25 Corridor
Plan. That has to stop, this whole thing with developers— 1% of the population affecting
decisions that affect the other 99% is highly undemocratic and there has to be a way to balance
out the input. Developers get 99% of the input —they're 1% of the population. This is a
development subsidy Plan. along with the I-25 Corridor Plan. Subsidized development,
subsidized sprawl, subsidized growth, on and on and on... and just have the general taxpayer
pick up the bill down the road when nobody really knows what's going on. This is the way
development has gone here for a whole generation that I've lived in this town. And in with
Loveland, and with all the other towns — maybe late comers, some of the like Windsor and
Johnstown. This has to stop. I guess that's—I don't basically like anything about the Plan, I
think you ought to just turn it in to a Plan for rural development, work with the County to change
the tax structure over there, to encourage people to keep their land in farrning or in open space,
including buying conservation rights, using TDU's as a tool to do that, and forget the developer
Plan. The developer Plan is a bad plan for Fort Collins, bad Plan for the Front Range, bad Plan
for Colorado, sets bad precedence all around. Bad news.
Mr. Chairman- Thank you very much. Anyone else? We have two podiums, please come on
down. Thank you for your input so far, appreciate it.
Jim Mokler — Hi, my name is Jim Mokler and my wife and I, Stephanie, she and I live at 4424
East Mulberry, which is about a quarter mile east of the Interstate on the north side of the road
there —the old Boxberger farm, a lot of you might know it, where the old barn is. I'm also, along
with my old partner, Dennis Annett, am developer of Interchange Business Park, which is
currently under construction at the south east corner of I-25 and Mulberry. I would like to
respond a little bit to the last gentleman that spoke. We spent five years, getting that Plan
approved, to where we could turn a shovel of dirt. We took a lot of risk, and we spent a lot of
money to get that —not knowing if we were going to get the deal at the end of the day. We had
endless public media's where people could come and have their input made. We had our project
denied, and rightfully so I would agree that the traffic on east Mulberry was too difficult, that
there weren't solutions and that even though we were on the east side, and that's not where the
problem was, we're adding to the traffic on the west side. Until that got solved, County
Commissioner Jim Disney said he couldn't approve another car going through that intersection.
I didn't disagree, and I worked hard on a committee for a year and a half to solve that problem.
Again, endless public meetings, letting people know where plans of what we were doing was.
We came up with a funding soiution to solve the problems and solve the traffic through the east
Mulberry Corridor. As a result at working hard through that plan, we were able to get
Interchange Business Park approved — and personally committed to spending about a million and
five in public improvements that had nothing to do with us, we are paving for a new C-DOT
road, so, the public didn't pay for that, we paid for that. I would like to speak specifically to that
— I, I also support the plan. I think, we think, people aren't coming here, we're crazy. If we stick
our head in the sand and say nobody else is coming, shut the doors, that's it, don't do anything
else about it, don't plan for it —I think that's nuts. It think that's sticking our head in the sand,
and I just don't agree with it. So, I would like to speak specifically to the intersection of I-25 and
Mulberry on the east side. If you look at Prospect and I-25 and about the activity centers, you
can see there's lots of activity centers there, and I think we need that. I think that as we grow,
we're going to need more activity centers. If you look at Mulberry and I-25 on the east side,
there's a couple locations there on the north side — it seems to be pretty slided. There's already
all the land that is south of where the helicopter place is. It is already zone commercial by the
County. They'd expected to grow into commercial land, which approves for pretty much any
commercial use. That land, as well as east over towards Box Elder Creek, in front of the Clover
Leaf Mobil Home Park — all of that is currently zone commercial. And I would suggest that that
piece be included into the activity center, I think it makes sense. So, anyway, thank you very
much.
Mr. Chairman—Thank you very much. (Tape time 470)
Kelly Ohlsen—Members of the board, my name is Kelly Ohlsen, I'm a resident of Fort Collins.
It's no secret that I believe that this is the most incomplete and irresponsible Plan the City has
ever put together and that it's a big, big mistake. It's much worse than no plan at all. It's a land's
speculator and developers welfare Plan, with the average citizen getting stuck with a huge tax
bill. It's a growth and development stimulus package. The old paradigm of perpetual growth.
The pathology of the cancer cell. Glenn Colton, one of your co-members of the board has had a
statement that I think is real good, he said, "Phis is all about whether we break the cycle of
growth and establish an ultimate growth boundary, or whether we grow forever in Fort Collins",
and I think that's a good comment to be made. I wish he was around this evening but he is
unable to be here. We ought to get together and be honest and call it not the I-25 Plan but lets
grow to the east forever Plan, dilute city services. Good luck getting response from a police call,
and we'll raise your tax bill in the process. That's what we ought to call the Plan, rather than the
I-25 Plan, `cause that's what's going to result. We're going to have higher taxes, we're going to
dilute City services, and we're losing community identity in the process. There's a great deal of
literature in urban planning about optimal size of communities. Most people in the academic
world study this, and they study it in the real world. It's 50-80 thousand people. Now I am
aware that we've blow by that, but there's reasons for optimum size of community. It deals with
economies of scale, costs of services, delivery of those services, community identity, sense of
community. And Ken Waido is a good person, but he was quoted in the Coloradoan, the person
that is the main staff member working on this Plan is saying "For better or for worse we're going
to be a megalopolis". I'm not willing to give up that fight yet. It's perhaps lost, but I'm going to
go down swinging. I don't think that the majority of Fort Collins residents want to become a
megalopolis. It took all of recorded history to get the first 125 thousand residence in the City of
Fort Collins. It's going to take us around 20 years to get us to the next 125 thousand citizens in
the City of Fort Collins, and that will have far more impact on the earth and the quality of life
than the first 125 thousand that took all the entire history of humanity. So, how much time do I
have left? Two minutes thank you very much. There's a couple other things I'd like to touch on
and that is this myth of road building. I have copies for anyone that would like them. The Texas
study, that's the land of big oil and big automobiles, big roads, and they studied 68 cities. I
mentioned this to you the other night— about the impact of roads and traffic congestion— and the
conclusion of their study, and they do this every year, and that's Texas again — we're not talking
earth first here. They came up with that building more roads not only does not aid in alleviating
traffic congestion, if you're going to draw a conclusion, it adds to traffic congestion because the
result in development. So, we can have our difference in values but we've all got to get away
from these myths and start speaking the truth. Building more roads in a growing region does not
help traffic congestion. It increases traffic congestion. And then we can have our value
differences, that we want to be a million, or, we want to be 50 thousand. But we have to get
away from, we're going to build more roads, about 500 million by the way, by the time it's done
with the interchanges, and then somehow we're going to solve the traffic congestion problem.
It's not going to happen, it's going to be made worse at the end of the twenty-year period. My
final comment deals with this. although I haven't heard it tonight. We have to capture the tax
base, incase again, the facts are, for those who aren't paying attention in the community - the
faster we've grown, the level of services decreases, the tax rates go up, and we're getting further
behind on the capital needs. So. the race of building the tax base, the city's own numbers show
. that that's not the case. The faster we grown, the further behind we get, and the higher the taxes
go. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you Kelly, we invite more to come up and share their thoughts. Please
come.
James Day— Hi my name is James Day and I am a resident in Latimer County and our family
has a half-mile frontage of I-25. I would like to tonight, to support our, support of this Plan, and
I'll tell you a few reasons why. First of all, I would like to premise by saying our farm has been
farmed. My kids are the sixth generation, and we're in no hurry, nor do we really have a desire
to develop this property. But as property owners we would like to be able to say what is -going to
happen with our property. I have been extensively involved in all of the literature working with
the City, with Ken Waido, and I can say this: I want a Corridor Plan that is planned and some of
the goals and objectives of people, developers, landowners, City, coming together to create a
beautiful environment. Growth will occur. It is occurring as we speak. I'm already surrounded
on this farm by development. If we don't put a Plan together, I don't want a "Del Camino" in
my neighborhood. And I am so much in support of this Plan because for the first time, it's not
going to be easy and it's actually going to be a headache for us to try and have all of the regional
efforts and the individuals work together, but in my involvement up to this point I'm extremely
encouraged that the system can work. Growth will occur, lets make the growth occur properly
and work together with the Subarea Plan, and make a Northern Colorado that were still
continually proud of, and that we'll be even prouder of when we're through. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much. Ken do we have any flash in cards or comments at this
time, or do you want to save them for later'? Okay we'll still go with public input without having
comments. (Tape 544)
Michelle Jacobs —Good evening, I'm Michelle Jacobs, and as a resident of Fort Collins. I
strongly urge the city council and the staff to adopt the I-25 subarea plan. This project has been
thoroughly researched and many open houses have been held, and it has been determined that the
future design of this particular design of I-25 is in the hands of the communities involved.
Change is constant. Those who put their heads in the sand and say we do not want growth, or
want this Plan to happen, are unrealistic. Growth and development will occur over the next 20 to
25 years, in this area of 1-25. Fort Collins can either benefit, or lose out. By not adopting this
subarea plan, Fort Collins will surely lose out on commercial sales and tax uses, on revenue
generated by this commerce, and by the lose of property taxes. While a conjoined effort will
exist among the participating communities, each community is able to provide their own design
and land use Plan. With a solid foundation of well-planned designs, our community has the
ability to lead the direction of the I-25 Corridor Plan. Those who would have our City miss out
on a growing economy, and all of the amenities that come along with that, apparently do not
realize that growth will not happen over night. It will be many years before the build out of this
area. Since 1980. Fort Collins has had 1760 acres within the growth management area. That's
21 years, and how much development has occurred over there in the last 21 years? By limiting
our growth management area, we are only encouraging County development and sprawl. It
appears that the City has put much though into this endeavor. Lets move forward, be leaders,
and make this very needed project happen. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman—Thank you very much.
Barbara Rutstein — My name is Barbara Rutstein. I served on the City Council about 15 to 18
years ago. The interesting thing about all of this is that nothing has changed, we keep growing
and expanding and the City falls farther and farther behind in it's provision of services. I am
opposed to the extensive residential development east of I-25. The city has those unmet needs.
They were unmet needs when I was on the Council, and their still unmet needs. Transportation,
library, cultural services, schools, police, fire, and all of these things are not funded the way they
should be. Housing creates costs and the property taxes from housing east of I-25 would never
pay for that. I do not see any purpose in creating a City divided by an Interstate Highway.
Colorado Springs is not my model of fine development. By having half the City, or a good part
of the City, I think I read 20,000 residents on the east side, we're creating a terrible divided City.
And if I lived on that side of the city, I would expect services, and because I live on the west
side, I will not vote for services on the east side of the city. I think it is a tremendous barrier that
we should not knowingly create. The other thing that interests me is that I have been studying
the I-25 Corridor Plan, and I understand the poster child of bad development is the "Del
Camino" development in Longmont, and when I look at this Plan and I see all that purple and red
along there, it seems to me that that is exactly what we are doing. Because there is a flat iron
along there in "Del Camino", there's —I can't remember the other ones, but there are all these
industries along there, and then there's these huge nodes of gas stations and restaurants —but
their fast food restaurants. And I don't know how we `re going to say that we're going to be any
different. I think that —that's exactly the same as "Del Camino", there's not any green space in
this area that's suppose to be touted in the I-25 Corridor Plan, and I think it will be a disaster and
make Fort Collins more like Colorado Springs than we wish, and a lot like "Del Camino".
Mr. Chairman—Thank you very much. We have two podiums here for those who are interested
in coming up. As we can move people through and get good time for inputs.........(Time 008)
Randy Fisher—Good evening, my name is Randy Fisher, I live at 3007 Moore Lane in Fort
Collins. The Draft Land Use Plan for the I-25 Subarea should be considered dead on arrival,
DOA, with no hope of resurrection. I believe this for the following reasons: The Draft Plan
appears to be based on a disingenuous, and I would say even a cynical public process and I
would like to expound on that a little bit further, later on. The Draft Plan holds valuable
agricultural lands between Fort Collins and Wellington hostage to the city's future expansion
Plans. It condemns county lands that are currently zoned o open, that's one unit per ten acres to
development at 5 to 8 units per acre and even as high as 12 units per acre. If anybody's
counting, that's a 50 to 120 times increase in density of that land and by my estimation there's at
least a thousand acres or close to a thousand acres of o open zoning that we're going to condemn
to that high density all in exchange for an uncertain transfer of development program that's
touted as maybe estimated as saving 15 hundred acres. So we are going to sacrifice basically a
thousand acres to save 15 hundred acres. I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. The Draft Plan
fails to address citizen concerns about designating a geographical boundary for the City and
Community Separators for the City. All my colleagues and associates really want a fixed
boundary established for the City of Fort Collins. The Draft Plan if adopted would result in
significant growth costs being passed on to citizens, yet no cost information about this Draft Plan
or any of the other alternatives have ever been presented to the public as far as I'm aware. The
Draft Plan fails to address serious concerns about the capacity of the Box Elder Creek Sanitation
District to adequately process the huge volume of sanitary waste water resulting from the Plan's
proposed intensive development. Box Elder Sanitation operates an antiquated treatment system
down on the Poudre River that the North Colorado Front Range Water Quality Planning
Association said we'll be just barely adequate to meet the needs under County Development, and
we're going to multiply that by 50 to 80 times. The Draft Plan fails to recognize the no rise Box
Elder Flood Plain. It shows a lot of that employment district development being smack dab in
the middle of a no rise flood plain and no explanation about how the flood plain is going to be
mitigated. The Draft Plan sets the stage for adoption of the I-25 Corridor Plan which is nothing
short of taxpayer subsidy strip development along the I-25 Corridor. This threatens to turn
Northern Colorado into nothing short of a- something closely short of resembling Los Angeles.
And perhaps most importantly the Draft Plan fails to represent the wishes and desires of the
people that I know in the City of Fort Collins that want less growth, lower taxes, and
maintenance of the high quality of life that makes Fort Collins an attractive place to live.
Focusing on the first point, the selection of the Draft Plan as staff s preferred alternative
indicates that the public process through which a plan was developed was insincere at best. The
Draft Plan is nothing more than the original alternative three which was widely commented on
and condemned by most of the people I associate with. Over the past year and a half, the NARB,
of which I'm the chair. That's the Natural Resources Advisory Board, participated in the
Subarea Plan task force, provided verbal comment on three staff presentations, toured the
Subarea to organize our responses, met with Larimer County Ag Advisory Board to their
opinions on land conservation opportunities and submitted two sets of written comments on their
alternatives. Despite this unusually intense level of effort for the board, it appears that not a
single concern, comment, suggestion, or recommendation provided by the NARB has addressed
or incorporated in the Plan. Despite assurances by staff that preferred alternative had not been
pre selected-
Judy— Mr. Fisher, it has now been five minutes —
Randy Fisher— it now appears that alternative three was staff's choice from the very beginning—
Judy— MR. FISHER
Randy Fisher— I'm sorry. I think this is a really important plan and I'm sorry if my written
comments cant..
Judy— Mr. Fisher, we're giving everybody five minutes, and you had five minutes..
Mr. Chairman — I'm sorry but we have...
Randy Fisher — This cynical approach to government, receiving input from the public, makes
cynics of us all. It cheapens local government and makes participants frustrated that their
valuable time was wasted on a preordained Plan. This Plan should be completely abandoned in
favor of something that represents what the citizens of Fort Collins wants, and if necessary I
think it should be referred to the voters.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much for your comments. I just want to ask if everyone could
please help each other be respectful and kind. We've just asked to give everybody ample time,
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come down and add their comments? We're
very interested in getting as much comments as we can. Thanks Gina.
Gina Jennet —Hi my name is Gina Jennet. I live in Fort Collins and I put down some points
about opposing this Plan because primarily believe that we, if anything, we should be reducing
the eastern boundary of the City, the Urban Growth Boundary, and moving it back to the
Interstate, and not going east. And there's a lot of good reasons for doing this I think. Having a
major arterial like an Interstate through one side of our community divides our community, and
we lose a sense of community. Once you jump over the Interstate and start heading east, there is
no other obvious eastern boundary. In essence, this is just one step towards Severance, which is
miles east, but there's no other cities to bump up against. So this is just the beginning of an
amorphous blob of sprawl going east. So I think we ought to set the line somewhere. Over and
over again we here that people come here and stay here because they like Fort Collins as a small
City. There is no real reason to go out this direction. And I think that our City can grow
internally with more efficient land use. I believe it's Broomfield that has their town center as a
multi story complex that has a very viable industrial center that's multi stories, it has downtown
residential land uses and they're growing in a compact manner, which is what our city plan says
we're doing and this does not lead us in that direction. Another interesting fact that I pulled up
out of the Census this year is that the City and County of Denver in the last ten years grew 80
thousand people without changing the size of their geographic boundaries. So this isn't just
about population growth, this is about geographic space. The other thing that I think is important
is that moving this boundary farther east gives us less efficient transportation alternatives. I-25,
as we hear, is becoming more of a local in City arterial. This only makes that worse. If you
make the highway, itself, a boundary and have open space on the other side, you don't have it
eroding away on that expressway concept, which is what the interstate is, suppose to be about.
What I do support is that the city determine that its Urban Growth Boundary should be by, right
by the Interstate and that there be conservation easements who may be the Larimer Land Trust,
or GOKO, or that the county might consider down zoning out there, and actually having a rural
separator like we all talk about but nobody's got the political will to do. I don't support using
our natural area dollars, because this is certainly not a natural area to preserve a separator out
there, nor using the county's open space dollars — those are for much more special places. And
finally I think the biggest thing is that we can't afford it, we can't afford to go out there. Right
now, we having coming up on the ballot right now 84 million dollars for cultural items. Another
ballot initiative they talked about yesterday at 45 million for roads. We're playing catch up like
crazy. The number in the paper yesterday was 348 million in a backlog of projects, road
projects,just road projects for the next ten years. So I don't think we can afford it. We cant
afford to send our police services out there, we don't have fire services out there. Let's move the
boundary in; let's not move it out. And I guess what a lot of us are thinking is, as far as Fort
Collins is going is "Enough is enough,just say no to addictive sprawl. Move that boundary in,
don't move it out" Thank you.
. Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much. Sir... (Tape 097)
Ramon Ajero — My name is Ramon Ajero. I am a resident of Larimer County, but I do work here
in Fort Collins. I guess I wanted to start, I didn't have prepared comments and these won't be
long but I did want to start with the joke that you've probably already heard, and that is, but it
bears repeating here, and that is: If you have a weight problem, the solution isn't to buy a bigger
pair of pants or a bigger belt. And to me, I see this as buying a bigger belt. The natural
boundary provided by the I-25 Corridor has been that last notch on the belt for the longest time —
either in actual planning or at least in people's vision of what Fort Collins should look like, what
build out should look like. And here we are punching more notches in the belt, or looking for a
new one. And I just can't agree with that because it really does not address the issue of how
growth is affecting our community. It simply says, "well, lets give us a little more breathing
room to just sprawl out some more". And I echo the comments made early with true concerns
regarding "If not the I-25 Corridor as a boundary, than what will be our boundary for Fort
Collins". And I think that's a valid concern and in addition to many of the other concerns, which
I will touch on, I think the onus is on you, as a Planning and Zoning Board, and on City Staff to
answer that question. It's like "okay, I've assumed that we're going to grow out to here", but
you're saying, "no, we're going to grow beyond that boundary". So then, what is the boundary?
Where will be stop? And so, before I think we can consider approving such a Subarea Plan, I
would like that answer on the table. Similarly, this issue about when we continue to grow, our
level of service either decreases, or our taxes increase. I think that is another valid concern that
must be addressed. We need to have this plan quantified in those terms, before I think it should
. be put before Council for approval. It think again. the onus is on P and Z. and staff, and council,
I guess, to provide citizens, who are very concerned with their diminishing quality of life, an
answer regarding this Subarea Plan. Quantify it. Is it going to truly, is it not going to raise taxes,
in terms of the infrastructure we need to support, all those roof tops, and is it truly not Going to
decrease my level of service. Not just for the people who would be potentially moving on that
other side of Highway. the wrong side of the wrong side of the tracks. maybe, but also for every
other existing tax paying resident of Fort Collins? Those answers have to be provided before
you should be able to consider adoption of this Subarea Plan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman — Thank you very much. Do we have any others that would be interested in
coming down to share their thoughts, concerns, questions — that we can address? This is being
videotaped, am I correct Ken, and live?
Ken Waido — It's being videotaped. It's not being broadcast live.
Mr. Chairman — Oh, okay. But being videotaped for future viewing?
Ken Waido — Yes.
Mr. Chairman — Okay, thank you.
Come on down sir.
Harold Kennedy—I don't hear very well. What's the rules?
Mr. Chairman —We have a microphone you can speak into, that way we can record your
thoughts on tape and videotape. And just share what your view are on I-25. Just right over here
please.
Judy—Five minutes.
Harold Kennedy - ...courtesy of World War Two. I'm Harold Kennedy. I live in the Vista
Bonita Subdivision—4721 Ruidosa. I may be careless, but this is the first time I've every heard
about this, and now suddenly I discover there's a City body to which I have no political access
which is making proposals with respect to where I live. Do you folks have jurisdiction out there?
Mr. Chairman— Ken?
Ken Waido —The jurisdiction granting of the City in this area is through an intergovernmental
agreement with....
Harold Kennedy—I don't here you sir. Sir?
Ken Waido — It's with an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County. Larimer County
has authorized us to plan for our Growth Management Area.
Harold Kennedy— Yes, I'm aware of that. But as I understand, this is just a talk session, isn't it,
with respect to areas outside the City of Fort Collins?
Mr. Chairman—That's correct. To give us inputs. Yes, to share your thoughts.
Harold Kennedy — I can't vote for City Council. I have no voice, other than raising it. I was just
curious about jurisdiction—I'm an old federal bureaucrat, and I know something of these
matters. I, frankly, have no objection to the City going as far east as all, if it wants to do, if it can
do it in an orderly fashion. I come from Cincinnati, which had the first city planning in the
United States. I approve of city planning. I see a lot of problems that would come if you come
out that way. You'll be arguing with the REA, with the Box Elder Waters and Sewer Districts,
and you probably would with a lot of citizens. I don't care if you come out there. I'm 80 years
old, and you probably won't get there before I die.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much. Thank you. Any more comments. Please come on
down.
Marc DeSalle — Oh, it's nice to see you all tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
forward. My name is Marc DeSalle. I live here in Fort Collins. I'm in the construction industry,
and I'm really encouraged about the Plan, I think it's a great Plan. It's nice to see that people are
putting the time and effort into taking people's input on what's going to happen out there. I'm
sure the land owners are very concerned about what's being planned for the ground that they
have either in their family for many years and what's going to happen in the I-25 Corridor plan.
I think that there's been a lot of issues that are, they're good issues. I don't know that the a...
Mr. Chairman— Sir, can you speak into the microphone. A resident could not here.
Marc DeSalle—Sure. I'm sorry. I was just listening to some of the comments that were made
on the I-25 being the boundary line and I don't know that that's going to be quite as big a issue
as people might think, `cause I think growth is going to happen out there regardless of whether
it's Fort Collins or some other town taking annexation into that area, as well as just leaving it out
in the County and just doing some type of subdivision. So, things are going to happen, I think,
out there, one way or another. So, it's encouraging for a business owner and someone that live
here to see — hey, lets get out there and take advantage of some of this growth. The benefits that
the City of Fort Collins would have for this kind of growth, taking on that both the industrial,
commercial, employment, all the good things that growth brings to a community— via revenue,
and all that stuff. So, I think there are areas where the lower income housing, the entry level
home buyer, the young couple with their kids, they're able to —I think planning like this gives
the ability for...
End of side one
Marc DeSalle — (cont.) people to provide these things. So, I'm very in favor of it, and I'm
encouraged and glad to see that Fort Collins is pursuing past the boundary lines and out into the
areas that land owners and developers are right now looking at jumping into. That's my
comments.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much.
Marc DeSalle — All right.
Mr. Chairman — Ken, do we have any cards or inputs brought in.
Ken Waido — I have to check the box.
Mr. Chairman — Okay. Sir, we have another microphone if you want to go over there and sign
in, whatever you, and will make it easier.
Sir—I'm just signing in.
Mr. Chairman — Okay, thank you.
Dallas Horton - I damn sure don't want to get in his way, I can tell you that. I though, Marc beat
me, I thought I would be the first to have something positive to say, but. I'm Dallas Horton. I
live in Larimer County. Been here about 35 years. So, I've been to a few of these sessions and
I think the sad message for us people that are for something is that most if us don't come, and
the ones that do, we don't seem to have the courage to get up and say much. So, it bothers me
that mainly all that show up at these meetings, and I guess you guys know it better than
anybody, is the ones that are against something. I'd be nice if those that are for something
showed up more often. So I'm criticizing myself. This is the first time I've been here in 35
years. So you can tell, I've been very active. I'm in agriculture. I don't know a lot about
development. Some of the concerns you here, "you keep eating up all this farm land, we're
going to starve to death". I'm here to tell you people that are worried about that—corn now, is
the same as it was in 1945, the price of corn. So we've got a ton of land out there yet that isn't
being highly productively used in agriculture. And heaven for bid we ever see the day that we
are hungry because of it, but we're eons away from that when you look at agriculture. And for
the farmer, which I'm one of, your only recourse today is hopefully you can get something for
your land that is more than you can get from selling it for production because production, there's
no bucks there. As far as I'm concerned, I'll go beyond him, I though his point was good, but
I'll go further. You can go east as far as Sterling as far as I'm concerned. I had a ranch up there
in Wyoming. There's a little town there called Jeffery City. It was auctioned off two weeks
ago. For you people that are against growth, I wish you'd come to Jeffery City Wyoming. It
use to be 5 thousand people. There's now twelve of them there. There's plywood on
everything, and the whole town sold the other day for 103 thousand dollars. About three times
maybe what the cheapest lot in this town brings. 103 thousand and you own the whole city. So,
if you want to get a real dose of the other one, come up and talk to those 12 people that are left.
I'm for managed growth; I'm not for just turning it loose. In my concepts, build small towns.
How they can have one, what's call them communities. One mayor, one town board, one
everything — but my concept for I-25 is: go east, and build another community out there. Call it
east Fort Collins. Don't get another mayor, don't get another town board. We've got enough
bureaucracy already. We don't need more. But I'm here to tell you, you've interview
everybody, and what's the number one —people —every one wants to, hell - they all want to live
in a small town. So why don't we make small towns? We got a lot more resources than we did
in the early twenties and thirties when they built Ault and Eaton and— a - Fort Collins was a
small town then. And Greeley, and Severance. and Loveland. Builded all these little towns
with a lot less resources than we have now. And now we got all these resources and all this high
tech information. Why don't we build what the people want? Small towns. Why do we want to
onion ring it, have five to eight people to the acre. You people, you know we have a saying in
the cowboy world "Don't fence me in". But you guys want to get fenced in; you want these
boundaries all stacked around—just so you can get about eight to twelve people per acre. You
know, why are people coming here from Cincinnati and New York and Los Angeles? `Cause
they don't like to live in something that's 85 stories high. They want elbowroom. So, go out
there east of town, call it east Fort Collins, pre plan it, say we're going to go 25 thousand out
there — we're not going to 125. And that's it. We'll go up north and do another 25. Now we've
got small towns, small communities. And you've got the Interstate there — maybe they're going
to have to widen it. But, hey, it is a place to get on there and get somewhere without all the
traffic. You go out there and do it: you're going to have a hell of a lot less traffic problems than
just onion ringing this thing like we've done so far. In the prime example, we've got south of
us. Who wants to live right down in the middle of Denver right after it's onion ringed for forty
years? So go out there, I'm not saying you make a sprawl and just turn it loose and let it go
everywhere, but get another center, get another community. And, you've got a, I'll pick
Windsor. They've - I-25 is a man made barrier unfortunately. Okay. Windsor's got a natural
barrier, a river, and they're able to build on both sides of that river. So in summary: make small
communities, make them clusters. make them efficient but quit onion ringing them. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to come on down, and share
their thoughts with the P and Z board? Okay, maybe if we want to take a ten-minute break and
if anyone wants to collect their thoughts and get organized. We would come back again in ten
minutes.
(Ten Minute Break)
Mr. Chairman — Hello everyone, we're ready to start if we can get our seats. (Long Pause).
We're going to go ahead and resume again. And at this time, I've asked Ken Waido to please
share the input process, as there's other boards and commissions that will be hearing. And this
will be an opportunity for citizens to go to those boards and share their thoughts. So I thought I
would ask Ken to give us a quick run down on the process for public input, and then we'll
resume for those who haven't had a chance to give input, to come and give input, and then we'll
go ahead and call it a rap. Ken?
Ken Waido —Well, first thing, this is not on a process track to get adopted in July. The
Regional Corridor Plan is on that type of process. The Subarea Plan, the month of July is when
we are anticipating going back to various City and County Boards and Commissions with the
Draft Plan doing a presentation like I gave this evening and talking with them about the various
aspects and their comments about the Plan. We're not looking at getting into an adoption type
mode with this Plan until late August or early September. So again, it continues to be a work in
progress. We greatly appreciate the comments that we've heard so far, and looking forward to
any additional comments we might have tonight. Some of these comments that we've heard,
we've already considered and have thought about how the Plan will address a lot of these
concerns, particularly design guidelines, cost recovery of public facilities and services, and I
guess that's it. We're just not on an adoption process for July. It's more like late August or
early September, or beyond that time frame.
Mr. Chairman — Okay. Could you share what other outreaches you'll have and be at what
Boards and Commissions'?
Ken Waido — We will be meeting with Latimer County. Start with the County Government.
The Latimer County, Board of County Commissioners, their Planning Commission, their Ag
advisory board. We will be meeting with the City of Fort Collins, Air Quality Advisory
Commission tomorrow, Parks and Recs Board on Wednesday. Try to schedule a meeting again
with the Natural Resources Board, the Transportation Board near the end of July. So, we've got
a ways to go yet.
Mr. Chairman — Okay. Thank you very much. So, at this time, if anyone else who hasn't had a
chance to speak, and would like to come up, and if we've had time to collect your thoughts, we
surely invite you to come up, if you haven't spoken before, and we have two podiums. Ma'am,
and then sir.
Margaret Griffin— I'm Margaret Griffin, and I own some property on Mountain Vista Drive,
adjacent to the CSU horticulture, maybe it's not horticulture, but the farm. I do not oppose the
Plan that the, these peoples planned. I'm pretty shy, so I don't know if I'm going to... And I
feel like that growth is going to happen regardless. God makes more people, but not anymore
land. If people want to come here, then I don't object to that. So, I am in favor of the Plan.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much.
Steve Pfister—Hi my name is Steve Pfister. I live at 531 Del Claire, here in Fort Collins. I
moved here 23 years ago in 1978 because this is a very nice town, very well planned. And I still
think it is that way. I'm still here; I plan to stay here. One point I'd like to just make is that I
understand there are about eight subdivision out to the east of the interstate. Ken can maybe
have a more accurate number than I have, Ken Waido. But I believe that there are about a
thousand lots that have already been approved out there, and they're not all built but I think,
roughly a third of them are build and about two thirds have been approved through the County
process. That will support about three thousand people living out there. I think the only thing
wrong with this Plan is that it's something that should have been looked at about ten years ago.
And we're really behind times here. I'm glad to see that it's finally happening. I don't think
that those three thousand people that are going to be living out there are going to go away. I
don't think it is, I mean it's not the edge of town, it can't be the edge of town. It's impossible
for it to be the edge of town. And I think the type of planning that's happened here is really
something that's the result of about four years of work, a lot of input. I think it is reasonable,
and I think it's about time that it is happening. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you very much. At this time, any more that would like to come up?
Nancy York—Good evening. My name is Nancy York and I'm a native of Fort Collins and
Latimer County. I share the gentleman's opinion about wanted small, compact cities, towns. I
think that this Plan is going the opposite direction of that. I am so grateful that you are having
this open forum. `cause really otherwise citizens haven't heard about it, and aren't getting to put
in their input. I would hope that before you make your recommendations; that you ask for the
impacts. The impacts on, what it's going to cost in terms of transportation. I know Fort Collins
has a lot of water, but what the impacts are on the services. I just today read an old forum where
John Kinesivich was talking about Raw Hide and the supply of electricity and what he said in
that is that the reason Raw Hide PRPA have rented some generators because we are very near
our capacity. So this is one impact I hope that you consider. So, one of the things that keeps
running through my head is "why now, why annex out beyond I-25 now". It doesn't make sense
when we have so many other areas that are, are planned, and have not yet developed. And it
seems to me that the answer to that question is that this is a Plan for industry and business and
developers. And I share the opinion of earlier speakers that say that I don't want our Corridor to
be another Colfax or another College Avenue for that matter. But also, years ago, driving in
California. California has regularly sprawled, spanned the freeway and it is very confusing to
know where to get off. It represents a huge megalopolis that Ken, I think is projecting for Fort
Collins unless we take steps to do otherwise. So I hope that we don't just rubberstamp this, and
that we really look at it. Another one of my concerns is Transportation and what we know about
Colorado is that it only has plans for roads. It doesn't fund anything but roads, and that's — in
our own community, it's roads. So, if this plan is going to be four lanes, two lanes, and its going
to be enormously expensive. The whole thing would be very expensive. And we're leaping out
there when we can't even take care of what we have in this community. We're hundreds of
thousands of dollars behind. And we want to put retail out there? And who would that retail be
for? So when you have retail, when you plan retail — that's going to be job center, that's what
• the plan designates,job centers. Jobs attract more people. That Corridor is four, at least four
miles out.
Judy—That's five minutes.
Nancy York —May I just finish?
Mr. Chairman — You can do a rap up real quick.
Nancy York— So, we're already driving more and more. Just in the Coloradoan the other,just
this last week, it said "Fort Collins not seeing red just yet". And they're talking about our air
quality. With a longer view, you have to consider the longer view about availability of
petroleum. What we're going to do if we have cars beyond cars. And I just hope you consider
those things. And I'm sorry you have to rush this because it seems to me its not, you know, we
have another 50 minutes before...
Judy — Everybody was allowed five minutes.
Mr. Chairman —Thank you Nancy, for your thoughts.
Nancy York — You're welcome.
Mr. Chairman — Okay sir, if you would like to.
Eric Fried — My name is Eric Fried. I live and work in Fort Collins and I am a member of the
Poudre Valley Green Party. And I think that this Plan is worse than no plan at all. I think this is
a growth-inducing plan. I think that some of the thoughts in favor of it are disingenuous. One
of our members emailed all the City Council members and Mayor Martinez complaining about
this Plan and the Mayor wrote back saying, well growth is going to happen anyway. It's just a
question about if its going to happen in the City or in the County, and of course it would be
much worse if it happened in the County, I guess because the County doesn't know how to Plan.
We'll that's the theory on the City's part anyway. And that basically we need to annex this area
so that we can save it from bad development. And, the Mayor went on to say that currently in
the County there were no limits on what could occur out there. Which is patently untrue. The
area is zoned predominately FA1 farming right now, which would be low density residential
with a certain few pockets of commercial use, maybe five units per acre. If it gets annexed into
the City under this plan, it's going to be much more intense development. Many more houses, a
huge shopping area there that's going to dwarf the mall in Fort Collins. It seems to me that
that's why they want it annexed into the City, not because it's going to be less development in
the City, but because there would be substantially more development if it goes into the City.
I've lived in towns where the freeway divided the City and I think Fort Collins is lucky to have
the freeway out on the edge of the City and not bisecting the City and having developments on
both sides and the problems of getting across the freeway there. It just gets a much more
compact sense of community when you're not sprawled out on both sides of major Interstate.
And my main concern is not so much that the city is now planning to annex a half mile out to
County Road 5, but in a few years when that gets built up and developers are looking for greener
pastures, a Plan will come back into the city to annex out to County Road 3, and then County
Road 1, and then I don't see anything stopping the city from going into Weld County. I mean,
Windsor started in Weld County and is now in Latimer County. Seems to me that we have to
have a line on the east edge of the City beyond which we're not going to grow, to have the kind
of City we want to live in, in the future, and that line should be I-25. Now there's a few parcels
already passed I-25, but I don't think that we should make that worse and go out to County Road
5, and then 3, and then 1, and then sprawl out indefinitely until we reach Ault or Eaton on the
east side. The only other thing that I wanted to say is that it seems to me that the transportation
portion of the Plan is basically looking at more pavement and more cars, and then as an after
thought, they throw in and consider the possibility of multi modal transit development. And I
don't think that should be an afterthought, I think that should be the first thought. I don't know
of a single example where paving more road has lead to less congestion and better quality of
life. Those roads eventually fill up. And just, more payment for more cars is going to lead to
more global warming and more sprawl. We need to put the transit element, the bike, the
pedestrian elements first and keep development in towards the city, and not have a magnet bring
it out to the Interstate, which is just going to make things a hundred time worse than they are
now. Thanks for your time.
Mr. Chairman—Thank you very much.
Kathleen Kilkelly —Good evening, my name is Kathleen Kilkelly and I'm a resident of Latimer
County. I live just north east of Fort Collins. I'm here, thankfully you're here also to hear us,
but I have a couple of comments that I would like you to consider. One is that I think this is
really a decision for the people of Fort Collins. I don't think they have been asked. Where do
they want their City to go? How far, how much. I think this whole Plan you see was instigated
by a development interest and further fostered through the city staff and planning, and I don't
believe that the average resident of Fort Collins knows much, if anything, about this Plan. And I
really think the bottom line is that the people that live and reside in Fort Collins should be
asked: How do you want your City to grow to where? How much is it going to cost? I don't see
a bottom line on the financial impacts of this grandiose plan. And I think that needs to be
brought before the citizens of Fort Collins so that they are aware of the potential that they will
be asked to contribute toward this Plan, the way we are already being asked on the ballot to
support improvements and services that are needed now in the City of Fort Collins. For a year I
was a member of the Transportation Advisory Board of the City. There was not a single
meeting that I attended where the topic of needed improvements without funding did not come
up. It was much time, much effort, much resources were spent revolving around that problem
then, as we still are now. You don't get out of debt by charging more on your credit card, and to
me, that's what this plan does. Further, I am an agronomist; I have a Masters in Soil Science.
For the last 30 years, I've watched prime, agricultural soils in the Fort Collins area being
covered up by asphalt. Our very best prime soils are already gone. The Box Elder Alluvium in
this area, I see nothing in this Plan to protect that resource. And it is a limited and valuable
resource for irrigable agriculture in this area. I see that not addressed satisfactorily at all by this
plan. Those are just a few of my comments and I'd like you to think about. I do think that a lot
more publicity needs to go out to the citizens of Fort Collins and those surrounding Fort Collins
Council Member— Okay. But the best available information is at least available down at 281...
Ken Waido —Whatever we have, we're willing to share.
Council Member—Thank you.
Mr. Chairman —The Planning and Zoning Board, in behalf of the Board, would like to thank
you for coming tonight. Thank you for your inputs and thank you for the respect of each other
you have given, and the recognition - whether you're for or against—but we surely thank you
very much for your inputs. I've taken a lot of notes, and my peers have taken a lot of notes too.
We thank you very much. Have a good week.
•
Memorandum
To: Fort Collins Planning and Zone Board
From: Randy Fischer
Date: June 25, 2001
Subject: Open House Comments on Draft Land Use Plan for the 1-25 Subarea
The Draft Land Use Plan for the 1-25 Subarea (the Draft Plan) should be considered
dead on arrival (DOA)with no hope of resurrection. I believe this for the following
reasons:
1. The Draft Plan appears to be based on a disingenuous, even cynical public process;
2. The Draft Plan holds valuable agricultural lands between Ft. Collins and Wellington
hostage to the City's expansion plans. It condemns O-open zoned county lands (1
unit per 10 acres) to development at 5 to 8 units per acre and even as high as 12
units per acre;
3. The Draft Plan fails to address citizen's concerns that designated geographical
boundaries and community separators be established for the City;
4. The Draft Plan, if adopted, will result in significant growth costs being passed on to
the citizens of Ft. Collins, yet no cost information for the Draft Plan or any of the
alternatives has been provided to the public;
5. The Draft Plan fails to address serious concerns about the capacity of Boxelder
Sanitation District to adequately process the large volumes of sanitary wastewater
resulting from the plan's proposed intensive development. The inadequacy of
Boxelder's antiquated wastewater treatment facilities may result in significant
impacts on water quality in the Poudre River;
6. The Draft Plan fails to recognize the "no rise" Boxelder Creek flood plain by
indicating development of employment districts in the midst of the floodplain;
7. The Draft Plan sets the stage for adoption of the Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan which is
nothing short of a tax-payer funded subsidy of strip development along the 1-25
corridor. Such development threatens to turn northern Colorado into something
resembling Los Angeles;
8. Perhaps, most importantly, the Draft Plan fails to represent the wishes and desires of
the people of Fort Collins, who want less growth, lower taxes, and maintenance of
the high quality of Irfe that makes Fort Collins an attractive place to live.
Focusing on the first point alone, selection of the Draft Plan as the staffs preferred
alternative indicates that the public process through which the plan was developed was
insincere, at best. The Draft Plan is nothing more than the original Alternative 3 which
was widely commented on and condemned.
Over the past year and a half, the NRAB, of which I am chair, participated in the subarea
task force, provided verbal comment on three staff presentations, toured the subarea to
organize our responses, met with Larimer County's Ag. Advisory Board to get their
opinions on the land conservation opportunities, and submitted two sets of written
comments on the alternatives. Despite this unusually intense level of effort, it appears
that not a single concem, comment, suggestion, or recommendation provided by the
NRAB has been addressed or incorporated into the Draft Plan. Despite assurances that
staffs preferred alternative had not been pre-selected, it now appears that Altemative 3
was staffs choice from the very beginning and that the entire public process was simply
an attempt to lead the public to staffs initial conclusion. This cynical approach to
receiving public input makes cynics of us all, cheapens local government, and makes
participants frustrated that their valuable time was wasted on this preordained plan.
In my opinion, the Draft Plan is DOA and should be completely abandoned in favor of a
new plan that preserves 1-25 as a natural GMA boundary, puts a limit on the
northeastward expansion of the City, and does not result in higher taxes to pay for the
growth related costs of future development.
June 19, 2001
TO: The Larimer County Commissioners
The Ft. Collins City Council
The Loveland City Council
The Berthoud Town Board
The Timnath Town Board
RE: 1-25 Corridor Plan
The League of Women Voters of Larmer County has a long history of advocating for
responsible land use planning by all levels of government and also supports the creation of
intergovernmental structures to address issues that transcend jurisdictional boundaries.
Since Northern Colorado lacks such a regional body, we are encouraged that eight
governmental entities have come together to address the status and future development of
the 1-25 Corridor, from Berthoud to just south of Wellington. We commend those efforts.
Those commendations notwithstanding, we wish to address several elements of the 1-25
Corridor Plan, some of which are at odds with the League's long-standing criteria for land
use planning, natural resource protection, and an equitable balance between current
taxpayers and future development interests in the funding of capital improvements.
To summarize our recommendations, the League proposes fine-tuning the Design
Standards, as well as expanding the Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies before adoption.
The League believes that both of those elements serve a valuable purpose. The
Transportation Element, on the other hand, raises serious, long-term implications that require
greater study, in conjunction with a land use plan and potential funding mechanisms. We
cannot support the Transportation Element, but encourage adoption of the Design Standards
and Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies, with suggested alterations.
With the phenomenal growth experienced in our area, we believe regional planning and
cooperation are essential. However, it seems ill advised to adopt a largely conceptual plan,
and to put the necessary intergovernmental agreements in place, when so many vital issues
remain unaddressed.
We would appreciate your consideration of the attached comments, as you deliberate the
critical questions raised by the proposed 1-25 Corridor Plan.
Sincerely,
Carol A. McDivitt
Spokesperson
League of Women Voters of Larimer County
League of Women Voters of Larimer County
POSITIONS & OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE 1-25 CORRIDOR PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The League believes encouraging community identity is critical to maintaining our sense of
place. We feel that those who have made the choice to settle in our communities, or locate
businesses here, have done so precisely because the area is not a suburb of Metro Denver.
Unfortunately, we fear that the plan sets the stage for the type of unbroken development that
already characterizes many segments of the 1-25 Corridor from Pueblo to Ft. Collins.
We oppose that inevitability, and ask you, our elected officials, if such intense development
along the interstate corridor is in the best interest of current residents and taxpayers, many of
whom have moved here to escape environments found in places like Los Angeles, Houston and
Atlanta? Is Colorado Springs, divided by 1-25, a worthy land use model to emulate? We can
think of no intensity or quality of interstate development that promotes the individuality of
communities or a sense of place.
Therefore, we take issue with the assumption that it is necessary to stimulate corridor
development through the proposed transportation network. While this scenario may appeal to
some financial interests, we contend that it is not acceptable to the majority of citizens, who
regularly cite the myriad impacts of sprawl as a reason for a declining quality of life.
The League consistently maintains that land use and transportation planning are inextricably
linked. Considering the scope, expense and long-term impacts of the proposed transportation
infrastructure, we are both perplexed and dismayed that the study recommends an expansive
transportation network, without the benefit of a concurrent land use plan. In that regard, it
appears the transportation element is, at most, only half complete.
The League advocates a balanced, multi-modal transportation system for our state, region
and communities. In contrast to continued road construction and widening, we believe a broad
spectrum of transportation modes is needed to reduce congestion and maintain air quality. We
are also surprised that such a sprawling transportation plan includes no mention of air quality.
Another major concern relates to the lack of a detailed cost and funding analysis for the
phenomenally expensive transportation network proposed. The implementation strategy states
that transportation funding mechanisms should be investigated, presumably after adoption.
Whether the recommended improvements are within the boundaries of small towns, such as
Timnath and Berthoud, or larger cities, such as Ft. Collins and Loveland, individual jurisdictions
need some sense of what their financial contributions will be, and when that funding will be
required.
Knowing there is not an accompanying land use plan, we suggest that it is wrong to build
community expectations that are not supported by well-researched funding options. We note
that there are already deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation maintenance
and improvements within the county and its communities. The cost of maintaining the proposed
infrastructure, if built, is also a financial consideration that is not addressed by the plan.
We are likewise concerned that the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning
Council, the established metropolitan planning organization (MPO) charged with planning for the
region's transportation needs, has not been intimately involved in the development of this plan
since its inception. Had the project been a part of the MPO's process, perhaps it might have
been included in the prioritization of projects for the just-completed 2025 Plan. Although
hundreds of regional projects are on the MPO's wish list, there is funding available for only a
limited number, which meet designated criteria.
The League believes that the cost of providing transportation infrastructure should be
equitably borne by those who benefit from the provision of those capital improvements, and that
infrastructure must be in place at the time of development. A Rural Transportation Authority is
• also mentioned as a possible funding source for transportation needs in the 1-25 Corridor. It is
important to note that such a taxing authority is simply a means of shifting the costs of
development to current residents, who may enjoy few benefits for their tax dollars.
I-25 Corridor Plan Comments
League of Women Voters of Latimer County
DESIGN STANDARDS
Design standards for new construction in the interstate corridor will create a more attractive
appearance for commercial and industrial areas. Standards for signage, screening and
landscaping will also enhance the look of corridor development. Many years ago, the League
worked for the adoption of the Ft. Collins sign code, and feels the code has been an important
factor in creating a visually attractive community.
The designation of activity centers at interchanges is valid. However, without specifying the
size or boundaries of these centers, there is nothing to prevent a continuous band of
commercial, industrial and retail development from one interchange to the next. We think it is a
mistake to restrict multi-family units to the activity centers, which may include commercial, retail,
industrial and employment development. In fact, we believe that urban-level residential
development along the interstate corridor should be discouraged through sensitive land-use
planning. However, if such development is contemplated, we would suggest a mix of housing
types (multi-family, single-family and affordable units) in residential areas, which are sensibly
removed from the interstate.
OPEN LANDS & NATURAL AREAS ELEMENT
With riparian corridors, open lands and viable agricultural properties prime for development,
Open Lands/Natural Areas Policies are greatly needed in the corridor. The League has
supported the county's Open Lands Program for the acquisition and maintenance of such
properties, and backs the use of Transfer of Development Units (TDU's) to preserve both
agricultural lands and the priceless river corridors bisected by 1-25. We believe TDU's may also
have a role in creating community separators, vital to individual community identities and sense
of place.
In the current draft, the provisions for wildlife habitat are too weak and vague to have much
value in protecting existing wildlife and natural areas. In general, these policies need further
development and coordination with Larimer County's Open Lands Master Plan. We are also
curious how such preservation will be funded outside Larimer County, as Weld County does not
have a similar program for maintaining open lands and natural areas. In areas where open
space is desired to buffer development from the interstate or to preserve viewsheds for
interstate drivers, the suggested development-funded resource protection program is more
appropriate than siphoning tax dollars from the county's Open Lands Program.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & AWARENESS
The League actively promotes citizen involvement in land use planning. In the case of the I-
25 Corridor Plan, we question whether the public has been adequately informed and involved in
this critical plan. Likewise, it is not clear to us how public input has been considered or
integrated into the final recommendations.
It's an acknowledged fact that major development interests in the corridor have had an active
role in crafting the plan, most notably through the "private sector lead team." While it is
imperative that such financial interests should participate, no such integral involvement has
been afforded to citizen and community interests. As a result of that imbalance, the plan
appears to facilitate development within the corridor, rather than strengthening the values and
visions of individual communities. We believe that unfortunate oversight may prove detrimental
to the future quality of life we are privileged to enjoy in Larimer County and its communities.
I-25 Corridor Plan Comments
Ken Waido - 1-25 Subarea Plan Page 1
From: Ken Mannon
To: Ken Waido
Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001 4:38 PM
Subject: 1-25 Subarea Plan
Ken, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to show me the rezoning plan. As I had mentioned were on
your way out of town for a couple of weeks and it will be hard for us to make the meeting. I do have a few
comments that I would like to go on record about your Plan.
I support your expansion of the Urban Growth area to the East of 1-25. 1
personally feel we should be looking and planning the area clear out to out eastern county line.
Looking at your plan on the south east section of 1-25 and Prospect your plan calls for a large
portion of the land to zoned commercial with a few small properties zoned urban estates and low density
mixed use. As the land owner of 4533 east Prospect and owner of a small vehicle repair shop at that site
( which we have operated for the past 15 years) we would like to see the entire section of property be
zoned commercial. We were in the process of meeting with the County to look at the rezoning of our
property at the time the Citys came out. If you look at the current use of these properties in this section
you'll find a number of small business being operated in this area today. We would appreciate your
reconderation of changing our property to commercial zoning.
i
Ken Waido - 1-25 Subarea Plan Page
From: Ken Mannon
To: Ken Waido
Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001 4:38 PM
Subject: 1-25 Subarea Plan
Ken, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to show me the rezoning plan. As I had mentioned were on
your way out of town for a couple of weeks and it will be hard for us to make the meeting. I do have a few
comments that I would like to go on record about your Plan.
I support your expansion of the Urban Growth area to the East of 1-25. 1
personally feel we should be looking and planning the area clear out to out eastern county line.
Looking at your plan on the south east section of 1-25 and Prospect your plan calls for a large
portion of the land to zoned commercial with a few small properties zoned urban estates and low density
mixed use. As the land owner of 4533 east Prospect and owner of a small vehicle repair shop at that site
(which we have operated for the past 15 years) we would like to see the entire section of property be
zoned commercial. We were in the process of meeting with the County to look at the rezoning of our
property at the time the City's came out. If you look at the current use of these properties in this section
you'll find a number of small business being operated in this area today. We would appreciate your
reconderation of changing our property to commercial zoning.
Community Planning and Environmental Services bAa
Natural Resources Department
• City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 2001
hm
TO: Mayor Martinez and Councilmembers
John Fischbach, City Manager
FROM: Nate Donovan, for the Natural Resources Advisory Board }
RE: Recommendation on I-25 Corridor Plan
At our meeting of June 6, 2001, the Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously recommended
against Council adoption of the Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan as it is currently constructed. NRAB
members support the concept of regional planning and we believe that a plan for the 1-25 corridor is
important. However, we do not believe this plan should be adopted; rather, we urge Council and
staff to continue working with the regional community until the plan is able to fully and equally
address all of its elements — open lands, land use, and transportation. Only then should Council
consider it for adoption.
The NRAB submitted a recommendation to Council, dated February 23, 2001 (attached), in which
we elaborated our most significant concerns about the draft plan for the I-25 Corridor. That
• recommendation still represents our views because little has changed in the current plan to
substantively address the issues. We know that attempts were made to address some of the
concerns, but unfortunately the changes did not go far enough because of the reluctance of some of
the communities to pursue open lands and land use issues in any detail. Without reiterating all of our
earlier memo, we wanted to highlight some of our major concerns:
• The plan still lacks a land use element, but contains a detailed transportation plan. Without a
strong land use component, the parallel road system proposed in the plan will only facilitate
continued sprawl throughout the area at the expense of taxpayers.
• While setting a vision of open lands protection within the corridor, the plan only commits to a
Task Force to further study the issue. Before adopting the plan, there should be a firm
commitment to implementing the open lands components that identifies realistic new funding
mechanisms and other tools needed to make the vision a reality.
• The plan identifies cluster development as an important implementation tool, but does not
provide sufficient detail and standards to ensure that the outcome will result in a development
pattern that truly retains rural character and protects agricultural land, natural areas, or other
important open lands. To date, Larimer County's"conservation development" regulations have
failed to produce development patterns that achieve any real conservation objective.
NRAB members continue to appreciate the hard work of Joe Frank and his colleagues. Joe has been
generous with his time in working with the board and has been open and honest about what the plan
achieves, and what it does not.
Please contact me at 472-1599 if you would like to discuss our recommendations in more detail.
281 N. College Ave. • P.C. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 224-6177
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: May 9, 2001
TO: Mr. Ken Waido, Senior Planner
Fort Collins Advanced Planning Department
FROM: Randy Fischer on Behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Comments on 1-25 Subarea Plan Alternatives
This memo presents the Natural Resources Advisory Board's (NRAB's) comments on the
current three alternatives being considered for the 1-25 Subarea Plan (the Plan). Where
appropriate, this memo provides clarification of our previous recommendation to Council dated
January 12, 2001, which is now out dated, but is nevertheless consistent with the Board's
current views on the Plan. The Board's comments are presented in the following paragraphs.
Draft Alternative 2
Draft Alternative 2 is characterized as the NRAB's alternative because it was based on the
Board's prior recommendations. Alternative 2 is partly consistent with the NRAB's previous
recommendation, but needs to be revised in several key respects. The following clarifications,
additions, and refinements are provide to make Alternative 2 more consistent the Board's
earlier recommendation and to make Alternative 2 a serious alternative worthy of
consideration:
• In its original January 12 recommendation the Board did recommend or intend to
purchase any zoned lands. A revised Alternative 2 should indicate that areas labeled 1
and 2 on the attached map have little natural resources values, are already annexed and
zoned industrial, and would be too expensive to purchase for land conservation
purposes. Similarly, area 3 is already annexed and zoned urban estates and is not
recommended for purchase or conservation.
• In addition to the above, some of the areas shown as green under Alternative 2 are not
appropriate for protection as natural areas, but may be appropriate for conservation as
community separators or as valuable agricultural lands. Also, some "green" lands are
already developed or should not be considered green for other reasons. For example,
Area 4 on the attached map already contains residential development, and areas 5 and
6 already contain business development. The colors of these areas on the map should
reflect the existing development.
• North of Prospect Street, the NRAB views the riparian corridor along Boxelder Creek and
possibly some parts of the Gray Reservoirs as the only lands within the subarea worthy
of protection as natural areas (see attached map). It may be appropriate for the City to
actually acquire some of land along Boxelder Creek for protection using natural areas
program money. However, other conservation tools are available for protecting these
NRAB Comments
1-25 Subarea Plan Alternatives
May 9, 2001
Page 1 of 1
lands, such as purchase by Larimier County Open Lands, designation as residual lands
in County conservation developments, or protection through the County's Rural Land
Use Process.
• The Board advocates using different shades of green to reflect the different purposes of
land conservation and the potential for using a variety of conservation tools to achieve
those purposes. For example, Area 7 on the attached map should be considered a land
conservation area. However, with the possible exception of the Boxelder Creek riparian
corridor, the Plan should reflect that fee-simple purchase is not the appropriate
conservation tool for this area. Appropriate conservation tools for this area could include
designation as a TDU sending area; complying with City and County floodplain
regulations; protection under the County's Rural Land Use Process; a combination of
purchase and donation of conservation easements by partnerships including the City,
County, and Ladmer Land Trust.
• The Board views Area 7 as an integral part of the Fort Collins/Wellington community
separator. In addition, according to County staff, this area also contains potentially
valuable agricultural lands based on soils characteristics. Maintaining the County's "On
Open zoning would make it possible to conserve some or all of this land. However, none
of this land would be protected under Alternative 3 because inclusion within the GMA
would make the land too expensive for conservation.
• The Board also believes Area 8 should be considered a part of the Fort Collins/Timnath
community separator, including the areas outside the Plan's study area boundary.
Again, fee-simple purchase is not the appropriate conservation tool for most of this area.
Other land conservation tools are more appropriate, as stated above.
• In future revisions of the Plan, please delete the references to the S70 million cost of
open space acquisition under Alternative 2. The $70 million price tag is not accurate
given the variety of land conservation tools available and relatively small amount of land
actually in need of fee-simple acquisition. In addition, we believe the $70 million figure is
grossly inaccurate even if fee-simple acquisition were seriously considered for all the
open space within the study area. Excluding areas already annexed, zoned, developed,
or otherwise inappropriate for conservation, the maximum total cost of fee-simple
acquisition of open space within the study area is estimated at approximately $15 million
to $20 million. The cost of acquiring lands truly deserving of fee-simple acquisition is
probably less than $2 million to $3 million. Natural areas program money may be
appropriate for those purchases.
• The Board does not favor de-annexing lands that are already annexed and zoned.
Annexed and zoned lands have clear investment backed expectations associated with
them that would be legally infeasible to change. Therefore, the zoned and annexed
lands shown green on the map should be shown the appropriate color for their current
zoning.
• Although annexed lands exist east of 1-25, the Board recommends no further
annexations occur east of the highway. We also recommend retracting the GMA
boundary, as indicated in the attached drawing to reflect the Board's opinion that 1-25
NRAB Comments
1-25 Subarea Plan Alternatives
May 9, 2001
Page 2 of 1
should be the eastern edge of the City to the extent practicable. Our concept for the
GMA boundary recognizes that annexed and zoned lands already exist on the east side
of the highway and that these lands are infeasible to remove from the City.
• In conclusion, we believe Alternative 2, as revised, is a viable alternative and should not
be characterized by staff as an "extreme" plan. We believe revised Alternative 2
represents a clear policy that would establish the ultimate geographical size and shape
of the City to the east. In addition, revised alternative 2 provides an opportunity to
conserve important community separators, valuable agricultural lands, and the limited
natural areas within the study area.
Draft Alternative 3
The NRAB has serious concerns with Draft Alternative 3, as follows:
• We believe the costs of road improvements under Alternative 3 would be excessive.
However, in contrast to the open space acquisition costs under Alternative 2, no cost
information is provided for the road system proposed under Alternative 3. It seems
incredible to the Board that so little information on the costs of Alternative 3 is being
presented to the public when the Plan represents one of the most important public policy
issues to be considered in the next 20 years. Staff must prepare a full economic analysis
for any plan carried forward for Council consideration.
• The Board has serious doubts that the activity center indicated on County Road 50 will
function as an income generator for the City. We believe this center is based on unrealistic
expectations of economic viability given its proximity to the Alta Vista subarea's activity
center.
• As iterated in its January 12 recommendation, the Board is concerned about probable
water quality impacts associated with the intensive development proposed under
Alternative 3. Most of the subarea will be served by Boxelder Sanitation District that
operates an antiquated treatment plant on the banks of the Poudre River. We are deeply
concerned about the lack of capacity of the District's aerated lagoons for handling the
waste loads generated under Alternative 3.
• Alternative 3 fails to give clear policy direction for establishing the ultimate geographic size
and shape of the City. Alternative 3 also severely limits land conservation opportunities
within the study area boundary.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding our comments on the 1-25
Subarea Plan. We would be pleased to provide clarification of any of the items presented in
this memo at any time.
Yours truly,
Randy Fischer, Chair
Natural Resources Advisory Board
226-5383, e-mail: karand(o)fdi.com
NRAB Comments
1-25 Subarea Plan Alternatives
May 9, 2001
Page 3 of 1
Ken Waido - RE: I-25 Subarea Plan O en Hcuse Pa e
. From: "Darcie White"<dwhite@mail.clarionfc.com>
To: "Ken Waido" <KWAIDO@fcgov.com>, "Ben Herman" <bh...
Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2001 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: 1-25 Subarea Plan Open House
Here's a summary from my notes-little to add to Ken's summary below, mostly "background"
comments/questions as Ben mentioned...
1) Will there be any sort of transition between the existing low density clumps of homes that will be
surrounded by high density? High-density in general didn't seem to bode well, but seemed more related
to them not wanting to live there that not wanting to have it at all.
2) Some questions on Alt 2 and its feasibliity, i.e., What options does a property owner have to develop
his property under this alternative? How can we make sure they are fairly compensated?Any plans to
designate areas of OS on existing uses? and my personal favorite-What makes you think a farmer
would possibly want to keep farming anyway?
3)Transportation issues were suprisingly low key-no concerns voiced on County Rd 5 that I heard. There
were questions on widening 1-25 and how we were planning on avoiding the parking lot syndrome coming
into Fort Collins. I did hear a concern from a resident south of Prospect (east side) about the proposed
roadway we were showing to connect the neighborhoods to the south. Some emphasis was placed on
letting the large employers solve our traffic woes.
4)Several fiscal comments. How can the Plan allow for outside revenues to avoid placing all of the
burden on FC? For instance, is there room for a mall to increase tax base in corridor? And finally, a
TDR program will make housing even more expensive for the consumer.
•
Plan Comments-?
� 4.._,Qrv ...a- sav iz -
01 e41- 4b"0404 rz� 0� easo o _ • 2s �,
r s
vw4 6e^e.�t -(t
3� ;t ,�,;.0 �w.� •{�.. �..,,„,�,�„�,� , dewy `(fix,
1� ' Wiu inec+eAfs. \! "rj ,n4& e.crwr "
rC511io Ci riv+' 3 �e -fv 9e -' 1mD�T �$ Of- f vJ , _C
How to get your comments) to us: 9e.*
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 CUT o[Fan C.Iun,
Plan Comments?
orr44-fre or k" of T Z5
40 ce,ehx� wt�s�a(ces ,
Vr
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com -phone 970-221-6376
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) - fax 970-224-6111 c o. �ncomo,
' Plan Comments
� 7' 6�0'-[A ! ea srts.C--w ea",c- a�-
(1 L! _
_" f L r 6a�.- �"
PiKC,Bt.r.rzt�Gcy �,5�- o� �G�S r,�
How to get your comment(s) to us: 11 f' yew v`5� /� I
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone. 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) fax- 970-244-6111 CilvofwMCoWn,
�- Plan Comments?
t,Ct— pGe.�f rw-G tg:L, Is w- r6t,
` -A- c re fit cn e sa c SC
Ye,�nc ate.(.1 �C���,,,� �� i•, -r
Cow►x a.�moo �rri,�;F/- 4-0
IV
How to get your comment(s) to us: 4L, � 4
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com -phone: 970-221-6376 .
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 Cih of Pon Caftans
Plan Comment?
S ofc c e -aAZ�_ P&A 6rL rc h-(( II DS
`Plc _Keep �row+h �a a MI/fL " o f CrM_fttUaQ deue:
a+ +h� exch"16s. CO 11,0� 1014 grookofA�dzt�
S�bG�JLjbj . O rgduSFRiaDaA-&s ahat,,d ZSTFIt
�3 SQ(L The Ci�;6cns cF tort- (t IbAs ouowr�uQdunyl;
� fo whit[- wns
-tl16 (�Pos'iD i+ oid 1ae racgni sa��Sis 1. ISO
W h.d made Cym,wvts M r+nis propos4__kaUe
��51ec� nar1 G 0.� in�?,U candy , towk. 41c p1 Luc hatx
pu� .n t ?�—htw�.- ,k
How to get your comment(s)to us: CQn )PVCku3m
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com phone: 970-221-63763M
- mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 Nb I City ae'ncoun.
j hank yoLL 'rRR/k--i Tfgc2 Forf ito 11 .1tea.
T.C2=IMMPlan Com a is
_ � e rnq U � "� 6 14"f
�- s f
nt - Fel
��
�Ovl
17 lam' �
How to get your comment(s)to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com -phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 camr,,cwL
�4fd/ 7
P
Fo
FIX
Advance Planning Dept
Box 580 �•nz
. Fort Collins.CO 80522-0580 1 C/ice
Leh �� /' c 1h ,r� �C�� S l/'�2
lC
gLle1 /C"1 C.q(�Y of Fort Collins
DO Ve�P'advance Planning Dept
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
•
' Plan Commentp?
. eku.7 l.�e a-�o��i-1-- (Je �ff e
PoG`c
a.�n W y
7ire ! I^OoL4- az ot�e� Ser✓�ceq dice . GJe
a/u- Q[rc n a
�¢ 3Y$n.i ll,`on o- baclz loe o- Y d Hated. Ue G'Q4LT
Wct,,- Cwt - LIOMIfuni! Gk�ri/io�O b a.r. it rdl�
Gve And- Wm,� 01 ,.rougw L(f }�tj
lrn/
How to get your com;ent(s) to us:
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 Ciro of rm collie
y Plan Comments
� 3K`i; n+;ll�`or � a- baclzleg o-F� OY�o/a;�Cd , Ue ��w/�,
WczH c`wt Comnf uh. J iviou 0 be 0-, ivt�WF�G
the C20/4 wa,_ — oz HL tot, Lc.
77-a
ti
How to get your comrent(s) to us: i
-email: aplanning@fcgov.com - phone: 970-221-6376
-mail: (by affixing a postcard stamp) -fax: 970-224-6111 city of rvrt collins
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: January 12, 2000
TO: Mayor and Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager
FROM: Randy Fischer for the Natural Resources Advisory Board
RE: Recommendations on the 1-25 Subarea Plan
For the past year, the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) has
participated in the 1-25 Subarea Plan taskforce. In addition, Mr. Ken Waido of the
Advanced Planning Department presented the three alternative plans for the 1-25
Subarea for the full board at our December 6, 2000, NRAB meeting. Having
thoroughly considered the planning alternatives, the NRAB urges Council in the
strongest possible terms to adopt Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative for the
1-25 Subarea because Alternative 1:
• provides a definite hard edge to urban development
• protects and preserves natural resources
• conserves key agricultural lands
• preserves the open, rural character of the subarea
• maintains community separation
• is the most fiscally responsible alternative for the subarea
• provides leadership and direction for regional planning efforts along 1-25.
The NRAB believes 1-25 should be the eastern boundary of the City's urban
growth area (UGA) and should be recognized as the fixed "hard" edge to
urbanization in our community. Providing a definite hard edge to urban
development advances key City priorities previously endorsed by Council, such
as preserving agricultural land, reducing fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and
providing community separation. For this reason, we urge Council to adopt
Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative for the 1-25 Subarea. Conversely, we
strongly recommend against adopting any alternatives that would expand the
existing UGA into areas of rural land east of 1-25. We also urge Council to adopt
policies and create strategies for achieving the land conservation goals
expressed in this memorandum.
We believe Subarea Alternative 1 provides the best opportunity for protecting the
significant public investment and interest in open lands, riparian corridors, wildlife
habitat, and natural resources conservation within the 1-25 Subarea. The riparian
areas within the subarea provide important wildlife and plant habitat as well as
NRAB 1-25 Subarea Plan Recommendation
January 12, 2001
Page 1 of 3
opportunities for public use that should be preserved. Altemative 1 is the only
alternative that facilitates land conservation by preventing fragmentation of the
natural features within the subarea.
The NRAB believes Altemative 1 best preserves key agricultural lands and the
open, rural character of the subarea which are important parts of the transition
from the foothills to the plains. Residents and visitors value the mountain views
and open lands within the subarea and place a high priority on their preservation.
Altemative 1 provides the greatest opportunities for maintaining future community
separators between Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington. Under
Alternatives 2 or 3, we believe urbanization within the subarea will destroy the
unique characters and separate identities of our communities.
The NRAB believes Altemative 1 represents the most fiscally responsible plan for
the subarea because it will be less of a drain on public finances; whereas, we
strongly believe Alternatives 2 and 3 will privatize the profits and socialize the
costs of future development. Adopting Altematives 2 or 3 will result in economic
benefits to a few private landowners by essentially up-zoning their properties with
no benefit in return to the community. The high costs of providing schools, fire
and police protection, storm drainage, and transportation infrastructure under
Alternatives 2 or 3 will ultimately be bom by the citizens of Fort Collins because
the residential development proposed under Alternatives 2 or 3 would represent
a net loss of tax revenues to the City.
Selecting Alternative 1 as the "preferred alternative" for the 1-25 Subarea will
provide important leadership and direction to the planning process for the
Regional 1-25 Corridor Plan. Fort Collins' leadership will have significant
influence on regional planning efforts that are currently ongoing. Decisive action
in support of Alternative 1 will provide Council an opportunity to make the
regional plan consistent with the priorities and recommendations presented in
this memorandum.
In addition to the reasons for adopting Altemative 1 expressed above, the NRAB
is extremely concemed about the ability of the Boxelder Sanitation District to
adequately treat the sanitary wastewater generated by future urban development
if the UGA were expanded east of 1-25. We believe the district's antiquated
treatment technology (aerated lagoons) would severely impact water quality in
the Poudre River under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Finally, regardless of which alternative is selected, the NRAB strongly
recommends that a funding mechanism be established to provide at least $70
million for preserving more than 3,000 acres of land identified as key natural
areas, riparian corridors, buffer zones, and community separators in the 1-25
Subarea. The City also should invest in rights-of-way for future altemative
transportation corridors, such as light rail, heavy rail, or high-speed bus lanes.
NRAB 1-25 Subarea Plan Recommendation
January 12. 2001
Page 2 of 3
Acquiring rights-of-way is important for long-range financially responsible
• planning for future non-automobile transit in the corridor.
As always, NRAB members are available to discuss these issues with you. We
look forward to continuing involvement in the preparation of a "preferred
alternative" for the 1-25 Subarea Plan.
CC:
Ken Waido
Greg Byrne
• NRAB 1-25 Subarea Plan Recommendation
January 12, 2001
Page 3 of 3
S& fz .!. �.
Farm
Day Pop�!rN
Cd
. Use P(Tn �,�:
CwAy Rd. sz 1
_ _ I LEGEND
` UE Urban Es6 --
Ewshrig
uE' \ LM N Lau CL-esi+y, Mlzed-Usa Ne6tibrrlxtxA
1= Empbycneo'+
3 /•
LMN C COMMC0641
• `ram �:. o� (� �i••oPosed r4cccss
I /
-`LMN UE \
I�
Conc4 ual Land use-o Plan o no Ito ap
VF K,P y 1 -11-01
-�,. 4„ UC,.d,
Cow4v Rd._ I LEGEND
UE Urban E6a --
'', Ewsfirr���yy
Farmlwne Us' \ l MN Lau (�xsi{�r Mixed-Usa Ws6hbcvhcrd
\ F. Empbyrne#%+
N c. C COMMCV641
� .. LMN
,`- -,� '•, �� [� �{-posed ass
N f
LMN UE
DAU t
C ua Use flan
�•P� Y i n o1
01/09/01
• I-25 Sub-area Plan
DRAFT Staff comments:
I. For the Preferred Alternative map, the area north of County Rd 52 should be omitted
from the plan area, as all alternatives show it remaining in existing County zoning.
2. The area south of Harmony that is in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan should
also be omitted,to avoid confusion about needing to amend that Plan.
3. What is the Gb1A boundary that is shown east of Fossil Creek Reservoir. This
probably should be omitted, as it is outside the study area and is possibly confusing.
4. We need a careful analysis of any instances of a proposed downzoning from existing
County zoning.
5. The Rural/Open Lands category of land use should be noted as existing County
zoning if this is indeed the case, to avoid questions related to takings for open space
purposes.
6. We need to consider how TDUs could/would be used to implement any alternatives
that create the expectation of upzoning from existing County zoning. Our general
operating principle is that GMAs should not be expanded without creating a TDU
receiving area. The Fossil Creek experience leads us to believe that the Plan should
not be adopted without this implementation piece in place, as there will be
immediate pressure to develop according to the plan densities. TDUs and the urban
expansion plan should be considered as a package.
7. We think that the County Planning Commission does not need to adopt the area plan
as a part of the County Master Plan unless a TDU implementation program will
require Counn processing of most of the development applications at urban
densities.