HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/26/2016 - MOUNTAIN VISTA AREA OPEN LANDS PRESERVATION SCENARDATE:
STAFF:
April 26, 2016
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Mountain Vista Area Open Lands Preservation Scenario.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to evaluate an open land preservation scenario for the Mountain Vista area that
maintains the area’s overall projected jobs and housing, but configures future development patterns to conserve
more land for local food production, access to nature, and innovative housing opportunities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What is the best way to implement the Mountain Vista Open Lands Preservation vision?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the June 9, 2015 Work Session, where staff presented the pros and cons of reducing housing and employment
intensity within the Mountain Vista area through an alternative “Rural Scenario”, City Council requested a second
phase of analysis, including outreach to Mountain Vista property owners and the public, to determine a revised
possible future vision. Council specifically requested that the second phase address the following issues:
Application of new policy initiatives such as Nature in the City, Urban Agriculture and the Housing Affordability
Policy Study that have occurred since the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted;
Partnership opportunities among property owners and with the City to provide infrastructure improvements;
and
Promote innovative community design principles that represent best practices in housing design,
neighborhood livability, and the integration of agriculture and natural systems.
Public outreach was conducted with this second phase of the assessment primarily through a multi-day design
charrette (see Attachment 1 for the Charrette Summary). The charrette identified opportunities and constraints
for the area, project goals and how to meet them at the regional, community and neighborhood scales. Two
major framework plans were generated: “Access to Nature”, and “Living Corridor”. It was the latter framework that
garnered the most support from charrette participants and that was carried forward with a more detailed
illustrative plan that expanded on major design concepts (Attachment 2).
Overall, the land use concept connects agriculture, parks, open space, and wildlife habitat through a large green
swath of open lands running parallel along the No. 8 Ditch and near existing and planned regional stormwater
detention areas. The concept provides for water detention/filtration while maintaining food production in proximity
to clustered housing, offices, shops, parks, schools, and light industrial uses. Because the multi-use corridor is
centrally located within Mountain Vista, the trail and open space network links the area to local food production,
such as greenhouses, a community kitchen and farmer’s market.
The design exercise was intended to provide a framework that will aid in creating an urban agricultural landscape
that promotes ecological biodiversity, access to nature for residents, and open land systems integration, i.e.,
stormwater detention, parks, community agriculture, or natural areas within shared or abutting spaces.
April 26, 2016 Page 2
Agricultural concepts shown do not rely on traditional agricultural practices that cover a large land area, but on
more intensive methods such as:
Small farms of less than 5 acres
Mini or micro farming on 1 acre or less
community gardens
backyard farming
edible landscaping
greenhouse farming
Creating networks of greenways that spur off of the primary open space framework creates networks for informal
recreation, exercise and enjoyment of nature, in addition to the opportunity for small-scale agriculture. In between
these “fingers” of open space are clustered residential neighborhoods and employment areas that connect and
provide a unifying element between a rural and urban landscape.
Next Steps
In high land value communities like Fort Collins that have intense development pressures (as opposed to low land
value communities like Detroit and Cleveland), urban agriculture and natural habitat needs to be more creatively
integrated into the landscape. Case studies of similar communities have shown that publicly-held land such as
stormwater detention areas, parks, schools and privately-held land needs to be integrated in order to provide a
diversity of urban agriculture types at different scales.
The City amended its supplementary regulations of the Land Use Code in 2013 to allow for a range of urban
agricultural activities at a level and intensity that is compatible with the City’s residential neighborhoods and non-
residential areas; however, these Code changes alone may not result in the open lands preservation scenario
depicted. Staff is considering that the following implementation measures for Mountain Vista that would also be
applicable to other developing areas of the community:
Analysis - more thorough review of existing LUC standards
Integration of Capital Improvements related to stormwater and parks
Revisit street standard designs to promote rural character
Design Guidelines based on best practices for innovative housing, urban agriculture and habitat preservation
Partnerships (public agencies, private developers, CSAs)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mountain Vista Charrette Summary: Cultivating Community (PDF)
2. Mountain Vista Open Lands Preservation Illustrative Plan (PDF)
3. Work Session Summary, June 9, 2015 (PDF)
4. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
February
Asumma
eventsex
Mountai
Urban
y2015
aryoffindin
xploringthe
nVistaSuba
Mou
nAgric
Cu
ngsinstakeh
epossibilities
areaPlanpr
untain
culture
ultivatin
holderinterv
sfortheinte
reparedfor
VistaS
eCharr
ngCom
views,inǦhou
egrationof
theCityofF
Subare
retteO
munity
usecharrett
urbanagric
FortCollinsb
ea
Outcom
y
tes,andpub
culturalelem
byLoganSim
mes:
blicinvolvem
mentsinthe
mpson
ment
e
ATTACHMENT 1
MOUNTAINVISTA 1
Introduction
ǡ
͵ǡͲͲͲ ǡ
2 MOUNTAINVISTA
Background
Ǥ
MountainVistaSubareaPlan,2009
ǡ ͳͻͻͻǡ
ʹͲͲͻǡ ǡ
Ǥ
MOUNTA
AINVISTA
3
4 M
Existin
LandOw
Existing
Topogr
ǡ
Oil&Ga
OUNTAINV
ngCond
wnership
Ǧ
Future
ͻǡͷ͵ͻ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
eCondit
ǡ
ʹǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
tions
ͳͺ
ǡ
͵Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǡ
MOUNTA
6 MOUNTAINVISTA
ǡǡ ǦǤ
Ǥ
ͳǤ ȋ Ȍ Ȃ
Ǥ
ʹǤ Ȃ
ǡǡ ǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
͵Ǥ Ǥ
ͶǤ Ȃ
Ǥ Ǥ
ͷǤ Ȃ Ǥ
Ǥ Ȃ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ Ȁ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǦȀ
Ȃ ǡ
ǡǤ ǡ
Ǥ
ͺǤ Ȃ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
ͳͳǤ ȂǡȀǡ
Ȁǡ Ǥ
ͳʹǤ ȀȂ Ǥ
ͳ͵Ǥ ȂǤ
ͳǤ Ȃ
Ǥ
MOUNTA
AINVISTA
7
8 M
Ǥ
Regiona
Ǣ
ǡ
OUNTAINV
ǡ
Ǥ
ȌǤ
alScale
ǡ
Ǥ
VISTA
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǣ
ǡ
ǡ
Commu
ͷǦ
Neighb
ǤͶǦ
unityScale
ǡͳͲ
orhoodSc
Ǥ
e
ǡͳǡͳ
ͲǦ
cale
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͷͲǦ
ͳͲͲǦ
ǡ
͵ǡʹͲͲ
ǡͳǡͳͲͲ
Ǧ
ʹ
ͲǦ
MOUNTA
ǡ
ȋ
ʹ
Ǧ
ǡ
ͷͶ
AINVISTA
ǡ
ȌǤ
ǡʹǤͷǦ
10 MOUNTAINVISTA
Opportunities
ǡǡ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
RegionalScale
x ȋͺȌ
x ȋȌ
x Ȃ
ȋȌ
x
Conce
epts
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
12 M
OUNTAINVVISTA
Frame
Framew
Ǥͺ
Ǥ
eworkP
workA:Liv
ͺ
lans
vingCorri
ǡ
idor
ǡ
ǡ
14 M
OUNTAINVVISTA
Framew
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
workB:Ac
Ǥ
Ǥ
16 MOUNTAINVISTA
UpdatedGoalsfortheMountainVistaSubarea
ǡǡ
ǡ
ȋȌǤ
ǡ ǡȀǡ
ǡǡ Ǥ
ͳǤ ǡ ǡ
ǤȋʹͲȌ
ʹǤ
ǡǡ ǡ
ǤȋͳͻȌ
͵Ǥ
Employment/Cluster
Development
Employment/Cluster
Development
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů
Neighborhood
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů
Neighborhood
DĂƉůĞ,ŝůů
Storybook
tĂƚĞƌĮĞůĚ
WĂƌŬ
WĂƌŬ
EĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂͬ
&ƵƚƵƌĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
EĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂͬ
&ƵƚƵƌĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
EĂƚƵƌĂůWĂƌŬͬ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
EĂƚƵƌĂůWĂƌŬͬ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
/ŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶ
>Ăď
^ĐŚŽŽů
EŽ͘ϴŝƚĐŚ
ZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ>ĂŬĞZŽĂĚ
ŽƵŐůĂƐZŽĂĚ
DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶsŝƐƚĂƌŝǀĞͲŶŚĂŶĐĞĚdƌĂǀĞůŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ
ĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ
dƵƌŶďĞƌƌLJZŽĂĚ
ŽŶŝĨĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚͲŶŚĂŶĐĞĚdƌĂǀĞůŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ
^ƵŶŝŐĂZŽĂĚͲŶŚĂŶĐĞĚdƌĂǀĞůŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
tĞůůƵīĞƌ
375’
Community
ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů
Center
Community
ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů
Center
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
>ĂƌŐĞ^ĐĂůĞ
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
>ĂƌŐĞ^ĐĂůĞ
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJWĂƌŬ
ĂŶĚ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ
'ŝĚĚŝŶŐƐZŽĂĚ
ATTACHMENT 3
1
Mountain Vista: Open Lands Preservation Scenario
Cameron Gloss
4.26.2016
ATTACHMENT 4
Mountain Vista: Subarea Overview
2
Growth
Management
Area (GMA)
Boundary
Plan Area
Boundary
City Limits
(Yellow)
Subarea Context
3
G.M.A.
• 2,989 Total acres
• 1,298 acres - Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (LMN)
• 144 acres - Medium Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood (MMN)
• 660 acres - Employment (65%)
• 450 acres - Industrial (50%)
• 400 acres - Open land, community
park and school site
• 30 acres - Community Commercial
Plan Background
4
1999
Framework Plan
Adopted
2008-2009
Plan Update
Update
2009
Plan Update
Adopted
2015
Rural Scenario
Assessment
Summary: Rural Scenario Assessment
5
Pros Cons
Greater agricultural production within the City Housing Becomes Less Affordable
Fewer collector streets constructed Increased VMT and congestion on City streets
Fewer City services and programs needed
Substantial Increase in Regional Green
House Gas Emissions
Greater potential to enhance natural habitat
Loss of Street Oversizing Fees to cover costs
of regionally-induced transportation impacts
Insufficient density to support transit
Stranded assets-arterial streets & school site
Substantial Loss in Job Opportunities
6
Environmental Economic Social
Decrease in Mountain Vista Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT)
Decrease – Housing affordability
and range of housing types
Decrease in potential Mountain Vista
population
Increase in regional VMT Significant loss of jobs within
industrial / employment lands
Affordable housing land supply
shifts to outside of City
CO2
e emissions -- Regional increase
at 2040 of 94 metric tons
Many planned transportation and
stormwater improvements still
needed
Higher housing prices within the
City; increased pressure on existing
neighborhoods
CO2
e emissions -- Mountain Vista
decrease of 15 metric tons
Decrease – fees collected for
general services
Greater traffic on local roads due to
associated regional traffic increase
Increase -- regional air pollution with
net VMT
Fewer City services and programs
needed in Subarea
Lack of transit opportunity linking
Mountain Vista to central Fort Collins
Decrease -- solid waste generated Reduction – sales and property tax
revenues
No Community Park site or
recreation center
Increase -- Large farming tracts
remain; Habitat preservation
+- 50% of acquired PSD school site
becomes a stranded asset
Lost opportunity for expanded trail
networks
Potential Increase -- oil and gas
interest
Lost opportunity to restore / enhance
habitat with development
Rural Scenario: Triple Bottom Line Analysis
7
Rural Scenario: Reallocation of
Mountain Vista Subarea Housing in
the Region, 2040
Direction from Council (June 2015)
• Further property owner outreach
• Specific topics to be incorporated:
• Nature in the City
• Urban Agriculture
• Housing Affordability Policy Study
• Investigate partnership opportunities for infrastructure improvements
• Promote innovative community design principles that enhance
livability and integrate agricultural and natural systems
8
Design Charrette (Nov. 2015)
• 58 attendees over a two-day charrette (Nov 2 and 3) and a public
open house (Nov 9)
• Opportunities and constraints
• Goals
• Ideas for regional, community, and neighborhood scale
implementation of goals
• Priorities
• Audience: Property owners, interested residents, City staff
9
Vision
10
• Vision for the Mountain Vista Subarea: Provide a framework for
successful and innovative community design.
• One of the last remaining major growth areas in the City
• Intended to have a new community center, enhanced multimodal
travel corridors, industrial lands, employment areas, a new
community park and open lands.
• Fresh concepts for incorporating urban agriculture and natural
spaces into future development to preserve rural character
“Living Corridor” Concept
11
• Connections to green space throughout
subarea; preservation of open lands
• Integration of public and private spaces
• Encouraging cluster development
• Incorporation of agriculture at several scales
• Achieve necessary density while maintaining
rural character
12
Mountain Vista
Open Lands
Preservation
Scenario
“Agriburban” Development
• Models for integrating agriculture and housing:
1. Agricultural retention – preserve farmland (regional scale)
2. Urban agriculture – small-scale production, underutilized spaces
3. Agricultural urbanism – working farm associated with a
neighborhood/subdivision (low resident involvement)
4. Agrarian urbanism – working farm integrated into a
neighborhood/subdivision (high resident involvement)
• Typically organic/low or no pesticides and herbicides
• Mountain Vista could have elements of several of these models.
13
“Agriburban” Development
• Agriburban development is similar to a typical golf course community,
but the clubhouse and golf course are replaced with a barn and farm.
• Benefits of agriburban development
• Health – physical activity, access to recreation, open space
• Environment – waste reduction, local food production
• Economy – reduction in lawn/turf maintenance costs and
pesticide/herbicide costs (if organic production)
• Social – gathering places, sense of place, cross-generational
activity
14
“Agriburban” Development
• Mixed-use, complete
neighborhood design
• Multimodal access
• Neighborhood livability
• Integration of agriculture
and natural systems
15
Case Study: Agritopia (Gilbert, AZ)
• Broke ground in 2000
• 160 acres
• 452 single-family homes
• 117-unit assisted living center
• 16 acres certified organic
farmland – vegetable, fruit, small
livestock
• Neighborhood square:
farmstand, coffeehouse, farm-to-
table restaurant
• CSA option for residents
16
Cluster Development
• Grouping development on a
site to preserve more land for
open space, recreation, or
agricultural uses
• Helps achieve multiple
community goals
• Several scales, from subarea
clustering to subdivision
design
17
Example: Harvest (Fort Collins, CO)
18
• Broke ground in 2002
• 106 acres
• 481 units
• Clustering shows a similar land
use pattern to agriburban
development
• Could be applied to Mountain Vista
• Green spaces = agriculture
• Strong connections to open lands
Example: Greenwood Cottages (WA)
19
• 10 d/u per acre
• Smaller units – 768 to
998 square feet
• Shared community green
• Built under a specific
“Cottage Housing
Development” code
• Sold as condos
Open Lands in Mountain Vista
20
• To incorporate Nature in the City into the Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan, this concept focuses on preserving and connecting open lands
• Types of open lands:
• Agricultural production
• Stormwater detention
• Parks
• Trails/pedestrian network
• Redesigned #8 Ditch
Example: Community Park & Gardens
21
• Integrated with Enhanced Travel
Corridors and regional bike/pedestrian
trail system
• Focal point for PSD school site, cluster
development, residential
neighborhood, and Commercial Center
• Park use and community gardens
• Connects to other “fingers” of open
lands
Example: Redesigned #8 Ditch
22
Example: Kederike Property Concept
23
• Integration of
stormwater and
recreation/park use
• Proceeds from
development
(LMN/MMN) could
finance infrastructure
development
• Still a conceptual plan
Incorporating Agriculture
• Agricultural production at multiple scales
• Sensitive to stormwater concerns
• Levels of resident involvement could vary; from more traditional
subdivisions to more agriburban developments
• Encourage innovative food production methods, including
aquaponics, greenhouses, and rooftop farms/gardens
24
25
Incorporating Agriculture
Scales of Agriculture Larger-Scale
Farm
Neighborhood
Farm
Community
Garden
Rooftop
Garden
Personal
Garden
Example: Greenhouses & Aquaponics
26
• High-value crops (fruits,
vegetables, etc.) can be grown in
smaller, more intensive spaces
with minimal visual impact
• Very water efficient, especially
when combined with aquaponics
(fish production)
• Potential for high energy
efficiency with careful design
Example: Community Garden
27
28
Density & Rural Character
• There are several opportunities to maintain the rural “feel” of the
Mountain Vista area as density increases.
• Elements of rural character
• Roads – use county cross-sections approved in LCUASS for
streets in the Mountain Vista subarea
• Network of pedestrian paths in lieu of sidewalks on a grid
• Regional trail network
• Cluster development
• Lighting – more at key intersections, less elsewhere
Density & Rural Character
29
Rural Local Road
- No sidewalk
- Internal to developments
- Minimum lot size 1 acre
- 300 vehicles per day
Residential Local Street
- 4.5 ft sidewalk
- All residential local streets
- No minimum lot size
- 1,000 vehicles per day
Example: Skyway Drive
30
Example: North Shields Street
31
Next Steps
• Possible next steps:
• Analysis – more thorough review of existing LUC standards
• Integration of Capital Improvements related to stormwater
• Revisit street standard designs to promote rural character
• Design Guidelines based on best practices for innovative housing,
urban agriculture and habitat preservation
• Partnerships (public agencies, private developers, CSA’s)
• Drawbacks:
• This kind of development is challenging to implement
• Requires committed, creative developers
32
Question for Council
What is the best way to implement the Mountain Vista Open Lands
Preservation vision?
33
ŶŚĞƵƐĞƌͲƵƐĐŚ
/ŶƚĞƌƐƚĂƚĞϮϱ
ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞƚĞŶƟŽŶWŽŶĚ
ZĞŐŝŽŶĂů
ĞƚĞŶƟŽŶWŽŶĚ
dŝŵďĞƌůŝŶĞZŽĂĚ
͘sŝŶĞƌŝǀĞ
N
o
.
8
D
i
t
c
h
N
o
.
8
D
i
t
c
h
L
Ă
k
e
C
Ă
n
Ă
l
DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶsŝƐƚĂ^ƵďĂƌĞĂKƉĞŶ>ĂŶĚƐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ
0 Feet 600 1200 1800 N
>ĞŵĂLJǀĞŶƵĞ
dƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚ
tĂƚĞƌŐůĞŶ
ATTACHMENT 2
Dz
dzȀ ǤȋͳͺȌ
ͶǤ ǡǡǡǡ
ǤȋͳͷȌ
ͷǤ ǤȋͳͶȌ
Ǥ Ǧ ǡǡ
ǡ ǡǤȋͳͶȌ
Ǥ
ǡǡǡǡ
ǡ ǡǡ
ǡǡ ǡǤȋͳʹȌ
ͺǤ
ǡ
ǤȋͻȌ
ͻǤ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
ǤȋȌ
ͳͲǤ
ǡ
ǡ ǡǡ
ȋȌǡǡ
Ǧ ǤȋͷȌ
ǡǡ
ccesstoNa
Ǥ
ature
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
MOUNTA
Ǥ
AINVISTA
ǡ
Ǥ
15
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǯ
MOUNTA
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
AINVISTA
13
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
MOUNTA
Ǥ
AINVISTA
Ǥ
Ǥ
11
ȋȌ
x ǡ ǡ
ǡ
ȋͶȌ
x
Ȁǡ
ǡ ȋ͵Ȍ
x
ȋ͵Ȍ
CommunityScale
x Ǧ
Ƭ ǡǡ
ȋͳͶȌ
x
ȋͺȌ
x
ȋͷȌ
x ȋͶȌ
x
ȋͶȌ
x
ȋͶȌ
NeighborhoodScale
x
Dz dz
Ȁ
Ǥ
ǡǯǡ ǡ
Ȁǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡȀ
ǤȋͳȌ
x Ȃ ǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡȀ
ȋͳͳȌ
x
ȋͻȌ
x
Ǥͺ
ȋͺȌ
x
ȋͷȌ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧ
9
Ǧ
ǡȋ
ǡ
AINVISTA
5
Ǧͳ
gLandUse
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
raphy&Dr
asWells
VISTA
itions
ȋ
Ȍ
es
Ǥ
rainage
Ǥ
͵
ͻͺ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
͵ͷͲǯ
ͳͲ
ͳǡͶͻ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǦʹͷǤ
Ǥ
ͲͲͲǯǤ
ǡ
ͻͲ ǡ
Ǥ
ͶͺΨ
͵ͷͲǯͳ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǯǡ
ͲͲͲǯǤ
Ǥ
ǡǡ ǡ ǡ
ǡ ǡǡǡǡ
ǡ ǣ
Dz ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡǦ
Ǥǡǡ
ǡǡ ǡǡ ǡ
Ǧ
ǡǡ ǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥdz
CityPlan,2011
ǡ ǡʹͲͳͳ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡǤ
UrbanAgriculture,2013
ʹͲͳ͵ǡ
Ǥǯ
Ǥǯ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
NatureintheCityStrategicPlan,2015
ʹͲͳͷǡ̶
ǡǡǤ̶
ͳͲǦ Ǥ
ʹͷ
ǡǡǤ
ǡ ǡ
Ǧ
ȋ
ȌǤ
ʹͲͳͷǡ ʹǦ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡǤ
ǡ ǡ
ǡǤǣ
x ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡǡ
Ǥ
x
Ǥ