Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-035-03/16/1999-ADOPTING THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITYS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOLUTION 99-35 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,on February 18, 1997,the Council of the City of Fort Collins,by Resolution 97- 25, adopted the Community Vision and Goals 2015, City Structure Plan, and City Plan Principles and Policies as elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City,to be known as the"City Plan";and WHEREAS,the City Plan in its principles and policies identified the Mountain Vista Area as a priority subarea for planning efforts; and WHEREAS, to help develop the Mountain Area Subarea Plan,the City engaged a planning consulting team and established a citizen's advisory committee to work with the staff in developing the plan; and WHEREAS, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been developed to assist in the implementation of City Plan by tailoring city-wide policies to the Mountain Vista Area of Fort Collins by addressing issues concerning land use, housing, transportation, utilities and capital facilities,economic development,public safety,environment,appearance in urban design and open space; and WHEREAS,the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has been recommended to the Council by the Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board,as well as the Mountain Vista Citizens Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is in the best interest of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference be, and hereby is adopted as a element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 16th day of Iylarch, A.D. 1999. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk J J All Or An Element of Fort Collins `�� CITY PLAN ♦ ♦ n inVistaou to UBi Ei U PL ) Adopted March 16 , 1999 Amended October 19 , 1999 November 7 , 2000 6a City of Fort Collins Prepared by: The City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table of Contents Preface Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 . 1 The Land Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 2 Purpose and Context of This Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 . 4 Brief History of the Northeast Area of Fort Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 . 5 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 . 6 Organization of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 VicinityMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Chapter 2 - Analysis 2 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 . 2 Existing Conditions, Infrastructure, & Services Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 . 3 Case Study Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 . 4 Identification of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 . 5 Summary of Planning Opportunities and Constraints Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Existing Land Use and Ownership Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Existing Structure Plan map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ExistingZoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Water Features Analysis Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Chapter 3 - Vision and Goals 3 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3 . 2 Mountain Vista Subarea Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3 . 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Chapter 4 - Framework Plan 4 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 . 2 Basis of Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 . 3 Framework Plan Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 . 4 Land Use Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 FrameworkPlan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Community Commercial District - Conceptual Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Community Commercial District - Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Community Commercial District - Circulation Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Chapter 5 - Transportation 5 . 1 Existing Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5 . 2 Transportation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5 . 3 Street Network and Functional Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Existing Master Street Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Proposed Master Street Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Traffic Forecast Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3/16/99 Table of Contents Page i Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 6 - Principles and Policies 6 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6 . 2 Mountain Vista Subarea Principles and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Chapter 7 - Implementation Recommendations 7 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 7 . 2 Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 7 . 3 Implementation Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Maps Proposed Structure Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 ProposedZoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Proposed Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix MVAC - Citizen Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1 Activity and Events Calender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Identification of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 CaseStudy Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 Existing Conditions, Infrastructure, & Services Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Implementation Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Page ii Table of Contents 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Credits City Council City Staff Ann Azari, Mayor John F . Fischbach, City Manager Will Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Greg Byrne, Director, CPES Bill Bertschy Joe Frank, Director, Advance Planning Michael Byrne Bob Blanchard, Director, Current Planning Chris Kneeland Tom Shoemaker, Director, Natural Resources Scott Mason Ron Phillips, Director, Transportation Charles Wanner Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Claudia Haack-Benedict, GIS Manager P1arLning and Zoning Board Glen Colton, Chair Project Technical Team Judy Meyer Pete Wray, City Planner, Project Manager Jennifer Carpenter Clark Mapes, City Planner Sally Craig, Vice Chair Timothy Wilder, City Planner Robert Davidson Doug Moore, Urban Design Specialist Jerry Gavaldon Heidi Phelps, Planning Specialist I Karen W eitkunat Susan Lehman, Administrative Support Supervisor John Daggett, Transportation Planner Steve Olt, City Planner Mountain Vista Advisory Committee Susie Gordon, Program Manager, Representives Natural Resources Mike Buderus , Northeast Business Assn. Janet Meisel-Burns, Park Planner Sally Craig, Planning and Zoning Board Katy Carpenter, GIS David Dietemann, Area Resident Jill Bennett, Lanmer County Planning Department Donn Hopkins, Transportation Board Bill Miller, Fort Collins Audobon Society Phil Murphy, Natural Resources Board Consultant Team Bill Neal, Developer, Wheeler Realty Ben Herman, Ray Moe, & Greg Meeter, Ed Robert, Area Resident Balloffet & Associates Brigitte Schmidt, NE Neighborhood Assn. Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates Susan Morehouse, Anheuser-Busch, Inc . Mark Johnson & Dick Farley, CIVITAS, Inc . Joe Solomon, Area Resident David Hook, Hook Engineering Carol Story Uthman, Landowner, Rhodes Realty Additional copies of this Plan can be obtained by contacting the City of Fort Collins, Advance Planning Department at (970) 221-6376 or downloaded from our website: www.ci. fort-collins.co .us/COMMUNITY PLANNING/ADVANCE PLANNING/DocDown.htm 3/ 16/99 Table of Contents Page iii Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Page iv Table of Contents 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Executive Summary The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is Fort Collins ' unique opportunity to prepare for a future extension of our city ahead of growth and development. The study area represents the largest single undeveloped area (5 Y2 square miles) in which the City of Fort Collins can implement the vision set out in City Plan, our community' s comprehensive plan. This Mountain Vista Subarea Plan builds on City Plan by tailoring its citywide planning ap- proach to this specific part of the community. The main concepts of City Plan used as a foun- dation are : Vuu P ;w JKU;Ld • Compact development pattern • Interconnected transportation system 11lf�kl,'Y� • New activity centers in transit-served areas • Interconnected system of open lands • Urban growth boundary RicharcLs lakc RkyAd • Multiple means of travel I &Varied housing development — • Community identity and civic enhancements ~r• Balanced economic development opportunitiesc 4 C.Lrrdennieier �Icluntain Vista Drive The key elements of this Plan are the Vision zEa and Goals, the Framework Plan map, Principles C N and Policies, and Implementation Recommen- < '; b M dations . The centerpiece is the Framework Plan map in Chapter 4 . It shows a pattern of ' Fa;L;Ev ,1C DHIT - land use, transportation, and open lands . Significant future civic destinations are indi- cated, including a senior high school and a community park. A significant future communitycommercial destination is I +,Isr httilbc„rs �Lrt:c.ur1w, 1 i -. centrally located within the subarea. �N77 2. The Principles and Policies state a guiding Map of Study Area approach to achieving the Vision, the Goals, and each part of the Framework Plan. They establish a policy basis for specific Implementa- tion Recommendations . Many of the Implementation Recommendations will need to be pursued over time after adoption of the Plan. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan project was given a high priority status by City Council. The Project Team was made up of a multi-disciplinary staff team, a planning consultant team (Balloffet & Associates, Clarion Associates, and Civitas), and a twelve-member citizens ' Advisory Committee . The Advisory Committee reflected a broad spectrum of differing interests, and provided important input throughout the planning process . In addition, extensive public 3/ 16/99 Table of Contents Page v Mountain Vista Subarea Plan review and comment was incorporated into the process that spanned over 12 months using public workshops, open houses, neighborhood meetings and discussions with property owners and other individual citizens. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is available on the City of Fort Collins web site : www.ci. fort-collins . co .us/COMMUNITY PLANNING/ADVANCE PLANNING/DocDown.htm Page vi Table of Contents 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Resolution RESOLUTION 99-37 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER STREET PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING ALL EXISTING STREETS WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA AND REPLACING SAID STREETS WITH THE NEW STREET NETWORK DESCRIBED IN THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN - PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN MAP WHEREAS, by Resolution 99-35, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan as an element of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, by reason of the adoption ofthe Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, certain revisions need to be made to the Master Street Plan in order to conform said Master Street Plan to the Transportation objectives of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan by deleting of all existing streets within the Mountain Vista Subarea and replacing them with the new street network described in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan - Proposed Master Street Plan Map; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan have been recommended to the Council by the Planning and Zoning Board, the Transportation Board, the Natural Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Air Quality Advisory Board as well as the Mountain Vista Citizens Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City's Master Street Plan as it applies to the Mountain Vista Subarea be, and hereby is, amended as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting]or ity Council is 16th day arch, A.D. 1999. ATTEST: City Clerk 3/ 16/99 Table of Contents Page vii Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Page viii Table of Contents 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 . 1 The Land Area The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan study area encompasses approximately 3 , 100 acres . It is bounded by Interstate 25 (I-25) to the east, East Vine Drive to the south, Lemay Avenue and County Road 11 to the west, and Douglas and Richard Lake roads to the north . Although there are several existing neighborhoods adjacent to the subarea, the current property owners in the actual study area number less than thirty (See the Vicinity Map at the end of this Chapter) . Now=- . . rp OL 'A all L L _ i •iG � .JN r•� r �i 'r. iJ `k;, f to ' f�tiLL7�i�i.priY' _ I J 4 - 1 . 2 Purpose and Context of This Plan City Plan establishes the foundation for this Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Specific City Plan Principles and Policies (LU-4 and LU-4 . 5) name the Mountain Vista area as a priority for subarea planning efforts . This Plan is needed to help implement City Plan by tailoring general, city-wide policies to this distinct geographic area in northeast Fort Collins . City Plan, with its City Structure Plan map and the related Zoning Map, provided a strong head start for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process (See Existing Structure Plan and Zoning Map at end of this Chapter) . Building on the head start, the planning process ad- dressed a full range of issues including land uses, housing, transportation, utilities and capital facilities, economic development, public safety, environment, appearance and urban design, and open space . 3/16/99 Chapter 1 0 Introduction 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan This Mountain Vista Subarea Plan will be adopted as a related element of City Plan . It was developed within the context of other existing plans as well, most notably the Master Trans- portation Plan, the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and the Land Use Code. These plans and documents will be updated with any changes resulting from the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . 1 . 3 Background Many citizens have wondered why the City of Fort Collins would do a plan for the Mountain Vista area when little development has occurred to date . This subarea plan for the northeast area of the city provides an important opportunity to prepare for future neighborhoods, recreation, transportation networks, and work and shopping destinations from the ground up -- ahead of growth, and before the opportunity is gone . The seeds for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan were sown over several decades as our community developed and reinforced a vision of what we would be like as a future city. In 1977, Fort Collins ' Goals and Objectives stated that the northeast quadrant of our city was a logical area for long-term extension of the city to accommodate future growth. Despite this and other past policies to steer growth and development to the north, signifi- cant barriers have prevented the area from developing. One of the greatest barriers is the cost of providing or upgrading streets into the area. Other barriers are physical -- most notably the rail switching yard on the south side of Vine between Lemay and Summitview, rail lines, and irrigation canals . Several development proposals had been submitted and approved by the County prior to any City annexations in the area, and by the City after extensive annexations in the early 1980's . None of these development proposals were ever constructed and they eventually expired under City Plan . However, the pressure to develop has increased over the past few years . While it will be years before the bulk of the area is consumed by residential, commercial and employment uses, several residential development projects have recently been submitted to the City for development review and approval hearings . The pressure for development raises important issues that must be addressed if the area is to retain its quality of life . Unless we specifically plan for Mountain Vista's long-term future, there will likely be : • less predictability for neighbors , developers and the community as a whole • more unmet neighborhood service needs • disconnected streets, sidewalks and bikeways • excessive traffic on existing roadways • more costly, inefficient development • a lost opportunity to create a "sense of place" in exchange for the loss of open land 2 Chapter 1 0 Introduction 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan provides some excellent possibilities for building livable urban neighborhoods . These opportunities include : • providing for more connections with streets, bikeways and sidewalks ; • creating "town-like" commercial areas instead of a series of "strip commercial" develop- ments ; • having new residential developments form true neighborhoods instead of isolated subdivi- sions and apartment complexes ; and • strategically locating new schools, parks, and other civic uses in optimal locations before those locations are lost to private development. � z 3/16/99 Chapter 1 • Introduction 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 1 .4 Brief History of the Northeast Area of Fort Collins Agriculture and an extensive system for transporting crops from farm to market have long shaped the character of the Mountain Vista area. For 100 years, farmers grew sugar beets and carried their products in wagons along the "Sugar Factory Road" (now East Vine Drive) to the Colorado and Southern Railroad depot on Mason Street. Farming was assisted by the expansion of canal and reservoir building. A major canal was constructed from west to east through the Mountain Vista area in 1879 and diverted water through about 70 miles of canal. It was called the Larimer and Weld Canal or Eaton Ditch. Another canal, the No . 8 Outlet Ditch, channeled water from north to south into the Eaton Ditch . In the early 1900s, two large projects near East Vine Drive changed the original system of farming and transport. First, the Colorado and Southern Railroad extended rail track along East Vine Drive to connect Fort Collins and Cheyenne, easing the transport of crops and passengers through the Mountain Vista area. Second, the Great Western Sugar Company opened a sugar beet factory at the corner of East Vine Drive and North Lemay Avenue, the current site of the City of Fort Collins Streets Facility. The sugar beet farming industry now had a factory right on its own front porch steps . Towards the latter part of this century, the formation of special utility districts outside of the City has led to development in the Country Club area west of the Mountain Vista area. Much of this growth has been enhanced by the presence of lakes constructed earlier in the century by the Laramie - Poudre Reservoirs & Irrigation Company, and by the striking mountain and "city lights" views . �N . . . 4 Chapter 1 • Introduction 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan In the 1970s, prompted by the influx of new residents (especially to its southern fringe) , the City developed policies to encourage development north of Downtown. The 1977 Goals and Objectives element of the City' s previous Comprehensive Plan contained goals to pro- mote residential, commercial and industrial development in the northeastern area of Fort Collins . It was thought that by focusing development to the north, the City could re-empha- size the importance of Downtown as the geographical, commercial, and cultural heart of the City. These goals were supported by the Land Development Guidance System, which was a regulatory tool for implementing land use policy. In 1983 , when Anheuser-Busch wanted to establish a facility here, our City fathers and voters made a policy decision to annex a large tract this of northeast land into Fort Collins . `A-B" purchased approximately 1200 acres of land and constructed the brewery adjacent to Inter- state 25 and County Road 50 between 1984 and 1988 . A master plan was also developed by the brewery indicating potential future industrial, commercial and residential development. The annexation added future potential for a large activity center rooted by Anheuser-Busch as a major employer in the northeast. In the late 1990 's, these two uses -- farming and brewing -- predominate . In contrast to areas south and west, the Mountain Vista area has, until recently, experienced little or no serious growth pressure . 1 . 5 Planning Process 1 . 5 . 1 Project Team City Council provided general oversight. City staff and a planning consulting team (Balloffet & Associates, Clarion Associates, and Civitas) formed a technical team, aided by a citizens ' Advisory Committee . These groups together aided by extensive public review developed this Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . Project Schedule The planning process began in January 1998 and followed an aggressive schedule with a final City Council Hearing to adopt the Plan on March 16, 1999 (See Figure 1 . 1 — Project Sched- ule) . Phase 1: Analysis, Planning, and Design Qanuary - September, 1998) During this phase , information was collected and analyzed . Then, with the assistance of the Advisory Committee, the technical team developed a list of issues that influenced develop- ment of the plan. The plan was developed in a sequence of steps from general to specific, with a Vision and Goals leading to Framework Plan map alternatives and written Principles and Policies . A major component of this phase was the development of Framework Plan alternatives . These alternatives showed different ways Mountain Vista could grow by identifying the loca- 3/16/99 Chapter 1 0 Introduction 5 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan tion of neighborhoods, activity centers, transportation facilities, open space corridors, and other significant land uses . This phase included extensive efforts to seek public comments through a series of public meetings, meetings with community groups and with the advisory committee, and other media. Figure 1. 1 NIF.•oI Mountain Vista SUBAREA PLAN PROJECT SCHEDULE F 0 , 0 � TASKS 1998 1999 Jan TFeb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Project Start-Up + Issues Development Vision and Goals Framework Plan Development Principles and Policies + + Implementation Plan Plan Compilation and Prep + + + Plan Adoption Citizens' Advisory Committee 0 Public Workshop ♦ Public Open House 4& Public Hearings Rev. 11ry8 Phase 2: Implementation Recommendations (September, 1998 - February, 1999) The technical team and consultants identified strategies for implementing the Plan, and assembled a complete Plan document for review. This phase also included public review and input, along with review by the Planning and Zoning Board, other City Boards and Commis- sions, and City Council. 6 Chapter 1 0 Introduction 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 1 . 5 . 3 Citizen Participation The City of Fort Collins is committed to a participatory planning process . Citizens were invaluable in contributing to the success of this Plan. Many people made suggestions, offered input and raised concerns that significantly changed each initial component of this Plan. The public involvement process for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was designed to be comprehensive and interactive. A variety of communications techniques was used to main- tain two-way dialogue with key stakeholders (see Table 1- 1) . Mountain Vista was the first City planning project to go on-line during the planning process . It has its own web page within the City of Fort Collins web site (wwwci.fort-collins .co.us/ COMMUNITY PLANNING/ADVANCE-PLANNING/MTNVISTA/index. htm) . 1 .6 Organization of the Plan Table 1= 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Public Involvement Process Highlights* Communication Tool Number a Public Workshops 1 a Public Open Houses 3 aNeighborhood Meetings 4 a Landowner Meetings 13 a Boards & Commissions Review Meetings 17 aCity Council Growth Management Committee Meetings 8 a Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings 11 * Please refer to Appendix A-2 for the more detailed Activities and Events Diary This Mountain Vista Subarea Plan document is organized to provide an overview of the Plan, highlighting key Plan components . The Appendix details complementary technical materials in-depth . The Plan chapters that follow include : • Analysis - Chapter 2 • Vision & Goals - Chapter 3 • Framework Plan - Chapter 4 • Transportation - Chapter 5 • Principles & Policies - Chapter 6 • Implementation - Chapter 7 3/16/99 Chapter 1 0 Introduction 7 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 8 Chapter 1 • Introduction 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Vicinity Map 1 I yLy .�1r i IJ�JJ 4 1 ��• T �r•��i • �. i���v�: LIr y �n LAJL71 Study Area Tar Ufj y - - -ry 1 1_ 1 Fort Collins �N r - NGMA Boundary Railroad Arterial Streets College Avenue N i1:S�d Project Study Area 5000 0 5000 10000 Feet Local Streets Waterways Annexation Boundary March 16, 1999 City Limits Area Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 10 Chapter 1 • Introduction 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 2 - Analysis 2 . 1 Introduction This Chapter first provides an assessment of existing conditions, facilities, services, and relevant issues affecting development in the subarea. The assessment also includes future needs and planned facilities and services for the subarea. Next, case study research on similar projects that have been developed throughout the country is summarized . Finally, it presents an analysis of key opportunities and constraints that will influence the planning and future development of the area. A more detailed assessment of existing conditions is pre- sented in Appendix A-5 , Existing Conditions, Infrastructure , & Services Assessment, and the complete list of the projects analyzed in the case study research is located in Appendix A-4, Case Study Research. 2 . 2 Existing Conditions, Infrastructure, & Services Assessment This section provides a brief summary of the factors affecting development within the sub- area. These factors include existing land use and ownership patterns, infrastructure and services, environmental conditions , and transportation facilities . 2 . 2 . 1 Existing Land Use and Ownership Patterns The Mountain Vista area has retained its rural, agricultural character despite the tremendous growth occurring in the City and region. The major exception is the Anheuser-Busch brew- ery located in the northwestern portion of the subarea. Adjacent land uses include existing County subdivisions to the west, established residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial uses to the south, and agriculture with limited commercial and public to the east and north of the subarea (see Existing Land Use and Ownership Map at the end of this Chapter) . •'yy�..' y . 'S a T ti 3/16/99 Chapter 2 • Analysis 11 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Land within the subarea is under the possession of 22 property owners . Thirteen major landowners, those with 40 acres or more, possess approximately 95% of the total land area. Anheuser-Busch is the largest landowner with approximately 1133 acres or 35 . 9% of the total land area. In addition, Mountain Vista Subarea contains several historic resources, including single family homes, farmhouses and out buildings, Plummer School, and railroad-related facilities . 2 . 2 . 2 Existing Structure Plan and Zoning Map The Existing Structure Plan, adopted as an element of City Plan in 1997, reflects a future land use pattern of mixed-use neighborhoods , residential, employment, community commercial and industrial uses . This generalized land use and transportation map establishes a founda- tion for more detailed planning (See map at end of Chapter.) . Similarly, the Existing Zoning Map, also adopted in 1997, provides a basis for assessing new zoning within the incorporated areas of the study area (See map at end of Chapter) . Any recommendations that come from the Subarea Plan will be based on the Framework Plan described in Chapter 4 of this document. 2 . 2 . 3 Infrastructure and Services Water Utilities. The East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) will likely serve the majority of the Mountain Vista Subarea, while the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Water) will most likely serve the Anheuser-Busch property. Both service providers have stated they have sufficient water lines and water supply to serve new development within the subarea. Sanitary Sewer. The majority of the subarea is under the jurisdiction of the Boxelder Sanita- tion District (BSD) , which asserts to have sufficient capacity to provide full sewer service for the subarea. In addition, the City of Fort Collins possesses an inactive line that extends to the Anheuser-Busch development, although it is unknown whether future development would connect to this system. Stormwater Drainage. The Cooper Slough Drainage Basin is the primary drainage basin in the subarea. The Cooper Slough floodplain has limited capacity in some locations and flow can become restricted at Vine Drive . The Cooper Slough Implementation Plan, 1987, recom- mended a system of improvements to mitigate the effects of flooding within the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin, although the majority of these improvements have not been imple- mented . Recently, the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Stormwater) stated that an update to the Cooper Slough Master Plan is needed to accurately identify the floodplain and to recommend necessary improvements before extensive development in the area can take place . Poudre Fire Authority. The Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) has two service delivery-points (stations) currently serving the northeast area that will adequately serve the subarea, al- 12 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan though the current water system infrastructure is insufficient to support growth in Moun- tain Vista. It is expected, however, that new developments will provide the necessary water system infrastructure , as is typical throughout the city. Fort Collins Police Services. Mountain Vista' s predominately agricultural land currently requires a minimal amount of police services . At full development, on the other hand, the area is expected to include up to 15 ,000 residents over a twenty-year time line . Police Services would need to hire additional staff to maintain current levels of service, including up to fifteen officers, two sergeants, and five detectives . Total personnel increases, in 1999 dollars, are expected to include $ 3 ,055 ,950 first year costs, and $ 2 ,407,050 for on-going costs . In addition, a substation would be needed in the northeast area, which would cost approximately $ 200,000 . City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation. There are currently no parks within the Moun- tain Vista Subarea Plan area; however, two neighborhood parks ( 10 acres) and one com- munity size park (100- 150 acres) are planned for the subarea. In addition, smaller neighbor- hood parks will be incorporated into Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods . Off-street trails are also proposed throughout the area. New parks are likely to be closely connected with school sites and integrated into new developments . A variety of funding sources is available for the development of parks, including development impact fees . Poudre School District. The Poudre School District (PSD) presently has one elementary school adjacent to the subarea, Tavelli Elementary, which is near capacity. Another elemen- tary site has been acquired in conjunction with the Waterfield PUD Project parcel near Vine Drive and Summitview/Timberline Drive. In addition, the District has acquired an approxi- mate 110-acre site for a future senior high school north of Mountain Vista Drive and east of County Road 11 . The existing Lincoln Junior High School, with future expansion, is ex- pected to accommodate future student needs in north Fort Collins . 2 . 2 .4 Environmental Conditions The ecological setting for the Mountain Vista Subarea is significantly altered by human activity, and is characterized by flat croplands, channelized watercourses, and a major indus- trial facility (Anheuser-Busch) , as well as remarkable, open views of the mountains . Some of the environmental impacts that will occur from new growth in the Mountain Vista Subarea are clearly understood . Mitigation is planned for resource areas that are identified with wildlife habitat and migration. Natural areas ' values will be carefully considered (e .g. , by implementing habitat enhancement plans) and wide buffer zones will be included when development occurs in proximity to these sites . The presence of irrigation canals in the Mountain Vista Subarea provides good opportunities for bike and pedestrian paths . Pro- tecting and enhancing buffer areas along the canals can help provide habitat for urban wildlife . The effects on air quality from new growth's increased automobile emissions are not as easily addressed . The deliberate role of subarea projects in City Plan is to create new 3/16/99 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 13 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan "activity centers" that facilitate use of alternative transportation. This will help Fort Collins move toward its adopted goal "to continually improve air quality as the city grows", which at the same time acknowledges that some localized deterioration will occur in the community. Finally, the location of the Anheuser-Busch plant makes it a significant industrial feature on the Mountain Vista landscape . A large buffer zone has been designated between the plant and residential land uses to reduce the potential for incompatible land uses as future devel- opment occurs . 2 . 2 . 5 Transportation Facilities Existing Transportation Network. A network of roadways , providing access to Fort Collins, unincorporated residential neighborhoods, the Anheuser-Busch brewery, and I-25 to the east, currently serves the transportation network found within the Mountain Vista Subarea. Roadways in the area consist of primarily low volume two-lane County roads, with the excep- tion of East Vine Drive, I-25 , and North Lemay Avenue . East Vine Drive is a two-lane collector road, which runs east/west along the southern portion of the subarea. North Lemay Avenue is a minor arterial and is located along the subarea's western boundary. Mountain Vista Drive runs east/west through the center of the subarea and connects to Busch Drive, which pro- vides primary access to the Anheuser-Busch brewery. Interstate 25 is located directly to the east and can be accessed at the Mountain Vista Drive interchange, the sole interchange in the subarea. Other roads in the subarea include East County Road 52 , which runs east/west in the northern portion of the subarea, and County Roads 11 , 9E, and 9, which run north/south. In general, traffic volumes are low in this primarily undeveloped area according to the City's 1997 traffic counts . ,.... � ' MEAEft S. . , NOW- • ,V 91 MW or r M. _ . yam+ , + • _NNNNN L `_ * NJ . r � i � 14 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 . 3 Case Study Research 2 . 3 . 1 Introduction A series of case studies were undertaken to review issues and opportunities associated with similar traditional neighborhood developments (TND) . Key factors in several project ex- amples included : integration of a centrally located commercial core area, mixed-use designa- tions, pedestrian and transit oriented design, and quality public spaces and destinations that are easily accessible . The complete case studies are included in Appendix A-4, Case Study Research . 2 .3 . 2 Analysis of Case Study Research Several challenges and successes were common to most of the case study projects . Some of the biggest challenges to developing projects, and attracting residents and commercial and office employers included : • incompatible/inflexible development standards causing time delays ; • attracting builders and lenders unaccustomed to traditional neighborhood developments ; • concerns from police, fire, and other public works related to narrow streets, alleys etc. ; and • support from landowners and the local community. In general, infrastructure readiness for major roads and improvements attracted quality and timely developments . New residents cited proximity to work, sense of community, and architecture and style, among others, as reasons for moving to these developments . Finally, compromises among developers, service providers, and development regulators helped to minimize delays and costs . 2 . 3 . 3 Relationship of Case Studies with City Plan One of the initial steps in the City Plan process involved a comprehensive analysis of nation- wide regional and municipal plans that incorporated mixed-use developments, activity centers, and multi-modal transportation corridors. This comprehensive analysis assisted citizens, officials , consultants, and staff in the eventual development of City Plan, and more specifically in the general "structure" of the Mountain Vista Subarea. Similarly, the case study research provided staff and the consultant team with valuable insight in further refining the "framework" of future land use , open lands, and transportation system for the subarea. It also further complements the vision, structure , and policies identified in City Plan for the Mountain Vista Subarea. 2 .4 Identification of Issues One of the preliminary components of the planning process was to create a list of issues that will influence the planning and future development of the Mountain Vista Subarea and 3/16/99 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 15 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan adjoining neighborhoods. The initial list was developed after an analysis of physical attributes of the area, discussed in the Existing Conditions, Infrastructure, and Services Assessment Appendix (A-5) . These issues were further refined over a series of meetings with the Advi- sory Committee, City staff, and the consultants. The issues helped to form the foundation for the next elements of the plan, including the Vision & Goals and Principles & Policies. The detailed list of these issues is found in the Issues Analysis Appendix (A-3) . From this list, the following key issues were identified: • balance and compatibility of proposed land uses ; • buffering employment from residential and other land uses ; • avoiding generic strip commercial pattern around transportation corridors ; • preserving significant natural areas and views ; • integrating existing development with future development; • connectivity between existing neighborhoods and new developments, traffic congestion, and pedestrian linkages ; • integrating schools , parks, open space, and trails with new development; and • integrating development with the northeast truck route . 2 . 5 Summary of Planning Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Based on a review of the assessment of existing conditions, list of key issues , and case study research, the following summary analysis describes the various opportunities and constraints to the subarea's growth and development. In addition, this analysis summarizes the various considerations that will influence the evaluation and preparation of the Vision & Goals and Principles & Policies developed for the subarea. They are also illustrated graphically on the Opportunities & Constraints Map at the end of this Chapter. Existing Ownership and Land Use The majority of the subarea is undeveloped, presenting opportunities for most of the area to be planned from the ground up ; however, the few existing and approved projects located in the subarea will impact the planning and eventual development of the overall area. In addi- tion, the subarea is under the possession of approximately 22 landowners, with Anheuser- Busch being the largest. Cooperation among the landowners concerning potential develop- ment, location of roads, and an overall vision for the area, will influence the success and timing of the area' s development. Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods Existing County subdivisions are located to the west of the subarea, and established single family neighborhoods, such as the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods , are located south of the subarea. The subarea's proposed urban residential densities, and commercial and employment uses may impact the character of these neighborhoods and increase traffic congestion along Country Club Road. However, the proposed Transportation Plan will provide additional connections for travel between the northeast portion of the City and other destinations throughout the City -- thus minimizing future impacts on city and county roads . 16 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Northeast Truck Route Study The proposed truck route will likely travel though the Dry Creek floodplain, south of the Larimer Weld Canal in the southwestern portion of the subarea. This major travel corridor will alleviate truck traffic along College Avenue, but may isolate potential development south of the bypass from the rest of the subarea, and may create noise and safety issues for adjoin- ing neighborhoods . Existing Railroad Guiding Yard An existing railroad switching yard is located along Vine Drive west of Summitview/I'imber- line Drive, and a line continues northeast to the Anheuser-Busch property and on to Wyo- ming. Noise , safety, and transportation access issues (additional street access across the rail- road line is prohibited) associated with the railroad may limit the development opportunities of adjacent areas. Stormwater Drainage The majority of the subarea falls within the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin, which naturally flows from the north to the southeast, although significant improvements to the basin are required before the area can be fully developed. Future improvements within the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin that are key to developing land uses, streets and trails in the study area are illustrated in the Water Features Analysis map at the end of this Chapter. Four proposed regional detention ponds are shown adjacent to the Larimer/Weld Canal. Improve- ments to the Dry Creek Floodway are located along the southwest portion of the study area. A new drainageway is proposed to deflect surface drainage and incorporate a regional off- street bikeway running diagonally through the middle of the study area. Existing Ditches and Canals The ditch and canal facilities, such as the No . 8 Outlet Ditch, Larimer and Weld Canal, and Lake Canal serve as limiting factors for the area' s development, but may also provide recre- ational opportunities as walking corridors . The No . 8 Outlet Ditch is proposed to either be covered or deflected along the proposed drainageway mentioned above . An extensive floodplain is currently located south of the Lake Canal and along Dry Creek; however, once Q _. ] • - 3/16/99 Chapter 2 • Analysis 17 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan proposed improvements to Dry Creek have been implemented, the remaining land will allow for Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods called for in the Framework Plan. Natural Areas Significant natural areas within the Mountain Vista Subarea are located in the Cooper Slough and Dry Creek Resource Areas . These natural areas may constrain development in adjacent areas ; however, portions of the natural areas may present opportunities for appropriate public uses (such as wildlife viewing and walking) . Trails A network of greenways and off-road trails may be located throughout the subarea along existing ditch and canal facilities and proposed rights-of-ways . This network may provide pedestrian connections between neighborhoods , schools, the commercial center, and em- ployment areas, and may connect to existing trail facilities in the City and County. Views The Mountain Vista Subarea offers impressive views of the foothills and mountains . Opportu- nities exist to configure road alignments and developments to maintain scenic vistas and corridors . Gateways The Opportunities and Constraints Map identifies opportunities for creating gateways to the subarea along primary corridors that intersect adjacent land uses, and existing and proposed interchanges along I-25 , including Mountain Vista Drive and East Vine Drive . Gateways can help establish and reinforce the image and identity of the subarea and provide distinction between the area and surrounding neighborhoods . Future Employment District City Plan identified most of the Anheuser-Busch property for employment and industrial uses to help ensure long-term employment growth for the City. The development of this employment district will require a great deal of design and care to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses, and should encourage transit use . The development may, however, further increase traffic conflicts along major roads within and adjacent to the area. Timberline Road Extension The City's Master Transportation Plan recommends that Timberline Road extend from the south across Vine Drive at the present location of N . County Road 9 and connect with Moun- tain Vista Drive at the proposed location of the Community Commercial Center. This con- nection would provide an additional north-south travel corridor for automobiles and transit, and would help minimize additional traffic congestion along the existing road network within and adjacent to the area. 18 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Community Facilities The City has planned to develop a community park and several neighborhood parks in the subarea; an elementary school and high school are also proposed . An opportunity exists to incorporate the development of parks and schools and to locate them along proposed greenways and trails . Overhead Power Lines The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Map displays the location of overhead power lines in the subarea. Overhead power lines are unsightly and may limit the development potential of portions of the subarea. 3/16/99 Chapter 2 0 Analysis 19 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 20 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 •= : � \■ ■■ ram ' •' �® � 1 ■ ��� Ilmm�nlmnnd4 �� tt WIN Eme -m =1 nn. o 'J • _ ' ul mmN nl■ p � _ '� IIIIIpp ilnni II ��� Iq p Cu1u1 _ nG� ,� • • ' • . � .r��J;.: : 1-i•�: jJ lose _ �• �•i $ ,moo'1 �u. e a 11 �1. • G IIIIII.m/ I■'Imn• �1■ —II • • L� IIIIq C= -1111 Milli . — . . . . 111 • of MEMO! MEMO! _ • - • I . . . . . - Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 22 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea tOU "141�r► �1 ' Existing FL P g Structure Plan Fa • T r•,.fr : • . L A'al Ibrl c7.:trr IT o® milli J� 0 . r . . . . i �., LEGEND: v� Plan Boundary March 16, 1999 Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential ry 0 Medium-Density Mixed-Use Residential City Owned Natural Areas (as of 6/26/96) 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet - Community Commercial District ® Employment District **% ** High Frequency Transit nI ® Industrial District .i Feeder Transit ' • - Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors �'��' Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 24 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 1 � 1 Oil - ■_ ■ � (p - . . .. .. ram �� �1 1111 a /����� ��I■ II Jill � III pI11O 1111�1��I u-uo■uuu-ue row ��i�i�i4� �� ��♦ 1��1�i1 i 1 ■� .. ♦1011 �. •.�1 1 ■ 6nnp .. nnp��11 1 ►y1� � �r n�0 � ��l��i♦♦ice�1�1�i�ii�� ■ �1�► ►\�_� ���)� p •��►� MEup Its 0� \►►����, _� ,� 11♦♦j 11 1�. 1 T � 1: . . .7 �11111111 ■ 711111 I,��-i�% \nnnn.mm■I�'' �' ,�;'��.��--�-�•- I ,��iiri �,;,,, , ��mm�m��i�"� ��1��'\Ii\\► �•`\♦1I` n `� �� 1 aim V. • J�m1111. - . ► i � � �� /'► :o _ ..mPie►mA /mnr\ /�1 4 .- ` ♦ - III, II ����/�IIII �. �mmn. .■ �r \�� �?�� � � II �• /III IIp� .ppi� - .�1 , . I�mmm �����• III/IIII11111111111111�171� � ■ .. �� ENE NINE It Er 111 1 111 • 111 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 26 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 ■ � � .: .�. .. ■. ram, �� nnp► 1' a~ — � �4 - -Z _ FA 30 1I m ■ c rr � , �I� J 011 .-m4L �i :_ �■E 1■�� s PII Ls � Ir i � ♦� •-::( \�Mi AME ��II�::�=:�� •�►� Potentia �Clenfion Po - !ice\ „ ;� ►s. , � , _ mod T/� �nnmm�e �nnmgl/ mmr .•. 'p IN I loss FA �� u11n11 n„� _ 1/ ICI 1111�111nnu0 1 1. L Aquatic Floodway Foothills Forest _ Grasslands 11 Year Floodplain Marsh & Wet Meadow 111 I III 11 Year Floodplain BoundaryRiparian Forest Topography Undesirable Riparian Shrub * Plan Upland Shrubland Waterways . . . Urban Plains Forest imio Weedy Forbland Parcels Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 28 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 ♦ ■■■■, iMEN . OF, All FA ENNA ■moor NONE o ♦ ♦ " ��♦ • ENNA FA lip ENNA IF ■■■■" / I� - �A:• moor Existing and Futuremoor ..■r / VA IF ♦♦♦ Gateway Significant views • ♦-.S •i �y is �:♦ � I� 7 v%v ..,• • r 44% in Neighlaorhood Park 0 N" • l 04 •. a . ■ �+� �� 1•�►��•• `D - dl\0 IN Weill it 1�` i�i l i I _ - _ - - _ • - .. - •- - o Ip MI r 4, LEGEND / Plan Boundary j* GrovAh Management Area City Limits Waterways Railroad A/ Streets 111 1 111 111 . . . Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 30 Chapter 2 • Analysis 3/16/99 I , • , I 1 , I • 1 • I I 1 • • " 1 I • 1 • SIM • • ' 1 • " • I • • • • • • �w FIR / VIM ` Y t �. � // � 4 �•r$y4ti t. ♦ '-/1/Da L ..pYn� �d ��.. � �ti� �� I/��V ���;y :.r^! {y, . b. , a i� �f �e'✓ �1'�� � ���� Jy�/ ' n� �� �/��.�� �_. .:, , n `I�-'�1� =.�_e�'\. ���fy � ��'9i,.1 ��♦rF .���Ya sa �t}N .". ,i 4 �{�'•����!Nr�� '. �•t �f'Q'�y���.VG��:i�lltr.�{ j�� iA� �':�!! `s IFLEN (i•� 'i� � d: MY _ ^ .C' � `�l ilk I /�y. _J .i > Gam.« 33• _ 11� �. ! uiw� rs ,.>✓ a~ -y/!//i c7/�+�s '/�ii�i� �s��3�����r•1�� ��.� � -� . ,iq �rj1 r" � �a 1.,, ;"�'. L= rt '�' � �' :� ��: 9 i •1 � a ri .'ii Y � -_ �-�. .� �_YM � �►-"�- �+ .�'-v t� _ yi' 1 � �0�1�r mil.-_ iIF F M, .a " • • • • • • • • • • " " • • 1 • • • i Idd d FAIN ri-JL•1'a�Ys /I� f� r %J/r�L� ,"'� \�` '.i'1 U � ,�j� ��s� + � � ,�pjr� ���'�t�.. \ '. t' i � C / pi�r.� rnnrniycr"' Y^+'i•�.., � �� /� P'b �y � VVP�^ ��TL� I'I � +�� d yr: fl'�yI JI` �!i l01 l h i� �i la �E .�� � 7� .r J►, AT � ' i1�11 III flll'�lt�}lY�I I _ ..11� i► gl`>1N + I �� I • 3 .� I'C"�ia.A/• a J� .�I,tir�s"+ \ 1�\.t� / .imiA 21 11 . • G� �� OFF . Ala' w ir�_ _ ii"r 1 '• i • FfA f� of 61 �� Y ' � !J�� '� ¢ -��r•�'�' , ._ i,^ ��� �I' Y�m•.•ui� r+ IA �l r. 'I�` ` ,�',!• % '. . i.. v/��) �. 'LIZ' 1�•'t._I. .1 � ttx'; ,. `/ 111 ' +t ` �;;,�': -ri ry� t — �- Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Mountain Vista's major employment and industrial districts will combine a variety of business types and sizes allowing for a range of job opportunities. The employment center will be designed so that it is compatible and blends with surrounding residential uses . Workplaces and supporting uses will be arranged to encourage car-pooling, transit, and other modes of travel. The transportation network in Mountain Vista will be well balanced and provide smooth flow- ing connections between the commercial center, employment and industrial districts, area neighborhoods, and other local and regional areas . Walkways, bike paths, and efficient transit systems with stops at comfortable focal points, will provide alternative transportation choices for Mountain Vista residents and employees . Residents and visitors to Mountain Vista will enjoy the amenities provided by the natural fea- tures of the area. Mountain Vista will have a network of greenways and trails that provide connections to community activity areas and open space . Existing natural areas within the subarea will be preserved and enhanced to protect these important natural resources and provide aesthetics to the community. 3 . 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Goals The Mountain Vista Goals listed below either: 1) establish concepts not previously addressed in City Plan ; or 2) reinforce City Plan concepts if useful or helpful. Subarea-related goals that have been sufficiently addressed in the Community Goals section of City Plan are not repeated in this document. For a full understanding of the subarea goals, please refer to City Plan as well. The community goals for Mountain Vista are organized into eight categories : • Land Use • Transportation • Community Image and Design • Economy • Housing* • Environment* • Open Lands * • Growth Management These categories have been organized to make it easier to translate the Goals into specific strategies over time . Most of the goals have implications that overlap into other categories as well. * The Housing, Environment, and Open Lands categories of Community Goals have already been sufficiently addressed in City Plan. 3/16/99 Chapter 3 0 Vision and Goals 33 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 . 3 . 1 Land Use Goal Al Mountain Vista will have mixed-use neighborhoods providing services and facilities in proximity to residential areas . Goal A2 Mountain Vista will have a Community Commercial District that provides a central and integrated location with an appropriate balance of residential, retail, civic, and social facilities . Goal A3 Mountain Vista will have an Employment and Industrial District with a variety of business types and sizes and will be designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses . 3 . 3 . 2 Transportation Goal B1 Mountain Vista' s Community Commercial District will serve as the area' s public transit hub . Goal B2 Mountain Vista' s Employment and Industrial Districts will be designed to encourage car-pooling, transit, and other non-auto modes of travel. Goal B3 Mountain Vista will incorporate multiple options for both north-south and east-west travel corridors, in order to accommodate new development without unduly burden- ing existing roadways that serve surrounding areas . 3 .3 . 3 Community Appearance and Design Goal C 1 Important view corridors and vistas in Mountain Vista will be protected and en- hanced. Goal C2 Mountain Vista will have gateways that provide distinctive identity for the area at highway entryways to Fort Collins . Goal C3 Mountain Vista's new neighborhoods will be designed in a manner that promotes individually characterized neighborhood structure and identity. Goal C4 Our community will encourage preservation of existing historic resources including homes , and Plummer School. 3 .3 .4 Economy Goal D1 Economic development opportunities, including primary employment and support- ing businesses, will be encouraged as an integral part of Mountain Vista' s Commu- 34 Chapter 3 0 Vision and Goals 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan nity Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Districts, providing a broad range of employment opportunities for its residents . 3 .3 . 5 Housing (addressed in City Plan Community Goals) 3 . 3 .6 Environment (addressed in City Plan Community Goals) 3 . 3 . 7 Open Lands (addressed in City Plan Community Goals) 3 . 3 . 8 Growth Management Goal H1 In Mountain Vista, the provision of adequate public facilities and the phasing of infrastructure improvements will be important considerations in the timing and location of development. Goal H2 Development in Mountain Vista will respect the integrity of the rural/urban interface . 3/16/99 Chapter 3 0 Vision and Goals 35 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 36 Chapter 3 • Vision and Goals 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 4 - Framework Plan 4 . 1 Introduction The centerpiece of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is a Framework Plan (located at the end of this Chapter) . This "framework" represents an integrated pattern of existing and future land use, a transportation system, and a network of open lands -- establishing a guide for growth in this northeast part of the city. The Framework Plan will be incorporated directly into the overall City Structure Plan, which is part of City Plan . In other words, this Frame- work Plan is an amendment to the City Structure Plan . Key building blocks or "pieces of the puzzle" include new residential neighborhoods, elemen- tary and senior high school, community park, commercial center, employment and industrial districts . These destinations will be linked by a system of transportation corridors serving vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel that provides a high level of connectivity, inter- nally and to other destinations throughout the community. 4 . 2 Basis of Framework Plan The Framework Plan builds on the directions established in City Plan . City Plan emphasizes compact urban form, with `Activity Centers" in transit-served areas, and an interconnected system of open lands . The Mountain Vista Framework Plan map supports and implements these community-wide concepts at a more detailed neighborhood level. 4 . 3 Framework Plan Design Objectives • Build on City Plan as a Foundation. Provide a clear direction and sufficient level of detail for the City Plan vision to be implemented throughout this area of the city. The City Structure Plan is the starting point for Framework Plan development. • Land Use/Transportation Interrelationships. A balanced transportation system which addresses automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian needs should complement land uses in order to promote safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Traffic and circulation patterns support new development, while protecting and serving existing neighborhoods . • "Walkable" Neighborhoods . Neighborhoods are the subarea's foundational building block. Develop a self-supporting composite of neighborhoods with a full complement of parks , schools, and community facilities linked by open space systems . • Integrated Open Space. A network of connecting parks, trails, school fields, storm drainage ways, and natural areas should be incorporated into future land uses and transportation systems. • Community Commercial District as a Primary Destination of Subarea. Development of the Community Commercial District, centrally located in the Mountain Vista area, will serve as a major community activity center for living, working, shopping and entertainment. 3/16/99 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 37 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • Major Employment Center. The northeast area of Mountain Vista, anchored by the existing Anheuser-Busch facility, will serve as a major center of employment for the City, supported by nearby neighborhoods . • Amount and Location of Community Facilities. Plan for key community facilities includ- ing: neighborhood and community size parks, elementary and senior high school, public plazas, transit station, police substation, and branch library. • Reality of Existing Development and Constraints. Examples : railroad and switching yards, canals and ditches, existing County roads, existing County development, and infra- structure . • Reality in Market Acceptance . Goal: Design supported in market place . 4 . 4 Land Use Classifications 4.4 . 1 Summary Tables Tables 4- 1 and 4-2 summarize the acreage and potential development under each land use classification, based on assumptions regarding likely densities and limitations . Implementa- tion mechanisms , which will be used to achieve the densities and uses specified in the land use classifications, are identified in Chapter 7, Implementation. 38 Chapter 4 9 Framework Plan 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 44 Framework Plan Land Use Area and Estimated Population Land Use Gross Residential DU/Acre Dwelling Total Acres' Acres' Minimum3 Units4 Populations Residential Low Density Mixed-Use 1 , 744 .4 17046. 7 5 .0 57233 127717 Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed- 156. 2 109 . 3 12 .0 11312 3 , 188 Use Neighborhoods Subtotals 1 ,900.6 17156.0 NA 6, 545 15 ,905 Non-Residential Community Commercial 82 .8 120 292 District Industrial 337.6 Employment 670 .4 Subtotals 1 ,090.8 120 292 Public/Other: Community Park 109. 1 Subtotals 109. 1 Total 39100.0 6,665 169197 Source: Advance Planning Department, March 16, 1999 1-5 Terminology explanations follow Table 4-2 on next page . 3/16/99 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 39 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 4=2 Existing Structure Plan Land Use Area and Estimated Population Land Use Gross Residential DU/Acre Dwelling Total Acres Acres' minimum Units4 Populations Residential Low Density Mixed-Use 1 ,920 .4 1 , 152 . 2 5 .0 5 ,761 14 000 Neighborhoods' ' Medium Density Mixed- 219 .4 153 .6 12 .0 11843 41478 Use Neighborhoods Subtotals 2 , 139.8 1 , 305 .8 NA 7,604 18,478 Non-Residential Community Commercial 57.0 120 292 District Industrial 469.3 Employment 433 .9 Subtotals 960. 2 Total 39100.0 79724 189770 Source: Advance Planning Department, March 16, 1999 Assumptions : 1 Gross Acres : is the total amount of land on the map in each land use classification. Note that in the mixed-use neighborhood classifications , this will include both residential and non-residential land uses . ' Residential Acres : is an adjusted amount of land assumed to be available for solely resi- dential development. This can then be multiplied by the density number to forecast the number of dwelling units . An adjustment factor of .6 (60%) was used for Low Density classification; a factor of . 7 (70%) was used for Medium Density. In other words, an assumption is made that 60% of all the land in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will be available for solely residential development after neighborhood parks, schools, churches , neighborhood centers, natural areas , drainageways, and other such non-residential uses are accounted for, along with layout inefficiencies caused by landforms, parcel shapes, and other such constraints unique to each site. The result — the "Residential Acres" — is then multiplied by a density number to forecast the number of dwelling units . 40 Chapter 4 9 Framework Plan 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Note that the streets in residential development are not part of the adjustment factor — they are left in the `Residential Acres' to be considered part of residential development. This is consistent with the Land Use Code calculation used for actual development plans . 3 DU/Acre Minimum: is the Dwelling Units per Acre Minimum. This is the minimum aver- age density required by the Land Use Code in the Low Density Mixed-Use and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods . 4 Dwelling Units : are calculated by multiplying Net Acres against DU/Acre Minimum . s Population: is calculated by multiplying Dwelling Units by Persons Per Household . Per- sons Per Household is currently estimated at 2 .43 in Fort Collins . 4 . 4 . 2 Population Projections The Tables show that the projected population for the Mountain Vista Subarea, based on the Plan, is 16, 197. The City Structure Plan originally adopted with City Plan had projected 18, 770 for the equivalent area. This difference of about 2 , 500 people is minor in the context of the whole city, given the variables and assumptions involved. Staff believes that this is still consis- tent with City Plan 's overall vision for accommodating the population forecast upon which it is generally based. 4.4. 3 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood classification represents the largest land use on the Framework Plan. These neighborhoods will provide a majority of future residential growth in the northeast area of the city. In addition, these future neighborhoods will provide a transition from existing County development to the west, and higher density neighborhoods, commercial, employment and industrial uses further to the east. A Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood land use classification is located adjacent to the Community Commercial District, central to the subarea. This neighborhood is intended to be a place for attached and multi-family housing within easy walking distance of transit and the Community Commercial District. This neighborhood will form a transition and a link between the surrounding lower density neighborhoods and the commercial center with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks . Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and outdoor spaces will be arranged to create an inviting and convenient living environment. 4.4.4 Community Commercial District The Community Commercial land use classification is a community-based destination serving primarily the northeast area of the city, but possibly serving the whole community to some degree . This district will combine a mix of retail, services, and civic and residential uses in uniquely distinct and identifiable place (See Concept Plan at end of Chapter.) . The develop- ment of the district will incorporate pedestrian oriented design with a series of mixed-use 3/16/99 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 41 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan blocks, designated "main street" , transit station, and public spaces -- oriented along a network of streets that are aligned to take advantage of long-distance views towards the mountains (See Enlargement Plan, Figure 4 . 1 .) . Figure 4. 1 Community Commercial District - Plan Enlargement "Main Street" PWWV*W"W+l k W Wk 8pbY I■idryy F"w)ki IL fa efma7 ii wi amai LNNrirn IVIti 31 ma &fRk I '*hi25 ar ao-a¢.otiaa crrry a emm �. a YCXWAN MTrkSU1NREh PLtih1 rr � �■„ Nam feel IUhmtk n r r � C+l�cYs *5+h mina The designated main street within the district will have a downtown-like environment that supports pedestrian activity with positive, comfortable streetscape design including streetfront building entrances and wide sidewalks (See Sections of Main Street, Figure 4 . 2 .) . This district will have a transit hub that is linked to the downtown by a high frequency transit corridor along Conifer Street. The size of the Community Commercial District on the Framework Plan map is about 80 acres. This is intended to be an adequate or slightly generous amount of land for such a district to accommodate multiple needs and purposes . First, this district needs to include a supermarket to serve the surrounding neighborhoods, based on long-standing, successful local practices and on City Plan. This is expected to be most viable if a typical, 10- to 15-acre supermarket-anchored grouping of uses is accommo- dated. In other words, room for a "Neighborhood Commercial District" , as described in City Plan and the Land Use Code, is embedded in this Community Commercial District. Second, a greenway/drainageway/trail corridor and a couple of small parks or green squares are intended to be included within the district. 42 Chapter 4 9 Framework Plan 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Third, this district is intended to have room for commercial anchor uses such as apparel and dry goods retailing, theaters, inns or hotels, and other similar uses to serve the greater northeast Fort Collins area. (Note that such anchor uses are expected to be able to fit into the pattern of street fronts and blocks, with parking lots located away from the connecting street frontages, thus avoiding an auto-oriented regional power center dominated by its parking lots and traffic.) Fourth, this district is intended to include a generous mix of uses including offices, housing, and civic uses (See Land Use Diagram at end of Chapter.) . To summarize, this district is not intended to be an 80-acre commercial development. It is intended to be a mixed, downtown-like area with some green spaces . For a comparison of total size, about a 12-block area of downtown Fort Collins is also about 80 acres. One ex- ample would be an area bounded by College Avenue and Sherwood Street, and Mountain Avenue and Maple Street (See Circulation Diagram at end of Chapter.) . Figure 4.2 Community Commercial DistrictMain Street Section - 1, Main Street Section 2 f M IYfain lit fiction: oiagvnM On4Uwt Fafflng WRhoutUMways . gym Nbm�bu bm. PlIhnnrm"" 3/16/99 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 43 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4. 4 . 5 Employment/Industrial Districts The existing Anheuser-Busch brewery establishes the core of future industrial use in the northeast. With future expansion of the brewery and new industry locating adjacent to this site , this Industrial District is situated to be easily accessed from the interstate, Mountain Vista Drive and the Burlington Northern rail line . The future Employment District is primarily located within the County Road 9 and Mountain Vista Drive corridors, with additional employment use located further to the south along East Vine Drive . The Employment land use classification will provide a buffer between industrial use and new residential neighborhoods to the west. This business district will also form a positive gateway design as entered off the Interstate . Both the Employment and Industrial Districts will provide approximately 1 . 5 square miles of future development. Demand for this type of growth is not expected in the short term, as East Prospect and Harmony Corridor will continue to provide available land for the next 5- 10 years . 4.4. 6 Public Uses Except for the large Community Park site , which has been purchased and will be shown on the City Structure Plan, these public uses are included in neighborhood and district classifica- tions for population projections and other overall City Plan and City Structure Plan pur- poses. This is because most of these uses are determined in conjunction with development plans as integral parts of neighborhoods and districts. The assumptions under Table 4 . 2 explain population projections based on classifications . School Facilities . The Poudre School District has determined a need for a new elementary school and a senior high school within the subarea. An existing elementary site has been dedicated as part of the Waterfield PUD Project off of East Vine Drive and Summitview Drive . An approximately 110-acre site has been acquired by the District for a future senior high school located on the northwest corner of Mountain Vista Drive and County Road 9E . Park Facilities. Based on future population projections for the northeast area of the City, consistent with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, there is a need for a community park, four neighborhood parks, four mini-parks , and additional trails within the subarea. The community-size park is located central to the subarea, which is approximately 100 acres . The neighborhood parks range between 6- 10 acres , and the mini-parks are between 1-2 acres . The trail system shown of the Framework Plan is intended to be primarily off-street, repre- senting a combination of paved and unpaved facilities . Other Public Facilities. Civic uses include public spaces within the Community Commercial District, future branch library and police substation, and transit station. 44 Chapter 4 9 Framework Plan 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4 . 4 . 7 Natural Areas Protection Protection of the area' s natural areas including those found along Cooper Slough, Dry Creek, along the Larimer and Weld Canal, and the wetlands within the Waterfield PUD are an impor- tant element of the Plan. This preservation is integrated into the design of land uses and street network to create a system of open lands that provide ample buffering from development, while providing opportunities for passive recreation. 4.4.8 Transportation The Framework Plan reflects an important interrelationship between land use and transporta- tion. The technical team determined that the transportation components of the Framework Plan raise issues so extensive that they warrant a separate chapter (Chapter 5) . 3/16/99 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 45 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 46 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 3/16/99 ■nr . �� ■ imas D I MEN I 111.E ��� ►��ip ; � IIQII �� _ •••�1 � ,, pnm nn ■nr111 :ti�■■ ' Dnm p. ■n■p��1. .� ,y��l , �, � iii�j� �1�111 �♦♦�� 1 � ■ ■ � .Y •� � ��ininn �� � . � �■■ � �. !IIII IIII Mountain Vista I Milk nrii n` I r1 IIIIIIIIIII: :IIIIIIII`�� Itl11111�j111 ���• 1 11111_II- 1_p ; ♦ •i p�•Iglplstill 1a • Iuuuud LInmO — ~ ■ � 'I_�. �_ I •nor . 09 • • ■ � III " 1 I III 11 1 11 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Community Commercial District - Conceptual Plan " .Ir r 4 }� r III tit Ript ; out 0? rat 16 �h ,�+� d , ; 'o �Gfi. f 4 5 - Z L ' _ i - r "> PIPE IF 40 IL • • r' - # .1 Yf' pf . L_ f r 'E!d ;T■PI 53f N ■ mini PL4* 48 Chapter 4 • Framework Plan 3/16/99 7 - in r J� ir i iiY#I��I 1 lip 4 +5 - lob �I �; ' . ' lll ih 91111 pr di, r 15� ,� �•ti• _ '�. I M J} .I •ice , F _ { �i• . �{L� : r ■.FL 1 it - I I. _{� 1'S Ell O 7 • li, i r d1b Von;r. 1. FA= ;�1 1 _ — = I 'k+: _ I 1 lL S t =- - 1 Yn• i n }l� 1 IFI fli I 1 141 __ •1 r 4 � � 4. �- � „ - = o ;_{ r, �• ,� - '*. .ram 16MIN f 3el NIP III ON L ■ . .$ ` c � f . • f + r f } 4 . -NIP I ' . 4 J • 7 rl ir N ,' ■ T�4 ` r # .x •. _ yIF am. �5' � ' I all ± • jwl� F _ONEZ ' S mom 11 on IF , ■ I f , - 4 '- * _ a s . - ' , Nor T� ��� -_�r ��,Yr` ,mow.. �1�.y . �I�L1. �• �11, u.--• Al♦ mom • r 5 11 r �.• S I • # — r IPA r � - � 'Mill 1 ■ 1 r � Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 5 - Transportation Transportation needs in the Mountain Vista Subarea are vitally connected to city, county, and regional transportation systems . In the effort of developing the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan transportation plan, the Transportation Planning Division and Balloffet & Associates considered land use and transportation needs in an iterative process, as well as regional and area-specific issues . Transportation planning in the area is based on the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, which included forecasts of future trip increases for the region. This plan forms the basis for the improvements shown in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan . These recommended improvements are consistent with the street classifications in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, and are projected to operate at the levels of service defined in the City of Fort Collins Multi Modal Level of Service Manual. For component changes to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, see map at the end of this Chapter. 5 . 1 Existing Transportation System A "bare-bones" network of roadways currently serves the Mountain Vista Subarea, primarily providing access to Fort Collins and both developed and undeveloped areas of the City and County. Most of the area's roadways are currently two-lane paved rural roads . The area has an interchange at 1-25 and Mountain Vista Drive , one mile north of Vine Drive in the north- east portion of the study area. The primary bicycle route serving the area is an on-street route along Lemay Avenue . Since the area is primarily undeveloped, there are no routes running through the Mountain Vista Area at present. AP F�Y4 y .{'•• 3/16/99 Chapter 5 • Transportation 51 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan There is currently no regular transit service to the area. The nearest service is a Transfort bus route that services a portion of Lemay Avenue between Vine Drive and Conifer Street, on the study area's western edge . 5 . 1 . 1 Issues In identifying transportation improvements, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan identified several issues of concern for providing adequate circulation within the area and to other parts of Fort Collins : • How can the Mountain Vista Subarea best be integrated into the county and citywide transportation systems? • What transportation service standards should govern land use decisions and vice versa? • How should transit access and bicycle and pedestrian circulation be provided? • How do the issues associated with the placement of the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route affect land use , street standards, setbacks , etc . ? • How does the location and operation of the Burlington Northern — Santa Fe Railroad affect land use and transportation plans? • What standards should be established for an Enhanced Travel Corridor for this area? • What measures are needed to ensure adequate access to community facilities and emergency access? 5 . 2 Transportation Planning Process The transportation planning process is summarized below. 5 . 2 . 1 Traffic Forecasting Increased traffic in the Mountain Vista Subarea was forecasted by combining future traffic levels projected for the area specified in the North Front Range Regional Model with vehicle trips that would be generated by full build-out of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Each major itera- tion of land use in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process was modeled to provide ongo- ing evaluation references for projected land use changes . The transportation analysis zones for the Mountain Vista Subarea were disaggregated to provide a more sensitive analysis of the land use variables . Where Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route alternatives became part of the transportation system' s infrastructure, additional trips were assigned to appropriate roadway links . Vehicle trips generated were estimated by completing full MINUTP model runs for each land use iteration. 52 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The total daily trip generation estimates for the Mountain Vista Subarea at build-out is esti- mated at approximately 106,000 vehicle trips. It is further estimated that approximately 10% of these trips (10, 600) would occur during the evening peak hour and 8% (8, 500) of these trips would occur in the morning peak hour. 5 . 2 . 2 Trip Distribution The directional distribution of trips generated by the Mountain Vista Table 5 - 1 Mountain Vista Subarea were derived from the North Front Range Regional Model. The Subarea Trip Distribution resulting trip distribution patterns are presented in Table 5- 1 . Average Direction DailyPercent As can be seen in the above table , the of Travel of Total majority of the traffic traveling to and Trips from the Mountain Vista Subarea will be to and from the south and west West 26 000 24 % (55 %) . These trips would be along Timberline Road, Vine Drive, and Conifer Street. Travel to and from the South 33 ,000 31 % I-25 interchange and the east is esti- mated at 18% . Travel to and from the East 19 , 000 18 % northwest via Douglas Road and Country Club Road is estimated at Northwest 111000 11 % 11 % . The remaining 16% of trips are estimated to be trips that have both Internal Travel 175000 16 % their trip origin and destination within the Mountain Vista Subarea. It Totals 1069000 100% should be noted that the internal trip estimate is conservative and will likely be higher. This would reduce the Source : Balloffet & Associates external trip percentages proportion- ally. 5 . 3 Street Network and Functional Classifications The Transportation Plan map at the end of this Chapter shows the future arterial, minor arterial, and collector street network for the Mountain Vista Subarea, including the number of through lanes and functional street classifications . Classifications are based on the street classification system in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan . Primary streets fall either within the category of arterials, which provide access between the Mountain Vista Subarea and other parts of the city or county -- or collectors , which provide for circulation within Mountain Vista' s various land uses including residential neighborhoods . 3/16/99 Chapter 5 • Transportation 53 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Specifications for the City's functional street classifications are described in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Street patterns and connectivity standards are de- scribed in Article 3 , Section 3 . 6 of the City' s Land Use Code. 5 . 3 . 1 Street Improvements Im L i Recommended street improvements in the Mountain Vista Subarea include : • Timberline Road (County Road 9E) will be expanded to four lanes and will travel to the north then northeast to align with Mountain Vista Drive . An underpass will be built at Timberline Road and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad. • Lemay Avenue will be expanded to a four-lane arterial. Lemay Avenue 's alignment remains consistent with the current Master Street Plan ( 1/99) . A new arterial-to-arterial intersection (Vine Drive at Lemay Avenue) will be built at the junction of the new Lemay Avenue and the realigned Vine Drive. An underpass will be built at Lemay Avenue and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad. • Mountain Vista Drive will be expanded to a four-lane arterial from the interchange at I-25 , and travel west and southwest to align with Timberline Road. An underpass will be built at Mountain Vista Drive and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad. 54 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • A new interchange will be constructed at Vine Drive and I-25 . • County Road 9E (Timberline Road) from Mountain Vista Drive north will be expanded to minor arterial status and align with the Enhanced Travel Corridor along the extended alignment of Conifer Street. • Conifer Street will be constructed as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. It will include two automobile travel lanes, one bi-directional transit lane, attached bike lanes, and detached sidewalks. The corridor will provide enhanced porosity into neighborhoods for bicyclists and pedestrians . • County Road 11 is recommended to be a minor arterial street extending north from Vine Drive to State Highway 1 . • The I-25 Frontage Road will be expanded to a two-lane collector street, with appropriate turn lanes at development access points and at cross-streets . The frontage road is recom- mended to be realigned to the west at its intersection with Vine Drive and Mountain Vista Drive . The frontage road will be extended north from Vine Drive to Mountain Vista Drive . • A new minor arterial is recommended between Vine Drive and Mountain Vista Drive east of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad . • Other collector streets are presumed to be two-lane streets with turn lanes as appropriate at intersections with minor arterial and other collector streets . The street alignments shown on the plan are to indicate the approximate location of collector and the exact locations of arterial streets. The collector will be designed to fit the character of the neigh- borhood, the projected impact of the proposed travel behavior, and any existing condi- tions that will affect the construction of the roadway. More detailed evaluation will be required as specific development areas are designed . Street cross-sections can be selected at that time based on Fort Collins standards and decisions about inclusion of on-street parking on particular streets . • East Vine Drive is programmed by the City to be expanded to a four-lane arterial street as described on the Master Street Plan . The current alignment of East Vine Drive will be modified, extending west from the intersection of Timberline Road, incorporating a new alignment extending northwest to intersect with the proposed Lemay Avenue bypass, and continuing west to intersect with North College Avenue at Pinon Street. (Revised by Reso- lution 99- 130 .) 5 . 3 . 2 Level of Service Congestion on roadways is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS) A through F, with LOS A representing completely free traffic flow and LOS F representing very high congestion levels, where the number of vehicles meets or exceeds the roadway' s capacity. The North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan sets a LOS threshold D for the region; the City of 10/19/99 Chapter 5 • Transportation 55 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Fort Collins Multi Modal Level of Service Manual presents a range of acceptable LOS , includ- ing E being acceptable for commercial arterial streets, D being acceptable for commercial collectors or residential major arterial streets, and C being acceptable for residential minor arterials and collectors . The roadway system as proposed for the subarea would provide a circulation system that meets all applicable Level of Service (LOS) standards . The only roadway segment providing access to and from the Mountain Vista Subarea that might exceed LOS standards is Lemay Avenue between Mulberry Street and Vine Drive, which is projected to experience Level of Service E or F at build-out. All other roads providing access to and from the subarea will meet all applicable Level of Service standards . 5 . 3 . 3 Bicycle Routes All arterial, minor arterial, and collector streets will be designated as on-street bicycle routes, connecting core neighborhood areas to other land uses both within and outside the Mountain Vista Subarea. In addition, off-road pedestrian/bicycle trails are recommended through the open space/park areas throughout the subarea. 5 .3 .4 Transit Service Transit Services will be provided consistent with the 2015 Transit Service Levels identified in City Plan. The area will have a transit hub located in the Community Commercial District with primary services concentrated on the Enhanced Travel Corridor via Conifer Street to Downtown, north/south on Timberline Road, and north/south from Park-and-Ride facilities at I-25 and Mountain Vista Drive . Transfort feeder bus service should be provided as warranted throughout the subarea as development occurs . 56 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 6 ' �111111 O■11111■ � � , ■ / � ITP Into in ammmmmmm �1�_ I�� i♦iI♦ i i p f� .. ��� ♦ .. ♦i p •� ii ��i�♦Iiis � "�.♦ ■ .aws In . Irm ■ ■nnn nn ■p■111 ��/ �■■ WE IVA MEN ,III■ �,��1 um. �. nn■♦41 ♦ � �►+��I , I�i • • ♦ �■ in . - 1 oil as Innn•Pi `�� � r����Ij�1 t o � I 1 om.�O►nu\ I nnn\ � �r �� �=�• � /' in min MENOMINEE son OF in IL :.n dlll►�O� � � II„Irllllllllllll\���� � I I ����nn�mnnmIN MEN it I• i•i Pnnnln°unnJ'I 111111 MIKE I,I.n1 Ip 11111111� %_ - . 1nn -/ i - L I • / I I� 1 .arum / 1 � 1111114Y 14nmP I 1 1. — —�■ —nnn.,— — _ = _ — �I: — — � '' �� LEGEND: 1ZRAJLROAD BOUNDARY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA v IN STATE PARCELS111 1 111 Ra . ARTERIAL IN 2015 CITY LIMITS - . . . Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 58 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 am 0 IN A � � ■I j �Wffm n ISM am a mma must ilia �� ��i A��p' v1j•�j�Q�l i I 0 _I ■ZAN inl � 1 son 1 1 i1CI � ■1 i :Inn. �s i..■. I II : II NE LCA SEE -RAVAKI V Emil Mimi V 1.� Bimnnnnnnn.n.l _ �_ :■ :m I'Illli• i i � nn �� � lumnnnnnn��/\I � " k ■� Q } ,�i `@4 \ Illn null 1MII1. `♦, /� �� ��� 1 �.� ■ ��'_, BikewayTrail Transit Route = Water Features nhanced Major • . • • 1 1 1 1 1 " ' Minor Arterial • I11 1 ll1 ' � I � UnderpassaOverpass ACollector nge Boundary*f, Growth Management Area fit M Plan ■■■ICC - Street Standards 111111111 City Limits Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 60 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Traffic Forecast Map Traffic Forecasts and Master Street Plan Updates For NE Area Df Fon Calk% k. A A F M1 t sari � i i up i lcarrx Io�v� A1fG•k� �iw -] g • iae Wrgr A" a� F L t 3/16/99 Chapter 5 • Transportation 61 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 62 Chapter 5 9 Transportation 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 6 - Principles and Policies 6. 1 Introduction The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Principles and Policies determine how we can best achieve the values and ideals expressed in the Mountain Vista Community Vision and Goals. A prin- ciple is defined as a general or fundamental rule, doctrine, or assumption; a policy is de- fined as a definite course or method of action selected to guide and determine present and future decisions . The Mountain Vista Principles and Policies define ways to make that desired future happen by forming the foundation for implementation. Relationship to City Plan The Mountain Vista Principles and Policies listed below are specific to the Mountain Vista Subarea as a supplement to the principles and policies already established in City Plan, Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan. The City Plan Principles and Policies have not been listed here, but should be referenced in order to gain a complete understanding of the subarea's guidelines . 6. 2 Mountain Vista Subarea Principles and Policies The Mountain Vista Subarea Principles and Policies are organized into the following eight categories, consistent with City Plan : • Land Use (LU) • Transportation (T) • Community Appearance and Design (CAD) • Economic Sustainability and Development (ECON) * • Housing (HSG) * • Environment (ENV) * • Natural Areas and Open Lands (NOL) • Growth Management (GM) * *These categories ofprinciples and policies have already been sufficiently addressed in City Plan. Again, please reference City Plan. 3/16/99 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 63 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan A. Land Use PRINCIPLE MV LU-1 : The Mountain Vista Subarea will have a balance of residential, commercial, civic, and social facilities. Policy MV LU=1 . 1 The Mountain Vista Subarea will focus on a centrally located Community Commercial District surrounded by mixed-use neighborhoods . The majority of residential use will be in `low density mixed-use neighborhoods' . Primary civic uses are expected to include a community park, high school, an elementary school, a police substation and a branch library. Designated room for employment and industrial uses will continue to be provided around Anheuser-Busch in the northeastern portion of the subarea. PRINCIPLE MV LU=2 : The Community Commercial District will provide a central and integrated location for shopping, restaurants, services, work, entertainment, and living to serve as an anchoring destination for northeast Fort Collins. Policy MV LU-2 . 1 The Community Commercial District will be centrally located in the subarea, southeast of Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road, providing a focus and contributing to a distinct, positive identity for the subarea. The District's main orientation will be away from the major transportation corridors, toward an enhanced pedestrian- friendly environment of walkable mixed-use blocks and a grid of commercial local streets . The Community Commercial District will be a community-wide destination, serving not only new development within the subarea, but also greater northeast Fort Collins and, to a de- gree, the community as a whole . Policy MV LU=2 . 2 An illustrative design concept will be developed to describe the form and pattern, and relationships of streets, buildings, and mixed land uses, with beneficial position- ing of key commercial and civic uses . PRINCIPLE MV LU=3 : Mountain Vista's Employment District will have a variety of business types and sizes and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Policy MV LU-3 . 1 The Employment District location within the subarea will provide suffi- cient future lands to accommodate long-term employment growth for the City, establish a transition from industrial uses identified in the Plan north of Mountain Vista Drive, and will provide an attractive arterial gateway west of the I-25 interchange area. PRINCIPLE MV LU=4 : Retail development will be part of a balanced, walkable pattern of community development; a generic strip commercial pattern will be avoided despite tendencies for such strip commercial around community entryways and transporta- tion corridors such as those in the subarea. Policy MV LU=4. 1 The plan encourages a variety of retail and commercial activity in the main Community Commercial District, in integral neighborhood centers that support neighbor- hoods , and in integral convenience shopping centers that support the Employment District. 64 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan B. Transportation PRINCIPLE MV=T-1 : Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within the subarea will have : 1) arterial corridors providing efficient access to and through the subarea, including major features such as railroad under/overpasses, a new 1-25 interchange, and significant land- scape mitigation features ; 2) connections to and across the arterial corridors, including pedestrian underpasses in key locations, providing convenient access to and from the local networks that serve individual developments and buildings ; and 3) integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between develop- ments . Policy MV T-1 . 1 A fifty-foot landscaped setback area will be required adjacent to appropriate stretches of the three largest arterial corridors - Mountain Vista Drive, Timberline Road, and East Vine Drive . Combinations of landscape planting, grading with raised earth berms, landscape walls , and sidewalk connections will be incorporated into these setback areas (outside the right-of-way) to mitigate the impacts of traffic and enhance these transportation corridors for all users . Policy MV T-1 . 2 Design standards will be established for grade separated intersections, with underpasses (rather than overpasses) used wherever possible and practical. Policy MV T-1 .3 Porosity of bike and pedestrian movement across major transportation corridors will be ensured through spacing of crossings and facility design. Policy MV T-1 .4 The Conifer Street extension will be an Enhanced Travel Corridor designed to give priority to high frequency/high efficiency transit, bicycling, and walking. Private vehicular traffic will also be accommodated, but will not override the primary emphasis on transit. The facility will serve as a transit link between the Mountain Vista Community Com- mercial District, Downtown, CSU, and other activity centers . Special design standards will be established for this corridor to determine the appropriate cross-sections, streetscape design, and other details . Policy MV T- 1 . 5 The implementation of an interchange at 1-25 and Vine Drive will be deter- mined by the traffic model for northeast Fort Collins . Related costs and plans will also be coordinated among the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Study and the Colorado Department of Transportation. PRINCIPLE MV-T-2 : Mountain Vista's Employment and Community Commercial Dis- trict will be based on transit-oriented design. Policy MV T 2 . 1 The Community Commercial District will serve as the subarea' s public transit hub . This District will be the focal point of an efficient and integrated transit network 3/16/99 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 65 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan that will serve all residential, commercial, and employment areas of Mountain Vista, as well as provide connections to other transit hubs within Fort Collins and the region. Policy MV T=2 . 2 The transit system will provide frequent service to the Mountain Vista Employment District. Transit service should also be provided between the Mountain Vista Employment and Community Commercial Districts , and the Harmony Corridor Employment District by way of the I-25 corridor route. Park-and-Ride and transit station facilities should be provided adjacent to the I-25/Mountain Vista interchange area. Policy MV T 2 . 3 Special street standards will be created for selected main streets in the Community Commercial District to support a new traditional downtown-like environment. For these streets, the primary emphasis of the standards will be on urban form and the pedestrian environment. Vehicle access and flow will be accommodated, but will not over- ride the design of the pedestrian streetfronts . Possible elements of new standards are slow speed limits, angled on-street parking, and wider lanes with maneuvering room for bicycles, medians with pedestrian refuges, and curb extensions at corners, with corner radii based on comfortable crosswalks . Policy MV T 2 .4 If angled parking makes dedicated bicycle lanes infeasible on selected main streets, then special consideration will be given to bicycle facilities leading to and around the selected main streets. Also, wider lanes should be considered on the main streets to allow more room for bicyclists to share the slow-speed streets with vehicles . Policy MV T=2 . 5 Adjustments to currently adopted standards in the Community Commercial District will be explored and tested to make sure that the standards allow, support, and encourage the formation of active streetfronts with buildings and their entrances along main streets. Adjustments, if needed, will ensure that the standards do not require blocks to have buildings on all sides at the expense of selected streets being faced with buildings and their entrances . Policy MV=T=2 .6 Bike routes and pedestrian connections will be developed to link the subarea to the Downtown and Poudre River Trail. These facilities will make logical and coordinated connections to the comprehensive city-wide and region-wide bicycle, pedes- trian, and transit systems . 66 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan C. Community Appearance and Design PRINCIPLE MV-CAD-1 : Important view corridors for vistas of the mountains should be preserved and emphasized by the arrangement and design of development. Policy MV CAD= 1 . 1 Key streets within the subarea, where appropriate , should be oriented in a southwest fashion that allows development to provide mountain view corridors . Policy MV CAD=1 . 2 Developers and architects involved in Mountain Vista development projects will be encouraged to arrange buildings, outdoor spaces, and parking lots to protect important view corridors, including limiting building heights, where such arrangements are effective in emphasizing vistas of the mountains . PRINCIPLE MV CAD-2 : Mountain Vista's community entryways from I"25 should be designed to provide a sense of place and positive entry experience . Policy MV-CAD=2 . 1 Areas appropriate for community gateway improvements are the I-25 interchanges at Mountain Vista Drive and Vine Drive, and their arterial corridors leading in from the highway. Design concepts should be developed for these gateways that convey the identity of Mountain Vista. PRINCIPLE MV-CAD-3 : Neighborhoods in Mountain Vista will be designed to promote distinct neighborhood structure and identity. PRINCIPLE MV CAD-4 : The preservation of existing historic resources, such as homes, and Plummer school, will be encouraged in Mountain Vista. Policy MV CAD-4 . 1 Plummer School will be preserved but may be moved to a more pro- tected site away from any future street widening of Timberline Road/Summit View Drive and East Vine Drive. Consideration for a new location should include a neighborhood center or park. D . Economic Sustainability and Development (covered by City Plan Principles and Policies) E. Housing (covered by City Plan Principles and Policies) E Environment (covered by City Plan Principles and Policies) 3/16/99 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 67 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan G. Natural Areas and Open Lands PRINCIPLE MV-NOL-1 : The Mountain Vista Subarea will provide a balanced system of recreation facilities, parks, trails, natural areas, and open lands. Policy MV-NOL-1 . 1 The Mountain Vista Community Park will be centrally located within the subarea, providing a primary recreation destination between neighborhoods, the senior high school and the Community Commercial District. The park will provide opportunities for active recreation such as lighted baseball/softball fields , soccer, volleyball courts, and tennis courts as well as areas for passive recreation -- designed in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan , Policy MV NOL- 1 . 2 A primary off-street "green way" will be located within the subarea, reflected in the Framework Plan and City Structure Plan , that establishes an important connection between neighborhoods to the northwest and Senior High School, Community Park, Community Commercial District, and neighborhoods and employment areas southeast. Outside of the subarea, this trail facility should link to the proposed trail system identified in the Richards Lake PUD and connecting along the Cooper Slough drainageway to the Poudre River Trail to the south. This trail facility will be designed and located in accordance with the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan and the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan . Any paved trails next to Cooper Slough Natural Areas or other valuable habitat areas will be located at the periphery of the valuable habitat to minimize disturbance . Policy MV NOL=1 . 3 A network of supporting "green ways" will be incorporated into the subarea located along ditch and canal facilities, and other existing and proposed rights-of- ways . These corridors should be designed to be off-street, to the extent possible, providing a combination of paved and unpaved trails, with linkages to existing trail facilities outside of the subarea in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan and the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan. Policy MV NOL=1 .4 The City will work closely with representatives of the No . 8 Outlet Ditch, and others ditches, to coordinate enhancements, realignment, access, and modifications to reduce hazards in protecting health and safety of the public . Such improvements will also enhance connectivity between land uses and transportation corridors . Policy MV NOL=1 . 5 Storm drainageways and detention ponds will be developed in compli- ance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan for Boxelder and Cooper Slough drainage basins, and wherever appropriate, should be designed to create permanent natural habitat areas incorporating native vegetation. Policy MV NOL- 1 . 6 Significant natural areas within the Mountain Vista subarea will be pro- tected through restrictions on adjacent development and/or acquisition by the City. Portions of the public natural areas will be open for appropriate public uses (such as wildlife viewing and walking) , in accordance with City Natural Area management guidelines . 68 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan H. Growth Management (covered by City Plan Principles and Policies) 3/16/99 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 69 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 70 Chapter 6 • Principles and Policies 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Chapter 7 - Implementation Recommendations 7 . 1 Introduction A key aspect of any plan is how it gets implemented. This Chapter states how best to imple- ment the Vision & Goals, Principles & Policies , and Framework Plan. Several implementation strategies were considered and evaluated during the initial stages of the planning process. These strategies ranged from those that were regulatory in nature to those that emphasized capital investments , incentives , and market measures . After consider- able analysis and discussion, City Council determined that in general, a regulatory strategy was more appropriate than public outlays to stimulate the development market. This Chapter recommends a variety of changes in ordinances, standards and requirements, policies, and capital improvement programs that need to be considered to make the Moun- tain Vista Subarea Plan a reality. It draws on a diagnosis of the city' s recently adopted Land Use Code, a review of City Plan, examination of City policies regarding infrastructure im- provements and financing, and consultation with City staff. The Implementation Plan also includes a detailed listing of projects and improvements needed to support development of the area (Table A-5 . 3 , Development Project Funding Assessment, in Appendix) , including transportation improvements, parks and trails, natural areas , stormwater drainage, police services, and public amenities . This table estimates the cost of each improvement and presents the probable source of funds . In many cases, a gap in funding is found, particularly for transportation projects . 7 . 2 Implementation Strategy Land Use Code. A number of changes should be considered to the city's Land Use Code, including amendments to district regulations, block standards, and development regulations . District/Use Regulation. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan recommends adjustments to the Zoning Districts within plan boundaries -- Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, Commu- nity Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Districts . Because the Land Use Code is relatively new, only minor changes need be made to these district/use regulations to implement the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (See Proposed Structure Plan Map and Proposed Zoning Map at end of Chapter.) . ( 1) Employment and Industrial Districts . The Framework Plan depicts an Industrial Zoning District around the Anheuser-Busch plant, with an Employment District separating it from pedestrian-oriented residential and commercial uses to the west and south . The exact location of these district boundaries is important because of the critical land use transition between heavy industry and future neighborhoods . 3/16/99 Chapter 7 0 Implementation Recommendations 71 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan In the Employment zone district, there is concern that retail, restaurant, and other commercial uses will tend toward a strip commercial pattern of stand- alone buildings and parking lots along I-25 and the arterial entryways . This is counter to the vision for such uses to be integrated into the attractive business park environment envisioned for this area. Therefore , two basic amendments to the Land Use Code, Employment District regulations are recommended to address this concern: 1) Secondary uses should be required to have direct access from collector or local streets within the Employment District. 2) As was done in the Harmony Corridor standards (p . 53) , secondary uses should be required to be located and designed to be visually and function- ally integrated with business park-type uses, which are the primary uses in the Employment District. The language from the Harmony Corridor standards could simply be added to the Employment District section of the Land Use Code. Also, regulations should be adopted that require such uses to locate at least 1 , 500 feet from the centerline of Interstate 25 , thus avoiding clustering of highway-oriented uses near interstate interchanges . (2) Block Standards. A unique feature of the new Land Use Code is the Article 4 block standards included in the Community Commercial and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning Districts. These block standards, designed to foster walkable, traditional town-like development, include a variety of restric- tions on height, parking, block frontage, and land use within each block. Experi- ence to date with these regulations citywide suggests that while standing alone, each has significant merit, but when combined they might make commercial development unduly difficult, especially when land values do not warrant struc- tured parking, as is generally the case in Fort Collins . This apparent undue difficulty is counter to subarea plan goals to foster appropriate commercial development to serve the area. (3) Contiguity The Land Use Code contains a contiguity standard that requires that before new development can be approved on land on the periphery of the city, "at least 1/6 of the proposed development's boundaries must be contiguous to existing urban development within either the City or unincorporated Larimer County within the Growth Management Area (formerly known as the Urban Growth Area) . The purpose of this provision is to promote compact urban growth, a key goal of City Plan . Exceptions can be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board under certain specified circumstances . While the contiguity requirement has not yet come into play in Mountain Vista, it has posed some problems for certain properties covered by the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and Harmony Corridor Plans. Several properties in these areas 72 Chapter 7 0 Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan do not meet this 1/6 contiguity requirement, but otherwise appear suitable for development under the subarea plans and City Plan . As a result, staff has pro- posed exceptions to the general standard for these subarea plan areas . While not a pressing issue in the Mountain Vista area presently, in the future these exceptions should be considered in the Mountain Vista Subarea because the situation appears similar. (4) Street Pattern Street layouts in development plans are expected to be able to satisfy the requirements of the Land Use Code (Article 3 , Section 3 . 6. 3) while achieving the pattern shown on the Framework Plan. Consistent with the Land Use Code, Section 3 . 6. 3 , the number of access points along East Vine Drive will be evaluated according to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. No revisions to current standards are recommended. Transportation Engineering Requirements. Changes appear to be needed in the City's transportation engineering requirements in conjunction with Land Use Code standards . Streets/Traffic. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan recommends a new network and configu- ration of streets that differs significantly from current alignments and past plans . Once the Mountain Vista plan is adopted, the City' s Master Street Plan should be amended to reflect these new streets and alignments . The City should consider adopting traffic calming measures or special street standards for the main streets that run through the Community Commercial District to ensure the area has distinctly pedestrian-friendly street frontages -- a key plan goal. Finally, the City should consider adopting landscaped setback standards along East Vine Drive and sections of Mountain Vista Drive . The setback area should be designed to protect nearby uses from impacts associated with these arterial transportation corridors, and enhance the experience of the corridors for all users . The concept has precedent in the Prospect and Har- mony Corridors' streetscape standards . A 50-foot landscaped setback has been discussed for the Mountain Vista subarea, and appears to be adequate for the purpose without being exces- sive . Parks and Recreation Planning. The Mountain Vista plan proposes an attractive system of parks, open space, and trails throughout the subarea. The City's Parks and Recreation Policy Plan should be amended to show the trails and parks depicted in the plan in their proposed locations and alignments . Additionally, the city should examine methods by which it can fund trail acquisition/improvements where necessary, including impact fees (See Proposed Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Map at end of Chapter.) . Infrastructure/Community Amenity Financing. As discussed in Appendix Section A 3 , some improvements such as sanitary sewer service are readily available in the subarea, while other significant issues will need to be dealt with before development can proceed or the area attains the facilities and amenities the plan envisions . For instance, community facilities 3/16/99 Chapter 7 0 Implementation Recommendations 73 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan such as outdoor civic spaces and gateway landscaping treatments, and several major roadway construction projects, are the two main areas for which traditional funding mechanisms may not be adequate . The City should consider a variety of steps to continue methodical analysis of need and potential funding sources. A preliminary set of steps can be found in Appendix Sections A-3 and A-6, and in the Action Plan at the end of this Chapter. Documentation of Necessary Infrastructure Improvements. A crucial first step is to produce a more detailed analysis of costs for the needed infrastructure improve- ments set forth in the Task 1 . 2 report . Staff has already begun this assignment. A sec- ond step will be to determine , based on current City policies, which of these improve- ments will be made by the City at its expense and which will be the responsibility of other entities or developers . Next, the City needs to create a list of improvements for which it will take responsibility and determine whether any are already included in capital improvement plans . (Prelimi- narily, it appears that only the Vine Drive study is included in the CIP, and not any specific capital improvement projects for the subarea) . Analysis of Alternative Infrastructure Financing Techniques/Policies. It appears that there will need to be substantial public investment in new infrastructure and munici- pal services to make the Mountain Vista plan a reality. While developers will be expected to finance the infrastructure improvements necessitated by their projects -- and some of those improvements such as roads will be very costly -- it appears that traditional fund- ing mechanisms like street oversizing fees and impact fees will not be adequate to pay for all of the street improvements and community amenities that the plan envisions . This situation suggests that the City should consider the full range of infrastructure financing mechanisms available to a home-rule city in Colorado . Set forth below is an initial look at several financing alternatives that City Council may want to evaluate . There have always been a variety of tools available to finance the construction and opera- tion of public infrastructure in Colorado cities . Historically, most cities in the state relied on the property and sales taxes or on special taxing districts to provide funds to finance needed capital facilities. Additionally, cities also relied on their bonding authority to raise funds through general obligation bonds . In the past decade, however, first with passage of the Gallagher Amendment and then Amendment 1 (TABOR) , Colorado municipali- ties have seen their ability to increase property tax revenues shrink dramatically. Conse- quently, property and sales tax revenues in many cities have simply fallen short of what is needed to keep up with the demands sparked by new growth . Moreover, use of more traditional tools like property taxes and general obligation bonds to fund new facilities needed to serve new growth are increasingly viewed as subsidizing new residents at the expense of existing residents . As a result, more and more munici- palities have sought tools that increasingly shift infrastructure costs onto new develop- ment -- tools that can be thought of more in terms of "cost recovery" rather than simply revenue-raising. These include : 74 Chapter 7 0 Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Development Impact Fees Excise Taxes Adequate Public Facilities & Concurrency Requirements Utilities & Enterprise Funds TABOR-Exempt Enterprises Public Building Authorities Special Improvement Districts ("SIDs") General Improvement Districts ("GIDs") Public Improvement Districts ("PIDs") Local Improvement Districts ("LIDs") Business Improvement Districts (`GIDs") Title 32 Special or Metropolitan Districts The City already utilizes several of the tools noted above . For example , it assesses impact fees for parks and has adequate public facility requirements for roads and other improvements such as storm drainage in the Land Use Code. However, given the significant amount of infrastructure that will need to be put in place to accommodate the development envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, it seems likely that the city will need to consider additional tools . Of particular relevance are special au- thorities and districts that are in use in many Colorado communities to finance infra- structure . Appendix A-6 summarizes the major special authorities and districts, and the accompanying matrix compares the various entities . 7 . 3 Implementation Action Plan Table 7- 1 , Implementation Action Plan, summarizes necessary code/plan amendments that are necessary to implement the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . The Table includes a section-by- section analysis of City Plan, the Land Use Code, and other relevant plans, policies, and ordinances with necessary changes identified . It also includes the lead entity and partners responsible for the action and a recommended timeline for the action. 3/16/99 Chapter 7 0 Implementation Recommendations 75 J G\ Table 74, Mountain Vista Subarea Implementation Action Plan Tnneline Action Reference Lead Actions Adopt Items Documents Entity & Partners With 6 12 1-5 5 + Plan mos mos yrs yrs City of Fort Collins Amend City Structure Plan City Plan: LU-3.2, p 90 City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins X Advance Planning GIS n City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins Amend Zoning Map City Plan: LU3 .3, p 90 GIS X Advance Planning Property owners n J City of Fort Collins • City of Fort Collins Amend Master Street Plan Trans GIS X Transportation A ,.� p Balloffet & Assoc. n City of Fort Collins fi o Amend Transit Development Plan City Plan: T-2. 1, p 94 X Transportation r o Amend Pedestrian Plan City Plan: T-5.2, p 97 City of Fort Collins X � D Transportation k' City f Fort Amend Bikeways Plan City Plan: T-4. 1, p 96 Transportationllins X A A Amend Parks and Recreation Policy Parks and Recreation City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins X b Plan Policy Plan Parks and Recreation GIS A p Amend Natural Areas Policy Plan City Plan: NOIr1 .5 , p 128 City of Fort Collins X and Inventory Map Natural Resources Amend Land Use Code District/ Use City Plan: LU-3.3, p 90; ED1 Regulations (Article 4) : - ED3 ; CCD-1 • MMN-2 .4 City of Fort Collins Employment District 2 .5 , 2 .612 .7, 3.4; CCD-1 .3, p Advance Planning X Community Commercial District 186 Block Standards (NCC, CC, MMN) Explore Options for changes City Plan: GM-5 . 1 , p 139 City of Fort Collins X to Contiguity Standard Advance Planning Acquire land for future community City Plan: NOL-3, p 130 City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins park, neighborhood parks, and trail Parks and Recreation Policy Parks and Recreation Natural Resources X alignments Plan Property owners c� W Table 7= 1 , Mountain Vista Subarea Implementation Action Plan Timeline Action Reference Lead Actions Adopt Items Documents Entity & Partners With 6 12 1-5 5 + Plan mos mos yrs yrs Select appropriate financing City Plan: GM-4 p 138; mechanisms for funding public GM-6, p 140 City of Fort Collins X projects (See Table-1, Appendix A3) Larimer County n Prepare I-25 Corridor Plan: to Planning �r determine land uses access City of Fort Collins Town of Wellington P City Plan : LU-4.5, p 91, 205 Town of Windsor X transportation system, and open Advance Planning City of Loveland lands for eastern edge of subarea C J Town of Timnath M • CDOT Z Prepare Mulberry Corridor Plan. Larimer County Determine land uses access City of Fort Collins Planning City Plan : LU 4.5, p 91 X fi o transportation system, and open Advance Planning Property owners N. lands for southern edge of subarea CDOT A Adopt Northeast Fort Collins Truck (01) D 7y Route Project. Selection of City Plan : LU 4.5 , p 91 City of County of Fort Collins property owners X 4" fmalalignment, access, projects, Master Street Plan Transportation CDOT A standards, costs, and phasing A n Negotiate access agreements with City Plan NOL-3. 1, p 130 p, irrigation ditch companies for trail Parks and Recreation Ciry of Fort Collins Ditch companies X b network Policy Plan Parks and Recreation A o � y Utilities/Special Districts Update Master Drainageway Plan for Cooper Slough and Boxelder Creek. Implement Cooper Slough City Plan : ENV-7.6, p 124 City of Fort Collins Ditch companies X Drainage Basin improvements Stormwater Property owners including new retention ponds. Coordinate Planning. Coordinate Planning & design of City Plan : GM-3 .3, GM-5, Poudre R-1 School future school sites with City of Fort Collins X park/transportation facilities PP 138-139; RD 4, p 170 District Private Sector Update Anheuser-Busch Master Plan Anheuser-Busch City of Fort Collins X J J Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 78 Chapter 7 • Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 err:j1.:i1�1r �i 1`p I i i• In _ ! : ■������ d. \nn\\\i��l' �����,I� \Lim _i milli ° •" -• : ?-,111 �� inn mqr 111 . 1'1� m1 • 1.1 A , -`_ -fir- � —�-� ,€ , ::�•,;:::;,,: 1•. ••=`� �II/�: IIIII .. . e,��•m noon nm ` •6 �e,•.n�• =.:.c;., _ .� ���;a� w\ C• red; all mm No Nil aliall /IIIII 111111111111\\%��� � _. _■_ - -�MIN ; *� �V■I I Nlim _ =_ = IN, ■ r - 11 - I Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 80 Chapter 7 • Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Zoning mounutill Vista SUBAREA PLAN 1'�y# I IMF I'+I J r•• TFIqTw e o® uONE LMN WE ti•.. C [7� ® E LMN LMN \ T Legend City Limits Community Commercial Water Features Employment V^ ' N Industrial / Railroad Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood /� parcels 3000 0 3000 Feet Medium-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Transitional NUGA i •!'iCity Limits Adopted March 16, 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 82 Chapter 7 • Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea OU ,,t;�;r, «�� Parks Master Plan sU 177 ■ 0 0 r ° 00 - ` ~ 1 I LEGEND 0 Parcels Acquire and Develop Community Park Plan Boundary 0 Acquire and Develop Park Growth Management Area = Develop Park Site 4,' Proposed Off-Street Trail High Priority Open Lands Water Features City Limits 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet N March 16, 1999 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 84 Chapter 7 • Implementation Recommendations 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Appendix MVAC - Citizen Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1 Activityand Events Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Identification of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 CaseStudy Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 Existing Conditions , Infrastructure , & Services Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 5 Implementation Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan - Advisory Committee (MVAC) Name From Address Zip 1 Mike Buderus Northeast Business Association 2813 Adobe Dr. 80525 2 Sally Craig Planning & Zoning Board 1409 S . Summitview 80524 3 David Dietemann Area Resident 1609 Country Club Rd. 80524 4 Donn Hopkins Transportation Board CSU, Aylesworth Hall 80523 5 Bill Miller Fort Collins Audubon Society 322 Scott Ave. 80521 6 Phil Murphy Natural Resources Board 1200 Hays 80524 7 Bill Neal Fowler Real Estate =A 1015 W Horsetooth Rd., Suite 200 80526 8 Ed Robert Area Resident 70 1923 Lindenridge Dr. 80524 9 Brigitte Schmidt NE Neighborhood Coalition 932 Inverness 80524 11 Joe Solomon Area Resident 1721 Lindenwood Dr. 80524 12 Carol Story Uthmann Landowner, Rhoades Realty 3662 Point Dr. 80524 13 Susan Morehouse Anheuser-Busch, Env. Health pD Box 20000 80522 & Safety Manager Revised March 2, 1999 3/16/99 A - 1 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 A - 1 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 1= 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Activities and Events Diary Date Event Comment 1997 Memo written as an update for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to 08/18/97 CGMC Council Growth Management Committee, through John Fischbach, Greg Byrne and Joe Frank, from Pete Wray. 09/22/97 Meeting, Staff Committee met to interview three candidates , review their RFP's , and select a consultant for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan . Memo regarding an update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 12/10/97 CGMC written to Council Growth Management Committee, thru John Fischbach, Greg Byrne, and Joe Frank, from Pete Wray. 1998 01/ 06/98 Meeting, Consultant coordination meeting with Pete Wray. Consultants 01/ 09/98 Board P & Z Board update on the process . 01/15/98 Meeting, Staff Internal staff coordination to select advisory committee. 01/22/98 Meeting, Tech Team First staff technical team meeting for the project. 01/26/98 Meeting, Citizen Citizens Planner meeting, attended by staff and an update provided on the process . 01/30/98 Board Met with the Planning & Zoning Board seeking a representative for the advisory committee. Memo written as an update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to 02/03/98 CGMC Council Growth Management Committee thru John Fischbach, Greg Byrne, and Joe Frank, from Pete Wray. 02/06/98 Meeting, PSD Coordination meeting with Ron Daggett, Poudre School District. 02/06/98 Meeting, Staff Coordination meeting with the GIS department. 02/09/98 CGMC Update to Council Growth Management Committee on process . 02/17/98 Meeting, PSD Another update meeting with Ron Daggett, Poudre School District Meeting, Meeting with Bill Bertschy, John Fischbach, Greg Byrne, Joe Frank, 02/23/98 City Councilmember and Pete Wray to establish Council liaison for this district and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process . First meeting of the Mountain Vista Advisory Committee (MVAC) . 02/25/98 MVAC Agenda consisted of a tour of the Plan area, orientation, and brief introductions of committee members , staff, and the process . 03/02/ 98 Field Trip , Field trip and site visit with the consultants and staff Consultants 3/16/99 A - 2 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 A - 2 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 1= 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Activities and Events Diary Date Event Comment Staff met with Carol Story Uthmann and her attorney to review the 06/03/98 Meeting, Landowner three Plan alternatives, off-site improvement requirements for Richards Lake Project, and how that might affect her property. Board Presentation of the three Plan alternatives , asked for their input 06/17/98 Transportation prior to June 24 Workshop . (John Daggett and Ray Moe were included in the presentation .) Ron Daggett called Pete Wray, based on their discussions held June Meeting, Poudre 1 . Ron forwarded information on future school facilities , needs , and 06/18/98 acreage requirements for elementary, junior high, and senior School District schools in the Mountain Vista planning area to be shown on the Plan alternatives . 06/23/98 Media Interview, Pete Wray and Ed Robert were guests on the Phil Walker Radio Radio Show on KCOL Radio. Fielded questions from the public. 06/24/98 Workshop Public workshop held to discuss the three Plan alternatives . Meeting, Poudre Ron Daggett delivered a copy of the recently published Poudre 06/25/98 School District School District Facilities Review", a review of existing and future facilities in the Poudre School District. 06/29/98 Media Interview, TV Channel 14 interviewed Pete Wray for a weekly news magazine to air in July. 07/01/98 Board Presentation of the three Plan alternatives to the Natural Resources Natural Resources Board. 07/02/98 CGMC Presentation to Council Growth Management Committee concerning the three Plan alternatives and a project update. John Fischbach, Greg Byrne, Joe Frank, and Pete Wray met with Susan Morehouse, Resident Environmental Health & Safety 07/07/98 Meeting, Landowner Manager Fort Collins Brewery, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and representatives from the St. Louis Land Development Division of AB to discuss the process and three Plan alternatives . Meeting postponed one week to give consultants time to update the 07/29/98 MVAC three Plan alternatives from comments received during the June 24th workshop . Location also changed for this meeting to the — Streets Facility Training Room. Meeting, Met with Bill Bertschy, City Councilmember for this area, gave him 08/18/98 City Councilmember an update regarding the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Study. 08/19/98 Board, Presentation of Plan Alternatives , seeking input from the Board on Transportation the Transportation system. 08/25/98 City Council, Presentation of Plan Alternatives , seeking input on the Preferred Study Session Plan direction. 3/16/99 A - 2 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 1- 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Activities and Events Diary Date Event Comment 08/26/98 MVAC Plan Alternatives/Transportation elements ; update NE Truck Route 08/28/98 Board Updated the Board on the Framework Plan development and P & Z Worksession coordination with the North East Truck Route Study 09/14/98 Meeting, Citizen Met with realtor/developer Steve Phiester assessing potential projects in NE area. 09/15/98 MVAC Framework Plan and Principles and Policies discussed. 09/16/98 Meeting, Consultant Design coordination meeting with CIVITAS re: park locations on Plan. 09/22/98 Meeting, Landowner Special meeting with property owners living in the study area. 09/23/98 Meeting, Landowner Special meeting with property owners living in the study area. 09/24/98 Meeting, Landowner. Special meeting with property owners living in the study area. 09/29/98 Meeting, Landowner Met with Cityscape to coordinate Anheuser-Busch Master Plan with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. 09/29/98 Meeting, Landowner Don and Beverly Weiss , update on Plan and NE Truck Route Study. 09/29/98 CGMI,T Update Re: Poudre School District coordination with Anheuser- Busch. 10/07/98 Meeting, Landowner Jim Hesse update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the NE Truck Route Study. 10/07/98 Board Presentation to the Natural Resources Board, with focus on Natural Resources environmental issues of the Plan. Met with John Martz, Anheuser-Busch; Eldon Ward, Cityscape; and 10/08/98 Meeting, Landowner Ben Herman, Balloffet & Assoc. to discuss coordination of Plan alternatives . 10/08/98 MVAC Principles and Policies / Implementation . 10/14/98 Board Presentation to Air Quality Advisory Board of update of the Plan - air Air Quality Advisory quality focus - trip reduction measures . 10/19/98 CGMC Council Growth Management Committee, update on the Plan . 10/19/98 Meeting, Consultant With consultant, Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates, Implementation coordination. 10/21/98 Meeting, Consultant/ Coordination meeting with Anheuser-Busch, Cityscape, and Balloffet Landowner & Associates . 11/02/98 Open House Public open house, with North East Fort Collins Truck Route Study, to display the Preferred Framework Plan. 4 A - 2 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table 1= 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Activities and Events Diary Date Event Comment 11/05/98 MVAC Preferred Framework Plan ; Principles and Policies ; and Implementation. Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates was present. 11/13/98 Board Presentation of the Preferred Framework Plan. P& Z Worksession 11/16/98 CGMC Council Committee update on Plan Implementation strategies . 11/19/98 Meeting, Neighborhood Meeting - residents of Adriel Hills and Chesapeake Neighborhood HOA - update on the Plan and the Northeast FC Truck Route Study. 11/20/98 Meeting, Citizen Presentation to Chamber of Commerce - Plan update. 12/4/98 Meeting, Coordination meeting with Consultants , Balloffet & Associates , Consultants 1999 1/14/99 Meeting, Poudre Coordination meeting with Poudre School District to assess property School District boundaries. 1/15/99 Board Presentation to the Planning and Zoning board regarding the P&Z Worksession Framework Plan and Implementation. 1/20/99 MVAC Implementation, Principles and Policies . 1/26/99 City Council Review of the Plan elements : Framework Plan, Policies and Study Session Implementation Action Plan. 2/3/99 Board Presentation to the Natural Resources Advisory Board, review of Natural Resources Plan elements . 2/5i999 Gmupg, Citizen Environmental Group presentation of Plan . 2/11/99 Meeting, Landowner City Staff, representatives of Anheuser-Busch and Cityscape had a coordination meeting. 2/11/99 Open House Seeking input on the Final Draft of the Plan 2/22/99 Board Plan presentation to the Air Quality Advisory Board. Air Quality Advisory 2/24/99 Board Plan review presented. Parks & Recreation ' 2/25/99 MVAC Final Plan was reviewed. 2/26/99 Board The Planning and Zoning Board held a Hearing on the Plan. Board P&Z Worksession then forwarded their recommendations to City Council. 3/4/99 Hearing Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board scheduled. 3/16/99 Hearing Plan adoption hearing before the Fort Collins City Council scheduled. 3/16/99 A - 2 5 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 6 A - 2 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Identification of Issues The following is an analysis of key issues that influence the planning and future development of the Mountain Vista Subarea. While most of the planning area is relatively free from devel- opment constraints, both natural and man-made influences will impact the pattern of devel- opment on the predominately undeveloped land within the subarea. Particular emphasis will be placed on issues related to implementation of relevant City Plan principles . I. LAND USE A. Balance/Compatibility 1 . Agricultural uses dominate the area. 2 . Appropriate balance and compatibility of proposed commercial, employment, residential, and public land uses . 3 . Impact of new development on the rural/urban interface . B. Commercial 1 . Significant commercial development proposed in the Community Commercial Center (activity center) . 2 . Location, amount, and type of potential commercial development will impact the character of existing developments, particularly along the subarea's edges ; traffic generated by commercial uses will further impact this character. C. Employment 1 . Significant employment proposed in the Mountain Vista area. 2 . Compatibility of employment with surrounding uses . 3 . Traffic impacts based on intensity of use . 4. Communication and coordination with Anheuser Busch concerning develop- ment . D. Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) 1 . Level of support among local neighborhoods, landowners, and the develop- ment community concerning proposed TND development patterns and densi- ties for the area. E. Jurisdiction 1 . Cooperation between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins concerning annexation, and location and intensity of development. E Public Uses, Infrastructure, and Services 1 . Area currently lacks public spaces such as parks, trails, and plazas . 2 . Long-term availability and location of public facilities, such as schools, emer- gency facilities, civic uses, and other public spaces to accommodate future growth . 3/16/99 A - 3 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 . Long-term availability of utilities and cooperation among service providers, including water and sewer utilities . 4. Timing, sequence, and location of proposed development will impact the provision and phasing of public facilities, infrastructure , pedestrian linkages, and transit. II . TRANSPORTATION A. Volume 1 . Impact of proposed development on existing traffic volumes along major roads within and adjacent to the area. 2 . Traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods , including high speeds and conges- tion, as well as visual and noise impacts . 3 . Increased traffic volumes along I-25 may warrant expansion and improvements in the near future , which may exacerbate problems associated with local traffic congestion and noise . B. Alternative Modes 1 . Integrating transit/alternative modes with development, with particular empha- sis on the activity center and commercial mixed-use neighborhoods . 2 . Bike/pedestrian linkages and travel across and along major arterials and be- tween neighborhoods . C. Street Layout and Design 1 . Location, pattern, and design of streets will influence land uses , connectivity between land uses and neighborhoods, congestion, pedestrian linkages , and views . D. Funding 1 . Availability of funding for transportation improvements . E. Truck Study Issues 1 . Proposed truck route alignment will influence existing and proposed develop- ment in the area. III . COMMUNITY APPEARANCE & DESIGN A. Character 1 . Mountain Vista has a rural character and provides stunning views of the Front Range . 2 . Historic properties in the area, such as the Plummer School, contribute to the character of the area. 2 A - 3 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan B . Gateways 1 . Area currently lacks gateways to provide distinction between the area and surrounding neighborhoods . C . Design 1 . Coordinating Anheuser Busch developments into the overall design scheme . IV. ECONOMY A. Incentives 1 . Availability and appropriateness of financial incentives to spur economic devel- opment in the area, and attractiveness of activity center to developers . B. Commercial 1 . Activity center ' s size, role , concept, and uses will impact existing local and regional commercial developments . 2 . Integrating and financing the building of plazas and other public spaces with private development in the activity center. V. HOUSING A. Density 1 . City Plan calls for a range of residential densities and lot sizes and encourages an assortment of price ranges and housing types . 2 . Impact of area's proposed urban densities on adjacent low density neighbor- hoods . B. Affordable Housing 1 . Distribution & dispersion of affordable housing in the area. C. Market 1 . Influence of market on the design, cost, and location of housing. D. Design 1 . Quality of appearance and design will influence the character of existing and proposed developments . 2 . Proximity of non-residential developments and major streets to housing impact neighborhood character and traffic. 3/16/99 A - 3 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan VI , ENVIRONMENT A. Development Impact 1 . Impact of new development on air quality, water quality, wetlands, and critical wildlife and habitat in area and region. VII . OPEN LANDS A. Access/Linkages 1 . Lack of development in the area presents the opportunity to establish an interconnected system of open space that offers convenient pedestrian access . B. Greenways 1 . Irrigation ditches and drainage basins located throughout the area provide open space and greenway opportunities . VIII . GROWTH MANAGEMENT A. Growth Rate 1 . Relationship with City Plan growth management. 4 A - 3 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Case Study Research 3/16/99 A - 4 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 A - 4 3/16/99 NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 (East) Sunnyside Village Clackamas County, Oregon ACRES : 368 acres NOTE : 60 property owners ; 13 developers TYPES OF USES . Residential : single family (standard & small lot) , townhomes, apartments Commercial: office , retail Open Space : parks , resource protection areas "Community Service" : elementary school, "civic" uses permitted PLANNED/BUILT0 Planned: 1 ) 1900 housing units, 2 ) commercial/retail, 3 ) school Built : 800 + housing units PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) Site is last remaining large undeveloped area in urban Clackamas County. 2 ) Several state and local growth management regulations (land use , transportation, pedestrian emphasis, etc . ) provided impetus for project. 3 ) Growth pressures within Portland ' sUrban Growth Boundary area made it feasible for site to develop . 4) County actually initiated this development as "demonstration project" -- unusual project role . County developed the plan, and then invited developers to build. BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Intensive education/planning/public process -- county worked to reach agreement at many levels with stakeholders (property owners , developers, etc. ) . 2 ) State grant to help with upfront, overall market/economic feasiblity study. Provided factual information for citizens/stakeholders with concerns . BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Economic/market concerns . Solution: Overall market/economic study. 2 ) Resistance from developers on some development standards (e .g. , recessed garages , commercial building orientation and street connectivity) . Solution: Compromises, with lessening of standards in some cases . PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) County's intense role, including marketing, in development of project. 2 ) Heavy media attention. 3 ) Role of land use regulations in providing framework for project. Wit% -1� V ` jw Iva, Iva Ij 3 { 1 4 -wr w�- .•ice - :,^F :r+ - ,. t •I ! ; Jt -"\ i b , i •' •:dn'J .•ut. "�"^ � f v'Ti Y --. .. ._w-- 'lw—�:�' �+w�s•�..1'�— � , gm ZL jL + 1 , � 1 i Ili 1 � rj � � ..�►,�,,,• . 'i.�•��...� � � !�' , 'C - - _: I r 'tLj �i ww.: •.�' E^' � � •_f �) ;, fq� ' � � Oft" .'r t .,.� � � �" r, �, ;e .: s Iv SIN Jf e wwj r=n ��• �'^�a"" �» _ ,ter .�. Aj 00 Wt MU .�.� a I Alai Of > !� ,�f 5 ` !� kII � � l�- �SI 1 Pr��K I , j�_lA1 - h "'."•�� �- � � � ass 5unzrusidr Vi}tagt ,f'iun �.^C• .'m4.5 �,4Ai7ikYr #�rE�Q}Z Table I Statistical Surx mary ai Cast Sunnvside Village Land Uses oensity`E Casmprrhtrsaive Platt Sunnysidtll;ock Cmitk F ANZ> USE F»l.R. sttild&out Nei Florhood Ptast Grass Net CttosaAc 1 U1S'c Craxs lc UU1571 ti image Com mercW Oz* 14 1"7M lit • 2D,tW tFella S CR 0.3S $ 1 ?.tw "fatal Cammcmial i Ti IQ,, is 240tWO Vilitge Townhousts is 10 155 Z301 Village Small Cat Singld-raxztill 9 16 42 380 VillageStimdard*Lac Single-Faartily 6 7 24a L470 196 1.1WrO Apartments over vem Rest curse Pmteeitm Dty: T'rarsfet""" i ' ! Anc =v U titvt Tgral :ic iderstsai 1 170 U440 :V, iwveraii Densiry } 7.1 9.? P'ar3v Praviaed'l,: Q 14 fesaur�. V:a#ec:ican Area ! 68 Toed Parks and R.P a. 69 73 VMage Cort ."ittraty Service 0 2 Etsr.enmry School 10 Exisrin Streets i 7 TITAL 3 ac. 3dti ac ► 5inrglrrattail VIM txlti»carnzFy -S t Ssstgie•iasttily Rftiden&l 779•5 6tl 411 Multi•-airily icsfae3ttaal 23?n 40 Nottts: Medina d4=WeS 4TO ShOW n fCT O=TZ&S PU PO"& Apar nears axe ccatsidsmd roughly egUivaient to County Corrtprtrhen5ivr Man Medium ?high Density 018 dui pm ac and Startdarrl-Las SingFs»i"attttily is tquWalettt to Low Dansity Q 5 du/grtxss at:. Rtso=m Pratecdcs t Arens maybe devekped at 1 du/4%d OT dC=ity maybe tranSfaxred oast into the ware pastel at a. ltigtter doMity sae latpiesztettrsdCR S*C W)* t Assures that ?,S"w of SmaLl at=d St;;ndar *LcA $icsg,e»Fat y lists will have Area Uz y Units. t"t Parks are calcu Uted at vougWy 15 ac co/lOW poptxiidono coitsisttrtt with National smadards for local park a=;sge. Ai: f�tgstres are xpPrCiai�aatn. Incas s.w% emits may c =r due to rounding. CafEhmpr .tasncigUs • NUy :V3 page 21 NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 East Bay Denver, CO (Sloan's Lake Area) ACRES : 12 . 66 acres (infill) TYPES OF USES . Single-Family Residential (detached with attached garages accessed from alley) 111 lots -- 8 . 9 du/ac PLANNED/BUILT : 100% built & sold PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) First closing : December 1995 2 ) At one point contributed to 1/3 of new housing market in Denver ( $ 150K - $ 175K range) 3 ) Phase 2 (60 homes) sold out in 20 weeks (3 homes/week) 4) Base prices increased $ 10K from initial offering 18 months prior BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Pre-development market research targeting busy lifestyles , convenience (HOA fees pay for outside maintenance) , desire for size and space of an affordable single-family home close to downtown. Average age of buyers is 40, with no children at home . 2 ) 3-6 neighborhood meetings to address area concerns BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Neighbors were more concerned with increased traffic than density. However, there has been no increase in traffic accidents . (Zoned for very high density residential. Multi-family proposal defeated in ` 80's .) 2 ) Processing: biggest concerns were from police and public works directly related to narrow streets , alleys, detached garages . Compromises on regs were reached. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) Police : decrease in area crime directly tied to East Bay development. Has impacted whole Sloan' s Lake area. 2 ) Sales success of project. NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 Town of Tioga Gainesville , FL ACRES : 280 acres ( + 320 acres in reserve for future platting) TYPES OF USES . Residential (single-family) Insitutional, community services, neighborhood retail Recreational Open Space Storage (RVs , boats) PLANNED/BUILT0 Planned : 537 single-family homes (2 . 25 du/ac to 10 . 44 du/ac) + above uses Built : Community meeting hall, pool & play area, esplanade [grand walkway] (under construction) , Phase I & II infrastructure Phase I & II : 76 homesites, 17 sold (lots & homes) , 6 lot reservations, 6 spec homes for sale Phase III : (Georgetown style, lower price range) , school, and retail scheduled for year 2000 PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) 2 years planning and project approval 2 ) Groundbreaking: 1995 3 ) Developers : father-son builders ; Designer: U of FL Professor -- architect & planner (designed U of FL pedestrian campus) 4) Switched design of original development after attending seminar at Seaside . 5 ) Chose to build/market larger homes along esplanade (mid- higher-range) first Phase I & II : $ 150K - $ 325K BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Developer did "homework" and research before approaching County Commissioners . 2 ) Education process involving community and County Commissioners for project approval. 3 ) Kept pre-project citizen meetings small (no more than 10 families) , so that developer could work with people more individually. 4) Lots of pre-project planning. BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Worked to design development to preserve the existing tree canopy and as many significant trees as possible . 2 ) Developer says he would have designed detention areas for stormwater runoff differently (typical engineering, would have maximized use -- water features , more park-like) . 3 ) Educating investors about longer-term rates of return. 4) Public awareness/education during development phase . PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) Low overall density (gross density: 1 . 92 du/ac) 2 ) Developer's vision to create a community, rather than just sell houses 3 ) Final hearing on project : no opposition present, 5-minute vote by Commissioners NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT 10 TV �,/� � - ��.its+. •_\ � .fie—. •7 s3�„w, .«». � t _ �: ��x : � L�.y� �� � i•jy R `7 • ir ^± � r4 .- y ` ! i • •� � � i r - .'�. j .Y t' ;may \. .. rl .+S f• 1 ` � � -\:-e.' '.i. .r. i;. � .- S .� -? s• wte to • •'�.ynT�•.•i•d� v. r � :p F :R•• Ay ' �.'�• °s h r : f . i!• •ai } Yam\'^ X. -•i w � . t � ° � •�\. ..:..•r' " •r ANY, :y S.d a:.••- ..>+ s .:4iA T.' c a31!�' : Qaai: . F- .� pie 7m nx�.,•a- . }:t - •S'L" Wtt .. s ..a Nit m = Ll ,• OWL 2i •. 14 }• t, e • , J • - to ` PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 Har-Ber Meadows Springdale, Arkansas (NW) ACRES : 425 acres TYPES OF USES . Residential: single= and multi-family Recreational facilities & green/open areas Civic Commercial PLANNED/BUILT : Planned : Recreation facility w/pool ( ` 98) , elementary school ( ` 00) , senior facility, retail, office commercial, multi-family (8 acres) Built : 80% of infrastructure in place ( $ 30=35MM) * , 80 single-family homes, sales office Also : 34 acres of lakes ; 11 parks * Owner's decision against professional advice . Has created cash flow problem. PROJECT SUMMARY. "Deep pockets" of philanthropic land owner/trust provided unusual up-front funding for capital, design efforts , and amenities . Planners/architects did appropriate process work with community stakeholders . Internal organizational difficulties have hampered sales/marketing. BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Land use design team was exceptionally focused, unified and solutions-oriented. 2 ) Partnership efforts (U of AR School of Architecture ; writing City PUD Code) BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Project 's challenges have come from internal organizational dynamics . Philanthropic mission/funding has lent an unusual twist. Several significant staffing changes/difficulties have impacted sales, marketing. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) Philanthropist/Developer (Mrs . Jones) wanted to leave a legacy with the family tree farm. 2 ) Market study completed using focus groups ; meetings w/ stakeholders early in process . 3 ) Architect assisted Spring Dale in writing its PUD ordinance based on Har-Ber Meadows . 4) Unique land plan and amenities (34 acres of lakes, 11 parks) 5 ) Partnership with University of Arkansas School of Architecture NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT IT �' •.` , ; ' I ISM Ir eo Aw or 77 'Z ATE sr )..i I � � • - f � 3 M J AN r n •Y` w.-^� S . ; may... ' - . ' - .r .19 1 . �M • � ;, � Y. ` [ • _ � �aMW • c . .r ^, .KQ. t� • . • . s �. . N� n +J. . .i • j e• ..Kf Z Sm Ir . .. . _ _ _ ..._ _. _ .. _ _ _ - - _ .. _ - . .-.._ } HAR�BER MEADOWS Residential Unsw 700 Single Family .}CilFf'S nYFStrlttr�tS F 00UvftiwFFar if v L,L]C1{=m 100 Senior flonfes . Retail: 20 acres avadable Springdale, AAAansas- Civic Coster. ZO acres ervailtthle School:. 18 acres available PtxCsaLt MY: :Yonh►�est of Fuvetteville, .4r*ruas Ranges,from . 75 - IS DUTAC Saar : CPeN SPAM Consovcaan of project began Sprvig 1995 . S year Zlrrr fresrue eravisiartcd 170 acres .including la&s, pc ?*s and cvmmon areas sty: PQPUL.AnOW � F3 lcres ? 000 projected T PI!, Tredidoital ,lrew Town PROJECT WSCRIPTION; AMEtt[T Me 1'a provide f�otlt plurtnirLg rxrtti' ar 3rit eturcrl tervtces Young Square and ivuseum ,for thr"s 419mam mi=dc uTe corvnunituk'aao wn its Harms Churc3vD v Care &rUeadoivs, locored just nordnvev of F'mmtteville, - CommunityCignrer , rJ;ttrtsas. Founders Peak . fortes Square Baas s: t✓o mmuniV Recraadon Center To create a 'New Urbanism ' develaprnent an the Elementary Sc1 avi , rolling .. partnr et of. tfte �tpidty grativing area of Town �trTce and l�eighbvrhvad Labs North�vat Arkarxmas .This pm�rject qs+'as designed to �elglrl€orhoodBark and 7'rtriI 5vsterrt . encrrurage a high - pedest�rttxt: ernvim ment wth "Fee r�}trrrrl " adW in&'socisal• values such iu fatuity orrentarion, - C pure ty € ursei r a tr neighbor hood cntemVian, and a viwl communityRetir�ar�€ent flsrusing arrr� �lssPsted Cluing - stt}tport SYxtein: Lwta USL* Vie development o,f this cornmunity is intended to grow in much the ware manner as t uddional vfllages have in tits post. T`he pmj= is comptosedofV011ous types of houshIg units ranging f cant single fa rnityr hurries. manor homes, town hornet. village homes, estate 11+901'es, country homes, senior htattsing and villas, PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 Jordon Commons Princeton, FL (Dade County) ACRES : 40 TYPES OF USES . Residential Neighborhood Commercial (plaza in each 1/4) Family Support Services (daycare , etc . ) ( 25 % of site) PLANNED/BUILT0 Planned : 170 single-family homes Built : 15 homes (since 1997) Under Construction : 30 homes for 1998 (all pre-sold) PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) Project part of response to replace affordable housing after Hurricane Andrew ( 1992 ) . 2 ) DPZ architects volunteered designwork. 3 ) $ 4MM grant for infrastructure (all in) from Federal HOME program. BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Flexibility in sales and mortgage terms . 2 ) Habitat product built with more durability than other area builders . No existing Habitat Homes in area were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. 3 ) Family support service uses are seen as a model (community self-sufficiency, etc . ) . BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) First owner Habitat group went under. Therefore , Jordon Commons is one of the last projects being built to replace hurricane-detroyed homes . Location is isolated. As a result, units not selling as fast as other habitat homes . For the first time, # of units built/year limited by the market (# of qualified buyers) , not by availability of volunteers . 2 ) There are expectations that the commercial component will not do well. Residents are at poverty-level, don't have disposable income . PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) Unique large-scale Habitat for Humanity project in country. 2 ) Project does not lend itself to typical neotraditional development market comparisions/analysis . Jordan Commons Habitat for Humanity John Hollon, President Darothy Adair, Exewive Director . �7 « ..wtM.ax.�'=. iir• ^ mY^C��E�IY t � - a i.�cs4% �f' .'fn T.� a.Aa ter+�. \ C} i irk F I----- CO 5 Q 1 a E Q ! }E s l W 3i M 1C .a 1 i r i r r 41, l i r r k i +• ,.. �{•r°'- -"""-�' �.�.. .. .71V 'Si W]ti' SI:R AUR _�"�`\r ,' Q • i EC f � '0 ^� WTI . } i ejj i' = ! ! new w•� �..- ! K -- 1 h.rr•� ,w«w �� • s .�'="'� ; i 1 . . �; yw,r.1« S y+ w x C 1 G I.�' M k sisi � F ! Rj4F} $€ x Q . �i ! . ! r F 1 I I ■ iii £ 1 5 k f Ib .. _ rr i1 Si • .gyp ! I t • _ �- r�w 4 r .. F 'r c fi rsE ii � •: yx ,......`..-e � : rl -"r '� sjf[ s :3 >,Y � ! f�rO� �I \CQ ~S rGl� i �.+r�'+�wW yr S � SS � ! SB wli\C.�w•n-- FIC �Elm 0 ip . . } �1» . • - rr.. .:j f �La - -j� fe - . in lit im t �Q 14 \ i!i ikifQ f !8 Gt Q CS II 7FF , �/ kf ! f I s k i i Q i , � f^� wl {}{ � ";a..•rk —T�� lE� DNS ,/.t�"'* ��1 r `�Y+r.�� �� i -"""a.. Yam+..:»rl {�Ff.��N=.::: :��.—..c .t F es"'_ I( is ! �\.! W ' =C] 1 } � rf.S• i + �`a %s*%Ns 1 C"4 �s t _ {_! v. ..YF� r r : { } - � . f ` ,. .r " -.-.w..ir"�-ter, p a� +�..k ` i� rrrb{j{E Y IL m M L! S • .... rr • + +rfiw...w { I k 1 1in ll � i LL� fF , 4r ! y 1 i 8. ltt y 4 w a ♦y•r fi jj ffi1 I Ia ✓ i P�IrIC ety t $ ' r y r -may r �t •i OQR / i s " s i 1! t Ri i 7!0 Y : MI. s E F etY ! flf • L'S 1 a C7 E[ I 7 ! . 1 - M��nM wy�Tw.�...♦ry�N•wT MWMw Tr�rrr Mr\YM "^'tiwrMMMMrr-nR wiw�.YYY�'wrwM MN.Twrn AsurriNa .sAf-w"nTi= HA,vr n wrrTitcz ON 249 ROW "T weer-OVER . 5174 £ PLAN SHOTINO SRt[ S Atm Ldr 5MO NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 Northwest Landing Dupont, WA ACRES : 3000 TYPES OF USES . Residential: single- and multi-family (4 "villages") Commercial (includes town center) Civic Employment Industrial PLANNED/BUILT : Working on "Phase 1 " ( 1st third of site) . Four employers already part of site . Infra- structure all in place . Have been selling housing products since 1995 (a/o 2/98 , # of homes built/under construction : 484 ; # of homes sold : 258 ; # of homes under a Purchase and Sale agreement : 69) . PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) Developer: Weyerhaeuser Real Estate 2 ) Employment proximity significant to project (Intel, State Farm Regional Headquarters part of site) . 16% of residents also work there ; goal is 30% . 3 ) Current Residents : 563 adults and 153 children; 30% of residents work for/retired military; 60% of residents from within a 15 mile radius . BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) Pre-market research -- focus groups (tired of living behind garages, missing community feeling, desire for sense of neighborhood) . Tested different land use plans, as well as architectural types . Market position : primarily lifestyle choice . 2 ) Record-keeping on project (absorption rates , etc . ) . 3 ) Tracking of other projects (52 in area) : only one is close in terms of absorption rates . 4) Weyerhaeuser believes it was the "infrastructure readiness" (coupled with aggressive marketing by county) that attracted high-tech employer such as Intel. BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Annexing to such a small town (Dupont : 185 homes , 600 people) . 2 ) Planning review/ approval process : huge project and small governing jurisdiction. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES . 1 ) To-date , there are 5 builders on the project : 2 national, 2 small, & 1 non-profit (affordable housing) . All housing types (s-f, apartments , condos) are outpacing competition. 2 ) Provide higher level of landscaping than typical of their market; subsidize landscaping maintenance . 3 ) Subsidize a lot of "community-building" events . 4) Weyerhaeuser paid for $ 20MM interchange next to project. l ff fly C NO Jill JiL - - r.:W.5y � •� h.ayyaa's?•Fr- iIN .: f-w•w.'^" .`a fiT':^'�I."x �' J .m New ��.i pi I -a••.--;�:rt.�.a.•' ^=!' "'�yy.w+.. . •• ry��, -� a1. _ -i 9.rf�;....6, - .� . •: +�.I _ .ei �r,M1 .. .tir �s�•c_ « _ _ — -•L=ir �'S+Y w . „wou ii, "' :. � :1f.',ylj:r,+. :1'�'•:m.T.'•�_ .::�.• ice:..,�_'!'h^.<Y�; re' .i - qfillt�.�:. .a .`[-.,'•a„Fy-ji.��i^•,=;n�� ' ' _ - !.. •-•:. . I INN .��� .L IN .• •r rr.n�.r"• N,!:•.JJ.� . .. . r •; r • r_rn �•+. yr ♦IN 4 IN •♦1•. . ��L � -r+....:t.� .'' r . . � /.!r:mm� --� _ ____ will .4 w•a+r�e.rq:• NlNNNNwF ;,= • - w Nee we NiN IN INN IN- IN- NNN IN lie -lifilill, . . . •�+: ^ iir _-••....... ..,�,rw♦•.. Yam•'" .�..-= . ` ' -�...ww- .wM._. _.mow..• : r_ IN NN lem ON No iioll we 'will, wv .J, . . ten.• 0n _ 'w.•. Y..�r.�-'v'^.. • :n :. y . Ne -, .' +' Y -•.y+r^' •:'::' '• cliff .r - . r:V •� \ .\,:ti:•••1.::• _• ASS • ' / • 4 MINN. N. _ Nil Nell i I • • IN A�FNei M, W. ei �. r s t„r, ter. ..� • ' i. S4ALLWi.�' R •�Y•N/.•N`. ' wwwwe_ V J'-S '• 1.. ram.. N. • r� ^ . ...M .. • Y _ _ maNN& fill ON wkww� Iwk • .{ ., 'S'.t` +-. I. 4/ ib f •_ .,RSV... n .. ANN IN, Zj IN rA ki 'A INN lose A Nil Or NN `_ "T't•`.: •. we �' r'i':.'"-j '•.4: _ ,, '.w.^i-v r N..o.1 it • •-';,t. •k. SiR'...:yNoll 1 �„ — Nl, r _W4 INN N. '�'`• - • • Z -t •• '• IN . -w ANN.� e'. . IN IL. 11 Nip Nol .• N rleer ' IN A4M v q � r. • ' 0. _ 13 4nna€ t�€Fs A Site To Meet An Business Need •$CBnt€ A:RCSI €RS. AR_�,1 fnC'nial +MF♦:„::t. .i5'?�•:r'?sA5 3- .4. ..-._._., NOR7'HWCST _ .. .t&:4 4 & ....,..,. ..-ip2j F:: 3 S7»7x f:�!.S ..3I NORTHWEST r%l ell e .° ' .r� ���� t;f1CiS:U.€59r3 Pl7.i^_.... .,.�SS.:F X_...._.. ......,.. ........ . . 3i �,yFRIYUVI.E•. .- ...._i7.:3 T0.T:y. ..:.. ..........l.-.1. % A 3_000,racm plarrk*4 co€ inuniiv inhere € atiiccs and industry complement lsc�rs -•�-•�• ...w. - -.--- - - , and open space. Conveniently, located ' on I-5 in the City of DuPont. boween Al1AtlABCI: #dOW �� € f3'Ii�sE�xEO ff5v 5�6GW'S. " Tacoma and 01v€npta. v I�ECOV`ER T_E BzmS 1 Q tias€i aca Puss. 70Ps AV renttul location on I-S for high visibility and easy access to West Coast MwKet%s. A Sea-Tac Intetn=10nal Xirpart and the �' Forts of Seattle and Tacoma Ready—to-go sites up to 200 ac;es. .1 Zoning. streemand utilities in place " ► ,' - _ including, filer optics to "ch parcel. i6 mal site prepara€ion required, •• �'" , ., . F G l :Certainty about #afore development. lk t• I 3esign guidelines and covenants protect. :>u nets' investment and ensure gtxai:ty, ; . 1 rtensire open space and a trap s►rstean for M desirable work envirorurient Mgt& skilled work force at hand `� ; � _ . R. ec:iiiiinent and €euaininz opportunities irovided by four universitim state atid. � Fri %vate colleges and mom than a dozers �! � ' x ,community end tecltt�ical colIeaes. A _ f s r w: l rr rAMN ASS �9M'S inovative residential neigh- borhttttals ;iLmcd for a variety or *ncoimes and life i i les. First homes available spng I994.ri �r r '{ LE NOW .. M � � ti S Jfr y€�kan&F ^` �<l.\pT€t B£ti43sTS.fTLx7 i E zoned for -kvarehouseldistribu� ' t� . rrmanuf'acturing, offfce parks, Developer agew -ail and housing. Infrastructure in Weyu aeuser \ill% Cassino €7r face. Rusinm sites from I to 200 Real Estate Company IMCB (Zi sefinems";acres for nxa�•imurn lIesi€�llity. tate! mwager€emDivisian P COMMERCIAL ?fl�i72]_"-fs[33? J NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT PROJECT : LOCATION . 3/98 Harbor Town Memphis , TN (Project is 3 minutes from Downtown. ) ACRES : 135 ( 100 acres above floodplain) TYPES OF USES . Residential (variety of types) , neighborhood commercial, office, school, marina & yacht club , parks PLANNED/BUILT : Planned : 17 Phases (most developed) Built : Residential : 60 acres (460 - 470 lots built) . Have built all but 69 lots . Variety of housing types (s-f attached, detached) . Architectural & price range diversity all within same block ( $ 125K= $ 750K) . Neighborhood commercial ( 10,000 s .f. ) opened Jan 1 (did a residents ' survey for needs) . Montessori school (has expanded 3 times) . Next Steps : Commercial district, offices & multi-family (apartments & rental town houses) . PROJECT SUMMARY: 1 ) One of the earliest neo-traditional projects ; trailblazing & barriers in all areas . 2 ) Formerly an old runway, industrial area. First spec home sold in 1990 . 3 ) Sales good now. Absorption initially slower than expected. Started in ` 88= '89 , down market, wrong side of town, buyers market. Also meant changing attitudes . 4) Top five reasons for people moving to Harbor Town: Ole Man River, proximity to work, sense of community, unique concept, architecture/style . 5 ) Risk for developer and risk for City (floating bonds for infrastructure , etc. ) . BEST PRACTICE : 1 ) Built-in flexibility -- allowed for response to market. Started with larger lots ( 75 X 150) , gradually decreased to smaller lots ( 25 X 90) . Good market with them. Just had to out keep adding more taps . 2 ) Ability to negotiate (utilities, etc. ) at all levels . BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Couldn't get local loans at first. No comparables for market research. No track record. 2 ) Builders wouldn 't come as expected as expected; had to switch marketing to end users . Spent 50x planned marketing budget . 3 ) Started in a down market . 4) Newness of concept. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES : 1 ) One of few examples with some commercial build-out (neighborhood commercial) . Doing well. 2 ) City's infrastructure investment in bridge and "spine" road opened area for development. 3) Residents ' demographics varied; development serving a variety of needs and providing a variety of choices . NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT : CASE STUDY ABSTRACT NORTH MUD ISLAND , ♦r�. { ©y� lawte r a , AND USE a us L t Commercilal Residential �a 1 F f Recr►lation A /.1 E TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS �..�►� 3'z3ta#io1Pr#gate �� . Funded Road Pmjeeta • �� rwwrrr�� Publicly Fslt]t38d sky Road projects Privately Funded � :� `�t+eT� exalt*' ARoad Praj:acts [ f Inter."tiers 1f improvements LRS7 *�-r* Pub#re AeerasV1010W Prepawd by i ,ct of punuibg and D rt ' OMI'YIi MXIWYRlWR fM� MM� w6 Aw,Y1 NIA ��,� PROJECT . LOCATION . 3/98 Prospect (New Town) Longmont, CO ACRES : 80 TYPES OF USES . Residential (single-family attached, detached, courtyard homes , townhomes , accessory units over garages) . Commercial, retail, office Parks Skating rink, pool PLANNED/BUILT0 Planned : 3 phases (total 305 lots -- 505 units) Built : 26 homes in Phase 1 built or under construction, plus 1 small commercial building (about 60 lots in Phase 1 ) . Park already in. PROJECT SUMMARY. 1 ) Long four-year process toward approval, initial groundbreaking. 2 ) Owner wanted to do something special with family tree farm. Grew up traveling world with family; design/ architecture interest. Read article about Andres Duany in WSJ & became a client. No previous development experience . 3 ) NO pre-market research. 4) Very hot overall area market. Can't do comparisons . Product very high end -- townhomes over $ 200K; s-f detached $ 350K ay. , garage accessory units ( < 500 sq ft) renting for $ 775 = $ 900/mo . 5 ) Only sold four units in first 4 months . However, since there has been more product built, units have been selling faster. BEST PRACTICE . 1 ) One of the pioneering new urbanism projects along Colorado ' s Front Range . 2 ) Good example of out-of-ground product. 3 ) Good example of developer/owner' s visionary perseverance . BIGGEST CHALLENGE . 1 ) Reviewing agencies and developer/designer not being ` on the same pages . ' Delays on all fronts . Review process frustrating for developer (believes delays caused product to be more high-end that planned for) ; project very administratively intensive . Several changes in consultants . Not all City staff on board with NU/TND (engineering, fire) . City even held "trash truck rodeos" to demonstrate maneuverability, etc . PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/NOTES : 1 ) This study presents interesting profile of project review/approval challenges which may not be solely attributable to neotraditional design, but also where neotrad design is not specifically accommodated in local regs . or processes . 2 ) Hard to pinpoint true sales/absorption stats . 3 ) Another neotrad project, "Quail Ridge, " is being proposed just east of this project, across Hwy. 287 (by the Schuck Corporation) . It w:7 x ti - r - a3 qjt _ • . a E0 • t_ . YAIZ tea� g tg s `•x;Sja ram: #: � � � 6 :S L -+� Q jIf r ea ; �itYT a wmi 4� �4 �i #p. . t • inw•E S ? Ao- 'Ionea Rai ^ DxYY' U 'xcau �� + ss ES x W xr� cF1s�a �to rz fS1� ' Y Fg ,i t ° s x { : t £. . ! okI v K k� . :Er;_ 4 1_ s xofIP IF 0 r ' t.•� [C � Y D ji!l S; • y►F t D ,`ni jr a +t�gSE'*s:.tiai S . g I I NSF f < a4tt € �S ' , .` : 83iXK�9�Xr39 !t # as Yds YRr Tiy a t s MY af let ral �Z y g �f t� w ' �f Sii-ya=R 1.VY..♦W!l�.Iti TT v ♦� r� w WF " _ Z Y Ai Yi r _ rw � �rT i V Y Cr4F V..r isr t YAT �J r • ` rcttlS+l4 ie worry a..r•^"�f ? wiw•� •• � . i i , •rw an 'sw¢l 1 , - 1 k( 4 l >R aIF { 4iNN _kor N .ry .K,tae 1 _!ry _ _ Into, t4i!{-.^!, A Ir. _ _ .•_ MILL �Sy y fiJe� •: {� .w•i�i�snirf •^ 1 , i y$t �1 x � ��"•'�.•u_ F 9 .Z .1 III o. -x - .7. « J rf K _ I J W �• �� ��' 1 R ! i IPI y f Sr .� f Y+r w- � i . F : a - i AN P it �R�1y_�ww • +, or n yS J,�r++�i + i 4 yY�z• A ! )) 7 -^~` _�� ` r7 �_. NIT awt "It NJ 144/1--i^^SC-• lFr s "'•+.:��'^�^A ` 0 •. £ N n. .< � .h�'wi ':�.yw.{. . .,a. ,F • �_E - ` ` a ' 4 1i I S J , Sa4i.l. Iwd... . a - 1 t�S J•' .� •.� YY rr. P i .Jar - a,rw c' C r4nom I = r I 1j (^ . nq"^r=i ihr f �f rt... = ,• R qtt p F + t �•a'• I IF 1 $a- _ { ; .'. :, -„ • ` ,. f 'J . N ' ^zr ¢^:�- L:T E CJ . •tt y{ t f �r ,'"' - w, ° a R+r•_i' J J: �Ri � �. _ _f -f '* 9- L43 .anw 4!. W • F`� Lfyv -fsR.f. �..- YC X. • - i. . S t �;ram' .t IY r.• 3 R pp�J A _ _ � .r...n,«, A '; W g{ IF: -� . :< �r a 11 �x. t - � i• 1 rr.u.. � T w� Y Ci .'• [' �° 3� .`i •-7 r IS kRea-warm!" _ r't'i . . _ �t�� L .J ��� ac ,K y tot It F N It .We '�f•.--Jy-y7t: { "r x._.J, -+ ", i � .14, IW . slF .. � • IMF a•e re ..AAA % ^' a.r {'" •. F_ . y ..E. r.{�;�• wIt IN Arl iS� (J)}• r -w �-' � .. i f•f ��. V•• JX. 77fYYYYr• �- RId IL t _ ��� : �. ��� �.T� rwrr • � - _11 y � a Ies �•• rfQ In l y 4 rA- r . I r a�w - a • S { I ^u y'a'' r `Y^ I a : �. p• M'1 r Y ' s.pp �a �. Y on 1"' s r f" act-• r.... No 31d IF � ;� g a i s s :e J a • .r ;i .t i,�i �.. -sS[ ! v p llrr 3..J...-j•��+ `i v-•-.`}"F.. � �5a� 'f . • 1 i t? i _ l � •� r. H f l ..', 11 i i t yjt ' r+a n«rr J r - .' q� f {� • . •� ,a�".�7 ry s . e - i f ip351,.t^ • �.np� HYxa ■Y `{.w f7-4 {p� r.en•I:.•..i1 ! 1 p�� r rt e = .r ,.e � 4,Y #a 7Yi•ww�gp'dyjrM'��,'r�+'+•..w�"'�'�w , a �:! 3 , s a MEMEMEME .� �nrIN ylt.. -...�....�: w• r , Flo ~� +`My�v. . `r-�•... «^.ar"k% SS�w atYSii S c �i•a�. , � AIM i . . . _w. .t t• Id . .3 7l� M�ti1V7! ; f i{ : 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Existing Conditions, Infrastructure, & Services Assessment 1 . 0 Introduction This section provides a summary of the factors affecting development within the study area. These factors include existing land use and ownership patterns , infrastructure and services, and environmental conditions . 2 . 0 Existing Land Use and Ownership Patterns 2 . 1 . Existing Land Use The Mountain Vista area has managed to retain its rural, agricultural character despite the tremendous growth occurring in the City and region. Except for the industrial uses related to the brewery operations of Anheuser-Busch (located the northwest portion of the study area) , agricultural land uses have continued to predominate the area. The few commercial and residential developments are scattered along East Vine Drive or County Road 50 . Exist- ing land uses are illustrated in the Existing Land Uses & Ownership Map . Table A-5 . 1 , Existing Land Uses, provides a summary of the total amount of acres of each land use in the area. The study area has experienced little of r Table A 5 . 1 , Existing Land Uses the residential, commercial, or indus- trial development that has taken place Percent of to the west and south . The Country Land Use Acres Y Stud Area Club area, located to the west, is charac- terized by primarily low and very low- Agriculture 27739 .8 86.9% density residential developments . To Commercial 6.3 0.2 the south, significant commercial and industrial development has taken place Industrial 134 .8 4 .3% between East Vine Drive and State Highway 14 (E. Mulberry Street) . To the Public 2 .7 0. 1 % east, agricultural uses predominate with Residential 21 .6 0 .7% several large commercial and public uses located along I-25 . Agricultural Vacant (Non Agriculture) 20 .7 0 .7% land uses are located north of the study Right of way 227.2 7 .2 area. Total 39153A 100.0% 2 . 2 . Ownership Patterns Fewer than thirty owners own all of the land in the Mountain Vista Area, and 14 major land- owners (those with 40 acres or more) possess approximately 95 % of this area. Table A-5 . 2 , Major Landowners, presents the total amount of acres held by each major landowner. 3/16/99 A - 5 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Anheuser Busch is the largest land- owner with approximately 1 , 133 acres Table A 5 . 2 , Major Landowners located in the northwest corner of the Percent of study area, adjacent to I-25 and Land Use Acres Study Area County Road 50 . Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 1133 .4 35 .9% 2 . 3 Cultural Resources K & M Company 347.8 11 .0% An inventory of existing resources Allen, Eva J/Lind H F 189 .7 6 .0% within the Mountain Vista Subarea reflects several types of historic re- Roche, Patrick B. 162 .2 5 . 1 % sources including single family homes, Hartshorn Farm Inc. 153 .3 4 .9% existing neighborhoods , farmhouses and outbuildings, school, and railroad Nineteenth Green 148 .9 4 .7% related facilities . Country Club Farms LLC 137.0 4 .3 % Adjacent to the intersection of Lemay Lewis, Nancy L. 134 .9 4 .3% Avenue and East Vine Drive, there are three historic neighborhoods, includ- East Vine Properties 130 .0 4 . 1% ing Alta Vista (northwest corner) , Bartran Enterprises , LLC 128 .3 4 . 1% Andersonville (southeast corner) , and Buckingham (off Lincoln Avenue) . Keith, Richard B. JR. 100 .3 3 .2 % These neighborhoods were devel- Weiss , Donald D oped as a result of the sugar beet Beverly A. 98 .3 3 . 1 factory operation on East Vine Drive, Holter, George A./ Nadine 79 .2 2 . 5 % and the buildings were developed in 1903 and 1923 . Baker, Robert R./June C . r 49 .2 1 .6% Further to the east, two other historic Minor Landowners 160 .6 5 . 1 % structures exist, including the Total 39153A 100.0% Plummer School circa 1906 (north- west corner of East Vine Drive and Summit View Drive) , and the Hope Sykes House just east of this intersection. The City of Fort Collins presently owns the facade to the Plummer School Building, which protects the building from demolition or any other exterior alter- ation, or reconstruction without prior consent of the Landmark Preservation Commission (covenant enacted in 1977) . The property is currently for sale . Within the study area are several existing farms that include main houses and an assortment of outbuildings . In addi- tion, the Union Pacific Railroad operates a number of station structures adjacent to street intersections that were developed in and around the turn of the century. 2 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 .0 Infrastructure and Services 3 . 1 Water Utilities The East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) will likely serve the majority of the Mountain Vista Subarea. The ELCO service area is shown on the Water Districts Map found at the end of this Appendix. The existing ELCO water lines are located throughout the Subarea, but are generally west of East County Road 9E . An additional 24-inch line is located along Mountain Vista Drive . ELCO also has plans to provide a 12-inch line to the proposed Waterfield PUD (west of County Road 9E and north of East Vine Drive) , and a 20-inch line to the proposed Waterglen development (in the southeast corner of the Subarea.) The City of Fort Collins Utilities (Water) currently serves the Anheuser-Busch facility within the Subarea via a 30-inch water line . At this time, no other developments tap into the line . FCWU will most likely serve the remaining Anheuser-Busch property and possibly areas in proximity to the 30-inch line . According to Web Jones of ELCO, and Roger Buffington of FCUW sufficient water lines cur- rently exist within the Subarea to serve any new development. There is also sufficient water supply to serve the area. The question of which water treatment facility will provide service to new development depends on the type and intensity of development, as well as the development' s proximity to existing water lines . 3 . 2 Sanitary Sewer The majority of the sanitary sewer collection system for the Subarea is under the jurisdiction of Boxelder Sanitation District (BSD) . BSD operates one major sanitary sewer line within the study area that runs from the southeast to the northwest corner. The BSD wastewater treatment facility is located at the confluence of the Cache la Poudre River and Boxelder Creek. According to the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Draft Facilities Plan, prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee in October 1997, the facility is currently running under its capacity of 2 . 34 mgd. Dean Smith, manager of BSD, was contacted regarding capacity issues and indicated that the BSD wastewater treatment facility is currently under-utilized and quite capable of serving the Mountain Vista Subarea. He also mentioned the possibility of BSD extending some of their existing lines into the southwest corner of the study area. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. is within the Mountain Vista Subarea boundary and owns a large por- tion of the study area. Currently, Anheuser-Busch discharges their domestic waste to BSD . High organic strength process wastes from Anheuser-Busch are land-applied and/or dis- charged to BSD . Some of the organic waste used to be discharged under contract to the City of Fort Collins wastewater treatment facilities . Although this is no longer occurring, the line still exists and consequently, the City of Fort Collins has some jurisdiction within the subarea. 3/16/99 A - 5 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 . 2 Stormwater Drainage The majority of the land in the Mountain Vista Subarea falls within the Cooper Slough Drain- age Basin as depicted on the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Basins Map . The Cooper Slough Basin is northeast of the City of Fort Collins and contains approximately 12 . 0 square miles of tributary area that flows in a southeasterly direction, ultimately funneling into Boxelder Creek. In October of 1987, the Cooper Slough Implementation Plan was prepared to update the 1981 Master Drainageway Planning Study for Cooper Slough and Boxelder Creek. The 1987 Plan states that the Cooper Slough floodplain area is very flat and its channel capacity is limited in places . The floodplain itself averages 1 ,000 feet in width in some areas . During flooding the channel depth is generally three feet or less except where there is ponding. The Cooper Slough flow becomes restricted at Vine Drive , the Colorado and Southern Railroad, and Colorado Highway 14, Vine Drive is the south border of the Mountain Vista Subarea. The 1987 Plan also recommends a system of improvements to mitigate the effects of flooding within the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin, the majority of which have yet to be implemented . Susan Hayes and Glen Schlueter, with the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Stormwater) , were contacted regarding the Subarea. They indicated that since the 1987 Plan's completion, there have been some changes in the area and Boxelder Creek has begun to spill over I-25 into the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin. Within the boundaries of the Mountain Vista Sub- area, Boxelder Creek is overflowing into Cooper Slough around Vine Drive . Consequently, the Master Plan for Cooper Slough needs to be updated to include necessary improvements . The City's Stormwater Division also indicated that the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin should not accept any more water flow until some improvements have been made in the area. As mentioned, the majority of the improvements recommended in the 1987 Plan have not been implemented. An updated Master Plan will probably require more improvements for the increased flow from Boxelder Creek. The new improvements will most likely be in the form of on-site detention ponds. The Stormwater Division emphasized that developers need to be forewarned that a Master Plan update may require additional improvements in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Currently, the Cooper Slough floodplain has not been completely mapped for the Mountain Vista Subarea by the City or FEMA. The City Stormwater Division reported that the updated Master Plan might identify and extend the floodplain. For the purpose of Mountain Vista Subarea development, natural low points and contours should be examined to determine areas of drainage in the southeast corner of the study area. These areas should be consid- ered when planning development. 4 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 . 3 Poudre Fire Authority Existing Facilities and Services. The Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) has two service delivery-points that currently serve the northeast growth area: Fire Station 6 located at 2511 Donnella Court, and the new Fire Station 12 located at 321 East Country Club (completed in the fall of 1998) . Therefore, this area will not require any additional capital improvements to accommodate growth as shown on the Structure Plan. In the event that future capital improvements ever become necessary in this area, funding is provided by an impact fee collected from new development . Existing Water Supply Requirements . At this time, a preliminary concern for this growth area pertains to water supply requirements . There does not appear to be sufficient water system infrastructure in place to support the potential growth . PFA currently requires fire hydrants at 800-foot intervals for residential areas and 600-foot intervals for commercial areas . The required fire flow from these fire hydrants in gallons per minute (gpm) will vary based on calculated fire loads and Uniform Fire Code requirements . Currently, PFA requires a minimum flow of 1000 gpm. However, under the 1997 Uniform Fire Code, this minimum will go to 1500 gpm. It is expected that water supply lines will be provided in conjunction with new development. PFA currently requires sprinkler systems in all commercial buildings greater than 5000 square feet where fire containment is not used. It should be noted that sustainable water flow requirements for commercial occupancies could be reduced by approximately 75 percent with the use of fire sprinklers . PFA also encourages and supports the use of fire sprinklers in residential environments . Fire sprinklers significantly reduce the loss of life by early extin- guishment of the fire, as well as dramatically increase the escape time for occupants . Residential Density. Although no new stations would be needed in this area regardless of the pattern of development, some basic considerations are worth noting from the perspec- tive of fire protection services . These considerations are used mainly in the siting of new stations, but may also be relevant to planning for new development. Residential density is an important factor in fire protection planning because it directly affects the cost of providing services . Like most public services, fire protection is most cost-effective at higher densities . Because response time is such a critical criteria in defining service levels , economies of scale can best be realized by serving higher numbers of residents. Appendix E of the PFA 1995 Strategic Plan describes a hypothetical model, which illustrates the relation- ship between suburban densities and per capita costs . This model predicts that per capita costs increase 77% , from $ 44 to $ 78, as densities decline between 4 . 5 and 2 . 5 dwellings per acre . Few development areas would be "pure" enough to use this model to predict actual costs because so many other factors must be considered. This model does support current land use policies that favor higher densities, seeking to maximize the cost-effectiveness of public services and infrastructure . 3/16/99 A - 5 5 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 .4 Fort Collins Police Services Existing Conditions . The portions of the Mountain Vista Subarea that are currently within City limits are predominately agricultural, and therefore , have minimal impact on Police Services . Traffic enforcement and calls for service from Anheuser-Busch are the primary recipients of police services . Planning Assumptions. The area considered under the Mountain Vista Subarea plan in- cludes approximately 3000 acres of land or slightly larger than 5 square miles. Full develop- ment of this area could include up to 20,000 residents and would be considered a multi-use area, including schools, parks, retail, and other business and industry. The time line for this development is spread over approximately 20 years . Impacts of Mountain Vista Development. Contrary to fire service standards where staffing is set by industry standards, police services have many factors by which staffing is judged. The number of calls for service from the community, time spent on calls for service, saturation rates , response rates and numbers of officers per thousand residents are some of those factors . Police Services has used a combination of these factors in projecting future staffing needs . Baseline data for response to calls for service from citizens was established in 1994. Utilizing that data and projecting the development of Mountain Vista indicates that Police Services would need to hire an additional 15 officers and 2 sergeants to maintain the 1994 service level by patrol. Five additional detectives would be required to maintain investigative ser- vices, and depending on the schools located in the area, there may be needs for DARE and School Resource Officers. There would also be additions needed to non-sworn staff, such as, records staff, dispatchers and crime scene personnel. Total personnel increases , in 1999 dollars, would be $ 3 ,055 ,950 first year costs and $ 2 , 407,050 ongoing costs . These figures represent costs associated with the allocation of these personnel resources all at once . Clearly, incremental or phased in allocation of personnel, as the area is developed, is appro- priate . Analysis is currently being conducted on the development of a police substation in the southeast portion of town to address the growing demand on Police Services in this area. Similarly, if the Mountain Vista area were developed as projected, an additional substation in the northeast area of town would likewise be needed . This facility would likely be accom- plished through a neighborhood police office in a retail storefront. Projected costs are approximately $ 200,000 for such a facility. If the Mountain Vista area were to develop without providing for the needed Police Services personnel and facilities , the result would be reduced service levels throughout the City. Response time to calls for service will increase and non-emergency calls for service may go unanswered. Quality of life issues, as provided by basic police services, will decline . 6 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Funding. Police Services continues to compete with other general fund service areas for resources . The Division has long been a proponent of a developmental impact fee to fund basic services including police . The current formula for this fee is inadequate for addressing police staffing needs to serve new development. Reallocation of this formula would better meet these needs and would allow development to pay the very cost of services needed as a result of the development. An alternative proposal would be to seek voter approval for a tax designed to adequately fund police services . Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) . Many community issues that result in demands for police services can be mitigated through the original design of the area. Police Services strongly recommends that one member of our staff be allowed to actively review and participate in the planning process . Early intervention through the design process can resolve conflicts that will arise later between competing interests in a mixed-use area. Additionally, development of contiguous parcels aids emergency services deployment and response . Generally, City Plan reflects the principles of CPTED which emphasizes natural security that comes from a sense of pride and ownership in the streets and other public spaces . Public visibility and activity is key. This means that building en- trances should face the street, not be hidden from public view in internal parking lots . Indi- vidual identity is emphasized over anonymous or repetitive rental complexes. Maintenance of existing development and infrastructure is important for security, making ease of mainte- nance a consideration. 3 . 5 City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation When development occurs within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan boundary, the Parks and Recreation Department has a primary objective of providing neighborhood and community parks to the standard established for urban densities . Service Provision Assumptions . The City' s per capita standard for park provision is 7 acres per 1 ,000 residents, with 2 . 5 acres allocated to neighborhood parks and 4 . 5 acres allocated to community parks . Neighborhood parks are distributed at a standard of one or more neigh- borhood parks per square mile section, and are to be located within 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile of the residences they are meant to serve . In addition, location of parks adjacent to schools or creek or drainage corridors is encouraged. While neighborhood parks are now constructed as single parks of appropriate size to serve the population of the square mile section, the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan advocates a scattering of smaller park sites in the future, with one park of approximately 8 acres contain- ing sports fields and the remaining acreage provided by smaller "pocket" parks . Currently, the City has a severe shortage of community parkland . According to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, the current level of service is 3 . 1 acres of community park and 2 . 3 acres of neighborhood park per 1 , 000 residents . In particular, a shortage of unprogrammed park space has been identified ; sports fields and developed recreation areas often dominate existing parks . 3/16/99 A - 5 7 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Existing and Planned Parks for the Mountain Vista Area. There are no existing parks within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan area; however, two proposed neighborhood parks are planned as part of the Waterfield (5 . 5 acres) and Waterglen Projects, both adjacent to and north of Vine Drive . Within close proximity, but outside of the project study area, is one proposed neighborhood park (6 acres) associated with the Richards Lake Project northwest of County Road 11 and Country Club Road. In addition, the existing Greenbriar Neighborhood Park (22 acres) is located adjacent to Lemay Avenue and Willox Lane . According to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, two neighborhood parks ( 10 acres) and one community park (100- 150 acres) are planned for the study area. Not shown on the Master Plan, but intended to be incorporated within Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN) , are smaller neighborhood pocket parks (1- 5 acres) . Proposed off-street trails are also described in the Master Plan, connecting neighborhood and community parks to other recreational/passive destinations such as the Poudre River Corridor area. School District Cooperation. The City' s Parks and Recreation Department works closely with the Poudre School District in service provision. Because all of the sports programs are school-based, and for economies of scale in service provision, neighborhood parks are generally located adjacent to school sites . Therefore, park provision in the Mountain Vista area is likely to be closely connected to school locations . While adjacent development is in many ways advantageous to Parks and Recreation, there are some issues in the location and siting of facilities that staff feels could be resolved differently. Currently, schools are located on their sites in such a way that their fields must be located on the parks ; often when sports fields are planned on park-owned land, the School District does not fund full development or maintenance . In addition, the School District has some con- cerns about increased liability resulting from public use of school fields . These unresolved issues indicate some potential for increased efficiency in future Parks and Recreation-Poudre School District cooperative efforts . Park and Recreation Facilities Funding. Parks and Recreation has several funding sources, including the General Fund, the Conservation Trust Fund (Colorado Lottery Proceeds) , the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Sales Tax, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) , neigh- borhood and community parkland fees , the Larimer County Natural Areas Tax, and other miscellaneous funds . Two park development impact fees are used. The first, a neighborhood parkland fee , has existed for over 20 years and averages $ 910 per unit (actual fees are tiered based on unit size) . The second is a community parkland impact fee, which averages $ 1 ,002 per unit. Within the Urban Growth Area, and outside of City limits, Parks and Recreation receives 80 percent of the park impact fees . The timing of annexation for areas outside City limits will affect the collection of park impact fees . 8 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Operations and maintenance are funded through the City's General Fund and on average 50 percent of the costs are covered by user fees paid by clubs . The City is allocating $ 5 .4 million annually in sales tax revenue for open space . These funds can be used for acquisition and development of trails and natural areas only, and no money from this source of tax revenue can be used for parks acquisition or development. However, joint funding from impact fees and "Natural Areas" revenue could be used to fund some open space projects in the Moun- tain Vista area, if appropriately designed and judged to be a priority. Trail acquisition and development are funded through the Conservation Trust Fund and the City's Natural Areas Tax, The Parks and Recreation Department hopes to create trail linkages through the Mountain Vista area, and have a standard of a 50-foot trail right-of-way. Trail maintenance is funded through the General Fund. Developer Coordination. The Parks and Recreation Department wants to participate with developers in determining the location of all parks in the Mountain Vista area. Although open space preserved by clustering is sometimes dedicated for parkland, it is only useful to Parks and Recreation if it can be incorporated into the park system and developed for active recreation. This presents a question of priorities for use of open space created by clustering that needs to be resolved as a policy issue . In many cases, developers want parks to be in place prior to development of housing units to create a visible amenity for potential buyers . In such cases, the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment uses a land dedication policy in which impact fees are used to reimburse developers for land dedication, roads and utility costs generally borne by the Department. 3 . 6 Poudre School District Existing and Planned Facilities . Poudre School District presently has one elementary school adjacent to the study area (Tavelli) off Lemay Avenue . Another elementary site has been acquired in conjunction with the Waterfield Project parcel near Vine Drive and Summit View Drive . However, future Vine Drive improvements (4-lane arterial) and the potential truck bypass may render this location incompatible , and an alternative site might be consid- ered by the District. According to the Poudre School District Master Plan , which is 5 years old and will be updated beginning in late May, the northeast area will need an additional elementary and high school within the next 20 years . Service Provision Assumptions. School need is determined based on population, not density. Elementary schools generally have a capacity of 550 students, based on a model of 18 classrooms plus two kindergarten classrooms . Tavelli Elementary, which currently serves the northeast area, is near capacity. Therefore, new development will create a need for a new elementary with additional growth in the Mountain Vista area. The District uses population projections to evaluate future school need created by population growth or "bubbles" of 3/16/99 A - 5 9 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan large age groups . Schools are located based on need; the District prefers to purchase adja- cent sites for multiple schools and parks , when possible . School Construction and Operations Funding. Recent school construction was funded through a $ 100 million bond issue . The 5-year bond issue build-out was recently completed, and no additional funds will be available for school construction for several years . Although funds were allocated for the elementary school development adjacent to Preston Junior High site , there was greater need for elementary school space to the north ; therefore, funds allocated to the southeast elementary school were instead used for expansion of Johnson, Lopez and Tavelli Schools . School operations are funded through mill levies and taxes . School Service Standards. Elementary enrollment capacities are based upon full room utilization and average class size of 26 students . The capacity of Tavelli Elementary is approxi- mately 650 . Secondary school capacities are based upon full room utilization. The capacity of Preston Junior High School is 900 . The capacity of Fort Collins High School is 1 , 800 . Planned school facilities in the northeast area, according to the Poudre School District Master Plan, include an additional elementary and high school projected over the next 20 years . The District is assessing the need to combine these facilities together on a single site, or look at acquiring separate parcels for each school. Preliminary district enrollment estimates indicate 22 , 390 students in the year 2000 (up 227 from 1997) . These same projections indicate a small decrease through the year 2004. Al- though these projections have been quite accurate in the past, there is no guarantee what impact a multitude of new developments will cause . The City has made no specific projec- tions of students in the Mountain Vista area, pending completion of the Subarea Plan and approval. 3 . 7 Development Project Funding Assessment Based on the infrastructure and services assessment, City staff developed a list of key projects relating to various service areas and compared existing fee structures and funding gaps associated with improvements to these projects in the Mountain Vista area (see Table A-5 . 3 , Development Project Funding Assessment) . 10 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Table A 5. 3, Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Development Project Funding Assessment Type of Project/Improvetnent Est. Cost Utility Cap./Exp. Fees Sales General Other Funds Funding Fees Tax Fund Gap Parks/[iails: 1 Community Park (100 Acres) $ 15,0002000.00 * Community Park Mara enanc No 2 Urban Pocket Park (2 Acre in CC Dist.) $4509000.00 * " it Neighb. Park No 3 Neighborhood Park (6 Ac. Waterfield PUD) $90Q000.00 " " Neighb. Park No 4 Neighborhood Park (6 Ac. Below CC Dist.) $900,U00.00 to " Neighb. Park No 5 Neighborhood Park (10 Ac. N. of H.S.) $1,5009000.00 to " Neighb. Park No 6 Neighborhood Park (3 Ac. E. of Lemay) $600,000.00 of " Neighb. Park No 7 (3) Mini-Neighborhood Parks (2 Acres) $9005000.00 to " Neighb. Park No 8 Trail/Bikeway (5.25 Mi. Thru. CC Dist.) $1,400,000.00 " " C. Trust - Lottery $52,500 9 Trad/Bikeway (7.4 ML Conifer/Eaton Ditch) $21000,000.00 to " C. Trust - Lottery $752000 10 Trail/Bikeway (1.25 Mi. Lake canal) $350,000.00 to " C. Trust - Lottery $125500 Natural Areas: 1 Waterfield PUD NA No 2 Waterglen PUD NA No Stormurater Drainage: 1 Cooper Slough Drainage Basin Master Plan Implementation * Stormwater No 2 Boxelder Drainage Basin Master Plan Implementation * Stormwater No 3 Dry Creek Floodway Improvements * Stormwater No Police Services. 1 Substation Law Enforcement $200,000 Public Amenities. 1 Public Plaza/Civic Spaces (In CC District) Yes 2 Branch Library Library $270003000 3 1-25/East Vine Drive Interchange (Gateway Landscaping $4005000.00 * Streets $400,000 Improvements) 4 1-25/Mountain Vista Interchange (Gateway Landscaping $40(L000.00 * Streets $4002000 Improvements) Transportation: Underpass @ Vine & Lemay $7,0003000 CB' $7,0003000 Underpass @ Vine & Timberline $7,0003000 CB' $7,0005000 Underpass @ Mountain Vista & BNRR $7,0003000 CB' $7,0005000 Mountain Vista Street Network (includes Vine)* $13977545110 CB' Street Qversizing $287652251- 6 1-25 Interchange $15,0003000 CB' $ 15,000,00- 0 Purchase & Relocation of Plumber School $8002000 CB' $8002000 Total Transportation $17577542110 $64,652,51- 6 *Assumes 150 acres of All holdings pay no fees 3/16/99 A - 5 11 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4 . 0 Environmental Conditions The ecological setting for the Mountain Vista Subarea has been dominated by human agricul- tural activities for the past 100 years . While flat croplands, channelized watercourses, and a major industrial facility (Anheuser-Busch) are its main features, its wide-open views of the mountains are still remarkable . Furthermore, several places in the study area were identified in the City's 1992 Natural Areas Habitat Inventory as sites that support rare or important animal species and communities . These sites, components of the Cooper Slough and the Dry Creek Resource Areas, were further described in the 1992 Natural Areas Policy Plan . 4. 1 Cooper Slough The upper reach of the Cooper Slough Resource Area is located in the study area, from about lh mile north of East Vine Drive, and extends south to Mulberry Street. (Cooper Slough may have once continued to the north and joined with the deeply incised channel that is now part of the Larimer County No. 8 Ditch -- also called the Number Eight Outlet) . Cooper Slough contains a complex of open water, wetlands, and grasslands where cattails, wet meadow and wetland shrub species grow. The area supports resident white-tailed deer and a high diversity of resident and migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland birds . Cooper Slough is the only warmwater slough in northern Colorado, providing open water habitat for wildlife throughout the year. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has expressed strong interest in protecting Cooper Slough's unique wildlife habitat. Development pressure on Cooper Sough has increased substantially in recent years . A large planned unit development (PUD) project called Waterglen has been approved by the City, which if built, will ultimately surround the headwaters north of Vine Drive . Through the development approval process, the City worked to protect the natural resources of the area, and an agreement was reached whereby the developer will dedicate the land containing the slough and the surrounding buffer area, and the City will implement a plan to further protect the site and enhance existing habitat. The Natural Resources Department will complete the habitat enhancement project simultaneously with the construction of Waterglen PUD . As the amount of impervious surfaces -- such as pavement and rooftops -- increases with growth and new development, more water will run off into the slough from the southeast portion of the study area. The increased amount of water will certainly raise the water level of Cooper Slough, which may then flood and drown many wetland vegetation species, reducing food supplies for wildlife . An opportunity exists for the stormwater management needs for new growth to be met in an innovative way that would increase Cooper Slough's wildlife habitat downstream . Part of the higher water volumes could be diverted into a pre-existing channel, which originally drained Cooper Slough south into the Poudre River, instead of directly east into Boxelder Creek. This would re-establish and expand a wetland area of high plant diversity and habitat value that has historically experienced a great deal of impact from livestock grazing, soil compaction, and agricultural run-off. 12 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4. 2 Dry Creek A portion of the Dry Creek Resource Area is located within the southwest corner of the study area. The corridor is known to provide wildlife habitat and to enable wildlife movement through a large urban area. Dry Creek extends from northwest of Willox Lane (between Shields Street and North College Avenue) where it is piped underground, surfacing east of College Avenue at Vine Drive . From here, it proceeds southeasterly to the Fort Collins Airpark. A wet meadow is associated with Dry Creek at the northeast corner of Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue, where it flows south into a wetland near the airfield. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan calls for maintaining a green corridor along sections of Dry Creek that pass through the study area. In conjunction with the City Stormwater Division's preparation of a new Basin Master Plan for Dry Creek, which includes a proposal to deepen the main channel of Dry Creek, the green corridor will be designed to provide both public access and habitat enhancements . As with Cooper Slough, development pressure adjacent to Dry Creek is very likely to in- crease in the future, channeling ever-larger volumes of stormwater run-off through the stream corridor and affecting the hydrology and ecology of the stream. Because both of these resource areas have been identified with wildlife habitat and migration, wide buffer zones need to be anticipated, and their natural values should be carefully considered when development occurs in close proximity to them. 4.3 Waterfield Pond and Wetland A large PUD has also been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board for a parcel of land located northwest of Summit View and East Vine Drive . It contains an 11 . 5-acre pond and wetland that is being purchased by the City, along with another 11 acres of upland habitat, as a natural area to protect wildlife habitat. As with the Waterglen PUD, a buffer has been in- cluded in the project design to reduce human impacts from the surrounding development, and a plan will be implemented to improve the existing habitat through additional plantings and vegetative management. 4 . 4 Canals Three canals built approximately 100 years ago for irrigation purposes cross the study area. They include the Larimer and Weld Canal, which channels water from west to east in the southern portion of the area, and the Number Eight Outlet, which carries water south and east into the Larimer and Weld Canal. In addition, Lake Canal is located in the southwest corner of the study area. The permanent presence of these canals will help establish the land use pattern for the area. They will also provide opportunities for canal-side bike and pedes- trian paths . Protection and enhancement of a buffer area along the canals would help pro- vide habitat for urban wildlife . 3/16/99 A - 5 13 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4 . 5 Air Quality The unavoidable impact that will occur to air quality in the Mountain Vista Subarea as a result of increased population, and therefore automobile emissions, cannot be ignored. Vehicle emissions are the major source of air pollution in Fort Collins, and air quality concerns are an integral part of the City' s transportation and land use planning. These issues were an impor- tant determinant in creating the Structure Plan (1996) and City Plan (1997) , which then will lead to subarea plans like the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan that create specific designs for new parts of the community. The Mountain Vista project is intended to help reach the goal of the 1993 Air Quality Policy Plan (AQPP) ; "to continually improve Fort Collins air quality as the city grows" by creating a new "activity center" that will facilitate alternative transportation. The AQPP clearly articu- lated that in the interests of improving citywide air quality, alternative transportation must become viable for citizens and therefore higher density and mixed-use development that enable alternatives to single-occupancy motor vehicle transportation should occur. The Mountain Vista Subarea is designed to ultimately build out as a "node" of high density that is well-linked to the rest of the city through alternative transportation systems, and to thus improve air quality in the long term. 4.6 Other Environmental Considerations The location of Anheuser-Busch's beer-making plant in the Mountain Vista Subarea makes it a significant feature and a large zone of separation has been specified to prevent compatibility issues with residential development in the future . Like many large industrial facilities, the plant generates a certain amount of noise, odor, nighttime lighting, and hazardous materials use and storage . The company has participated in the land use planning for Mountain Vista to ensure that considerable amounts of land are zoned for industrial, commercial, and busi- ness uses as a buffer between future residences and the plant. While this separation is antici- pated to mitigate impacts to the rest of the nearby community, it will be prudent to keep the potential for incompatible land uses in mind as Mountain Vista is constructed. 14 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Water and Sewer Utilities Map ti F w _ - - ~ r, f W E �T _cU , N { + ,� i Jf r 1kM x.. x H4R6E R07H - } ' } YSeIaryP MY � fJ' _ f !f f i HYY �!92 f J s � eu WATER DISTRICTS FORT CDLLINS / LCVELAND CITY LIMITS ELCO �__-- UCA ROUNDART ' . WEST FORT COLLINS EEO SUNSET SPRING CANYON WATER AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT Nate , Dlstrlct boundavres and service area boundaries are not necessarily the same . 3/16/99 A - 5 15 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 16 A - 5 3/ 16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Slofmwa of Map , . CITY OF FORT COLLINS Sto"R water ins . � . � C. \2 , �� 2 - Slujy,� Bm . E E ) l ! . _ __ \ 13M G IT , - , / — . ƒ�� : q J _ rj � - � . � - ��, �_ . \ � \ \ ( & \ / } - � TLY %%) %HTU ;3j6 4 ! s « l69Z9 A 17 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 18 A - 5 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Implementation Attachment COLORADO INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING TOOLS SPECIAL AUTHORITIES AND DISTRICTS The Colorado legislature has authorized the creation of a number of special entities to finance local infrastructure construction, operation, and maintenance . These entities run the gamut from non-profit corporations to powerful quasi-municipal corporations with broad authority. The ability of a local government to create and use a special authority or district depends on the existence of specific enabling legislation. Please refer to Table A-6 . 1 , attached to this report, which compares the attributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein. A. Public Building Authorities ("PBAs ") 1 . Type of Legal Entity PBAs are not-for-profit corporations formed at the request of municipalities (home-rule or statutory towns and cities) or land developers for the purpose of financing improvements without the use of public debt. Thus, unlike districts, PBAs are not quasi-municipal corpora- tions or units of government at all. Please refer to Table A-6 . 1 , attached to this report, which compares the attributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts dis- cussed herein. 2 . Scope of Authority PBAs can be used to finance the construction of any public improvements, including roads , parking facilities, water facilities, sewer facilities, and jails . A PBA may also be used to operate and maintain the facilities it constructs . 3 . Revenue-Raising Powers and Limits PBAs can issue tax-exempt revenue bonds secured by user fees or assessments . PBAs can also secure repayment of bonds by placing a consensual lien on the land within their territory, which lien is discharged by payment of an assessed fee collected upon the sale of the liened property. (A consensual lien is junior to prior private mortgages, deeds of trust, and other encumbrances unless subordinated by consent.) As non-profit corporations, PBAs do not enjoy governmental powers and thus cannot levy ad valorem property taxes to raise revenues . 3/16/99 A - 6 1 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4 . Formation and Administration Formation of a PBA is pursuant to the Colorado Non-Profit Corporation Act, C . R. S . § § 7-20- 101 through 7-29- 106, and subject to City Council approval. The members of a Public Building Authority are appointed by the City Council of the city within which the PBA is located. 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages Some of the advantages of a PBA include the following: • It involves significantly lower risk that development failures will affect the local government or its residents . • Its formation as a corporation provides limited liability protection for a devel- oper. • A PBAs revenue stream is not included in the city's budget and therefore does not count toward TABOR (Amendment 1) limits on total revenues . • It can often be adopted and formed without the political controversy that sometimes accompanies the formation of new taxing authorities or districts . Some of the disadvantages of a PBA include the following : • Cannot levy ad valorem property taxes . • Are not particularly well-suited to financing infrastructure where it is difficult to exclude non-payers (such as roads) . • Borrowing costs may be higher since repayment is not secured by traditional tax liens . B. Special Improvement Districts (" SIDs") Municipal Special Improvement Districts , or "SIDs", are a financial mechanism explicitly authorized by C . R. S . § 31-25-501 et se . , and frequently used to fund street and road con- struction. Both home-rule and statutory cities and towns may make local improvements via an SID . Local Improvement Districts ("LIDs") are the county version of an SID, with the additional ability to levy a sales tax within the LID to help fund the infrastructure develop- ment. See C . R. S . § 30-20-601 et se . and discussion below. Please refer to Table A-6 . 1 , at- tached to this report, which compares the attributes of Public Building Authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein. 2 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 1 . Type of Legal Entity An SID does not have a legal existence independent of the government of the municipality in which it is located, and may be organized only for specific and limited purposes and func- tions . An SID is merely an administrative tool of the local municipal government. 2 . Scope of Authority An SID may finance, construct, or acquire streets, alleys, related sidewalk improvements, water and sewer mains , sewer and sewage disposal facilities, heating and cooling mains , and lighting systems . Included in this authority is the power to reconstruct, replace, renew, or extend any of the listed types of street improvements . An SID is not authorized by state law to conduct or fund ongoing operational activities of any public improvement it has financed, constructed, or acquired. 3 . Revenue=Raising Powers and Limits An SID may collect money for improvements by an assessment on property located within the district that is "specially benefitted" by the particular improvement provided by the district. C . R. S . § 31-25-522 . This type of assessment is known in Colorado as a "special assess- ment. " The essential characteristic of a special assessment is that it must specifically benefit or enhance the value of the property that is assessed "in an amount at least equal to the burden imposed . " Bloom v City of Fort Collins , 784 P. 2d 304, 308 (Colo . 1989) , quotin Reams v. City of Grand Junction, 676 P. 2d 1189, 1194 (Colo . 1984) . Accordingly, special assessments must be calibrated such that no property is assessed to a greater extent than it benefits from the particular public infrastructure facility or service . An SID does not have authority to levy ad valorem property taxes, sales taxes, or to issue general obligation or revenue bonds. However, an SID may issue "special assessment" bonds, which are bonds backed by the revenues generated from projected special assessments . C .R. S . § 31-25-534 . As to applicability of Amendment 1 , the municipality "may" submit the question of issuing the special assessment bonds to registered, eligible voters (eligible voters can be defined, at the municipality's discretion, as either all Colorado registered electors in the municipality or only those registered electors who reside or own property in the dis- trict) . C . R. S . § 31-25-534 (3) . Additionally, the municipality in which the SID is located is authorized under state law to issues its general obligation bonds to help defray the costs of the SID ' s improvements, but in such case the majority of registered electors in the entire city must approve the indebted- ness . An SID also does not have the authority to raise revenue by setting rates , charges , or tolls for services, programs, or facilities furnished by the district. 3/16/99 A - 6 3 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 4 . Formation and Administration Formation of an SID may be initiated by a petition filed with the local municipal government that has been signed by a majority of the owners of property to be assessed for more than 50% of the total costs of the proposed improvements . Alternately, an SID may be initiated directly by the governing body of a municipality by resolution, declaring its intention to construct the improvements . However, a city's or town's ability to self-initiate an SID is subject to veto if a majority of the owners of property to be assessed for more than 50% of the total costs of the proposed improvements file written protests . Before creating an SID , the municipality must complete a benefits study showing, among other things, that the benefits to be conferred on each landowner exceed the cost of the assessment to be imposed on that specific landowner. Once formed, the municipality in which the SID is located, through existing municipal agencies, is directly responsible for all of day-to-day activities during construction of the improvements and for the district' s financial obligations . 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of an SID include the following: • They provide a government mechanism for financing the construction of certain types of improvements in a subarea of a municipality where demand may be greatest. • They address local infrastructure needs while allocating the costs of the solu- tion to those directly benefitting from the improvements . • The local municipal government has complete control over construction of improvements within the district. • An SID , compared to other districts, is relatively easy to create and administer. • Special assessments are not subject to voter-approval under the TABOR Amend- ment . The disadvantages of an SID include : • Only a narrow range of improvements may be financed through an SID . • An SID is not authorized to use special assessments to fund operations or maintenance of the facilities constructed. • Preparation of the required benefits study may be difficult and costly. 4 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • Issuance of special assessment bonds could require Amendment 1 approval by all registered electors in the municipality or by electors owning or residing within the district, if the local government chooses to submit such question to the voters . C . Local Improvement Districts ("LIDS") Local improvement districts, or "LIDS" , are a financial mechanism available to Colorado counties, as explicitly authorized by C .R. S . § 30-20-601 et se . LIDs are frequently used by counties to fund street and road construction. LIDs are the county version of an SID, with the additional ability to levy a sales tax to help fund the infrastructure development. Please refer to Table A-6. 1 , attached to this report, which compares the attributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein. 1 . Type of Legal Entity An LID does not have a legal existence independent of the government of the county in which it is located, and may be organized only for specific and limited purposes and func- tions . An LID is merely an administrative tool of the local county government. 2 . Scope of Authority An LID may construct, improve, or acquire streets and related sidewalk improvements, or provide street lighting, drainage facilities, water transmission or distribution improvements, and sewage disposal facilities . An LID ' s jurisdiction is generally limited to the unincorporated areas of a county, but may extend to within a municipality with that municipality' s consent. C .R. S . § 30-20-603 (1) . An LID is not authorized by state law to conduct or fund ongoing operational activities of any public improvement it has financed, constructed, or acquired. 3 . Revenue=Raising Powers and Limits An LID may collect money for improvements by an assessment on property located within the district that is "specially benefitted" by the particular improvement provided by the district. C . R. S . § 30-20-604 . As discussed in the SID section above, this type of assessment is known in Colorado as a "special assessment. " The LID 's assessment resolution must be recorded against all assessed property in the district. C .R. S . § 30-20-610 . An LID also has authority (unlike a SID) to levy a sales tax if it is located within a county having a population greater than 100, 000 . C . R. S . §30-20-604 . 5 . The sales tax, levied only on properties located in the district, may fund all or a portion of the cost of the improvements (except for the cost of water or sewage collection or transmission systems) . A proposal for a district-wide sales tax is subject to majority voter approval by county registered electors who reside within the boundaries of the LID . C . R. S . § 30-20-604 . 5 (4) . In addition, the Colorado 3/16/99 A - 6 5 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan legislature recently adopted legislation that limits annual increases in sales tax revenues generated by an LID pursuant to the TABOR Amendment. C .R. S . § 30-20-604 . 5 (2) (a) . An LID may also issue "special assessment" bonds, which are bonds backed by the revenues generated from projected special assessments. C .R. S . §30-20-619 . As to applicability of Amendment 1 , the county "may" submit the question of issuing the special assessment bonds to registered, eligible voters (eligible voters can be defined, at the municipality' s discretion, as either all Colorado registered electors in the municipality or only those registered electors who reside or own property in the district) . C . R. S . § 30-20-619 (5) . Additionally, the county in which the LID is located is authorized under state law to issues its general obligation bonds to help defray the costs of the LID' s improvements, but in such case the majority of registered electors in the entire county must approve the indebtedness . C .R. S . § 30-20-618 . An LID does not have the authority to raise revenue by setting rates , charges, or tolls for services , programs, or facilities furnished by the district. 4 . Formation and Administration Formation of an LID may be initiated by a petition filed with the city that has been signed by a majority of the owners of property to be assessed for more than 50% of the total costs of the proposed improvements . Alternately, an LID may be initiated directly by the county' s gov- erning body by resolution. However, a county's ability to self-initiate a LID is subject to an absolute veto if a majority of the owners of property to be assessed for more than 50% of the total costs of the proposed improvements file written protests . C . R. S . § 30-20-603 (2) (a) . Before creating an LID, the county must complete and adopt a preliminary plan (benefits study) showing, among other things, that the benefits to be conferred on each landowner exceed the cost of the assessment to be imposed on that specific landowner. C . R. S . §30-20- 603 (5) . Once formed, the county in which the LID is located, through the board of county commis- sioners, is directly responsible for all of day-to-day activities during construction of the im- provements and for the district's financial obligations . 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of a LID include the following: • They provide a government mechanism for financing the construction of certain types of improvements in a subarea of the county where demand may be greatest. 6 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • They address local infrastructure needs while allocating the costs of the solu- tion to those directly benefitting from the improvements . • The county has complete control over construction of improvements within the district. • An LID, compared to other districts, is relatively easy to create and administer. • Special assessments are not subject to voter-approval under the TABOR Amend- ment . • An LID can levy a targeted sales tax to help finance improvements, in addition to levying special assessments . The disadvantages of an LID include : • Only a narrow range of improvements may be financed through an LID . • An LID is not authorized to use special assessments or sales tax revenues to fund operations or maintenance of the facilities constructed. • An LID 's collection of sales tax revenues is subject to the TABOR Amendment's revenue-raising limitations . • Preparation of the required preliminary plan/benefits study may be difficult and costly. • Issuance of special assessment bonds could require Amendment 1 approval by all registered electors in the county or by electors owning or residing within the district, if the county chooses to submit such question to the voters . D . General Improvement Districts ("GIDs") Municipal general improvement districts, or "GIDs", are a financial mechanism explicitly authorized by C . R. S . § 31-25-601 et se . Both home rule and statutory cities and towns may take advantage of GIDs to finance infrastructure . Please refer to Table A-6 . 1 , attached to this report, which compares the attributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein. 1 . Type of Legal Entity A GID is a quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state that may be organized for specific and limited purposes and functions . 3/16/99 A - 6 7 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 . Scope of Authority A GID may construct, install, or acquire "any public improvement, including parking and off- street parking facilities but excepting electric light or gas systems or plants . " C . R. S . § 31-25- 602 . A General Improvement District also has the power to operate and maintain any public improvement it has financed, constructed, installed, or acquired. Moreover, a GID can be created to construct a facility, with the directive to then turn over the facility to others for maintenance and operation. 3 . Revenue=Raising Powers and Limits A GID may borrow money and incur indebtedness . It may issue general obligation and revenue bonds ; however, debt in excess of $ 5 , 000 must be approved by Colorado registered electors who either reside or own property within the district boundaries . It should be noted that the indebtedness of a GID is not the indebtedness of the city or town in which the district is located. A GID may also raise revenue by setting rates, charges, or tolls for services, programs, or facilities furnished by the district. In addition, a GID may levy ad valorem property taxes on all taxable property within the district. Revenues from such taxes may be used to repay any indebtedness, including bond repayments, or for maintenance and operating expenses associated with facilities and prop- erty of the district. Under Amendment 1 , all ad valorem property taxes sought to be levied by a GID must first be approved by a majority of Colorado registered electors who either reside or own property within the district boundaries. See C . R. S . § 31-25-602 (2) for definition of "elector of a dis- trict . " Also under Amendment 1 , a GID -- just like any other political subdivision of the state -- is subject to that amendment's total revenue-raising limitations . 4. Formation and Administration Formation of a GID is initiated by a petition filed with the municipality that has been signed by a majority of those registered electors in the municipality who own real or personal property within the proposed district. The municipality may approve or disapprove the petition. It is important to note that a local municipal government cannot force the creation of a GID without the consent of the property owners . Once formed, the governing body of the municipality in which the GID is located comprises the board of directors of the district, which means the city or town is directly responsible for all of the district's day-to-day activities and is accountable for the district's financial obliga- tions . 8 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of a GID include the following : • They provide a government mechanism for financing the construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of improvements in a subarea of a municipality where demand may be greatest. • They address local infrastructure needs while allocating the costs of the solu- tion to those directly benefitting from the improvements . • Votes required by Amendment 1 need only be presented to electors residing or owning property within district boundaries, who also are the taxpayers directly impacted by the outcome of the election and which would presumably make passage of such a ballot issue easier. • The local municipal government has complete and direct control over borrow- ing, taxation, and construction of improvements within the district. The disadvantages of a GID include : • The municipality must commit the necessary resources to oversee, administer, and account for all district funds separately from other revenues and expendi- tures . • The ability to raise revenues by levying property taxes is subject to approval by the district' s electors . • A GID is subject to the same Amendment 1 total revenue-raising limitations as a local government. E . Business Improvement Districts ("BIDs") Business improvement districts ("BIDs") are a cost-recovery tool explicitly authorized by C .R. S . § § 31-25- 1201 through 1228 . All municipalities, both home-rule and statutory cities and towns, may create and establish a BID . BIDs can provide business-oriented public improve- ments and services in areas where at least 50% of the land is zoned, developed, and used for commercial property, or in an area that the City Council has designated for new commercial development. Please refer to Table A-6. 1 , attached to this report, which compares the at- tributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein. 1 . Type of Legal Entity A BID is a quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state that may be organized for specific and limited purposes and functions . 3/16/99 A - 6 9 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 2 . Scope of Authority A BID may construct and install any of the following public improvements and services : streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian malls, street lights, drainage facilities, landscap- ing, decorative structures, statuaries, fountains, identification signs, traffic safety devices, bicycle paths, off-street parking facilities/structures, benches, restrooms, information booths, and public meeting facilities . A BID also has the power to operate and maintain any of the above-listed improvements . Alternately, a BID may turn over a constructed facility to others for maintenance and opera- tion. 3 . Revenue=Raising Powers and Limits A BID may borrow money and incur indebtedness. It may issue coupon, general obligation, and revenue bonds ; however, general obligation debt must be approved by a majority of registered electors who either have a primary dwelling in the district or who own property within the district. See C .R. S . § 31-25- 1203 (4) for definition of "elector. " All revenue-raising proposals are also approved by the City Council through the city's approval of an annual operating plan and budget. The indebtedness of a BID is not, however, the indebtedness of the city in which it is located . A BID may also raise revenues by setting rates, charges, or tolls for services, programs, or facilities funded by the district. In addition, a BID may levy and collect ad valorem property taxes on commercial property within its boundaries . Under Amendment 1 , all ad valorem property taxes sought to be levied by a BID first must be approved by a majority of registered electors who either have a primary dwelling or own property within the district boundaries . A BID may get around having to submit the question of property taxes to eligible electors by including the ad valorem taxes in its formation petition to the city. C .R. S . § 31-25- 1213 . A BID may also set up special improvement areas within its boundaries to assess property specially benefitted by certain, specific improvements . Finally, a BID -- just like any other political subdivision of the state -- is subject to Amendment 1 's total revenue raising limitations . 4. Formation and Administration Formation of a BID is initiated by a petition filed with the city that has been signed by persons who together own at least 50% of the property in the proposed district and who also repre- sent a majority of landowners within the proposed district. The city, after public hearing, either approves or disapproves the petition . The city cannot force the creation of a BID without the consent of the commercial property owners in the district. 10 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Once formed, a five-member board of directors is selected. A Business Improvement District can have an elected board (elected from among commercial property owners within the district) , a board appointed by the City Council, a board consisting of the City Council itself, or the board may be the governing body of an urban renewal authority, downtown develop- ment authority, or General Improvement District when the BID is located within the bound- aries of any of these entities . 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of a BID include the following: • They provide a government mechanism for financing the construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of business-oriented improvements when there is de- mand for such facilities and services in already-developed commercial areas or newly designated commercial areas . • They address local infrastructure needs while allocating the costs of the solu- tion to those directly benefitting from the improvements . • Votes required by Amendment 1 need only be presented to registered electors who either reside or own property in the district, who also are the taxpayers directly impacted by the outcome of the election and which would presumably make passage of such a ballot issue easier. • The city is able to maintain close control of a BID through its annual review and approval of the district's budget and operating plan. The disadvantages of a BID include : • Unlike Title 32 Districts (see below) , a BID cannot be created in purely residen- tial areas . • Only a limited range of improvements may be financed through a BID . • The ability to raise revenues by levying property taxes may be subject to ap- proval by the district' s eligible electors if the tax levy is not included in the formation petition submitted to the city. • A BID is subject to the same Amendment 1 total revenue-raising limitations as a local government. 3/16/99 A - 6 11 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan R Title 32 Special or Metropolitan Districts Title 32 Special or Metropolitan Districts are financing tools explicitly permitted under Colorado law. C .R. S . § 32- 1- 101 et seq. for both home rule and statutory cities/towns, and for counties . Special and Metropolitan Districts in Colorado earned a bad reputation in the mid- and late- 1980's when several that had issued large amounts of general obligation bonds defaulted on their debt service obligations and ultimately filed for bankruptcy. Substantial media coverage of huge increases in Special/Metropolitan District tax rates and then the districts ' failures made municipalities wary of approving this type of financing tool. However, since the 1980 ' s, the Colorado Legislature has enacted several provisions that provide additional controls on the ability of Special/Metropolitan Districts to issue indebtedness . In addition, local governments have learned from their mistakes and are now requiring substantially more control and risk- limiting factors prior to approving formation of a special/metropolitan district. As a result, Title 32 Special/Metropolitan Districts are once again becoming more of a viable cost-recovery tool for public infrastructure projects . Please refer to Table A-6A , attached to this report, which compares the attributes of public building authorities and the various types of districts discussed herein . 1 . Type of Legal Entity A Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District is a quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state that may be organized for specific and limited purposes and functions . Its governing board of directors is elected by the property owners within its boundaries, rather than appointed or controlled by the local government in which the district is located. 2 . Scope of Authority A Title 32 Special District may finance and/or construct : ( 1) street improvements ; (2) water facilities ; (3) sanitation facilities ; (4) parks and recreation facilities; (5) safety protection; (6) fire protection; (7) transportation; (8) television relay and transmission; and (9) mosquito control facilities and services . A "Metropolitan District" is a Title 32 Special District that is organized to finance and/or construct any two or more of the above-listed facilities or services . A single-purpose Title 32 Special District may be organized to provide any one of the following services : (1) fire protection; (2) water; (3) sanitary sewer, or (4) parks and recreational activities . Colorado law prohibits more than one Title 32 Special District from providing the same services in a common geographical area -- overlapping districts are not allowed. In addition to financing and constructing any of the above-listed types of public facilities and services, a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District also has the power to operate and maintain such facilities. However, the county or city in which a district is located can also require that the district not operate or maintain such facilities but instead allow the county or city to operate and maintain them if it wishes . 12 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan 3 . Revenue-Raising Powers and Limits A Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District may borrow money and incur indebtedness . A Special/ Metropolitan District may issue bonds, including revenue bonds . However, general obligation bonds issued in an amount greater than 1 . 5 % of the total assessed value of property within the district must be approved by a majority of Colorado registered electors who either reside or own property within the district boundaries . The local government in which the district is located may limit the amount of such indebtedness . It is important to note that the indebtedness of the Special/Metropolitan District is not indebtedness of the city or county in which the district is located. A Special/Metropolitan District may also raise revenue by setting rates , charges, or tolls for services, programs , or facilities furnished by the district. Colorado statutes now limit the total amount of general obligation debt that a Title 32 Special/ Metropolitan District can issue to the greater of $ 2 million, or fifty (50) percent of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Special/Metropolitan District. This debt ceiling may be exceeded only if. (1) the mill levy pledged for debt repayment is capped at 50 mills ; (2) the debt incurred is rated in one of the 4 highest-grade categories ; (3) the debt is required to provide facilities required by federal or state law; (4) the debt repayment is secured by a letter of credit or similar device issued by a depository institution with substantial net worth or reserves; or (5) the debt is issued to financial institutions or institutional investors . In addition, a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District may levy ad valorem property taxes on all taxable property within the district . Revenues from such taxes may be used to repay any indebtedness, including bond repayments, or for maintenance and operating expenses associated with facilities and property of the district. The city or county in which the district is located has the power to limit the rate of such taxation. Under Amendment 1 , all ad valorem property taxes to be levied by a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District must first be approved by a majority of registered electors residing or owning property in the district. Finally, state law gives a city or county the power to review the operations of the Special/ Metropolitan District every five years (so-called "quinquennial review") , including review of the district' s ability to incur and repay debt. If it is not satisfied with the performance or viability of the district, the city may trigger a service plan amendment process . C .R. S . § 32- 1- 1101 . 5 . 4. Formation and Administration Formation is initiated by the preparation of the proposed Special/Metropolitan District' s service plan, which must describe the proposed services, contain a financial plan, describe the facilities to be constructed, and describe the estimated costs and expenses related to organization and initial operation of the district. The city or county in which the proposed Special/Metropolitan District is located must approve the service plan before the district can begin operation. The local governing body may approve, 3/16/99 A - 6 13 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan approve with conditions, or disapprove the service plan as presented. This authority gives local governments an opportunity to further control or limit the incurment of general obligation debt, or other activities undertaken by the district. Organization of the district is also subject to approval by a majority vote of all registered electors who either reside or own property within the district. C .R. S . § 32- 1-305 . Once formed, a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District is governed by a five-member board of directors elected from among the owners of property located within the district' s boundaries . Day-to-day direct control of the district's activities is thus out of the hands of elected county or city officials . 5 . Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District include the following: • They provide a government mechanism for financing the construction, operation, and maintenance of improvements in a subarea of a county or city where demand may be greatest. • They addresses local infrastructure needs while allocating the costs of the solution to those directly benefiting from the improvements . • Votes required by Amendment 1 need only be presented to registered electors who either reside or own property in the district, who also are the taxpayers directly impacted by the outcome of the election and which would presumably make passage of such a ballot issue easier. • The credit worthiness of the county or city in which the Special/Metropolitan District is located is not at issue or at risk. • The city or county in which the Special/Metropolitan District is located is not responsible for the district's direct, day-to-day administration. • A Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District can often borrow funds at lower rates than a developer borrowing at commercial rates . The disadvantages of a Title 32 Special/Metropolitan District include the following: • The city or county in which the Special/Metropolitan District is located cannot directly control the borrowing or construction practices of the district. • Any financial difficulties that may arise are outside the realm of the city or county to address, and yet may require the district to significantly raise property taxes payable by resident landowners within the district. 14 A - 6 3/16/99 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • The ability to raise revenues by levying property taxes is subject to Amendment 1 approval by registered electors who either reside or own property in the district. • A Title 32 District is subject to the same Amendment 1 total revenue-raising limitations as a local government. 3/16/99 A - 6 15 Table A 6. 1 Comparison of Districts & Public Building Authorities Public Building Special Local General County Public Special or Business Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Metropolitan Authority District Distric Distric District District (Title 32) District Any public Streets, street Streets, street Any public Any public Streets, water, Business-oriented improvement lighting, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, improvement and improvement, sewer, storm improvements & services, including water, water mains, sidewalks, facilities maintenance, including streets, drainage, parks & including streets, sidewalks, sewer, roads, jails, sewers and sewer for transmitting including parking parking, sewer, recreation, traffic pedestrian malls, fountains, PERMITTED and parking facilities, disposal works, water or sewage. facilities, but not drainage, heating control, fire, paths, decorative structures, IMPROVEMENTS and maintenance. heating & cooling electric light or gas & cooling works, transportation, planning development mains. systems. fire protection. mosquito control, activities, maintenance, L tr t.v relay and promotion/marketing,o transmission. security, snoowwremoval, & design assistance. POWERS C Condemn property NO NO NO YES YES YES* NO Operate facilities YES NO NO YES YES YES YES A• Levy ad valorem taxes NO NO NO YES YES YES YES (on commercial property) C a Special assessments YES (consensual lien) YES YES NO NO NO YESCharge A crates, tolls, YES NO NO YES YES YES YES chargLevy sales tax NO NO YES NO NO NO NO A Issue bonds: GO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES A Revenue YES NO NO YES YES YES YES Special Assmt. NO YES YES NO NO NO NO FORMATION Petition NO YES YES YES YES YES YES Form a non-profit Resolution/Ordinance corporation pursuant of Governing Body to state laws and YES YES NO NO YES YES approved by municipality. TYPE OF LEGAL Not-for-profit Administrative tool Administrative tool Quasi-municipal Quasi-municipal Quasi-municipal Quasi-municipal ENTITY corporation. of the local of the local county corporation. corporation. corporation. corporation. government. government. Board of directors Board of directors Administered City Council/ County board of Board elected from Board may be chosen by appointed by City appointed by City through existing governing body is commissioners is and by property variety of means including: ADMINISTRATION Council. Council. county agencies. ex officio board of ex officio board of owners in district. election by property owners w directors. directors. in district; appointed by city council; or city council acts C\ as board. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan SELECTED SOURCES Colorado Municipal League, Amendment 1 Implementation : A Municipal Guide to the Taxpayer' s Bill of Rights (TABOR) (Aug. 1993) . Coughlin & Company, Inc. and Kirchner Moore & Co . , "Infrastructure Financing Alternatives . " Duerksen, Christopher J. , Thomas Ragonetti, and J . Thomas McDonald, "Develop- ment Impact Fees in Colorado, " Development Impact Fees in the Rocky Moun- tain Region (Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, c . 1994) . Elliott, Don, editor. Colorado Land Planning and Development Law (Colorado APA, 4th ed. 1992) . McGeady Sisneros, P. C . , `Alternative Methods for Financing Infrastructure Costs for New and Existing Developments" (June 1995) . McGeady Sisneros, P.C . , "District Overview and Comparison, " (June 1995) . Strauss, Eric J . and Martin L. Leitner, "Financing Public Facilities with Development Excise Taxes : An Alternative to Exactions and Impact Fees, " Zoning and Plan- ning Law Report, Vol. 11 , No. 3 (March 1988) . 3/16/99 A - 6 17