160
APPENDIX
Appendix
A. Related Goals: Fort Collins City Plan/ Larimer County Master Plan......................... A163-170
B. History of the East Mulberry Street Area....................................................... A171-176
C. Issues & Options Questionnaire Response Highlights ...................................... A177-178
D. Larimer County/City of Fort Collins Adoption Resolutions .................................... A179-182
E. Existing Transportation Conditions Summary..................................... A183-194
F. Larimer County Urban Street Standards -Policy and Standards for Maintenence & Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (Fort Collins) - Appendix G (pp G1-G5) ......................................................................... A195-200
G. Annexation Assessment ......................................................................... A201-204
H. Transfer of Density Unit (TDU) Program ......................................................................... A205-206
A- 162
A. Related Goals
-City Plan
The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, or ‘City Plan’ as it is known, was adopted in February of 1997.
Vision
The Vision is to make change work for Fort Collins...while protecting the best of what we have...and recognizing who and what Fort Collins will become...by preserving a sense of community identity and pride. Further….Fort Collins will confront and mitigate the negative impacts of the car on our lives…and will share in the region’s responsibilities.
Key Principles
Compact Development Pattern
Growth within the city will be focused on promoting a compact development pattern. This compact pattern translates into higher densities in well-defined areas, preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, providing efficient public services, and not fostering urban sprawl.
Interconnected Transit System
An expanded public transit system has been incorporated as an integral element of the City Structure Plan. The system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major travel corridors, with feeder transit lines providing connections from all major districts within the city.
New Activity Centers in Transit-Served Areas
This comprehensive network of greenways, linking important natural areas, parks, neighborhoods, and community facilities, will weave their way along major water- and drainage-ways.
Interconnected System of Open Lands
A comprehensive network of greenways, linking important natural areas, parks, neighborhoods, and community facilities, will weave its way along major water- and drainage-ways.
Urban Growth Boundary
The City Structure Plan retains and reinforces the concept of a Community Growth Management Area as one means of managing growth in the city’s planning area.
Multiple Means of Travel
The city’s form and structure will facilitate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, as well as cars and trucks. Street standards and site planning requirements will ensure connectedness and accessibility for all means of travel.
Goals
Land Use
- Compact land use pattern within a well-defined boundary.
- Cohesive, district, diverse, attractive and safe neighborhoods.
- Primary Downtown center supported by other districts with unique or specialized areas such as employment, civic, mixed-use and commercial.
- Existing underutilized commercial and industrial areas --mixed-use redevelopment, revitalization and economic growth.
- Colorado State University will continue to be one of the city’s major activity centers.
Housing
- Safe, habitable and affordable housing.
- Mix of housing distributed throughout the city.
- Encourage preservation of existing housing.
- Create an environment that meets the special needs of our residents.
- Be environmentally sustainable.
Transportation
- Develop a transportation system incorporating many modes of travel.
- Transportation system will improve air quality, manage traffic congestion, and support efficient land use.
- Transportation and land use decisions will be mutually supportive.
- Growth will be structured in a compact pattern that facilitates pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel.
- Transportation system will be integrated with nearby county, state and national systems.
- Walking will be a practical and enjoyable means of travel.
- The bicycle will be a viable transportation choice for residents and visitors.
- Have a comprehensive public transit system.
Environment
- Be a responsible steward of the natural environment.
- Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality as the city grows.
- Maintain high standards for ensuring clean water quality.
- Have strong resource conservation programs.
- Have a strong waste reduction and management program.
- Be protected from all forms of hazardous materials.
Community Appearance and Design
- Streets and walkways will be planned, built, and maintained as attractive public spaces.
- Housing in many different forms will be included in attractive, safe neighborhoods that encourage walking and social interaction.
A- 164
RELATED GOALS - COUNTY & CITY
- Commercial buildings will contribute to the character of Fort Collins.
- Thoughtful design of the total community image and environment.
Natural Areas and Open Lands
- Have a balanced system of open lands, natural areas, recreation spaces, and parks.
- Natural areas will be preserved and protected.
- Community will continue to acquire and manage land and water.
Economy
- Economic health of our community will be sustainable.
- Maintain its role as a regional economic center.
- Colorado State University will continue to be a major factor in our community’s economy.
- Continue to support cultural amenities as a reflection of the importance of the arts and our heritage.
Growth Management
- Based on creating a city that is livable and sustainable.
- Greatest value possible for its investments in infrastructure.
- Involve citizens in the planning and decision making processes of government.
- Development will not be permitted where it cannot be adequately served by critical public facilities and services.
- Land use regulations will be a primary mechanism for implementing the goals and policies of City Plan.
- Plans and policies of the City, adjacent municipalities, Colorado State University, Poudre and Thompson School Districts, and Larimer County will be closely coordinated.
- Monitoring and evaluation of actual experience and trends in meeting the goals of the Plan will lead to both City Plan amendments and improved ability to project future conditions.
Related Goals
- Larimer County Master Plan
The purpose of the Larimer County Master Plan is to serve as a policy document for development decisions in Larimer County and to provide a basis for intergovernmental agreements with the cities and towns of Larimer County. This master plan establishes guiding principles and outlines implementation strategies as a framework for organizing the planning concepts. This section of the appendix is intended to summarize the guiding principals and implementation strategies related to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The guiding principles are organized into five categories:
- Growth Management
- Land Use
- Public Facilities and Services
- Transportation
- Environmental Resources and Hazards
Growth Management:
GM-4 Larimer County shall continue to allow for urban development within cities and designated urban areas.
• GM-4-s2 Intergovernmental agreements shall clearly define an an nexation policy that is consistent with City and County growth management principles. In development not eligible for immediate annexation, the County will require applicants to meet city criteria, standards and fee structures adopted by the County, so that the areas may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs. The County also will encourage annexation of land that is to be developed with urban uses or at urban densities so provision of urban level services by Larimer County is minimized. Binding annexation agreements also will continue to be required.
Land Use
LU-1 The preferred location of urban land use is within municipal boundaries where urban levels of service are available. The County will not provide urban services.
- LU-1-s1 Larimer County will work with developers and with municipalities to encourage location of new urban development within city and town boundaries.
- LU-1-s2 The County will ensure that its revised Intergovernmental Agreements and Land Use Code do not create disincentives for annexation of land within Growth Management Areas, either before or after development.
A- 166
RELATED GOALS - COUNTY & CITY
• LU-1-s3 The County will ensure that its revised Intergovernmental Agreements and Land Use Code do not create disincentives for annexation of land within Growth Management Areas, either before or after development.
LU-2 New urban-density residential uses shall locate only in areas specifically designated for urban development, i.e., Growth Management Areas and in LaPorte. Commercial and industrial uses shall also locate only in urban areas except where uses have specific requirements which justify their location in rural areas (see LU-4-s4).
- LU-2-s1 Larimer County will work with municipalities to designate Growth Management Areas consistent with municipal plans and which can be expected to be incorporated into the municipality within a reasonable time.
- LU-2-s2 The county will approve zoning requests for increased residential density and urban-intensity commercial and industrial uses only in Growth Management Areas and in areas specifically designated for urban development in an adopted Area Plan, i.e., La-Porte. All zoning changes must be consistent with an adopted land us or policy plan.
LU-3 Urban development within unincorporated Larimer County will be designed to be consistent with and to support adopted community plans.
- LU-3-s1 Within the limits of existing County land use regulations, all new development in Growth Management Areas will be compatible with the municipality’s adopted land use or policy plan. The County will rely on review comments from the municipality to help determine if requests for zoning or other development approvals are consistent with the intent of the community plan.
- LU-3-s2 Revised Intergovernmental Agreements shall limit the types of development applications which allow exceptions from the land use and development standards contained in the Agreements. Minor Residential Development and Special Review applications which generate low traffic are currently excepted from some standards. These exceptions should be eliminated and the process of considering variances and waivers to standards for all development within Growth Management Areas should be designed to ensure that city and County policies are not compromised.
LU-10 All new development shall be located and designed for compatibility with sensitive natural areas.
- LU-10-s1 The Land Use Code shall include the provision that mapping of natural hazard areas, wetlands, ridgelines and other natural and cultural resource area information available from the Planning Division, be included on initial development submittals and considered in development design. Additional natural resource information that becomes available through the development review process should be incorporated in the design. (See also Sex. 6.1.).
- LU-10-s2 New development shall not occur in wetlands and natural hazard areas. Natural hazard areas include all slopes greater than
30%, geologic hazard areas classed categories 5, 6, or 7 in mapping
available in the Planning Division and 100-year floor plains.
- LU-10-s3 The Land Use Code shall establish standards to control erosion and prevent infestation of noxious weeds during construction of new development.
- LU-11-s3 The Land Use Code shall include guidelines for the use of design elements such as landscaping and buffer areas to help achieve compatibility.
- LU-11-s4 Landscaping plans shall be required as part of all major development applications and all multi-family, commercial and industrial building permits. Existing vegetation shall be maintained wherever possible, except in wildfire hazard areas where thinning to achieve defensible space is necessary. Native plants, existing draining patterns and natural designs should be used to increase the sustainability of the landscaping.
LU-12 Site design of commercial and industrial uses shall enhance and protect the aesthetic quality of community gateways and other high visibility corridors, including I-25, US Highways 34 and 287 and Colorado Highway 14.
- LU-12-s1 The Land Use Code shall establish aesthetic standards and guidelines for commercial and industrial development addressing landscaping, screening of outdoor storage and operations, orientation of buildings (so that businesses do not back onto high visibility corridors), parking lot design and similar design considerations.
- LU-12-s2 Intergovernmental Agreements shall address implementation of road corridor and entryway plans adopted by the municipality.
Public Facilities and Services:
- PF-1-s1. Adequate facilities and service levels shall be clearly defined in the Land Use Code and shall include standards for water, sewer, fire protection, stormwater management and transportation at a minimum. In Growth Management Areas, service level standards shall be compatible with those of the adjacent municipality, as specified in an Intergovernmental Agreement with the municipality. In other areas, standards shall be based on the density and intensity of the use.
- PF-2-s1. Within designated urban areas, public sewer shall be a requirement for all types and levels of development.
PF-6 In Growth Management Areas and Cooperative Planning Areas, the County shall collaborate with adjacent municipalities to develop and implement basin-wide storm-water management plans.
• PF-6-s1. The County will work with its respective municipalities to develop urban-level stormwater management standards that are mutually acceptable to the jurisdictions.
A- 168
RELATED GOALS - COUNTY & CITY
PF-11 The County will act as a facilitator to the construction of retrofit stormwater facilities for existing developments and it will provide stormwater management services within Growth Management Areas in cases where property owners have voluntarily formed improvement districts to pay for these facilities and services.
Transportation:
TR-4 Larimer County shall encourage the development and use of alternative modes of transportation.
• TR-4-s1 Larimer County will continue to participate in cooperative efforts with cities and counties in the region to develop a preferred transit system within Growth Management Areas and between cities and towns, consistent with the adopted Transit Development Plan.
Environmental Resources:
ER-1 Resources and environmental conditions potentially impacted by proposed development shall be identifies in the initial stages of the project, to best design a development that protects the environment.
- ER-1-s1 Environmental review shall be a formal required process beginning at the concept stage of all new development projects. Applicants will submit a checklist indicating which environmental resources and conditions will have significant, mitigable or no significant impact. In addition, resource information available from the Planning Departments, pertaining to the project site and the area at least 1200 feet beyond project boundaries, shall be included on the concept plan submitted with the application.
- ER-1-s2 Resources and conditions to be included in the Environmental Review shall be identified in the Land Use Code. Performance standards for these resources shall also be included in the Code. As additional information becomes available, new maps, principles and standards will be developed for the Master Plan and Land Use Code.
ER-2 Monitoring of environmental conditions is a critical part of the environmental protection strategy.
- ER-2-s1 A process for identifying and monitoring key environmental factors shall be established to validate the success of environmental performance standards. The results of the monitoring process shall be used as the basis for subsequent amendments to the Master Plan and Land Use Code.
- ER-2-s2 Monitoring during the development process is necessary to ensure compliance with performance standards. The Planning Department will incorporate this function into its proposed work plan and budget. Adequate staffing will benefit both the developer and citizenry by providing a level playing field and consistency of monitoring and enforcement.
Wetland Protection
ER-3 Larimer County shall endeavor to protect all identified wetland areas of the County, in recognition of their importance in maintaining water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection and other critical environmental functions.
• ER-3-s1 Larimer County wetland shall be defined to include both Clean Water Act (CWA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife Habitation Protection
ER-4 Larimer County shall endeavor to protect all areas identifies as highest priority on the Important Wildlife Habitat Map, which is adopted by reference as part of the Master Plan.
• ER-4-s1 The County will use a wide variety of tools available, including clustering and the Rural Land Use Process, in a manner that is fair to property owners.
A- 170
HISTORY OF THE EAST MULBERRY STREET AREA
B. History of the East Mulberry Street Area
East Mulberry Street/State Highway 14 (SH 14) )was initially only a dirt road surrounded by ranches and farms. It slowly developed into a major thoroughfare during the 1960s and 1970s, only to be superseded by the growth along Harmony Road. Over the past 75 years, the primary influences in the development of the East Mulberry area have been agriculture, prohibition in Fort Collins, and the building of Interstate 25 as well as the East Mulberry bypass. While these have brought the biggest spurts in growth to the corridor, other factors in the corridor’s development have been the construction of the Fort Collins Downtown Airport and the placement of the Greeley water line diagonally through the area.
Up until the 1950s, the only paved road in the East Mulberry area was SH 14, which followed the path of present day Lincoln Street east from downtown Fort Collins. After crossing Lemay Avenue it turned and went southeast until it met present day Mulberry Street where it once again turned straight east out past what is today known as I-25. I-25 at the time was only a small state and federal highway: US 87 and State Highway 187 (SH 187). The important roads heading north and south between Denver and Cheyenne were Highway 85 and Highway 287. Highway 85 went through Greeley on to Cheyenne and Highway 287 accessed the towns along the foothills: Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland and Fort Collins before heading north to Laramie, Wyoming.
Up until the 1960s, the only traffic mitigation at the intersection of SH 14 and US 87/SH 187, was an extremely large roundabout encircled by cornfields. Sometime in the 1960s, The Colorado Department of Transportation constructed the present day cloverleaf interchange at the SH 14/Mulberry Street exit on I-25 within the confines of the old roundabout. It was not until the designation of then US 87/SH 187 as part of the new federal interstate system that this north-south route gained in importance, and with it the area along the SH 14 corridor.
Agriculture has always played an important role in the East Mulberry Street Corridor. Up until the late 1940s, when Roselawn Memorial Park was created at the junction of County Road 55 (now present day Timberline Road) and SH 14, and the early 1950s when the Mulberry Street bypass was built opening up the area for businesses, only farms occupied the East Mulberry Street corridor. Corn and beets were the common crops up until World War II.1 Once the war started, the farmers let the land go to pasture, as the only maintenance required for pasture land was irrigation.2 Cattle and sheep became the primary agricultural products, instead of corn and beet crops. Larry Schneider who grew up on the Schneider farm off of Hoffman Mill Road and East Laurel Street, remembers driving the sheep up to the railheads and sending two or three railcar loads of sheep off to be sold in Chicago. The railhead, located at present day Sutherlands at 1901 East Prospect Road, used numerous sheep pens next to the station to hold the animals until loaded. In addition to the farms and ranches, many of the early businesses were agricultural related: Heath Engineering (an agricultural engineering and research firm), the John Deere dealership, and International Harvester, to name a few.
Between 1954 and 1956, the section of Mulberry Street between Riverside Avenue and Lincoln/Summitview Avenue was added. This section was originally intended as a bypass for SH 14. By 1957, The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan of that year no longer refers to Lincoln Street as SH 14. Instead it was considered an arterial street with the idea of developing it into an industrial area. Mulberry Street was now labeled as SH 14.
In the 1957 Master Street Plan, Mulberry Street was envisioned as a part of the parkway system being developed in Fort Collins. Parkways were intended to bring open space into the city, and provide connecting links between community facilities. The 1957 Master Street Plan defines parkways as long green drives following routes of natural beauty, such as stream valleys, which facilitated links between parks. The Master Plan stated that, with the completion of the interstate highway system, Mulberry Street would “become the most important east-west Arterial Street in the community,” dramatically increasing the volume of traffic on the road.3
With the addition of the Mulberry Street connection from Riverside to Lincoln, the area began to see the growth of businesses along the corridor, as well as a few housing subdivisions such as Pleasant Acres and Sunrise Acres. Along with the development of the agricultural-related businesses previously mentioned, the other earliest businesses tended to be liquor establishments. The high influx of bars and liquor stores in the area was the result of a 1896 law prohibiting the selling of liquor in the City of Fort Collins. The area of East Mulberry, located outside of city limits yet still close to downtown, made it an ideal spot to sell liquor to city residents. There were some initial struggles in obtaining the liquor licenses. Even though Larimer County did not have any laws against selling liquor, it was rumored that Fort Collins city officials would pressure the County licensing board to turn down requests for liquor licenses.4 This forced the first businesses desiring liquor licenses to take their case to the Colorado Supreme Court. According to
12 Schneider, Charles Farmer. Oral Interview by Erin Bergquist 26 April 2002Ibid. 3 City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan: 1957. On file at Larimer County Clerk’s Office.
A- 172
local residents and proprietors, this happened to several of the early liquor stores and bars surrounding Fort Collins.5 In addition there was a law against selling liquor and food in the same establishment. The Safari Club finally overcame these hurdles and established a supper and dance club at 400 S Link Lane on the site of the present day A Hunt Club.6 It was followed soon after by the Eldorado and the Charco Broiler restaurants.7
The earliest businesses appearing in the City Directories in the early 1950’s were the Charco Broiler, the Safari and the Riverside Drive Inn. The Riverside Drive Inn, run by the Schneider family on their farm, included a restaurant, dance floor and amusement park. John Rostek, one of the early builders in the area, constructed the Charco Broiler, a service station, and the Edge of Town Motel, (now the Kiva Inn) all right next to each other. According to residents from the fifties, the Charco Broiler began its existence in 1957 as a small hamburger stand on the side of the road, only seating about seven to eight people. By 1959, the establishment had prospered enough to justify advertising in the city directories. Other early developers built the Safari Nightclub, and a housing subdivision and arterial road, both named Link Lane.
Another spot of early business growth was the junction of County Road 55 (now present day Timberline Road) and Lincoln Avenue. In 1947, the land for Roselawn Memorial Garden was bought, and a thirty acre garden-type cemetery was created. By 1963, International Miami Stone, a brick-making business that produced the smaller, thinner brinks seen in many homes in Fort Collins, was operating on this corner. Later, this location became the site of Product Engineering and Manufacturing, housed in one of the earliest industrial buildings in the area. Product Engineering and Manufacturing later moved into the Airport Industrial Park and split into two separate divisions, Heath Engineering and Heath Laboratories. In the early 1980’s, this corner of County Road 55 and Lincoln Avenue became the site of the Sundance Steak House Country Club, a country bar and dance hall.
Another reason the East Mulberry Street and Summitview intersection saw much of the early development is that the Greeley water transmission line ran diagonally northwest to southeast through this corner southeast along Summitview Road.8 Those developers building businesses or homes in the area could then tap into the line for their water supply. Many of the farmers also tapped into the Greeley water line for their water supply. Most of the earlier homes and businesses are located along that NW to SE diagonal line following the Greeley water line and Summitview Road. Only later did the City of Fort Collins provide water lines to the developing areas east of the city limits. Later subdivisions grew out from this
4 Granberg, Gerald Area Businessman. Oral Interview by Erin Berquist 22 March 20025 Ibid. 6 Maxey, Loren Area Businessman. Oral Interview by Erin Bergquist 1 April 20027 Ibid
East Mulberry Corridor Plan - Appendix
A - 173
NW/SE line filling in the areas in between roads.
Another significant development in the Mulberry area was the building of the Fort Collins Downtown Airport. This airport was started after the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland built the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport halfway between the two cities along then State Highway 187/US Highway 87, now Interstate 25. Local pilots did not want to drive all the way to the new airport when suitable land for an airport was available much closer to Fort Collins. Led by J.D. Forney, owner of Forney Manufacturing, this group of pilots felt a need for a privately owned, but publicly used airport. Financed by around thirty stockholders, in 1963/1964, they bought the 60 acre Fraher farm in the northwest corner of County Rd 55 and Lincoln Avenue. The group chose this land because of its abundance of relatively flat land, its proximity to Fort Collins, and the mile and half distance between the north/south roads, wider than the usual mile between roads elsewhere in and around Fort Collins. Construction occurred throughout the spring and summer of 1966. The airport opened in early fall 1966, with a 2700 foot runway and ten “T” hangars housing about 25-30 planes.
Many of the same stockholders platted the area south of the airport into streets for an industrial park. J.D. Forney’s influence is evident in the wide streets in the southeast part of the industrial park. He platted the roads wide to allow both a small airplane and a car to drive down the same street. This allowed businesses in the industrial park to store their planes in hangars on their property, and be able to taxi down the wide roads to the runway. As the airport constructed more hangars along the runway, and since few of the businesses in the industrial park had planes, this idea later was abandoned. The remaining sections of the industrial park were constructed with narrower streets with no extra room for taxiing planes.
As Fort Collins continued to grow, agricultural businesses such as the Farmers and Ranchers Livestock Commission, once located on Lemay at the present day Albertsons, moved farther away from the city limits. In the late 1960’s, the Livestock Commission moved out to the corner of Mulberry and I-25, causing this area to begin to develop as well. In 1980, the present owner, Wayne Kruse, bought the business and renamed it Centennial Livestock.
By 1968, quite a lot of businesses were listed in the City Directories as being located along the East Mulberry Corridor, in addition to the earlier businesses already mentioned. There were several hotels, including the Holiday Inn, Hill Motel, and Chief Motel, as well as quite a few restaurants. These were such varied eating establishments as the Hauf Brau, the Safari Club, the Arrowhead Café, Charco Broiler, El Dorado Restaurant and Lounge, Shakey’s Pizza Parlor, and the Riverside Inn. The Fort Collins Nursery was
8 Maxey, Loren Area Businessman. Oral Interview by Erin Bergquist 1 April 2002
A- 174
located out here, as well as Andy Dandy (an oil distributor) and a coin device manufacturer named Automatic Devices Inc.
Since the sixties, the East Mulberry Corridor has continued to grow at a slow rate. While a few housing subdivisions have been added, such as Countryside Estates in the late 1970’s, and the build-ing-out of the previous subdivisions has continued, most of the growth has been in the industrial and business zoned areas. The earlier vision of East Mulberry becoming a parkway was never quite realized. There has been a large increase in traffic over the years, but its status as the “the most important east-west Arterial Street in the community” has been eclipsed by the continued growth southward of Fort Collins along US 287/College Avenue. The development southward of town has led to the increased importance of the Harmony and Prospect gateways into town, as well the huge increases in growth along the Harmony corridor.
In the 1990’s, Timberline Road was extended northward across Mulberry up to Vine Dr. Many arterial roads have also been added to the area. Most of these have occurred in the industrial park southwest of the Fort Collins Downtown Airport, and in the areas northwest and southwest of the I-25/Mulberry interchange. The construction of these roads has been in response to the building out of the industrial parks in these areas.
Today, few of the farms are still functioning, even though old farmhouses can be seen dotting the vacant fields. Currently, there has been an interest in building more residential developments in the East Mulberry area, as well as north along Mountain Vista Road. The future could hold much promise for the East Mulberry corridor. While many businesses have come and gone over the years, others still exist in the same spot they always occupied, even if under different names or new owners.
A- 176
Response Highlights
Early and ongoing public involvement is an important value in the East Mulberry Corridor planning process. Understanding people?s opinions of the area will help focus the issues and answers addressed in the future plan. One of the outreach tools used by City and County staff was an ?Issues and Options Questionnaire?. It contained opportunities for people?s opinions on such things as transportation, Corridor appearance, storm drainage, annexation, natural areas, neighborhood services, and similar topics. Questions 3 and 7 sought demographic information; their results are not reported here.
In October 2000, over 3,000 questionnaires were distributed to homes and businesses in the area. Almost 300 people (10%) responded. The questionnaire process was not set up to be ?statistically valid?. The goal was to gather important information about the concerns and desires of people living and working in the Corridor.
Are people satisfied
with conditions in the
Corridor now?
2%
| 20% | 51% | 9% | 7% | 13% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12% | 56% | 14% | 7% | 10% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13% | 51% | 21% | 8% | 7% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16% | 44% | 22% | 10% | 8% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15% | 44% | 16% | 7% | 18% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10% | 49% | 19% | 12% | 10% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9% | 48% | 22% | 17% | 3% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15% | 41% | 22% | 8% | 15% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9% | 46% | 17% | 15% | 13% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8% | 47% | 30% | 13% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15% | 38% | 26% | 13% | 9% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11% | 40% | 28% | 16% | 6% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11% | 38% | 16% | 6% | 29% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10% | 31% | 27% | 20% | 12% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 12% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As the bar chart illustrates, people
were generally satisfied with
existing conditions. Exceptions
were Bike/Pedestrian Safety,
Outdoor Storage Appearance, Traffic
Flow and Building Appearance.
What are the top five issues related to current conditions?
Top 5 Issues
. Traffic Flow . Street Conditions . Personal Safety and Security . Appearance of Buildings and Landscaping . Wildlife Habitat and Natural Areas Protection
Annexation?
What are people?s opinions on the impacts of possible annexation?
. Infrastructure & Maintenance Improvements . Improved Services . Improved Visual Appearance Typical Negative Impact Comments: . Better Growth Management . Increased Taxes . Increased Safety . Development Fees & Restrictions . Ability to Vote in Municipal Elections . Zoning Changes
. Future Benefits Not Being Worth Costs
. Increased Traffic and Congestion
. Sign Restrictions
What potential
Better Overall Appearance
opportunities for
Improve Traffic Flow
change in the
Improve Streets
Corridor are most
Increase Police Services
important?
Better Storm Drainage
More Wildlife/Natural Areas New Pedestrian & Bike Lanes New Supermarket
Important
Opportunities
More Small Businesses More Public Facilities
As the bar chart illustrates, nearly
three-fourths of people responding Expand Public Transit More Retail Shopping
said that Improved Traffic Patterns
Improve Snow Removal/Sweeping
and Better Overall Appearance were Important or Very Important. At the
More Employers
same time, over half the returns listed
More Convenience Stores
More Industrial Uses/Storage Yards,
More Industrial/Storage Areas More Convenience Services, More More HousingHousing, and More Travel-Related
More Travel Related Businesses
Businesses as Not Important.
Very Important
Important
Not Important
No Opinion
| 37% | 34% | 23% | 6% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37% | 35% | 22% | 5% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32% | 38% | 23% | 6% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23% | 36% | 28% | 13% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23% | 23% | 44% | 10% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23% | 30% | 37% | 10% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20% | 27% | 44% | 9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20% | 35% | 34% | 12% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17% | 25% | 48% | 11% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16% | 31% | 36% | 16% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16% | 28% | 46% | 10% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14% | 37% | 37% | 12% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13% | 26% | 46% | 15% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12% | 24% | 50% | 14% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8% | 15% | 62% | 16% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7% | 18% | 64% | 11% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4% | 13% | 69% | 14% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What are the top five potential opportunities for change?
Top 5 Opportunities
. Traffic Patterns . Street Conditions . Overall Appearance of Corridor . Increased Police Services . Better Storm Drainage
More Information
For a more extensive summary of the Issues & Options Questionnaire, look for the Technical Report coming soon. For Corridor public events and information, please check our website at:
http://www.fcgov.com/eastmulberry
| Pete Wray | Russ Legg |
| Project Manager | Project Manager |
| 970-221-6376 | 970-498-7690 |
| pwray@fcgov.com | leggrn@co.larimer.co.us |
| www.fcgov.com | www.larimer.org |
What?s your vision for the East Mulberry Corridor over the next 20 years?
Your 20-Year Vision
There was no clear agreement on what people wanted for the future. Opinions ranged from keeping things the way they are to different suggestions for changing the Corridor?s character, function, and appearance. This question was also helpful in providing a ?headsup? on specific problems or geographic areas of concern within the Corridor, which will be addressed during the planning process.
Here are some representative comments:
. Stay a viable area for small businesses and light industry . Remember, still need areas for bone yards & work trucks . Excellent area for commercial/residential expansion
. More big box development, storage yards, & industrial uses . Continued growth of unsightly business . More traffic problems
. Unplanned, haphazard development . Empty buildings . Run-down property with no street lights
. Become the true gateway to Fort Collins . Improved drainage and better streets . Quality design and landscaping of new development
A- 178
Resolution Adopting the East Mulberry Corridor Plan as an Element of the Larimer County Master Plan
Resolution Adopting the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (Page 2)
E. Existing Transportation Conditions Summary
Approximate Existing Roadway Widths
Table 6-2, on the following page, summarizes the approximate existing roadway widths (pavement edge to pavement edge) of each street within the project boundary.
Existing Road Conditions
Existing road conditions are described in Table 6-3, on the following pages. The table describes road type, road condition and any special road features. A rating scheme is found at the end of the table. Roadway data was collected during the Spring of 2001.
Table 6-3’s road conditions rating scheme is as follows:
1 = Poor, Multiple Potholes / Disintegrating Asphalt 2 = Some Potholes / Alligatored Asphalt 3 = Average, No Potholes / Minor Cracks 4 = Near New Asphalt / No Cracks 5 = Fresh Asphalt
| Street Name | Approx. Roadway Width | Street Name | Approx. Roadway Width | Street Name | Approx. Roadway Width |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Street Classifi cation: 6-Lane Arterial | |||||
| E Mulberry St (SH 14) | 24’ each direction plus 4’/10’ shoulders & 20’ depressed median | SH 14 Frontage Roads | 24’-28’ | ||
| Street Classification: 6-Lane Arterial (Beyond 2020) | |||||
| Timberline Rd | 50’ | ||||
| Street Classifi cation: 4-Lane Arterial | |||||
| Lemay Av | 32’ | Riverside Av | 54’-64’ | Lincoln Av (West of Timberline Rd) | 26’ |
| Vine Dr (West of EFrontage Rd intersection atI-25) | 24’-36’ | Timberline Rd (North of Vine Dr) | 36’ | ||
| Street Classifi cation: 2-Lane Arterial | |||||
| E Mulberry St (SH 14)(East of E Frontage Rdintersection at I-25) | 24’ each direction plus 4’/10’ shoulders and 20’ depressed median | Vine Dr (East of E Frontage Rd intersectionat I-25) | 26’ | ||
| Street Classifi cation: Collector | |||||
| Link Ln (Between E Mulberry St and Lincoln Av) | 48’-58’ | International Blvd | 82’ | Summit View Dr | 24’ |
| Street Classification: Local Streets | |||||
| Duff Dr | 35’ | Webster Av | 35’ | Olive Ct | 32’ |
| Magnolia St | 42’ | Link Lane Ct | 30’ | Commerce Dr | 36’ |
| Racquette Dr | 32’-36’ | Lincoln Ct | 32’ | Airpark Dr | 25’ |
| Heath Pkwy | 26’-28’ | Airway Av | 32’ | Industrial Dr | 32’ |
| Munich Wy | 46’ | Donella Ct | 42’ | Eric St | 30’ |
| Joanne St | 30’ | Andrea St | 30’ | Countryside Dr | 30’ |
| Tracy Pkwy | 30’ | Alan St | 30’ | Cheryl St | 30’ |
| River Bend Dr | 30’ | Rene Dr | 30’ | Kimberly Dr | 30’ |
| Sunrise Dr | 30’ | Dawn Dr | 32’ | Arizona Av | 30’ |
| Clifford Dr | 30’ | Pleasant Acres Dr | 32’ | Greenfi elds Ct | 25’-32’ |
| Greenbriar Dr | 30’ | Verde Av | 30’ | Sherry Dr | 32’ |
| Surrey Ln | 32’ | Boxelder Dr | 20’ | Kenwood Dr | 24’ |
| Buckeye St | 20’ | Canal Dr | 36’-50’ | Stockton Av | 28’ |
| Smithfield Dr | 30’ | Centro Wy | 34’ | Weicker Dr | 34’ |
| John Deere Rd | 24’-34’ | Redman Dr | 34’ | I-25 Frontage Rd | 26’ |
| Collins-Aire Ln* | 48’ | Annabel Av* | 30’ | Laura Ln* | 30’ |
| Robbie Wy* | 30’ | Richard Wy* | 30’ | Lema Dr* | 30’ |
| Sunday Dr* | 30’ | Jay Dr* | 30’ | Tana Dr* | 30’ |
| Myron Wy* | 30’ | Jennie Dr* | 30’ | Stephen Dr* | 30’ |
| Terry Dr* | 30’ | ||||
* Streets located in mobile home community along Timberline Road to the south of Vine Drive. NOTE: All streets within the Dry Creek Trailer Park are 32‘ wide.
A- 184
| Street Name | Asphalt | Condition | 2’ Pan Vert. C&G | 1’ Pan Vert. C&G | Attached Sidewalk | Detached Sidewalk | Roll Over | Drainage | Pot Holes | Comments Utility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln Court | X | 3 | - | - | X | Type 13 | Some cracking | |||
| Lincoln-Link to Summit | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Some cracks | ||
| Link Ln.-14 to Lincoln | X | 2.5-3 | - | - | - | Valley Park | Rough road w/ minor cracks | |||
| Link Ln.-N. of Lincoln | X | 3 | X | - | - | To Swale | ||||
| Mtn. View Mobile Park | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | CL Swale | - | Some walk @ EOP/some cracks |
| N. Frontage | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Link Ln. to Airpark | ||
| N. Frontage Hwy 14 | X | 3.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | X | Rough/cracks |
| No Name-off Airpark | X | 3.5 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Loop around trailer park | ||
| Olive Ct. | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Some cracking | ||
| Pleasant Ac. Dr. (priv) | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Some cracks | |
| Pleasant Ac. Dr. (sub) | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | partial valley | - | Some cracks |
| Poudre Parkway | X | 3 | X | - | - | To Swale | C&G midway / w. end | |||
| Racquett Drive | X | 2.5 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | X | Cracked asphalt | |
| Redman Drive | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Minor cracks | |
| Rene Drive | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | X | Some cracks-intersection is a #1 |
| Riverbend Drive | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | X | Some cracks-intersection is a #1 |
| Riverside @ Hwy 14 | AsphaltConcrete | 3 | X | - | - | - | - | Type R | ||
| Rome Court | X | 3 | X | X | Swale | |||||
| S Frontage 14 | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | - | Some C&G @ business |
| Sherry Drive | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | - | Some valley pan-cracks |
| Smithfield | X | 2.0-2.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Aligatored/rough | |
| Stockton Ave. | X | 2-2.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Aligatored/rough | |
| Summit Ct. | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Swale | Some cracks | |
| Summit View | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | Borrow | N. of 14/some cracking | ||
| Summit View | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | South of Hwy 14 | |
| Sunrise Ave. | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | partial valley | Some cracks | |
| Surrey Lane | X | 3.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Off Boxelder some cracks | |
| Timerline South | X | 4.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | ||
| Timberline-N. of 14 | x | 4.5 | - | No Pan Median | East | Borrrow | ||||
| To 1/4 mi W. of Timberline | ||||||||||
| Tracey Parkway | X | 3.5 | Walk @ EOP | |||||||
| Verde Ave. | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Valley pan | Some cracks | |
| Vine Dr.-Lemay V | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | X | Wheel ruts/cracks/rough |
| Vine Dr.-E. of Timberline | X | 4.5 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Some C&G N. @ Waterglenn Sub. | |
| W. Frontage I-25 | X | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | Borrow | Vine to 14/minor crack | |
| W. I-25 Frontage | X | 3 | west side X | - | - | - | - | Borrow | S. of Hwy 14 | |
| Webster Ave. | X | 3 | X | - | - | |||||
| Weickner Drive | X | 2.5-3 | - | - | - | - | X | To Swale | X | Rough/cracks |
| Zurich Drive | X | 3 | X | X | S | Swale | Mixed C&G |
US 287 / SH 14 Access Management Report
The following list of improvements for East Mulberry Street has been taken from the US 287 / SH 14 Access Management Report. Some recommended improvements have been completed.
- Develop a six-lane roadway between Riverside Avenue and I-25. Where the Cache La Poudre River crosses East Mulberry Street (between Riverside Avenue and Lemay Avenue), the existing bridge would require replacement.
- Construct dual left turn lanes for both the eastbound and westbound directions of East Mulberry Street at Lemay Avenue and at Timberline Road.
- Relocate the frontage road intersections along both the north and south sides of East Mulberry Street a minimum of 150 feet from the state highway.
- Close the opening in the existing median about 200 feet to the east of Riverside Avenue.
- Construct a raised median island in the intersection of the proposed 12th Street to restrict the access to two ¾ movements (right-in, right-out and left-in).
- Construct a raised median on Link Lane to restrict access between the highway and the frontage road. The raised median is an interim improvement that would be removed when the frontage road is relocated away from the highway.
- Construct a raised median island in the intersection at Airpark Drive to restrict the access to only ¾ movements as an interim improvement. Access to the frontage road on the south side of the highway would eventually be closed.
- Create a new ¾ movement access approximately mid-point between Airpark Drive and Timberline Road on the north side of the highway.
- Restrict access to ¾ movements to/from the south side of the highway approximately mid-point between Airpark Drive and Timberline Road.
- Provide a public street connection to Timberline Road approximately 475 feet south of East Mulberry Street. The new connection would create a four-legged intersection at the location of an existing “T” intersection on Timberline Road at the existing median opening.
- Close the median at the Summit View Drive intersection and limit movements to/from Summit View Drive to right-in/right-out only. An interim improvement would be to restrict movements to ¾
A- 186
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS SUMMARY
(left-in, right-in, right-out).
- Close the median at the Dawn Drive intersection and eliminate movements to/from the highway.
- Install new traffic signals at the Greenfields Court and Stockton Avenue/John Deere Road intersections with East Mulberry Street.
- Evaluate the potential to construct a grade-separated pedestrian crossing near the Canal Drive and Centro Way intersections along the Frontage Road system.
- Ultimately reconstruct the I-25 interchange area to convert the interchange from a cloverleaf interchange to a diamond interchange. Interim improvements have been identified in the I-25/SH 14 Interchange Area Study that will improve safety and provide additional capacity.
Access Control Plan Aerial Image
Access Control Plan Aerial (2)
Access Control Plan Aerial (3)
Access Control Plan Aerial (4)
Access Control Plan Aerial (5)
Access Control Plan Aerial (6)
Appendix G
Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only)
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
APPENDIX “G”
POLICY & STANDARDS for MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT of ANNEXED INFRASTRUCTURE
(CITY OF FORT COLLINS ONLY)
G.01 City of Fort Collins Policy GM-2.1 “Annexation Policy” of the City Plan Principles and Policies, includes the following general statement for the handling of existing infrastructure constructed in Larimer County and subsequently annexed into the City:
Infrastructure standards. Developed land, or areas seeking voluntary annexation, must have their infrastructure improved (e.g., streets, utilities and storm drainage systems) to City standards, or must have a mechanism
(e.g. a special improvement district, capital improvements program or other type project) in place to upgrade such services and facilities to City standards before the City will assume full responsibility for future maintenance.
This statement requires further clarification for application to infrastructure already meeting City standards as well as infrastructure that does not meet City standards. Therefore, this Appendix is established in order to (1) set the level of maintenance that the City will initially provide on annexed infrastructure and (2) present criteria for determining what improvements have to be done to upgrade the infrastructure to meet City Standards before the City assumes full responsibility for maintenance.
G.02 MAINTENANCE CRITERIA
G.02.01 INITIAL MAINTENANCE
G.02.01.01 STREETS BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS -In August 1989 the Larimer County Commissioners adopted “Urban Area Road Standards” (County Urban Standards) for streets built in the urban growth areas of the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. These standards were modeled after, and equal to or better than, the City of Fort Collins street standards in effect at that time. Streets developed in the County that were designed and constructed to those standards would be considered “meeting current City standards.” As long as those streets have been maintained and not
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
A- 196
LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS
G.02.01.02
G.02.01.03
G.02.01.04
allowed to deteriorate, the City would take on “full responsibility for future maintenance” to the level that all City streets built to City standards have been maintained. If the streets had not been maintained properly and repairs were necessary, the City would only provide minor maintenance to a level to keep the streets from becoming unsafe. With the improvements in a deteriorated state, the property owners adjacent to these streets would be required to rehabilitate the streets to meet acceptable maintenance standards of the City, at their expense, prior to the City taking on full responsibility for maintenance.
STREETS NOT BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS -All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way:
- (a)
- The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes that pass under an annexed street.
UTILITIES are generally owned by the City or by publicly regulated utility companies and/or districts. The City or the utility companies/districts shall maintain all utility lines and facilities owned by them. Private utility systems shall be the responsibility of the utility owners and not the City.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS -The level of maintenance of storm drainage facilities dedicated to the public, to be assumed by the City, shall be determined by the City. The property owners must first have a study made (at their expense) of the existing drainage system, including everything that contributes runoff to the system, how it functions, and how it conforms or fails to conform to City standards. The study must be performed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The study results must then be submitted to the City for evaluation. The City will evaluate the system for its adequacy as a functioning system and determine whether it meets city standards. If the system functions adequately, meets City standards and is located in the public right-
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
East Mulberry Corridor Plan - Appendix
A - 197
of-way or located on land owned by the City, the City will may accept certain responsibilities for maintenance. If the system does not function or has certain non-functioning parts or does not meet City standards, the City shall evaluate the seriousness of the deficiencies for the health, safety or welfare of the public and take appropriate action. Non-functioning components that cause damage only to the property owners adjoining the system, will be the full responsibility of those property owners to correct or improve as they deem necessary. If the system deficiencies do cause damage to the public other than the adjoining property owners, the City shall take action to the degree necessary to inform the property owners of the problem, indicating their responsibility to correct the problems.
G.02.02 FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE
When infrastructure meets or has been upgraded to an acceptable level to meet City standards for the City to accept “full responsibility for maintenance,” the City shall maintain such infrastructure to the same level that maintenance is performed on all other public infrastructure in the City.
G.03 IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY STANDARDS CRITERIA
At such time that the City determines that minor maintenance is no longer adequate to protect public safety, the annexed infrastructure must be upgraded to City standards at no expense to the City. Improvements may be done voluntarily by the adjacent property owners, or the City Council may impose the improvements through the adoption of a Special Improvement District (SID). The SID is still an option available to the property owners on a voluntary basis.
The required improvements will be determined by the City specifically for each subdivision depending upon the existing problems that need to be corrected and constraints that may prevent certain improvements from being built. Required improvements to meet City standards at the expense of the property owners may include, but not be limited to, the following:
G.03.01 STREETS
- (a)
- Improve all streets to standard widths
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
A- 198
LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS
- (g)
- Grades - Must meet minimum and maximum criteria
G.03.02 UTILITIES
- (a)
- Water lines
- (1)
- City or district owned lines, no improvements required
- (2)
- Private lines will need to be upgraded to City or District standards for City or district acceptance
- (b)
- Sewer lines
- (1)
- City or district owned lines, no improvements required
G.03.03 STORM DRAINAGE
- (a)
- The drainage system must be upgraded to a functioning system
G.03.04 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
(a) Other improvements unique to the location - The City shall be the determining authority on what must be done with unique circumstances not covered in the above criteria.
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
East Mulberry Corridor Plan - Appendix
A - 199
G.04 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS
These Criteria shall apply to all annexed streets, including arterial and collector streets, which have been developed in the County. Since arterial and collector streets generally carry more traffic for the public at large than for adjacent properties, they may be maintained by the City to a higher standard until such time as upgrades are constructed. The adjoining property owners shall then be responsible only for the cost to upgrade the equivalent of their local street frontage.
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2, 2001
A- 200 ANNEXATION ASSESSMENT
G. Annexation Assessment
The following assessment looks at the potential impacts of annexation to existing study area residents and businesses.
Residential Taxes
Property Taxes
Property taxes may or may not increase for existing County residents after annexation into the City. Most residents would pay slightly more in property taxes. For the most part, the difference in mill levy collection is a 9.797 levy on City residents (covering, in part, fire protection) versus a 9.301 mill levy on County residents for fire protection. Levies on residents outside the City for special assessments (e.g. street maintenance by a homeowners association) would likely continue and would not be eliminated upon annexation into the City.
The following is a more detailed breakdown of mill levy collections by tax authority for real property assessed at $110,000 for 2001 property taxes:
| Levy | Tax Authority | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 41.679 | Poudre R-1 General Fund | $ 419.50 |
| 22.461 | Larimer County | $ 226.07 |
| 10.044 | Poudre R-1 Bond Payment | $ 101.09 |
| 9.797 | Fort Collins | $ 98.61 |
| 2.167 | Poudre Health Services | $ 21.81 |
| 1.000 | No. Colorado Water Conservancy District | $ 10.07 |
| 0.142 | Larimer County Pest Control District | $ 1.43 |
| 87.29 | TOTAL | $878.58 |
Table G-2 Typical East Mulberry Resident Property Taxes
| Levy | Tax Authority | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 41.679 | Poudre R-1 General Fund | $ 419.50 |
| 22.461 | Larimer County | $ 226.07 |
| 10.044 | Poudre R-1 Bond Payment | $ 101.09 |
| 09.301 | Poudre Valley Fire Authority | $ 93.61 |
| 02.167 | Poudre Health Services | $ 21.81 |
| 01.000 | N Colorado Water Conservancy District | $ 10.07 |
| 00.142 | Larimer County Pest Control District | $ 1.43 |
| 86.794 | TOTAL | $873.58 |
Sales Taxes
Residents outside city limits currently pay 3.7% in sales tax to the County and State for items purchased in the County. For items purchased within the City, County residents are exempt from City sales tax only for cars and delivered goods. If a County property annexes into the City, the residents would begin paying City sales tax on these items. City sales tax is also charged on electric utility usage. For example, a $100 purchase would require a payment of $3.00 in sales taxes on top of $3.70 charged by the state and county.
Business Taxes
Property Taxes
Proportionally, the difference between City and County property taxes is the same as described in the residential section above. Businesses, both inside and outside city limits, pay a higher assessment rate than residential property owners. The assessment rate on nonresidential property is fixed at 29%, compared to the 2001 residential assessment rate of 9.15%. Using the example described above, a typical business assessed at $110,000 would pay 2001 property taxes of $2,785 inside city limits, and $2,769 outside city limits.
Sales and Use Taxes
The County and State collect 0.80% and 2.9%, respectively. The County portion of the tax is comprised of an Open Space Tax (0.25% in effect until 12/31/2018), new Court House Tax (0.20% in effect until Year 2013), Jail Expansion Tax (0.20% in effect initially until buildings are paid for, then 0.17% for operations and maintenance until Year 2015), and County Fairgrounds Tax (0.15% in effect until 12/31/2020).
Of the City’s 3.0% sales tax, 2.25% is the base rate. The base rate is used to fund general government services like police, transportation and administration. Three one-quarter cent dedicated taxes were approved by City voters to be used specifically for streets and transportation, community enhancement projects and natural areas and parks. The three quarter-cent taxes will expire on 12-31-2005. The total tax consumers pay within city limits is 6.70%.
Lodging Taxes
Another impact of annexation would be the collection of a City lodging tax. Lodging tax is imposed on the following activities: leasing, rental or furnishing of any room or other accommodation in any hotel, apart-ment-hotel, motel, guesthouse, trailer court, guest ranch, mobile home, automobile camp or any such similar place. The tax rate for lodging is 3%. Combined with the sales tax, the total tax rate for lodging in the city limits is 9.7%.
A- 202
ANNEXATION ASSESSMENT
Other Taxes
The City also collects a 2.25% tax for food for home consumption. This is the only tax charged on food with some exceptions (e.g. prepared food or food for immediate consumption). Neither the County nor the State collects a tax for food for home consumption.
Utility Fees
After annexation, properties that receive City utilities would be charged the appropriate utility user fee rates. In cases where a property was already receiving City utilities, the utility user rate would decrease since the City charges higher fees for “out-of-city” utility services.
The City manages stormwater drainage as a utility. All properties within the City are billed on a monthly basis for stormwater drainage operation and maintenance and stormwater capital improvement costs. The purpose of this monthly fee is to cover the costs to construct, repair, and maintain stormwater drainage improvements, protecting properties from flooding to the level of the 100-year storm.
A potential project anticipated to be funded in part by stormwater fees is the Dry Creek Flood Control Project Plan. The project is designed to eliminate the threat of a 100-year flood on Dry Creek. The City and County would share in the project costs, with existing City stormwater fees providing approximately 50% of the costs. County property owners would provide the other 50% in the form of a new County Stormwater Utility. Within the study area, this Utility would include properties north of SH 14 and east of Timberline Road. County Stormwater Utility rates are expected to average about $9.00 per month for single family residences and about $55.00 per month for commercial and industrial properties. Individual rates will vary, since the amount paid by each property will be dependent on the size of the property, the amount of impervious area on the property, and if the property is located in the floodplain.
Participation in City Government
Residents of an annexed area will be able to increase their participation in City government. Presently, County residents can voice their opinions at public hearings but cannot vote in City elections. After annexation, the now City residents can vote in scheduled and special City elections, thereby having a political voice in important decisions made
by the City.
Annexation Impacts for Larimer County
The Larimer County Master Plan identifies two fundamental types of land uses; they are rural and urban. The County has encouraged urban uses to develop inside city limits where services can be efficiently provided. Larimer County, even before the 1997 adoption of the Larimer County Master Plan, determined that the County would not attempt to create urban level intensities and densities of land use that would or could compete with existing urban centers. Larimer County chose not to conduct land use business in that manner.
Since 1980, the County has voluntarily entered agreements with towns and cities as to how urban level growth would occur. The County’s basic premise is that urban level uses, urban level densities and intensities belong inside city limits where tools are available to serve the growth. As a statutory county, the County is limited in the breath and scope of the services it can provide. By agreement with the cities, the County requires annexation before development (defined as division of property or rezoning) if the property is eligible for annexation. If the property is not eligible for annexation, the County applies urban level standards to the development, and also requires an agreement with the developer to annex as soon as the property is eligible. The County’s goal is to have properties in designated GMAs annexed as soon as possible.
In GMAs, the County will assist in annexation processes by providing SID services, if requested by the area property owners, to correct infrastructure deficiencies such at poor drainage or inadequate roads. After improvements are completed, the property owners may often wish to annex, because the County is not prepared to maintain the infrastructure. The County has not created a large storm drainage department and the county road maintenance division is designed by staffing and equipment to primarily maintain rural county roads. The County directs the demand to the appropriate service provider rather than expensively duplicating competing services. The County has utilized the
Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the Larimer County Master Plan and the Larimer County Land Use Code as effective tools to work together with cities for annexation of areas to existing communities.
A- 204
TRANSFER OF DENSITY UNIT PROGRAM
H. Transfer of Density Unit (TDU) Program
During the public planning process on the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, several individuals and committees expressed a desire to see if the County’s Transfer of Development Unit Program (TDU) would work in the study area. Both the City and the County completed a similar land use plan in 1998 with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. A key element of that planning effort was the creation of a TDU program. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan adoption was followed by implementation of a TDU sending area and receiving area in the County’s jurisdiction which was based on the jointly agreed to expansion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Overlay (GMA) Zoning District. The Fossil Creek Reservoir TDU program has experienced some success in achieving goals to retain open areas as described in the A Plan for the Region between Fort Collins & Loveland, (adopted April 1995). The County’s web site, www.larimer.org, contains the details and results of the Fossil Creek TDU program.
After review and study, staff has concluded that a TDU program, similar in style and scope to Fossil Creek’s would not be feasible as an implementation tool in the East Mulberry Corridor Plans’ study area. The reasons for this conclusion include the following:
° This plan’s implementation recommendations will not result in an
expansion of the Fort Collins GMA. Properties in the study area
have already been designated as areas for urban residential densi
ties and urban commercial or industrial intensities. Therefore, the
opportunity to apply TDU as part of a change from a County rural
designation to an urban designation occurred long ago.
° A potential sending area, along with established public purposes has not been identified for the study area.
• The study area’s County-governed properties are not zoned for low density residential, as they were in the Fossil Creek area. In fact, most of the property eligible for receiving residential density is already zoned I – Industrial or C- Commercial. This eliminates many opportunities for density transfer. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan established how to transfer residential density to residential receiving areas; however, an appropriate and legal mechanism to transfer to non-residential areas has not been established.
Both the County and the City will continue to examine how to effectively examine the TDU concept and also how to enable the transfer to occur within the City’s jurisdiction. This effort will proceed, but this study area, for the reasons cited above, does not appear to be an appropriate place to recommend TDU’s as an implementation tool.
A- 206