HomeMy WebLinkAbout780438.tiff- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
9
()ETV F of Lr)aHD (,F C:r)UUTY CHMIVOSSI0NF r35
PHONE' (303) 356-4000 EX(. 200
119eP.O. BOX 758
GREELEY COLORADO 8063)
•
COLORADO
January 30, 1978
Norman Carlson
Chairman
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments
Governing Board
201 East 4th Street
Room 201
Loveland, Colorado 80537
Dear Mr . Carlson :
The Weld County Board of County Commissioners would like to
take this opportunity to support the efforts of Larimer
County in developing and adopting a Land Use Plan to act as
a guideline for future growth. The proposed Land Use Plan
for Larimer County appears to be consistent with the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1973 . Therefore we,
the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, support the
proposed Land Use Plan for Larimer County.
Respectfully ,
Ed Dunbar
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
ED: sap
78043d
LARIMEH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
P.O.BOX 1458
PHONE 221-2100
MEMO
July 7, 1977
DATE:
Colorado State Forest
TD' Roosevelt National Forest
Rocky Mountain National Park
Lorimer-Weld cup District
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
City of Fort Collins
City of Loveland
Town of Estes Park
Town of Berthoud
Town of Wellington
Town of Timnath
South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Boxelder Sanitation District
it pig 3 ppP r Thompson Sanitation District
4,.. 0_
�c� Cherry Hills Sanitation District
�R 3�t19�7 � Horsth rtColl Sanitation
nitation District
EIv E9 I NoNorth Loveland Sanitation District
r� opt pallCe°1`Ssto / South Loveland Sanitation District
!minttem* `> West Loveland Sanitation District
/6),, lblti�L�� Springs Canyon
tyonllsatera°n Sanitation District
East Larimer County Water District
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
High Drive Water Valley District
District
Little Thompson
Mariana Water District
North Carter Lake Water District
striation
Northern Colorado Water As
Boulder County
pfd County
park R-3 School District
Thompson R2-J School District
Poudre R-1 School District
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
pouare valley R.E.A. of Colorado
Public Service Company
Mountain Bell
Memo
July 7, 1977
Page 2
TO: (Can't ) Colorado Division of Highways
Colorado Division of Parks and Recreation
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Division of Planning
State Board of Land Commissioners
Colorado State University Lorimer County Health Department
Lorimer County Engineer
State Land Use Commission
Colorado Water Conservation Board
FROM: Larry Timm, Director of Planning
RE: Lorimer County Land Use Plan
Lorimer County is presently in the process of developing the
third element of its CJtprehensive Plan, the Land Use Plan. The first
two elements, the Goals and Objectives and the Policy Plan, have al-
ready been adopted.
Three public hearings have already been held concerning the Land
Use Plan. The planning staff has been directed to now set up hearings
at which actual adoption of the Land Use Plan will be considered.
Because under State statutes the County Planning Commission has
final authority when it comes to the adoption of the com Lehensive
plan, the Board of County Commissioners will hold its public hearing
prior to the Planning Commission. In this way the Board's feelings re-
garding the Land Use Plan can be referred to the Planning Commission
before a final decision is made.
The Board of County Commissioners will hold their public hearing
to consider adoption of the County Land Use Plan at 7:00 P.M. on
Thursday, August 4, 1977, in the Auditorium of Rocky Mountain High
School, 1300 West Swallow Road, Fort Collins. The date has not yet
been set for the Planning Commission's public hearing, but this will
be approximately 35 days following the Board of Commissioner's hear-
ing.
Please review the enclosed text and maps and, prior to August 4,
provide us with your written tents and suggestions regarding the
proposed plan. If you have any questions, please call me or Dennis
Swain, Comprehensive Planner.
Thank you very much.
mEmORAnDum
W�`PC. To "41Date
COLORADO From Thomas W . Rounds
Subject:
RE: LARIMER CO. LAND USE PLAN
I have reviewed the Land Use Plan forLarimer 'Cos unty and andecanve
determine no major conflicts regarding
Plan , as I understand it . Ken has reviewed the plan also and sees
no conflict . \`
t {
,14xt , rn
IIIII III;
I
klr
Ill'
III
1
II 1
Ir ICI ��
B
i
II 1 I
I
II
II
a
.1. ,I I 11
i .
I
till
IIi , I
i ' _ 1I''
I il
II] 'I
1
! Glii • III I'I
kG
I • I IP
1
I
I I
I fli III
I
kr;
I p;
il
I I, li
I R"I • CI
du
I
'I 1 l
I
I „
l I tlL1
I I
HP
,,'
I L,III
I •
',III
r
I
1
I
I 411
PI, III i
I' J'I1 I
I I ,L. '
I II
•
,L u I II,
Il
1
I 1
r,
:.i tllkr :,
II
kl:
(
1
I I
I ill
I. : I i i I I ' ' I IIr1 I'. I ` tuua1 111111 I'
I VI d, I I iI I 'IIIIII� ell 0
INTY
1 �I; igll IIIMII ILII�1Ii��� I iI, lllll
'I iii ,,III 1 I q In I
„,
I I Nul
I
�� 'Ill.,. .II IAI'il
, , ,„ 1 _
it
1 I I
I
l III
l
r, r6
I I merit
llil ! , UY 'ii �i jai11�11
.,II'. III -u. L� .el I 'ill
tl' I I .���� ipl lIL• mile i XI, Plan
'III I Il ' III 'I I� '• I� Hill I Ill !II:'I I II.::'
• Ir wII �I �II • I •!I
li
I I ! II I Il II in.I : III IC[II Ii I I I I IS •• II I I I
i I
1 111 '0r11 I'. 1 I
II I I I G1 - I I i I I
I
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
William Lopez , Chairman
Nona Thayer
David Weitzel
PLANNING COMMISSION
Frank McGraw, Chairman
Amos Allard
James Carter
Amey Grubbs
Jean Johnson
William Dressel , alternate
COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
Larry Timm, Director of Planning
John Pedas, Assistant Director
Rex Burns, Research Analyst III
Barb Davin, Secretary II
Dennis Egner, Planning Aide
Jacquie Hadwick, Administrative Assistant
Ann Hott, Planner I, Subdivisions
Al Kadera, Planner II , Zoning
Keith Liden, Planner II, Environmental Planning
Linda Ridpath, Secretary II
Joyce Short, Secretary II
Dennis Stranger, Planner II , Subdivisions
Dennis Swain, Planner III , Comprehensive Planning
Michael Vance, Planner II , Housing
Robert Wolcott, Planner I , Land Use
This report was financed in part through a grant from the Depart-
- ment of Housing and Urban Development under the provisions of Section
701 of the Housing Act of 1954 , as amended.
June, 1977
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Larimer County Profile 7
Agricultural Resources 8
Air Quality 12
Cultural Resources 16
Drainage 17
Economics 18
Ecosystem Sensitivities 20
Existing Plans 21
Floodplain Hazards 22
Geologic Hazards 26
Housing Needs 28
Land Ownership 30
Land Use - Existing 33
Mineral Resources 37
Open Space and Recreation 38
Population 39
Sanitation Districts 44
Soil Suitability for Septic Fields 51
Subdivisions and Exemptions 52
Transportation 60
Water Districts 61
Wildfire Hazards 67
Wildlife Species 69
Zoning 70
The Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 97
Implementation . . . . . . . • . . . . .
MAPS
1 - Agricultural Resources 9
Existing Plans . . • . . • . . .
2 - Floodplain Hazards
Geologic Hazards
. . 23
Wildfire Hazards . . . . . . • • • . . .
3 - Land Ownership 23
Transportation . . . . . . • . • . . .
4 - Drainage
Sanitation Districts 49
Water Districts . . . . • . . . . . . .
5 - The Proposed Land Use Plan 95
Subdivisions and Exemptions
I
,$
,I I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
1I
I
I I II ,
I
I I
,
I
I I
I ` III Ili
I -1-
INTRODUCTION
Larimer County encompasses approximately 2 , 614 square miles of
- irrigated cropland, rolling cattle country, dryland wheat farms, and
mountain foothills, valleys, meadows, timber and wilderness . The
County boundaries stretch from Johnson ' s Corner and the Estes Valley
on the north and from the farm and ranchland along Interstate 25 on the
east to the high peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park and the Rawah
Wilderness on the west.
Approximately 50 percent of the land in the County is publicly
owned . Most of the public lands are in the mountainous western portion
of the County. The Roosevelt National Forest, for example, encompasses
35 percent of all land in the County and Rocky Mountain National Park
8 percent. Other local, state and federal agencies own and manage
smaller areas within the County as parks, wildlife refuges , experiment
stations, sanitary landfills, reservoirs, income sources for the school
system, etc . The majority of private land is in the eastern foothills
and flatlands of the County. Throughout the mountainous western sec-
tion of the County, private lands are concentrated in the river valleys
and meadows .
The economy; the land use patterns and pressures; and the life-
styles in the County are as varied as its geography, land ownership
and resources . Historically, the eastern portion of the County has
been an agricultural area with irrigated farming in the southeast and
dryland farming and grazing in the northeast. The eastern section,
however, is rapidly urbanizing. New industries are moving into the
2
area and existing industries have expanded . The two largest cities,
Ft. Collins and Loveland , had population increases of 51 and 45 per-
cent, respectively, between 1970 and 1975 . The western portion of the
County has a strong tourist industry, the focal point of which is the
Rocky Mountain National Park. The mountains also accommodate ranching,
timber operations and numerous second home and retirement communities.
The Larimer County Commissioners, County Planning Commission and
County Planning Staff developed the Land Use Plan to serve as a guide-
line for land use decisions within the County. The Land Use Plan is
not a regulation ; it is a guideline for implementing existing County
regulations . The Land Use Plan is a graphic and verbal representation
of the land use policies adopted by the County and the priorities
given to those policies . It is intended to help bring consistency and
a measure of predicatbility to land use decisions . The plan aids land
use decision makers by providing background data; by translating pol-
icies into two dimensional concepts ; by providing a countywide, long-
term perspective for land use decisions and by helping to define
potential short and long-term impacts of a particular course of action.
The Land Use Plan reflects the needs and desires of County resi-
dents regarding the use of land, as they are reflected in the adopted
Larimer County Policy Plan . The Land Use Plan is not a permanent
statement; it is, instead, an adaptable framework for decision making.
As community attitudes and needs change, the Land Use Plan will be
reviewed and can be amended to reflect those changes .
-3 Th
The rationale for a County plan is the same as that for a family
budget or a plan for a business or industry; a plan is a design for
the orderly achievement of certain desired ends . A family plans in
order to buy a house, send the children to college or save for retire-
ment and a business plans in order to expand a market or facility,
hire more employees or add a new product. The desired end of a County
plan is a pleasant, safe and economically inviting area for living,
working and spending leisure time.
A County plan protects property rights: an individual should
know that his right to use and enjoy his property will not be infringed
upon by noise, odor, traffic or other negative impacts generated by
adjacent or nearby land uses .
A plan also offers consumer protection: it helps protect land
buyers from natural and man-made hazards . It also helps protect in-
dividual, public and business investments in land and facilities .
Businesses and industries need to know that the areas in which they
invest will continue to attract skilled employees and a healthy market.
Taxpayers need to know that public services will be provided logically
and economically.
Additionally, a plan protects the economy of the County. One of
the County' s greatest economic assets is the quality of its environ-
ment, which attracts tourists, new industries and new residents alike.
A plan helps protect this attractive environment, assuring investors
that the value of the scenery, clean air and water, recreational op-
portunities and open spaces of Larimer County will be retained .
I
-q-
The County is responsible for developing and using guidelines for
making decisions concerning how land is to be developed. It is also
responsible for making decisions regarding the type, location and timing
of growth and for assessing the costs and benefits of each alternative.
These questions can be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but this
leads to inconsistent decisions and the need to backtrack and correct
past mistakes--a time consuming, costly and often impossible process .
More logically, these questions should be addressed by a single consis-
tent program or plan for growth upon which individual land use deci-
sions can be based . Such a plan will provide the applicant and the
public with advance knowledge of what the County expects from growth,
facilitate consistent decisions and save time and money for both appli-
cants and the County.
The State and Federal governments are continually requiring more
assurance that the value of their investment in an area will be pro-
tected ; that the level of benefits provided by a project will be re-
tained over the life of the investment. The most effective means for
accomplishing this on a statewide or national basis is to require that
any jurisdiction receiving funds have an adopted plan for how the
money is to be spent and for guiding future land use decisions . On
March 31, 1977 , the Colorado Division of Planning issued Administrative
Bulletin No. 77-1 which states:
"We take this opportunity to remind you that plan development
and adoption are not voluntary activities for a Planning
Commission . Colorado law states that, once a Planning Com-
mission is created, it is the duty of that commission to
-5- Th
develop AND ADOPT a plan for the physical development of
its jurisdiction (See Colorado Revised Statutes (1973) . . .
30-28-106 for counties . . . . ) "
The Administrative Bulletin continues:
" . . . (F) unding will not be available through the Division
of Planning in the future for any implementation acti-
vity unless it is to implement an ADOPTED plan . This
will be true for all planning funds administered by
the Division of Planning. In addition, the Division,
in the A-95 review process, will comment unfavorably on
requests for any grants that are determined to have
land-use impact unless a land-use plan has been adopted,
whether such grants are for community development, water/
sewer, housing, or any other programs or projects. "
A negative review from the Colorado Division of Planning in the
A-95 process would effectively kill all future State and Federal grants
kFc-) -; r
for both public and private use.
Federal planning regulations state that a land use plan must in-
clude three major elements: the development of land use policy; the
creation of programs for implementing policy; and the coordination of
the land use policy and implementation program with other public and
private sector policies and programs .
In 1974 the Colorado Legislature clarified the powers of local
governments to plan for and govern the use of land within their respec-
tive jurisdictions through the use of tools such as the Land Use Plan .
House Bill 1034 amended the Colorado Revised Statutes 1973 to include
the following powers of local government:
I . Regulating development and activities in hazardous areas;
II . Protecting lands from activities which would cause immed-
iate or foreseeable material danger to significant wild-
life habitat and from activities which would endanger a
wildlife species ; /
-6-
/// III . Preserving areas of historical and archeological importance;
IV. Regulating the establishment of roads on public lands ad-
ministered by the federal government;
V. Regulating the location of activities and developments
which may result in significant changes in population
density;
VI . Providing for phased development or services and facilities ;
VII . Regulating the use of land on the basis of its impact on
the community or surrounding areas; and
VIII . Otherwise planning for and regulating the use of land so-
as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protec-
tion of the environment in a manner consistent with
Constitutional rights .
The Larimer County Land Use Plan meets the challenge inherent in
recent legislative action, including House Bill 1034, and fulfills the
State and Federal planning requirements for funding. Additionally, the
County plan provides local input into plans being developed by regional,
State and Federal agencies . Without a locally generated plan, these
agencies would develop plans for the County based on their own inter-
pretation of the needs and desires of County residents . The Larimer
County Land Use Plan helps make regional, State and Federal plans
responsive to local concerns .
rSA w `.F ahe �'#' arayes a¢Xd .6 iv'U✓�h Y ^sw,. ';m. ^
I
1
1
I
M
rcr
I
I
N
C .
N
.
I
LARIMER COUNTY PROFILE
In order to develop and successfully implement land use policies
for Larimer County, it is first necessary to identify and analyze the
physical, social and economic characteristics of the County. Larimer
County is lucky to have a great deal of data already compiled in text-
ual and graphic form. Some additional data is still necessary, however,
and should be gathered as money becomes available.
The data used in developing the Land Use Plan helped determine the
opportunities and constraints for different land uses, as defined by
the adopted policies. Certain areas are more suitable than others for
a particular land use because of a combination of natural and man-made
conditions . Each item of background data gathered was analyzed for
these conditions; when the analysis of all land use opportunities and
constraints was combined with the projected land use needs and the
adopted policies, potential land use patterns emerged . These potential
land use patterns were the basis for the alternative land use plans
discussed in the next section, "The Plan. "
In this section, data categories are listed alphabetically and
discussed in terms of data sources, the spatial extent of the data
and a general explanation of the data. Additionally, data categories
for which maps have been developed for the Land Use Plan have a general
explanation of the maps, entitled "Legend . " The "Data Source" indi-
cates who developed the data, the date of the study and the scale of
any mapped data. The "Spatial Extent of the Data" includes a general-
ized map of the County; areas for which data is available are shaded
on the generalized map. The "Explanation" describes the significant
-8-
aspects of the data and its general purpose.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES _
Legend
The data overlay indicates three categories of information:
1. Generally productive lands
2 . Irrigated/cultivated lands
3 . Productive agricultural resources
Data Sources
1. The source for generally productive lands is Identification of
Prime Agricultural Land by Rex A. Burns, MS Thesis, Colo-
rado State University, Fall 1975, map scale 1: 24, 000 .
2 . The source for irrigated/cultivated lands is the Larimer
County Land Use Inventory prepared by the Larimer County
Planning Department, 1976, photo-map scale 1"= 400' .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data for both "generally productive lands" and "irrigated/
cultivated lands" cover townships five through eight north, range 68
west and townships four through eight north, range, 69 west. This is
basically the flatland area of the County south of Wellington. Data
for the northern flatland area may become available in the future as
the Land Use Inventory and land capability studies are extended .
-11-
...
...
—. ...
Explanation
Included in the designation of "generally productive lands" are
soil classes I and II of the United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service. These classifications are a general indi-
cation of land quality and capability.
The designation of irrigated/cultivated lands" is derived from the
Larimer County Land Use Inventory which surveyed the land use of indi-
vidual parcels in the urbanizing flatland area of the County.
"Productive agricultural resources" are defined as those lands
which due to inherent productive capabilities and/or extensive agri-
_ cultural development are capable of high or unique agricultural produc-
tion . The designation is given to those areas which are both "gener-
ally productive lands" and "irrigated/cultivated lands. "
The Larimer County Policy Plan--adopted February 9, 1977--states
that new development should be encouraged to locate on the less pro-
ductive agricultural land . The Agricultural Resources overlay deline-
ates the location of the more productive land in the area and by
elimination outlines the less productive land .
Limitations in the utilization of the S .C.S . classification
system include:
I
-12-
1. Emphasis on management requirements and not on overall quality
of soil; quality of land for production is not specifically
addressed .
2 . Classification is based on irrigated land capability and does
not reflect dryland capability ratings .
3 . Classification does not indicate relationship of land quality
to economic use of the land for various agricultural land
uses; other factors in addition to land quality such as econo-
mic viability of agricultural uses and market availability
must be considered to fully evaluate the land as a resource.
AIR QUALITY
Legend
The data overlay delineates the air pollution control area desig-
nated by the Colorado Department of Health.
Data Sources
The source for the boundaries of the designated air pollution
control area is the Colorado Department of Public Health, Air Pollution
Control Section, "Designated Air Pollution Area, " 1967 , map scale
1/2" = 1 mile.
Spatial Extent of Data
The designated air pollution control area includes portions of
both Larimer and Weld Counties . The area within Larimer County which
-13-
is inside the boundaries of the designated area extends from township
9 on the north to the County line on the south and from the County
line on the east to range 70 on the west.
Explanation
Little data presently exists for current or potential air quality
conditions in Larimer County. In May, 1977 , however, Larimer County
entered into an agreement with the State of Colorado to receive funds
and equipment to help the Larimer County Health Department begin
monitoring current air quality conditions and assessing potential
conditions. This data will help the County assess the implications
for land uses and to derive ways to help maintain or improve current
air quality conditions .
The following information presents a general explanation of
basic air quality conditions in Larimer County.
I . Larimer County Air Quality Data
A. Larimer County has the potential for "Pollution Episodes"
occupying one fourth of the total time during the winter .
I
-14-
B . The average pollution density is highest along the foothills,
with only minor differences between daytime and night-time.
Pollution decreases rapidly toward the east and also from south
to north. This distribution probably results from:
1) Wind Speed: The wind speed increases from the foothills to
the east.
2) Location of Local Pollution Sources (Non-Point as well as
Point)
3) General Distribution of Sources Outside the County.
C. Occassional extreme pollution concentrations do match the aver-
age pollution intensity of downtown Denver .
D. The diurnal wind and pollution pattern:
1) Night: North to south ("Downslope" ) Clean air is brought
into the County from the north, where there are practically
no pollution sources .
2) Day: South to north ( "Upslope" ) Air with higher background
pollution is brought into the County from the south.
3) Accumulation and Depletion:
a) Air pollution increases in early morning when many pol-
lution sources are activated .
-15- —�
b) Air pollution density steadies and then resumes an
upward trend even before the afternoon commuter
traffic begins .
c) The maximum air pollution level is reached at about
5 P .M. After that:
1) The source strength begins to diminish.
2) The wind direction changes back to northerly.
3) Air pollution decreases throughout the night.
E. Current and future implications:
1) At present, air pollution is a minimal problem.
2) By 2000 the problem could be twice as intense in the flat-
- lands and even more extreme in the foothills .
II . Land Use Implications of the Larimer County Air Quality Data
A. Land use, transportation, and air pollution are interrelated .
B . New development should shift to the eastern margin of the
County, away from the foothills .
C . There should be no large development west of Shields Street
in Fort Collins .
D. Planning strategies to decrease carbon-monoxide levels
include:
1) Distribute traffic over more roads to decrease intensities .
2) Stagger working hours of major employers .
3) Minimize "stop and go" traffic patterns .
2
-16-
E. Planning strategies to decrease ozone levels include:
1) Minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) .
2) Locate and design structures to allow the drainage of
"cold air lakes . "
III . Sources of this Generalized Data
A. Riehl and Herkhof; Air Pollution and Outlook; CSU Atmospheric
Science Dept. , 1970.
B. Interview with Dr. Myron Corrin, CSU Atmospheric Science
Dept. ; August 1976 .
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Data Sources
The source for historical sites and structures is an inventory
completed by Miriam Hoff, a Colorado State University graduate student,
in March 1977 .
Spatial Extent of Data
The inventory of historical sites and structures covers all areas
of the County outside municipalities .
-17- Th
«
Explanation
The inventory includes historical sites and structures which are
potentially significant due to their architecture, age and/or history.
Several of the structures are included, or proposed for inclusion, on
The National Register for Historic Places . Others have been sited by
local residents as sites and structures worthy of identification and
preservation. As of May 1977 , Larimer County had four sites and
structures on the National Register. These are the Enos Mills Home-
stead Cabin, south of Estes Park; the William Allen White Cabins , in
- Rocky Mountain National Park; the Avery House, in Ft. Collins; and
the Lindenmeier Site, just south of the Wyoming state line .
DRAINAGE
Legend
The data overlay delineates two categories of information:
1) Major ridges 2) Sub-major boundaries
I
-18-
Data Sources
Drainage boundaries were identified in a study done for the
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments in 1973 , map scale
1: 24, 000.
Spatial Extent of Data
The Drainage boundary data from the Council of Governments covers
the urbanizing portion of the flatland section of the County. It
extends from township 9 on the north to the County line on the south
and from the County line on the east to range 70 on the west.
Explanation
Drainage boundaries can serve as natural boundaries to the extensior
of utilities and, thus , for development.
ECONOMICS
Data Sources
Interindustry Analysis and Economic Profile of the Larimer-Weld
Region; Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments; 1976.
-19- —�
Spatial Extent of Data
The economic analysis done for the Council of Governments aggre-
gates data for both Larimer and Weld Counties .
Explanation .4
The implications of the analysis can be equally applied to both
Counties, with the exception of those for the agricultural sector,
which is much more significant to the economy of Weld County than to
that of Larimer County. The economic analysis is the basis for the
population projections developed for the Council of Governments by
Toups Corporation, Planning Consultants, in conjunction with the 208
planning process .
The study identifies and analyzes the four major economic sectors
in the two Counties: livestock, food processing, electronics and
government. These four sectors are most important in that they have
high multiplier effects, and/or have high total value of sales and
employment relative to other sectors, and/or are expected to have a
relatively rapid growth in the 1975-2000 period. The largest employer
in the two Counties is education, followed in order by trade, irrigated
agriculture, services, livestock and electronics . Projected employment
for 2000 shows education still the largest employer, followed by gover-
I
-20-
nment, electronics, trade, livestock and irrigated agriculture.
ECOSYSTEM SENSITIVITIES -
Data Sources
All ecosystem descriptions are taken from Dennis Lynch' s "An
Ecosystem Guide for Mountain Land Planning, Level 1, " Colorado State
Forest Service, Colorado State University, 1975, and information com-
piled by personnel with the Roosevelt and the Pike-San Isabel National
Forests .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data deals with foothills and mountain ecosystems .
!!
r." :„
Explanation
The text for Ecosystem Sensitivities describes individual eco-
systems and procedures which can be taken to maintain their integrity
while allowing development. This information is available in the
County Planning Office.
-21- Th
EXISTING PLANS
Legend
The data overlay delineates the boundaries of the study areas for
four land use plans:
1) Rocky Mountain National Park Master Plan, 1974
2) Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, in progress
3) Big Thompson Disaster Recovery Plan, in progress
4) Loveland Master Plan, 1976
Data Sources
Boundaries for the land use plan study areas are identified in
the individual plans, either completed or in progress .
Spatial Extent of Data
The study areas of the existing plans and those in progress cover
large areas of the unincorporated portion of the County.
Explanation
The data and findings of the existing plans and those in progress
have been considered in the development of the Larimer County Land
Use Plan. Both the development and implementation of the County Land
I
(
-22-
Use Plan must be coordinated with these plans .
FLOODPLAIN HAZARDS
Legend
The floodplain hazard data overlay displays approximate flood-
plain areas and other flood prone areas .
Data Sources
The Federal Insurance Administration of the United States Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) produced the "Flood Hazard
Boundary Maps" in 1976 . These source maps are at a scale of 1:24,000.
Spatial Extent of Data
The Flood Hazard Boundary Maps provide countywide coverage.
Explanation
The countywide Maps can be used as general indicators of areas
which are probably prone to floods . For more specific information, a
study must be done to determine the one hundred year floodway for
individual waterways . Such information is available for several areas
-25-
in Larimer County, including:
1) Cache La Poudre River--the floodplain has been identified
from Ted ' s Place to the Weld County line.
2) Little Thompson Rive--the one hundred year floodplain has
been identified for the length of the river within the flat-
lands portion of the County.
3) Big Thompson River--the one hundred year floodplain has been
identified from approximately Devil ' s Backbone, west of
Loveland, to Olympus Heights, northeast of Estes Park, on the
Big Thompson and to Glen Haven on the North Fork of the Big
Thompson .
4) Estes Park Area--a floodplain topographical survey has been
completed for both the Big Thompson River and Fall River
from the eastern boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park,
through the town of Estes Park to the west end of Lake Estes .
Studies are progressing on:
1) the remaining unstudied section of the Big Thompson River
within Larimer County.
2) Buckhorn Creek from 6 miles upstream to its confluence with
the Big Thompson River.
3) Redstone Creek from 1.7 miles upstream to its confluence with
Buckhorn Creek.
4) Dry Creek from 1.7 miles upstream to College Avenue in Ft.
Collins .
2
-26-
5) Boxelder Creek from 1/2 mile north of Wellington to 1/2 mile
south of Wellington .
More studies will be accomplished as funding becomes available. -
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Legend
The geologic hazard data overlay relates the type and degree of
geologic hazard present within an area to the suitability of that area
for development. The maps delineate three categories for those areas
of the County which have been studied:
1) most suitable for development -
2) less suitable for development
3) least suitable for development
Data Sources
The geologic hazard information is from a study done by Charles S .
Robinson and Associates , Inc . , engineering and geology consultants,
in 1976 utilizing local and State planning funds. The scale of the
maps in the Robinson report in 1: 24, 000 .
Spatial Extent of Data
The Robinson report covers 18 of the 56 whole or partial quadoran-
gles within Larimer County.
-27-
*****"a
•
•
•
•
Explanation
A geologic hazard is defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes,
1973 , as " . . .a geologic phenomenon which is so adverse to past, current
or foreseeable construction or land use as to constitute a significant
hazard to public health and safety. " Geologic hazards include land-
slides, rockfalls, mudflows, debris fans, unstable or potentially
unstable slopes, ground subsidence and expansive soil and rock.
The Robinson study delineated seven categories of geologic haz-
- ards, ranging from no hazard (group 1) to an extremely severe hazard
(group 7) . For the data overlay, these seven categories were reduced
to three.
1) Groups 1, 2 and 3 from Robinson ' s study pose little hazard
to development and are not subject to the County Natural
Hazard Regulation . Areas so designated by Robinson are
labled "most suitable for development" on the data overlay.
2) Groups 4 and 5 in Robinson ' s study include moderately severe
hazards which require on-site study and may necessitate
design modifications prior to development. The data overlay
designates these areas as "less suitable for development. "
r 28-
3) Hazards within groups 6 and 7 are severe, requiring detailed
on-site analysis and major design modifications prior to -
development. Often the expense of the necessary engineering
prohibits development. Avoidance of such areas is the most
practical solution . The data overlay labels these areas as
"least suitable for development. " -
Funding has been acquired for the geologic study of as many as ten
more quadrangles in 1977-1978.
HOUSING NEEDS
Data Sources
The Larimer County Planning Department is developing a Housing
Plan for the County as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housinc
Plan has provided data for the Land Use Plan and vice versa.
Spatial Extent of Data
The Larimer County Housing Plan provides countywide housing needs
data, including for the cities of Estes Park, Berthoud, Loveland and
Timnath.
I -29- Th
Explanation
The development of the Larimer County Land Use and Housing Plans
is being coordinated to assure their consistency.
JURISDICTIONS
Data Sources
Current municipal boundaries were provided by the individual
cities .
Spatial Extent of Data
Jurisdictional data is available countywide.
Explanation
The County Comprehensive Plan and its elements apply only to
those areas outside municipal boundaries . The County has no authority
to make land use decisions inside city limits and the cities have none
outside their limits . The Policy Plan recommends that the municipal-
ities and the County cooperate more closely on land use decisions
regarding land on the fringe of the cities, and thus of common interest.
I
-30-
All special districts are also jurisdictions . Water and sewer
districts are dealt with separately in this text.
LAND OWNERSHIP
Legend
The data overlay distinguishes between public and private land.
All land owned by local, State or Federal jurisdictions or agencies
designated "public . "
Data Sources
Interviews were conducted with the local, State and Federal juris-
dictions and agencies which own and manage land in Larimer County.
These agencies are:
a) Colorado State Division of Wildlife
b) Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners
c) Colorado State University
d) Colorado State Division of Parks and Recreation
e) National Park Service
f) U.S . Bureau of Land Management
g) U.S . Bureau of Reclamation
h) U.S . Forest Service
i) Larimer County
j ) the municipalities in the County
Source data was mapped at various scales and is correct as of
— 1 33- Th
September 1976 .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is Countywide.
Explanation
Public land is not subject to the same type of development pres-
sure as is private land. The uses of each, however, do have impacts
on other land, whether public or private . The planning process at-
tempts to attain compatibility of public and private land uses .
LAND USE-EXISTING
Legend
The data overlay delineates 13 categories of existing land use:
1) residential--subdivisions developed less than 50 percent
2) residential--subdivisions developed 50 percent or more
3) residential--not in a subdivision
4) commercial
5) service
6) industrial--extractive
-34-
7) industrial--other than extractive
8) public/quasi-public
9) transportation
10) communications/utility
11) forest
12 ) recreation/park
13) farm/rangeland
Data Sources
The Larimer County Planning Department began inventorying the ex-
isting use of land in the County in 1976 . On the flatlands the inven-
tory is based on aerial photointerpretation and field checks for
accuracy. In the western section of the County, United States Geolo-
gical Survey 1: 24 ,000 scale quadrangle maps were interpreted and field
checked for accuracy. The Land Use Inventory is periodically updated
to reflect changes in land use. A similar inventory was completed as
part of the Estes Park Master Plan.
Spatial Extent of Data
Existing land use data is available countywide. The data for the
eastern portion of the County is generally more site specific than is
the data for the western portion.
I \35-
Explanation
The land use inventory analyzes subdivisions in the flatlands
section of the County for the individual and total number of existing
platted lots by acreage and whether those lots are developed or
undeveloped .
The totals for the inventoried subdivisions on the flatlands are
presented in the following table:
I
:ojgeg butMoTTo3 aqg uT paguasaad
aae spupTgpW3 aq} uo suoTsTATpgns paTzoguanuT eqg ao3 sTpgog agy
* padoTanapun
zo padoTanap axe sgoT asogg zaggaqM pup abpaaop Aq sgoT paggeTd
buigsTxa 3o zagunu Tpgoq pup TenpTATpuT aga. zo3 Agunop aqi 3o uoTgoes
spupTg2T3 eqg uT suozsTATpgns sazATeue A2oguanuz asn pupT agy
uoTgeueTdxg
+ -S£-
-37- Th
MINERAL RESOURCES
Legend
The data overlay outlines areas of potential commercial deposits
in the flatlands of the County. The maps show three categories of
mineral deposits:
1) course aggregate (gravel)
2) fine aggregate (sand)
3) unevaluated resource (probable aggregate)
Data Source
The data for potential commercial mineral deposits was mapped by
the Colorado Geological Survey in 1974 at a scale of 1: 24,000.
Spatial Extent of Data
Mineral resource data is displayed for the Ft. Collins and
Loveland areas of the flatland portion of the County.
Explanation
The Larimer County Policy Plan echoes State law in Policy VIII H:
I
-38-
"By Colorado statute, neither the County Commissioners nor
any other governmental authority which has control over
zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance,
or other official action or inaction, permit the use of
any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in
a manner which would interfere with the present or future
extraction of such deposit by an extractor . Commerical
mineral deposit means a natural mineral deposit of lime-
stone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel,
and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extrac-
tor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which
it can be demonstrated by geologic, mineralogic, or other
scientific data that such deposit has significant econo-
mic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation. "
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Data Sources
The proposed Larimer County Plan for Open Space and Outdoor
Recreation .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is countywide.
Explanation
The proposed Larimer County Plan for Open Space and Outdoor Re-
creation was developed by the Larimer County Open Space Planner and
-39-
the Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Advisory Board. The Plan is
based on the natural characteristics of the land and the recreation
needs of the County residents . The proposed Plan outlines those
areas which are suitable for open space and outdoor recreation . The
development and implementation of the proposed Open Space and Land
Use Plans must be coordinated.
POPULATION
Legend
The data overlay is a schematic representation of approximately
how much land would be required for the additional residential dev-
_ elopment necessary to accommodate a population of 275, 000 in Larimer
County given four distinct densities:
1) 1/4 acre per dwelling unit
2) 1/2 acre per dwelling unit
3) 1 acre per dwelling unit
4) 2 acres per dwelling unit
Data Sources
The population projections used in this Plan were developed for
the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments as part of its 208
Areawide Waste Water Management Planning effort. Historic population
figures were developed by the United States Bureau of the Census .
40-
Spatial Extent of Data
The population projections were developed for the region. The
projection for Larimer County was derived from the regional projection . -
The population figure is for all incorporated and unincorporated areas
in the County; i.e. the towns, cities and the areas outside them.
Explanation
Population projections for a jurisdiction such as Larimer County,
which has a relatively small geographic area and population, can be
misleading: the County is subject to both internal and external -
factors which can quickly alter the pattern of growth. The action of
a single employer, Eastman Kodak or Hewlett Packard for example, can
undo the calculations of any projection.
It is necessary, however, to attempt long-range population pro-
jection so that plans can be made and finances arranged for the or-
derly and efficient provision of services and facilities such as water,
sewer, electricity, parks, roads and schools . The Larimer-Weld Council
of Governments used the Colorado Population and Employment Model
(CPE II) in the development of the population projections used in this
Plan . Locally developed employment forecasts were incorporated into
the CPE II Model to increase the reliability of the projections. These
population projections are still in draft stage; if they are modified
for use in the 208 Areawide Waste Water Management Planning, then the
Land Use Plan shall be modified accordingly to assure compatibility.
-41-
The United States Bureau of the Census has maintained population
records for Larimer County since 1870: nine years after Colorado was
organized as a territory in 1861, six years before Colorado became the
38th State of the Union, and thirty-nine years before Jackson County
was organized from part of Larimer County in 1909. These historical
population trends are interesting because they reflect national and
local economic and social conditions and are reflected in the char-
acter of the County: its farms, housing, schools , industry, roads and
commercial areas .
Bureau of Census figures are presented in the following tables:
2
fe o H v ro
o CO 0.) H u V -P o d
H Ifl 4.I N l0 U) N l— N 6
M r co H H N O •
H H CO M H H • W
H In M
i-1 -P N CM
-IJ O O r-
0 G G N
G (0 >
0., 4-)
G
M H N V o 0
0 O 0\°
O In in Oi W G 14 U0 wO 0 O 0
Ol M - O Si • O
H M H N U 'O d) Ol M
H N E M --
G N -r1 dl in
O -.i Si 0
CO G It C
x ro a H
U CD
rd
ro S- W G
b 0 0 -r1
H N O .8Q-
0 H M
H d' N
Cl 03 O r N •
N CO N O • N
H N N ClCh M H
H H
U)
W
a
0
HcLi R, r o
d) 1/4.0 l0 N N
Z O 44 in M N M •
O CO co M N M . N
H CO •r1 a) d' M
E H H H Ol M
4 cr H --
+) N
0 +)
0.4
as
N ccnn 0
CL 1.4 G 0
0 r0 O r0 A .G •-i
to
a H o 0 m 0
0i) d• o 0 -P 0 L--
0
0 SS-I TO
W -5 M •rd1 M a) n• b CO N CO
C4• dro +) 0 a Q rrn H CO . L.O Si .�
Cs) H O N 4
E-I H H i-) M — H E IT
O row G
H 0 U 4 - C 0 u 0 <
M r0
0 0 U U
'CI
N •r1
• >I
r ro N H
O r- b) Oto
LO N O -r1 H
H H d' Si
M O Fi
ro o
ro4Jro
Si 0
O rd Si
H ,R
O N a)
U rd G+
TS
0
CO i-1 H
C al rd H
Si H 0 0 u) 0 44 CO N
.0 rd .EE. H >I V 1) --• al rd H 0 ro >I
0�y �0 4L 3 U -�i tdd 1>) - C C O }O-I >I H $Oi o
4 $ N 0 0 H •r1 Id 3 -rI O U 4 4-) 0 U H N
4) 0 a) 4) 4) `- 00 co H i) G G +) G -rl
Si 4) i-1 -- Si > -P H -- -rl 7 al -r1 N Si
d) -- U) O O -rl -- N G O +1 0 0
CO w w a F 3 M U o W ai
1 O o 0 0 0 0 0
N W l0 to too NN OW N 6 H R.
M o a a)
m d H • M • N • N • O • H o O to to —
H SP N O 1� Mr) NW HOD 10 61 d' 01 M • N 112-
_ • d' • M • N . l0 H N • N • W • CO
H `-' H M W 19 H." 01 19 r •
d' H N CO O to
N N
N
0 o
\0 d' to d' d' 0 N H — M CO N
M H N N M to M H \q Sr Si' Sr ^
H 0 H 0 N H to N O1 M • 6• 0
N • N • d'
H H to 61 to M N M •
N H to In N
N M
H
0
to N N N M N H N d' 0 61
O1 l0 H M 1- N d' d o to 10 W
H W LO O N H to W M to • O o
- - d' • N • O
H d' 10 co M N to •
_ U) H H Sr "' N CO
W M H
a
] H
0
- H
Ga
Z 0 10
O St' H Sr H to N to 19 — 61 61
H 01 H 61 to d' d' t0 N o M o N o
E-i H CO 61 N H H Si'' N H to N • d'
F� N '.0 d' to N NCO
y H H M H 'H-
a
O H
a
a
a
U
H 0
H-
4:4 m H N W 19 01 Cr) N — N a H
O CI H H CO 0 19 M H o M 61 61 0
__ E+ H co d' d' to H to N M H • N N
U) • Sr • CO
H H to d' M H M O
T H H M M H
O
-_ •
V
Q)
0
} H
O 0 a)
N N 4i to to 61 N a 61
H.
01 to a) It to 1.0 m N M N o
H W }-I 4 N 0 Sr CO • 10 19
ro • o •
4--) CO to N H 01 N
O a) N MH
O U) 01
V
(1) 4-I .-.
- U) +) O H
(Tire;
C 0
}x-I r l 00 O U) b1 0 N f00
•6 (Ti .— H
7 a 0 +) C — .4 — 01 N 0 E }Oi $.4
10 0 1 4 - 0 (Ti 0 H O 0 � O 0 C H IJ ri
}i +) +) }1 > C) 2 1) H A-) -r1 }I 0 0 ro
a) -• co 0 0 -• •rl -- 0 -• 0 a) 0 0 o a) o
\ w w w a E3 � a U a -- u) --
-44-
SANITATION DISTRICTS
Legend
The data overlay for sanitation districts delineates the approxi-
mate boundaries of the areas in Larimer County which are within a
sanitation district. These boundaries do not necessarily indicate that
an area is currently being served by a district, but rather that it has
a strong potential for service.
Data Sources
The Larimer County Planning Department staff interviewed represen-
tatives of the sanitation districts. District maps were utilized when
they were available.
Spatial Extent of Data
Data was gathered and mapped countywide.
S '
Explanation
The majority of the sanitation districts in Larimer County serve
the areas around Ft. Collins and Loveland. Each of these special dis-
tricts is a subdivision of the State, with elected representatives re-
sponsible for providing a single or, when combined with a water district,
-45-
double urban service to a specific area in the unincorporated territory
of the County.
The following tables present available data on sanitation dis-
tricts . The County will continue gathering data as it becomes
- available.
I
-46-
r
w
O• o 0) 0 CO
U -rl 75 0
U) C HI a) 44 040rl -P •d
O
C 0 75 u -rl C 0 0 rtl -d O 0
it •rl a) C 4) a) III 75 44 C HI R o
H u) 4J ri k 4 Hi C o al U _.
a OM 0 4J 4J 04 >i 0 -.i O b)
O a d 4 0 C -.ui 0 .r4 W N -d ,A
$.4 k u 4) k •rl 34 34 r I 4 )4 )4
0 0 -rI a4 .C 4J C -r4 4J W g a)
4) C 4J P 4J J u ) it in 4 a) 4 C
Lk
g o o g o • I •rl g m C .4 ai r4 O
114 z z al (hi 0 375ryw o4) 3 0475
a) —
C
u) •ri
u) 0 >, r-I
O O 4) 34
+I U -P a)0 >i
N -d a a) C •r4
4J $4 0 4) 4) u
•rl 4J 0 rt) 0 C ra
� 0 C 0 -rl HI rd•
r7 a' 0 k m a U
O in U)
$4 N .0 0 C rn
75 I C 4-) 0 >v 4J >r
00 H N it H W 4) 04 N G A Ii
4) aro 0 w wa) 0004 SA 71 E �'J ro0w
C CO 4) x J .C al 4 C 75 75 0
u) a) o C w u) u ro rt H o 4-4 C O ..i 44
H (1) 5 O C -rl a It 0 0 O ro 4J al 0
U b' 4) 4) 34 •ri ii S4 Sa H4 it 4)
H ra b C a) >y r-I 4.1 k 0 4J 0 34 >i a) k C >v
a 3 W it > 4-) r-I rn rd CO a, m 4$ > a) •rl 4J
H 0 k r-I •rI •rl O .rl a) H N a4 0 •.i O 04 ai •.i
in o ff a C4 V U 0 C r•C -rl 0 >i U a o 5 O ..
H
Q
z
o 34
H 2)
H o a) >i
O
O
H a) to 0 4J u
r� co In 0 0 0 i a a) 1 ., t
co Pia al t noes C Q, O
T14 > —
bmmg>,
U Ts QJ
C -rI 0 C E
a) u 04) 04-)
a) 04 O b a) O
kid to H CO P
a U N 04 4)
S
H • N 144 r C W ON
INn 0 > Ln CN m 3N 0iin _.
• 0 0 N < 0 C O 0 C 0 m a) k 0
04 m ai >, W co 4o) Da H 3 C o it) a, • m CO o
Ix $4 a W O > t m r-I C E X to HWWCN E 4I CO N
O C N C O b O P co 0 u) 1/40 W rz4 W C •I
4) r4 M •rl I C P •rl I w .C r0 I -rl 75 I H 75 -ri I
U in .-I C .-I rn 0 •rl HI n H a 1/40 cjf W C N x 4-4 in O 4H •1
-rI in -rl -ri HI O. (0 4 HI 01 C 01 CO • rd 10 0 C O rl CO
PO) 2 ,-] 0 d' o d' 0 -•i w to C 3 rl t0 34 •rl 0 Vii
4J $4 U • 0 U C P7 a) rtl O a) a) >y rr 0 --.
u) 75 ro N • • q to $.4 0 4.J • trio > .y• b14) HI 0
-ri 75 k M 4-' . • 0 4J .C 0 H co .L O M O •a• 0 -rl O O 4-1 .C
n < HN a 04 U N 44 04 > 1/40 14 04 CT. N I-] a4 a. u O h w a,
4-I FI
u a) 0 co
X
0 P H 0 S+) 4 co 0 (1) 0 0 •
A PO 4
wa x Na a3 co /
-47-
I W
r%I W 0 -O .C 0 trl •
b0 34 .i N W
a o ', $4 4J ''b > ro W >Y iJ $4 • r-1 O 4.1
a ro 4J -,--I $4 H OH C O co O a H"_. co O +I W O ro O H a HI rl W O C V S4 ri
C O4-1 -rl 0 a W --4 O •rl E O rd • -r1 •rl
Id -r1 O ri •b .C > $4 3 0 0 0 r-I -S) 4 A
H W H3 O >1 a ••-I O a G. •.i
w C >,, MI 0 Si r I 0 43 H4J ro a W
-- ro 4J .C .O no al 4) O tn O V 0 O 01 a W C co
O a ••i W 4J W C .C C -rl C > C Si Si C ro O
W 0 ro •.i $4 It0 ro -H IQ H a
34 0 0 V l $4 .O 4J r0 W 4-I 0
4-1 z t 34 r 'b a ,A V C 0 C N roJ W co4 00 O4 > 0
O 0 Id > C O O $4 0 •rl •r1 4-1 0 .C 0 1 0 3
W Z C H O •ri O O FC Z t t d V N Z Z a ft
C
W O
O
O 0 C C
4) H -rl O
ro b c +I
-
-r1 0 •rl 0 ro
a 0
k O4 ro O o
a Z > •o r-1
__ I
O
rn 4) iJ
0O) 0 i4J W 0 W 0 4)
• 4 0 -rl r-1 S4 4) 0-I g 7v+I
.0 w a0 •Ci 3 ••r1 34 0) Ts Or-1 u C
O 4-1 W CC 0 x 0 0 O ni H a of E
0 a o O -.-I W rd >, -P $4 0 H 4-)
bi 4- •.1 CL' k Si a a W >+ 0
ro 21 >1 r-1 >Y 41 14 0 ro > o u) CU O
0 u
0 34 •r1 O $4 •H OO O .O O O a)O 0 O V a Ga )•1 4J
— W E V V Z V V U ro ro W
V V
O4 04
b' bl
-P a O 0 O
C \ O bl O
O cr) O al O
_ W
O 0 ul No > O 0
W ] rl to al CO a
__ W • I
0 0 r-I 0 r-I
4J .N 7 A O b 43 $O$ 0 0, W r0 43
-- 0 0 -r H W W -P E w H rd
4o) `b 4J -0
W ro 44 ..-I 0 r 1 0 0 0 4-I 4J b1 g RI
o a ro .P -rl -r1 O 4J > C rd E ro a
W V Z f>d ,A -rrii .A rd `1Ld t al E 0- el a, O
_. E
bnCN CN 'b EN ON
C •rl Cl .C •rl to N ,A Cl bl
— • r-1 .H ro O 4J V O n) O 0 O
O4 H rl 4J CO nl Si r-I CO O Cl r-I ro ta l0 H CO O
0 •d rl C CO CO ro •rl H d' o M C -rl r-I W r-I W
(Y, 'a.," -r1 O C LO a O W N V d' W HI ro o m (to -r1 O W O
.C O -rl rt ri co C d' O In N E C C N > O C nl
— 4IJ • O `e" H I -rl -H I O V I V bl -H I it -H I
O W (Y) CO r-1 N '$ CO H N W X C N O 0 ri N Q • H d'
-ri W • O W b) ri W 0 o ro l0 > W H W C) r-I CO
34 W CH 0J 'Cr >YC O '1 Q wril0 W Od. 0 O C
4J $4 O O Si •r1 O • 0 to V C O V
— -.ri V r-I rc5 b lO9 4J • H (> •d iJ .C RI • 00 • •.E-I Ow •l Jr) .C 0 ON •4-I .C
q FCVrIG+ a wWw a P4P, a a f] rlw a AO1w a
0 -.C
— -1 W I I
+-' 3 4.3 4-I Y 0 VV C 44-3 4-IW 'g O $4 Si r-1 }-I > C Si '� }i 2
rl O .rl 0 0 0 con O O O O
q Z > zwu Z 1H w .C m w
-48-
te In
ii
1 +) v 0 C
ki
rcl
E A cn -r E 4-J C C E H KC 0
4- 0 C H S4 •r1 O 0 0 0.i U C
-ri -.-I 0 U) N 0 O N ell.0
cn Hc .C A ra •r1 G-i • A ca X >i a)
N O X O4-1 r4 S4 C .C ra • ri 3 4- 0 U) -P
HI O rd O C • r4 a) 0 4) CO r— r-I U) of N
04 4] .C a) ro •rI 4) -rI 0 r •r1 0 344-1 C
a) -4vI443m 3ro0voi0r-I in 3 > a) ri CD
(I)
$4 "HA a) 0. 4] U) •r1 4] ra 4) •ri cn k
O 44 wrn C C C ,Cri (1) U .0 ro u) ra as
4) >, 000 (030—Pr-1—pal OM H H 4-)
O O ra >im S4 r4 O O -rH 0 (0 S4 0 S4 O --I al 0
r- 2ZArI ra P, ro 0 3Or44-) 4-) 4) w 3 O4-4
In
0
O a)
_)
• >
+) •r1
rcl 4-1
r1 U
-r1 ro
C
-rI •rI
a
r0 4) >1 -
O u) 0 S4
.°c ro3 N •%
4) I4
O C H a s4 0 C .-. --
4) W ra 4) ca a) 4)
O 44 0. 00 C — 0
b)- r-I -.
• o CA -P U) +-)
3• 0 3 ca C A (0 4-) U)
mE 0 , W Utn H ca aG] 4-
U)
04
U) Ca •
4_I 04 4-) x
C ow ra 0
(I) O4-) O }4
u) in 0 0,
O W I o 0 00,
Y4 0 0d - ra
b I b O
) 4) $4 0 0
>I W U U) Cd 040 0 -H O
4) 4) 04 -rI Y4 H U) a) 44 4P 4) o
a) 0 Oro) -w- 4 GL 0 SUI u) rd
rH 0
U) ra C ra C 4) 0 a) -ri 0 m
O 04 O b) 0 ra C 4J O4] al
S4 ra O -H S4 ,C a) C -rI r4 0 w
4L 0 w u) rn 4-1 N H ri 0 0, 0
ro
a, RI N
C ra
in 0 r, ra L--- S4 .4 in
• r-I H M a) C. O __
0 0. C cn >, •r1 a) )n O 4-) rd CO 'Cr
a) ra O U) ri > OM C 'O 0.1 d'
C4 b) o C U) 0 .C co r-I 0 co gin
al .C U) 4) Y4 a 4) W 0,)n • Y4 ‘r
4] G. U ro 4) Fi 0 Le) re I 34 rI it I
O U) r I 0 •ri 0 4] .C 44 C N ro X 4) W io
•r1 U) 0 0 0 ,C O 4 U) 0 • rd W U O ro co
o >1• - 4 3 3 U .AW 0 to re C 2 CO U) in
4-1 SA •r1
wro > r S4 C • r-Io •Po > • U) O4) 4) •
•r1 ro 0 O al 0 U) ro m -rI r-1 0 .0 Y4 • 0 U) ,C
A 4a M (Q x Z x sr 0 ' - 0, G. G4 '-I W 0.
— C
O La o
-ri b) o w
S4 ,C I C 0 $4 I S4 0,
` C0 + > ro $4Ca) • 4) a) Ts> C v0
\` ) ) W t r-I > -PV u) > a a o
-ri 00ro 0, ra (ara a) oro al.C
O v) a .-I cnU3m 3a r4 D
/ -51-
SOIL SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC FIELDS
Legend
The data overlay distinguishes between two categories of suit-
ability:
1) Areas which are suitable for septic fields .
2) Areas which are unsuitable for septic fields due to severe soil
constraints.
Data Sources
The soil suitability maps are based on data presented in Soil Data
for Land Planning, a study done by Rex A. Burns in 1971. The source
maps are at a scale of 1" = 1,200 ' and indicate soils with slight,
moderate and prohibitive limitations for septic fields .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data covers only the eastern section of the County.
— S
...
Explanation ••
The criteria for suitability for conventional septic systems is
based on State health regulations. In unsuitable areas, alternative
septic systems must be used .
-52-
SUBDIVISIONS AND EXEMPTIONS
Legend
The data overlay specifies the locations of both platted subdivi-
sions and exemptions .
Data Sources
Data was taken from two sources within the Planning Department:
1) a map of all subdivisions recorded since 1904.
2) a map of all exemptions recorded since 1972 .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is countywide.
Explanation
Larimer County recorded its first platted subdivisions in 1904.
Many of these platted lots have since been divided by deed; the plats
otherwise may not reflect the total number of parcels in existence.
Senate Bill 35, enacted in 1972 , mandated that the creation of parcel
less than thirty-five acres had to be approved and recorded with the
County. The creation of parcels 35 acres or larger is not subject to
County subdivision regulations and the parcels are recorded separate
� -53-
from the subdivisions . Exemptions from the subdivision regulation are
currently allowed in Larimer County for the creation of two parcels
less than 35 acres. Exemptions are also not recorded with the platted
subdivisions; this is important because, since the enactment of Senate
Bill 35, there has been more land divided by exemption than by sub-
division . From 1973 through 1976, 18, 744 acres were divided by exem-
ption and 8,620 acres by subdivision.
The total number of lots created in recorded platted subdivisions
through 1976 is 18,435. The total number of acres developed in re-
corded platted subdivisions is 35, 504 .96. The mean density of all
recorded subdivided lots in Larimer County, thus, is .51 units/acre or
1.95 acres/unit.
Since 1904 the average density of residential subdivisions has
been decreasing while the population has been increasing; more people
have been using much more land . For example, the average density
during the first six years records were maintained (1904-1909) was
1.53 units/acre, or .65 acres/unit. In contrast, the average density
for the six years between 1971 and 1976 was .39 units/acre, or 2 .57
acres/unit. The result of this decrease in residential density is the
necessity of investing more resources and more money in providing the
services--roads, water, sewer and electricity--for each additional
residential unit. Since 1973 , however, the decrease in density has
been reversed: the mean density of lots created by subdivision in-
creased from .29 units/acre in 1973 to .63 units/acre in 1976. With
I
-54-
the increasing cost of land, facilities, services and energy, this
trend is expected to continue.
Not all of the subdivisions and exemptions shown on the data over-
lay are fully developed. On the contrary, data for the eastern flat-
lands of the County indicates that approximately 59 percent of platted
subdivision lots are undeveloped. A similar study for the mountainous
section of the County shows 77 percent of all platted subdivision lots
undeveloped . Some of these undeveloped parcels remain in their original
use--farming or ranching, but most are idle.
The following tables provide subdivision and exemption figures for
Larimer County. The subdivision table includes the total number of
acres platted in one year, the total number of acres platted, the
number of lots created and the average density of those lots. The sec-
ond set of tables compares statistics for Planned Unit Developments
(P.U.D. ' s) , Subdivisions and Exemptions since 1973 , the first year
exemptions were allowed .
I
-55-
YEARLY SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN LARIMER COUNTY*
Acres Lots Average Density
Year Platted Created Acres/Unit Units/Acre
1904 79.13 199 .40 2 .5
1905 4.4 48 .09 10.91
1906 174 .67 54 3 .23 . 31
1907 4 . 10 9 .46 2 .20
1908 5 .05 13 .39 2 . 57
1909 386 . 3 104 3 .71 .27
1910 41.21 116 .36 2 .81
1911 155.35 176 .88 1. 13
1912 0 0 --- ---
1913 10.03 45 .22 4 .49
1914 13 .86 144 . 10 10.39
1915-16 0 0 --- ---
1917 149.39 93 1.61 .62
1918 105 .91 65 1 .63 .61
1919 95 .93 160 .60 1.67
1920 393 .03 434 .91 1.10
1921 77 .24 247 .31 3 .20
1922 49.4 78 .63 1.58
1923 0 0 --- ---
1924 575 . 1,693 .34 2 . 94
1925 772 .68 1,225 .63 1.59
1926 0 0 --- ---
I
r -56- \
Acres Lots Average Density
Year Platted Created Acres/Unit Units/Acre
1927 82 .4 72 1.14 .87
1928 481 .15 515 .93 1.07
1929 0 0 --- ---
1930 217 .5 277 .79 1.27
1931 8.26 21 .39 2 .54
1932-33 0 0 --- ---
1934 11.03 33 .33 2 .99
1935-36 0 0 --- ---
1937 4 8 .50 2 .00
1938 28 28 1.00 1.00
1939 3 .5 2 1.75 . 57
1940 17 .17 82 .21 4.78
1941-43 0 0 --- ---
1944 29.93 35 .86 1.17
1945 187 . 78 2 .40 .42
1946 16 .261 21 .77 1.29
1947 31.3 58 .54 1.85
1948 86.85 97 .90 1.12
1949 73 . 95 59 1.25 .80
1950 3 .67 12 .31 3 .27
1951 108.05 92 1.17 .85
1952 74.15 109 .68 1.47
1953 115 .48 212 .54 1.84
c -57 -Th
-
Acres Lots Average Density
Year Platted Created Acres/Unit Units/Acre
1954 97 .72 80 1.22 .82
1955 318 .02 68 4 .68 .21
1956 46.84 103 .45 2 .20
1957 67 .29 105 .64 1. 56
1958 8 . 30 .27 3 . 75
1959 947 .27 895 1.06 . 94
1960 211.48 163 1.30 .77
1961 423 .51 327 1.30 .77
1962 404 . 11 428 .94 1.06
1963 521.47 445 1.17 .85
1964 894 .4 1130 .79 1.26
1965 937 .71 837 1.12 .89
1966 397 .92 557 .71 1.40
1967 1016 .33 522 1.95 . 51
1968 1579 .23 610 2 . 59 . 39
1969 3183 .85 847 3 . 76 .27
1970 2397 . 57 490 4 .89 .20
1971 4722 .46 1146 4.12 .24
1972 3743 .27 1716 2 .18 .46
1973 3498.87 1027 3 .41 .29
1974 2290.89 1053 2 .18 .46
1975 1199 .43 594 2 .02 .50
1976 1924 . 99 1218 1.55 .63
2
/ -58-
I/ Total lots created in County from 1904-1976: 18,435
Total acres developed in County from 1904-1976: 35, 504 . 961
Average Density: 1904-1976-- .51 units/acre
*This is only development that occurred in platted subdivisions .
Lots created in unrecorded subdivisions, by exemptions or simply
by unrecorded divisions of land are not shown in this table.
r -59
P.U.D.-SUBDIVISION-EXEMPTION STATISTICS
1973 1974 1975 1976 Total
Exemptions
# Processed 102 126 109 95 432
Total Approved 100 120 101 89 410
# of Parcels 264 354 253 218 1, 089
# of Acres 6854 5404 2945 .34 3540.69 18, 744
Subdivision Final
Plats and P.U.D.
Final Phase Plans
# Processed 53 29 28 38 148
Total Approved 34 21 27 22 104
# of Parcels 1062 538 568 1218 3 , 386
# of Acres 3760.89 1810.46 1132 .82 1924 .99 8,620
P.U.D.
Master Plans
# Processed 3 11 8 9 31
Total Approved 2 7 7 7 23
# of Parcels 76 364 1052 2349 3 , 841
# of Acres 51.82 3491.33 1516 .39 4087 .88 9, 147 .42
I
-60-
TRANSPORTATION -
Legend
The data overlay distinguishes four types of roads and indicates
railroads and airports .
Data Sources
1) Highways
The source of data on highways is the General Highway Map of
Larimer County, prepared by the State Highway Department. -
This map was drafted in 1958 and has been updated to November
1976 to show highway system additions and changes to road sur-
face classifications .
2) Railroads
The location of rail lines in Larimer County was taken from
United States Geological Survey 1: 24, 000 scale quadrangle
maps. The ownership of various rail lines was supplied by
EDAW, Inc . in December 1976 .
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is Countywide. -
-61-
Explanation
Road types are distinguished since different types have distinct
capacities and levels of durability. Chip and seal pavement, for
example, is less durable and cannot handle as large a volume of traf-
fic as can oil mat pavement. The information available can be used
as a general indication of road capacity. More specific information
is being developed for areas in and around the cities by the State
Department of Highways, in conjunction with the Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments .
Four railroads operate in Larimer County. The Burlington North-
ern has a main line running from Cheyenne through Ft. Collins and
Loveland and a secondary line from Ft. Collins to Windsor and Greeley.
The Union Pacific has a secondary line running from Ft. Collins to
Milliken and Johnstown and a spur line to Buckeye. The Colorado and
Southern has a spur line running from Ft. Collins to Owl Canyon.
Great Western Sugar Company has a number of lines converging at its
Loveland plant.
WATER DISTRICTS
Legend
The data overlay for water districts delineates the approximate
boundaries of areas in Larimer County which are within a water district
or association. These boundaries do not necessarily indicate that an
area is currently being served by a district, but rather that there
I
I -62-
is a strong potential for service.
Data Sources
The information regarding water districts was gathered during July
and August 1976 . Data was collected through interviews with district
representatives .
Spatial Extent of Data
Data is Countywide .
111111111111111111111
2
i
L
t
Explanation
The available information has several deficiencies which should
be recognized.
1) The specificity and accuracy of the data is inconsistent.
The information provided by the districts ranged from eleniieel
accounts to general descriptions .
2) The dates of printed material (maps, service plans, etc. )
ranged from 1962 to 1976 .
3) Some of the district boundaries had to be approximated since
precise boundary descriptions were not always available.
2
-- - -63-
4) District Boundaries had to be generalized on the data overlay
due to its scale (1"=1 mile) . Small areas (less than one
square mile) which are not included in a district but which
are surrounded by a district are shown as within district
boundaries to simplify the map.
The majority of the water districts and associations serve areas
in the eastern flatland section of the County. These districts and
associations are, in fact, capable of serving nearly all areas in the
urbanizing eastern portion of the County.
I
-64-
rn ui I C C
N 0 >, • H b -P W C b1 r U r01 N U N 1 C .
+ ro >a >I
O .C 14-IroHH - > H •r1 rdrnXw S4 CHr a •nC C W WA
-P -0 C •rl a m 0 C N rd S4 H rd 0 C +) 3 0 d' O C rd ro H it,
cn an -rI U 01.0 O O C U) 0 0 0 0 > N O O H H . C C -
C b W 0 0 W O C • 4) > a ow C I w 0 U a a O
rd HCH Clio 4-) •x100 WA 0 04, aro a) 0 -r1
H rd •rl H Cd o C rd • O 4J •rl S4 -I io • C \H A C .C 4) ro ro 4P
a C 0• ro 0o Oro A -P .d W C 0 >, 0 >v >-ird U 0 -rl4J C Cr C)
O OA '•-H 0 7 ro -r1 4-) W 4-1 0 +1 4-) H • g 0 -r1 0 r.
0 •rl 0 W 0o W E co no no > 7 rd -- A •ri •-4 Q4z Aro 3 0 0 S4
3.1 4-1 r1 W 0 C C MI -.4 w o 0 00 Z 0 4-r > d' 4r
• .r1 0 rd N rd O 4-) 0 'O S4 It CO H al rd 4i .C 0 4) C M 0 N W r-
4.-1 ro •c3 C O 04 0 W 4) >r A W O a r-I a a C 4-r ro C WO 0 A C t`
C ro C •r1 k O X U W C C C .C C W 0 -r1 rd Cd 0 -rI C -•4 H ,rl S4 rd O 0 C1
W Q'• W H U 4-)w rd ,3 •ri W W 4-I H U W $ 0 0 3 It H a 4-) E `-• 41 0 H
tr ro
1 H C = 0 0 1
0 U) 0 d' 4 In -I-I0 r1 w •i 41 > rd
CO 0 C Na) N U •-1 W 0 Uri tT
C 0 U 0 C X ri H H I • 4-r -rl +) -r1
� CU 3-1
W>, 0 E O 'C
• al H 0 4J 0 H 0 4-r 0 -r1
4) O +I H 4-1 a 3 R) 0 w o a W -r1 W 3.4 rl
rd 4J •rl A C 0 U O •r1 0 S1 4) -rl S4
4-• 0 •r1 •rI ri H 4) ro u) 4J rd ro 7 S4
•r1 TO 0 W rd 0 •r1 C O -P W 0 0 0 C
E 0 a W S4 > 4J rd C W 0 uI C H 0 ro o
-ri rn rd 043 0 C H -H rd A Cd O O ,C W C -r4
i-7 p U 04 W ro 7 0-0--1 41 4J .C O 44 41 •rl 741
U) 4i 3.4 4) —
01 01 01 01 W 41 03 0
o W SP-1 It
N C •-rl 0 U) 33-1 U)
O > C WV H C ro 0
$- S 0 .A S1 4 _.
w -n b1 O rd 0 S4 4-) S1 3 0 a
O 4- -r-1 4) 0 O Cut 0 41
0 7E 3N >iw0rn0r0 3U)
54 0 rd al $4 E H - a H -.4 E 0
0 S4 O H 0 W -.4 )4 C 0 C 0 > W -.4 01
rn 4-i 7 S4 0 41 C 4) 0 0H b > 0 3C 4J rd
U 3v°i CO 3 Om >,44.1 > 4 f p4 ON 7
H
G6 W rd
El X 0 rn
U) rd W
H 0 7 S4
a a 0
4J UI UI
c4 C 01 u - OW CU
H UI ow ow •.C4 �CKj0� C N a) o
'$� SO-I inn 00 O o a r i 4-1 brn 0 a
W 'J H H ro W W b E UI W
ro 41 • w
VI
01 0 0 4� () ° r-1 -1.0 C H
>-, 34 rd S4 1 r0 >v"�. ow •rl ro 0
4-) 4-) 0 w H 0 W C TS 4-I YC H C 3 W
C -rI 0 a G4 C 0 H •r1 •O rd N H rd • It
O 0 0 0 -ri H O H O 01 E OH 2
W it - S4 4J .C H 0 3 rd 0 E 0 0 0 0 0
O a u1 rd C 4-t H > 4) a rci U • > ow ow a U
S4 rd H .C d) -r1 0 0 • O MI N 01 Fa 4) O a1 N rd 1-a
P4 C.) H W 3VIa2E UHOWG4 it r4 .I. W W
H H H N
d' N (1) N H
W u1 in 01 Enul
•
•
N O 0 0 0 0 C O
01 0 coo Coo d' HooO 0 o0
O S4 O rd d' UI H Co U) r
X 0 0 0 H S4 a co O •r1 O UI 0 S-I N
HH 0 CN > O Zen Od' S4
4-) >r X H i H X •.4 I rd -r1 1 V b
O W it 0 r1 N H C H M 0 • H <r C X 04
•rl W V W > 'O •rl •r4 H rT W H CO a' o
-P 3.1 • 00 � 5." '-1 U d• C O 0 � >4 •PI W
En r0 WO W . (dN • • rd0 ro04�
-ri ro • rd C %-i 4P .C 7 N +) ,C C • W
Ca4 Zfl a HN114 a 0d• w a < hu Frl
+1
U S4 W
-r4 CO • 0 >rr. C I
k C
` 4-1 -r4 ) O +I 0 U 41 •HH0 .C
\\\ W X 41 W W 7 Fa S4 H > CPH 2
•rl S4 W W rd rd b O w 0 0 0 HI S4
O FC3FC wain- P4Ua xc)
-65-
fee rcs
ro W JOJ 0 0 a4°JaaaEiWaa
W
34
to
0 OVrl .—I0 I -H r-IA V > 'v N0a sC4 rn
W a, 0am4J o C 3 )4 > a a) 44J UWi vr .CC t >,aH .g : a
C E 0 C $a fa o H O O HO4-1O HIT 4J 0 •
ro 0 .C W A a al M .0 ro C W 3I 0 >,
H .C It .Q co W of N -.4 b a 3 ai W 0 -H X O W H
E RS CD HI b 4) C u, O cs, t0 O C O 0.,W H N of
0 •E N O z ,44 h
—
W W C C J7 b- o 0 ro -.i O -H of 0 a) tot) -H -.1 al 3 .
sa rH ro ••4 -.I a) C ri A 4J -H 4J 4J E E OH HC 34 W s4 0 4-J -H 4 W H -H a) •.-I N W •.-I al� -0 34 W >14-) WE V C al o N H C 0 N N •tt 1 4W, C 4JJ a
C -H r6 0 0 0 ro 4 RI V 0) C N ,C MI -H -H -H a f ro a) ro x
w aZ0a-P5 -P co Q. a01H -P ar > V = W3g3Z M 34
C1) rt:1 CO I o > • C ro 3.4w
C 0
-H V a XI C ro -H 0 W -H W +)
4 i .a) to-o W O +) V C N al W O O
-H P Cd -O v ro 0 H M W E W N H N v
sa C +) 0 V ro >, 0 -H N W A
-H rd a-H E N ra C •H b -H ° 0
co W 5 W 0 rl 0 a aaC W
U) 34
-P N H
C C 0 O
to
to o 0 0 b" .a •.-I
•
o 0 .0 44 0 • 0 • 0 m 0
C0 W V N V N H 3.4 W -.-I W 0
sC4 H C -H C -H +W) a) O H H
44 W t -U
W o al v ° vQ al ro WV roH
0 334 >I-H , N .C i .C . u) u) as I al
CdO3 U) -OOH0 20 00 00 C 33Cd 01 CCaa)
Z Z O 0Vvr13tn
W 0
a V
4J
o W
N ow
rn
W rl N ro M M
a) Q) u) do al
C ,--I
W
Pr 34 ) O ro O a C N 0
in 4J rn rl [n a a
0-1
04
ro W
4J {J 4) 04 W CO O
ro a
N o-H o -P ro al CO
cn N 0 O N a O O
@ al V al 0 Ln
- n, u N lo VI W N V
• a
H fT
. HI
N
M t V'
al • O
a .1 +) -P a) C � � C C sa ao
C O a co rn
a a P -P (N 0 O ko al g l0 N
O WN to co O b) Cu)a) H • r
a) Ga W C -r eV( C N ro al O N 0 0 W r-{ O 0 en
-O CO x4- C 0 rl CO '-I C N
W R, H `n °) M al e' V 0 M OO Q) O M 0 a) o a) io ,'Z•, bn'-o
H a) s-I -H3 0a• � 34 ,n rl '--i zW Nrni COCWo •' Ln
4) s4 al > r-I
W V to4JHo -H -H HI CD O U . o ri
ff
•
•H V 0 -.-I 0 o 4J .c; 00 o 0 .4' O N U)
nFr4 Q', VVI- W a aMte a
awaw ha = 3a
4J
0 W Qi 0 C O
-H N 34 r Q.0 it .C 0 -G 4-1 N N •
4- o W -H 4J +) W -IJ V C -P OO 0 0
W
-H N m ) -4 l ro Z ZU ,-rol 23U Zo RI 4
0 aacn aH >
-66-
rra
oO
>,
'i I
W •,1 •r 1 U ro U)
r-1 ro4-I ro •rl U G 4
a O H -r♦ O roCL)
a) b O' 0 . Iii •u)$4 rtt Q
faro am -H
+)• o O off a4
f a cn 2 N m
y
O
-Ii
-P
It
ro
8
V
ro
I I-)
ro � ro -P
o5 $4
w0 O
4-i O a w
O O r0
-Pi G N 4-I N
3-i U m ro O
ro
4 W
rt V .r-I JAIir-I
3 Q CD U W U u
u) co
a a
ro ro
+I
0 O
a) H in
co
U) a) aP oW
si U) 0 O
ap o c
N
O4 -P
• a 4-I4) U 0 N
a0) U 4) O U) Si H
N Q4 N N UJ cn a H
r-I
au N ri ¢, U 3U
ro
N N
0) in En
• G O 4-4 O )n
Qa a) •rl co U)) 00 en M r•4a' O 0 Cl] U) O 0 (-i 0 No co
U4-) SiO O0Crn U-. tw
4-I 4 LI O •^I > U) •(i I U) I -
U U) -r-I O 4-I ,q r--I r-I N -rI 54 a) d'
-r-I In .>~ O H co H )i • H co pa O 4) co
•�V 1O 3vAOU ,c U� to • O
cn 'U O • HIo • +) cn • • OO O4 •
Q re ZZxvw r" mw a •Aaa
U w U)
k O 0 H a) •.ri
+) •r-1 ?i ai •
O mtroi3iron U) 3O
o
-67-
WILDFIRE HAZARDS
Legend
The data overlay delineates three categories of areas relevant to
wildfire hazards :
1) Areas most suitable for development
2) Areas less suitable for development
3) Areas least suitable for development
Data Sources
The wildfire hazard information was developed by the Colorado
State Forest Service. The State Forest Service completed a program
of mapping wildfire hazard data at a scale of 1: 24, 000 in April 1976.
Spatial Extent of Data
— The Colorado State Forest Service study covers 30 of the 56 whole
or partial quadrangles within Larimer County. The study is limited
to the forested portion of the County.
. ....
.... O
' ' ....
on
_..
.:
•
2
/ -68-
Explanation
"Wildfire" is defined by the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS)
as an uncontrolled fire burning in vegetation, structures or other
improvements . A "wildfire hazard" is a wildfire phenomenon which is so
adverse to past, current or foreseeable construction or land use as to
constitute a significant hazard to public health and safety or to pro-
perty. Factors which determine the level of wildfire hazard include
slope, aspect and vegetation type . The CSFS study examines each of
these characteristics within the study area . The study uses this in-
formation to categorize areas into one of five wildfire hazard class-
ifications:
1) Fuel type "O"--no hazard
2) Fuel type "A"--low hazard: there is a potential for low
intensity fires ; there are few land uses which are incompatible
with fire protection in these areas .
3) Fuel type "B"--medium hazard: mitigation of fire hazard is
necessary for any intensive land use.
4) Fuel type "C"--severe hazard-trees: there is a potential for
high intensity fires; avoidance of these areas is desirable,
as the potential for mitigation is limited .
5) Fuel type "X"--severe hazard-brush: there is a potential for
high intensity fires ; avoidance of these areas is desirable
as the potential for mitigation is even more limited than for
fuel type "C" .
-69-
WILDLIFE SPECIES (SIGNIFICANT)
Data Source
The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identified significant
wildlife species and mapped their habitats in Larimer County.
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is Countywide.
Explanation
The wildlife species identified by the Colorado Division of Wild-
life are considered significant and in particular need of attention.
Some of these wildlife species are important economically; others are
important because of their rare or endangered status and require com-
plete protection . Many of these animals are subjects of behavioral
and physiological research, as well as nature study and photography.
All of the identified species are important for their contribution to
species diversity and a quality environment .
This information is available in the County Planning Office.
J
ZONING
Legend
The data overlay displays the 16 zoning categories for land in
Larimer County.
Data Sources -
The data overlay shows zoning as of December 1976 . Zoning is
administered by the Larimer County Planning Department, which is the
source of this data.
Spatial Extent of Data
The data is Countywide.
Explanation
Zoning is a primary land use management tool in Larimer County.
Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, the zoning regulations will be
reviewed to see if it is necessary to make changes in order to imple-
ment the Plan.
Yom'III 'Ail �•
1 •
•
•
•
. ..
The Plan
-71-
THE PLAN
A. Adopted goals and objectives
In November 1974, the Larimer County Planning Commission adopted
the "Goals and Objectives for the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. "
In December of that year the Larimer County Board of Commissioners also
adopted the goals and objectives . These actions culminated over a year
of work by the Larimer County Planning staff and a citizens ' committee
appointed by the Board of Commissioners . The committee was composed
of volunteers from throughout the County with varied backgrounds,
interests and opinions .
The planning staff presented to the citizens ' committee available
physical, economic and demographic data for the County; at staff in-
vitation, representatives of cities, special districts and public
agencies supplemented this information. The committee and the planning
staff developed and circulated countywide a citizens ' land use
questionnaire. Using the results of the questionnaire and the infor-
mation provided them as background, the committee discussed what they
- liked and did not like about the County. The qualities they wanted
to retain and changes they wanted to see made became the basis for
formulating the goals and objectives . Observers attending the weekly
committee meetings were encouraged to participate in discussions .
- The proposed goals and objectives were discussed in public
meetings throughout the County and prior to adoption changes were made
to reflect comments made in those meetings .
2
-72-
B . Adopted Policies
Following adoption of the goals and objectives , the citizens ' com-
mittee formulated policies designed to help implement the concepts ex-
pressed in the goals and objectives .
During April and May 1976, the planning staff presented the pro-
posed Policy Plan, solicited comments and answered questions in a
series of public meetings throughout the County. Using the comments
from these meetings and from a public hearing, the County Commissioners,
Planning Commission and planning staff held a series of work sessions
to refine the concepts expressed in the Plan. The planning staff then
rewrote the proposed Policy Plan to better communicate those concepts
and to further reflect the desires of County residents .
In January 1977 , the planning staff presented the revised Policy
Plan in a series of public meetings sponsored by the Poudre Valley
Association of Community Education. In February 1977 , the Larimer
County Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted the Policy
Plan as an element of the County Comprehensive Plan .
C . The Development of Alternative Land Use Plans
While the Policy Plan was being developed, the planning staff be-
gan compiling, updating and expanding their land use data base. The
planning staff and the Planning Commission undertook a series of field
trips through the areas of the County facing the strongest development
pressure. The Planning Commission and staff discussed what the trend
is for particular areas and what possible alternatives to that trend
K 2 -
-73-
might be .
In January 1977 , a technical advisory task force composed of vol-
unteers with technical expertise was formed to help assess the poten-
tial environmental impacts of alternative land use plans . The task
force and the planning staff discussed those policies from the adopted
Policy Plan which they believed had the strongest implications for
potential land use patterns in the unincorporated areas of Larimer
County. These policies and the information developed in the work
sessions with the Planning Commission were the basis for the selection
of four distinct alternative conceptual land use plans .
The first three alternative plans were mapped as overlays to the
land use data maps . The fourth alternative was mapped at a larger
scale. All four alternatives were then evaluated for their potential
physical, economic and social impacts .
D. Description of Alternative Lane Use Plans
All four alternative land use plans portrayed a potential land
use pattern for the year 2000. The year 2000, 23 years in the future
at the time this Plan was developed , was utilized because the time
span is great enough to reveal significant change from present land
use patterns and yet short enough so that projections can be made with
relative assurance.
All four alternatives assumed that the total population of Larimer
County, including the six municipalities, will be 275,000 in the year
2000. This population projection was made by the Larimer-Weld Council
/ -74-
of Governments as part of their Water Quality planning process . This
population projection is still in the draft stage; if it is revised by
the Council of Governments , then this Land Use Plan will be modified
accordingly to assure compatibility.
The percentage of the total County population in the unincorpor-
ated areas varied among the four alternatives . In 1970, 29 percent of
all County residents lived in unincorporated areas . Various population
estimates for 1975 locate between 20 and 29 percent of the total County
population in unincorporated areas . The Larimer-Weld Council of Gov-
ernments ' population projection for 2000 estimates that approximately
18 percent of the population will be in unincorporated areas of the
County. Alternatives A, B and C differentiated between incorporated
and unincorporated areas and allocated population accordingly. Alter-
native D, however, distributed population without regard to municipal
boundaries ; that is, it did not differentiate between incorporated and
unincorporated areas .
Alternatives A, B and C allocated three types of land uses ;
residential, commercial/business and industrial. Residential land uses
were differentiated by density. Low density residential areas were
considered to have an overall density of 2 .29 acres per dwelling unit;
medium density, 1 acre per unit; and high density, .25 acre per unit.
These densities were considered appropriate for retaining the rural
character of the County. Densities within an urban area would be
higher than those shown for the County in Alternatives A, B and C.
Alternative D, for example, allocated urban density residential land
-75-
uses throughout its study area, regardless of municipal boundaries.
It considered two residential densities: 3 .3 - 7 dwelling units per
acre for medium density and 12 dwelling units per acre for high density.
All four alternatives based the allocation of land uses on the level
of available services, the proximity to an urban area and the current
market trend . As with all elements of the Land Use Plan, the density
allocations are intended as guidelines rather than regulations .
For alternatives A, B and C projected industrial and commercial/
business land use needs were based on an existing land use inventory
completed by the County Planning Department. The current ratio of
population to the acreage of land in a specific use was projected
using the population projection for 2000.
In addition to the three types of land uses allocated in Alter-
natives A, B and C, Alternative D considered 6 other types of land
uses .
It is anticipated that the County will develop community or area
land use plans for areas which are experiencing pressure for intense
residential, commercial or industrial development. The residents of
the Estes Park area are currently developing a Master Plan for the
town and the surrounding area. It is possible for the County to adopt
this plan, or any other plan for an unincorporated area as an element
of the County Comprehensive Plan; the community or area land use plan
would then function as a guideline for the County on land use deci-
sions within that area. Any locally developed plan would have to be
acceptable to the County in terms of adopted County goals, objectives
-76-
and policies and the needs and desires of the County residents within
the study area of the plan.
The proposed land use pattern for the unincorporated portion of
the Estes Park Master Plan study area was incorporated into the first
three countywide alternatives in order to solicit public reaction to
the proposed plan . As a result, the allocation of potential land uses
in the Estes Park area remained constant in Alternatives A, B and C .
The overall residential density projected for the unincorporated por-
tion of the Estes Park area is 1 .5 acres per unit, assuming a total of
904 additional residential units on 1, 356 acres . Because the land use
allocations for the Estes Park area remain constant in the first three
alternatives, all references to density, acreage and the number of
units for these three alternatives refer to the unincorporated area of
Larimer County outside the Estes Park Master Plan study area .
Population and land use projections account for permanent residents
only. Larimer County has a large seasonal population living in areas
such as Red Feather, Estes Park, Poudre Canyon and the Big Thompson
Canyon. The needs of these seasonal residents for services and facil-
ities must be accommodated the same as the needs of permanent residents .
It is important, therefore, to project seasonal populations and to
analyze its needs .
A large inventory of platted but undeveloped residential, commer-
cial and industrial lots presently exists in Larimer County. The
large supply of undeveloped lots expands the choice of lot sizes, loca-
tions and available facilities and services for a potential buyer. It
-77-
also increases competition among land owners who wish to sell and,
thus, helps to maintain lower land prices . In order to maintain this
market structure, the four alternative land use plans ignored the
inventory of existing platted but undeveloped lots . Instead, the four
alternative plans calculated the total amount of land necessary to
accommodate the projected additional population expected to reside in
the unincorporated areas of Larimer County. The amount of land pre-
sently platted but undeveloped was not subtracted from this acreage.
The projected amount of land necessary to accommodate the additional
population was thus more than adequate.
1) Alternative A
- Alternative A represented a continuation of the present
development trend in Larimer County. It assumed that the Policy Plan
would not be implemented to the extent it would be in the three other
alternatives. The Policy Plan might still be implemented on a site
specific basis, but it would not be applied on a countywide scale.
Of the four land use alternatives, alternative A had the
lowest estimate for the percentage of the total County permanent
population projected to live in the unincorporated areas of the County
in the year 2000. It projected that 20 percent of all permanent
County residents will live in the unincorporated areas of the County
in the year 2000. This low percentage was chosen because without the
implementation of a strong land use policy and land use plan to guide
development in the unincorporated areas of the County, it was pro-
jected that the cities would follow a policy of defensive annexation
I
-78-
in order to assure the character of development on their perimeters .
Defensive annexations are those which may be initiated by either the -
landowner or the city, but are in excess of the area which the city
would otherwise desire to serve. With a defensive annexation policy,
cities would be annexing land which had previously been developed in
the County and also land which had a strong potential for development. -
A larger number of people would thus live in the cities and the per-
centage of the total County population residing in the unincorporated
areas would be lower than if a defensive annexation policy were not
followed .
The overall residential density in Alternative A was
.94 acres per unit for the unincorporated area of the County. Ten
percent of the total number of residential units were shown as low
density, 2 .29 acres per unit; 65 percent as medium density, 1. 0 acre
per unit; and 25 percent as high density, .25 acre per unit. A total
of 4,678 residential units were allocated on 4,405 acres . Each of the
first three alternative land use plans, A, B and C, showed 546 acres of
commercial/business land uses and 863 acres of industrial land uses .
As with all four alternative land use plans, the map was
not intended to be site specific . Rather, it was designed to convey
the concepts underlying the alternative and the amount of land poten-
tially used for residences , businesses and industries.
2) Alternative B
Alternative B assumed that the Policy Plan and the Land
Use Plan will be implemented as guidelines for countywide land use
decisions. Alternative B, therefore, considered all the policies in
the Policy Plan. To provide a distinct alternative and to allow a
comparison of potential impacts, one policy was considered to have
highest priority in guiding land use decisions . The policy selected
for this alternative is II .D. which states:
"Consistent with property rights, new urban and rural
non-farm development should be encouraged to locate
on the less productive agricultural, forestry and
ranching lands in Larimer County. "
Alternative B projected that 25 percent of all perman-
ent County residents will live in the unincorporated areas of the
County in the year 2000 . With the implementation of the Policy Plan
and the Land Use Plan, cities would have more assurance that develop-
ment on their perimeters would be compatible with development inside
the cities . Much of this assurance would be due to the implementation
of the urban service area concept, as expressed in the Policy Plan .
Cities would feel less pressured to annex territory defensively in
order to assure the character of development on their perimeters . The
County would therefore retain under its jurisdiction areas already
developed or under strong pressure to develop which otherwise would
have been annexed. A larger number of people would thus live in the
unincorporated areas and the percentage of the total County population
would be higher than if the plans were not implemented and a defensive
annexation policy was followed .
The overall residential density in Alternative B was .79
r -80-
acres per unit for the unincorporated area of the County, higher than
the . 94 acres per unit overall density for Alternative A. Ten percent
of the total number of residential units were shown as low density,
2 .29 acres per unit; 45 percent as medium density, 1 acre per unit;
and 45 percent as high density, .25 acre per unit.
A total of 8, 660 residential units were allocated on
6,854 acres in Alternative B . This compares to 4 ,678 units on 4,405
acres in Alternative A. The substantial increase in the total number
of units resulted from the increase in the percentage of all permanent
residents projected to live in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Each of the first three alternative land use plans, A, B and C, showed
546 acres of commercial/business land uses and 863 acres of industrial
land uses .
3) Alternative C
Alternative C also assumed that the Policy Plan and the
Land Use Plan will be implemented as guidelines for countywide land
use decisions. Alternative C considered all the policies in the Plan,
but it gave highest priority to a single policy in order to provide
a distinct alternative and to allow a comparison of potential impacts .
The policy given priority in this alternative is II .H. :
"New residential development should be located where
its residents will expend the least amount of en-
ergy for transportation to work, shopping and com-
munity services and where the level of convenience,
utility and safety provided by existing services
and facilities will be maintained or improved. "
-81-
Alternative C projected that 25 percent of all perman-
ent County residents will live in the unincorporated areas of the
County in 2000. The rationale for this projection was the same as
that in Alternative B.
The overall residential density in Alternative C was .68
acres per unit for the unincorporated area of the County, higher than
either the .94 or .79 acres per unit overall density for Alternatives
A and B, respectively. Ten percent of the total number of residential
units were shown as low density, 2 .29 acres per unit; 30 percent as
medium density, 1 acre per unit; and 60 percent as high density, .25
acre per unit.
A total of 8, 660 residential units were allocated on
5,880 acres in Alternative C . This compares to 8,660 units on 6, 854
acres in Alternative B and 4, 678 units on 4,405 acres in Alternative
A. Each of the first three alternative land use plans allocated 546
acres of commercial/business land uses and 863 acres of industrial
land uses .
4) Alternative D
Alternative D is the land use pattern recommended by TOUPS
Corporation, the planning consultant to the Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments for their Water Quality Planning Project. It
is one of five alternatives developed by TOUPS for Larimer and Weld
Counties . Alternative D considered all the policies in the Policy
Plan plus the additional policy of reinforcing the vitality of down-
I
-82-
(town Ft. Collins
Alternative D distributed population without differenti-
ating between incorporated and unincorporated areas . It, therefore,
allocated the projected population of 275,000, rather than a percen-
tage of that population as did Alternatives A, B and C .
Alternative D allocated two densities of residential land
use throughout its study area: medium density, 3 . 3 - 7 dwelling units
per acre and high density, 12 dwelling units per acre. Additionally,
Alternative D included a Planned Unit Development zone which would have
an overall density of 1 acre per unit.
Alternative D differed from Alternatives A, B and C in
that its map did not cover the entire County. Rather, in Larimer
County the map covered the urbanizing flatlands .
E. Potential Impacts of the Alternative Land Use Plans
To aid the assessment of the Alternative Land Use Plans and the
development of a single proposal for the Land Use Plan, the four
Alternatives were evaluated for their potential physical, economic and
social impacts. The impacts of Alternatives C and D were evaluated as
similar enough to be combined; impacts listed for Alternative C on the
following pages are, therefore, also applicable to Alternative D.
The potential impacts of each Alternative have been abbreviated
for the following comparison:
-83- --
I . PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PATTERNS
A. Air Quality
1. Vehicle Emissions
Alternative -A: Highest total emission level countywide;
worst pattern for dispersion of emissions;
scatters emissions over a wide area.
-B: Lower total emission level countywide;
pattern better than trend for dispersion
of emissions ; concentrates emissions in
a restricted area.
-C: Lowest total emission level countywide;
pattern better than trend for dispersion
of emissions ; highest concentration of
emissions in a restricted area.
2 . Number of People Affected by Potential Air
Quality Problems
-A: Fewest people affected
-B: More people affected than in Alternative A
-C: Most people affected
3 . Potential for Transportation Alternatives Which
Would Help Alleviate Air Quality Problems
-A: No potential for transportation alternatives
-B: Potential for transportation alternatives
-C: Most potential for transportation
alternatives /
/ -84-
B. Floodplain Hazards
Alternative A, B and C: It is assumed that existing regulations _
could adequately deal with floodplain
hazards .
C. Geologic Hazards
Alternative A, B and C: It is assumed that existing regulations
could adequately deal with geologic
hazards .
D. Noise Quantity
1. Noise Dispersion
Alternative -A: Greatest dispersion of noise since most
noise is generated by vehicular traffic,
which is dispersed in this alternative.
-B: Less dispersion of noise
-C: Least dispersion of noise
2 . Total Noise Generation
-A: Most noise generated, since vehicles travel
more miles in this alternative.
-B: Less noise generated _
-C: Least noise generated
3 . Potential for Mitigation of Noise Pollution
through Site Design
-A: Least potential for mitigation
-B: More potential for mitigation
-85-
Alternative -C: Most potential for mitigation since higher
quality facilities are affordable with more
compact development.
E. Open Space
1. Visual Impact of Open Space
-A: Least visual impact
-B: More visual impact that Alternative A
-C: More visual impact than Alternative A
2 . Feasibility of a Public Open Space System
-A: Regardless of the location of a public
open space system, most residences would
not have easy access to such a system.
-B: Easier and more direct access possible than
Alternative A.
-C: Best access of the three alternatives.
F . Scarce Resource Consumption
1. Consumption of Productive Agricultural Land
-A: Most consumptive; consumes the most land
for non-farm uses ; encourages the aban-
donment of agricultural land uses.
-B: The least consumptive
-C: Less consumptive than Alternative A; more
consumptive than Alternative B .
2 . Consumption of Gasoline
I
I -86-
Alternative -A; Most consumptive; requires more vehicle
miles to be travelled; allows no potential
transportation alternatives.
-B: Less consumptive.
-C: Least consumptive; requires least vehicle --
miles to be travelled ; has potential for
transportation alternatives .
3 . Consumption of Water
-A: Transition of irrigated agricultural land
to non-farm uses might decrease water
consumption.
-B: Most water consumptive since non-farm uses
are generally located on land not formerly
irrigated .
-C: More consumptive than Alternative A, but
less consumptive than Alternative B .
4. Consumption of Mineral Resources
-A: Most consumptive, since requires most new
construction of services and facilities .
-B: Less consumptive
-C: Least consumptive
G. Vegetation
-A: Encourages the creation of idle land re-
sulting in a weed problem and an associated
fire hazard .
J
-87-
Alternative -B and -C: Less idle land, a diminished weed
problem and a smaller fire hazard.
H. Water Quality
-A: Greatest endangerment of water quality
since there is least chance for the pro-
vision of sewer.
-B: Less endangerment of water quality since
there is greater chance for the provision
of sewer.
-C: Least endangerment of water quality since
most development could be placed on sewer.
I . Wildfire Hazards
-A: Greatest wildfire hazard with potential
for scattered development in the foothills
and for idle land in the flatlands .
-B and -C: Less wildfire hazard with more
compact development, higher level
of services and less idle land in
the flatlands.
J. Wildlife
-A: Negatively impacts the largest area of
wildlife habitat and the greatest number
of migration routes .
-B and -C: Less negative impact.
2
-88-
II . ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PATTERNS -
A. Fiscal Balance -
1. Cost of Providing and Maintaining Services and
Facilities
Alternative -A: Highest cost per capita since facilities
are provided over the greatest distances _
with the lowest level of utilization, the
highest level of duplication and the
highest maintenance costs.
-B: Requires less capital expenditure and
maintenance costs .
-C: Requires the least capital expenditure and
maintenance costs .
2 . Revenues Generated
-A, -B and -C: Revenues generated are similar
for all three alternative land
use patterns .
3 . Net Revenue
-A: Net revenue is least since costs are
highest and revenue is the same .
-B: Net revenue is greater than for Alterna-
tive A since costs are lower and revenue
is the same.
-C: Net revenue is highest since costs are
least and revenue is the same.
-89-
B. Costs of Development
Alternative -A: Land costs will be the lowest in this
alternative because the entire flatland
area is considered suitable for devel-
opment. This creates a highly competitive
situation for selling land for development.
Long-term costs are highest due to the
cost of providing and maintaining services
and facilities .
-B: Land costs will be the highest for dev-
elopment in this alternative because of
the greatly reduced supply of land con-
sidered suitable for development. Long-
term costs are considerably less than
Alternative A but more than Alternative C.
-C: Land costs are greater than Alternative A
but less than Alternative B. Long-term
costs are the lowest of the three
alternatives .
C . Existing Economic Base
1. Agriculture
-A: Destructive to agriculture, local agri-
cultural processors and agricultural
service industries .
-90-
Alternative -B: Most beneficial for agriculture, processors
and service industries .
-C: More beneficial than Alternative A and less
beneficial than Alternative B .
2 . Commerce -
-A: Least secure alternative, since markets are
neither predictable nor dependable.
-B: Provides more predictable and dependable
market.
-C: Provides the most predictable and depen-
dable market
III . SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PATTERNS QUALITY,
EFFICIENCY. AND ADEQUACY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES .
Alternative -A: Least efficient for the provision of
services and facilities; scattered develop-
ment increases delivery and reaction time
for services, limiting their frequency, -
accessibility, and dependability.
-B: More efficient for the provision of services
and facilities ; compact development incre-
ases delivery and reaction time for services -
increasing their frequency, accessibility,
and dependability.
-C: Most efficient for the provision of services
and facilities
-91-
F. The Proposed Land Use Plan
Following the April, 1977 Public Hearings on the four land use
alternatives , the Larimer County Commissioners , Planning Commission and
planning staff held a series of work sessions to discuss the comments
from those hearings. Based on the comments and on past discussion of
the potential impacts of the alternatives , a single proposed Land Use
Plan was derived from the alternatives. Public comment at the hearings ,
it was agreed, favored a combination of the concepts expressed in
alternatives B and C.
The proposed land use plan therefore assumes , as do alternatives
B and C, that the policy plan and the Land Use Plan will be implemented
as guidelines for Countywide land use decisions . The proposed Land Use
Plan considers all the policies in the Policy Plan, but in response to
comments at the hearings it assigns highest priority to Policy II . H. :
"New residential development should be located where
its residents will expend the least amount of energy for
transportation to work, shopping and community services
and where the level of convenience,
and facilities utility
sawill safety
provided by existing services
maintained or improved. "
Also in response to comments at the hearings , the proposed Land
Use Plan assigns high priority to Policy II . D. :
"Consistent with property rights , new urban and
rual non-farm development should be encouraged to
locate on the less productive agricultural ,
forestry and ranching land in Larimer County. "
In accord with the first of these two policies , the proposed Land
Use Plan allocates residential land uses to areas which are, as much
and
as possible, convenient to employment centers and where shopping
community services and facilities - water, sewer, health care, education
transportation, recreation, etc. - have the capacity for providing
service efficiently, safely and conveniently. It also shows residential
land uses distributed in a manner and in locations where residents will
-92-
expend the least amount of energy for transportation to those services, l
facilities and employment centers. Following the concept of the
second policy, II. D. , the proposed plan attempts to allocate land uses
in less productive agricultural areas. Additionally, the proposed plan
tries to avoid areas with potential air quality problems and to im-
plement the concept of cluster development. It is designed to stregthen
communities and areas which are potential clusters by allocating both
residential and commercial land uses in locations which would help
provide a focus for those areas. The proposed plan recognizes the
current market trend for the geographical direction of growth and
considers that trend in its land use allocations . Residential units
are allocated to those areas in which new development is most desirable
under the guidelines of the policy plan and where people have shown a
desire to live.
The proposed Land Use Plan projects that 25 percent of all per-
manent County residents will live in the unincorporated areas of the
County in the year 2000. As with alternatives B and C, the implemen-
tation of the Policy Plan and the Land Use Plan helps assure the cities
that development on their perimeters will be compatible with develop-
ment inside the cities. The cities are, therefore, less likely to
annex territory defensively in order to assure the character of
development on their perimeters.
The overall residential density in the proposed plan is the same
as the density in alternative C - . 68 acres per unit for the un-
incorporated area of the County. Ten percent of the total number of
residential units is shown as low density, 2 . 29 acres per unit; 30
percent as medium density, 1 acre per unit; and 60 percent as high
density, . 25 acre per unit.
fer -93-
A total of 8 , 660 permanent residential units are allocated on
5, 880 acres in the proposed plan. The proposed plan does not project
the number of seasonal residential units; further study is necessary
before this can be accomplished. The proposed plan allocated 546
acres of commercial/business land uses and 863 acres of industrial land
uses. These two figures are the same as those for Alternatives A, B,
and C and are based on a projection of figures from the current Larimer
County Land Use Inventory.
As with the alternative Land Use Plans , the proposed Land Use Plan
is not intedned to be site specific; it was designed to convey the
concepts underlying the proposed plans , in a two dimensional format.
It is anticipated that more specific plans will be developed for
communities and areas experiencing intense development pressure.
I
1
1 -
1
1
I
Implementation
-97-
• IMPLEMENTATION
Following the adoption of a Land Use Plan, the Larimer County
- Commissioners, County Planning Commission and County Planning Staff will
direct their attention to implementing the adopted plan in a manner
which is as efficient, as economical and as beneficial to all interests
- as is possible. The emphasis of this work will be the review of exist-
ing land use regulations and standards for their ability to implement
the guidelines provided by the Land Use Plan and other adopted elements
- of the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. All proposed changes to
existing regulations and standards will be reviewed in public hearings.
The development proposal review process will be looked at for its ability
to aid the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the clearest, the
least time consuming, and the most efficient and effective manner. All
proposed changes to the existing development proposal review process
- will also be brought to public hearings.
The Commissioners, Planning Commission and Planning Staff will
strive to simplify the review process by developing a single, codified
- land use text which includes all applicable County guidelines and
regulations.
The County Planning Staff will continue to collect data necessary
for the planning and development proposal review processes and to review
potential implementation methodologies. As in the past, priority for
data collection will be given to those areas with the greatest potential
for development.
The adopted Policy Plan includes a section of policies which speak
to implementation of the concepts expressed in the Policy Plan and which
therefore are the basis for the proposed Land Use Plan. As the planning
process continues, these implementation policies will be further refined
and a program designed to achieve them. The County has accomplished
/ -98- T
/ some of these programs and is currently proceeding on others. This
section includes the following policies :
I . The County should review all of its existing land use regu-
lations and standards for their ability to implement the adopted
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Necessary changes should be made
so that all regulations aid the implementation of the Plan.
II. County land use regulations should be clearly written, easily
understood and contain the minimum of administrative requirements
necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
III. The County should insure that its priorities for those
expenditures which affect land use, e.g. , the acquisition of open
space and the improvement of roads, are compatible with and help to
implement adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
V. To enable decisions to be based on current information, the
County should continue its land ase inventory.
VII. The County should review all development proposals for their
potential impact upon the area and its residents in terms of adopted
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
VIII . The County should give due consideration to the public cost vs.
public benefit aspect of development proposals .
IX. The County should exercise its authority under state statute
to ensure that new water and sewer treatment plans and major water and
sewer lines are located in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan.
X. The County should conduct a water study to determine the
availability of water for domestic, agricultural and industrial needs.
XI. The County should establish clear guidelines as to what type
-99-
XI. The County should establish clear guidelines as to what types
and densities of development should include provisions for public
water and sewer.
XII. The County should continue its evaluation of citizen needs and
desires and should make necessary changes in the Comprehensive Plan and
its implementation procedures to accommodate those needs and desires ,
consistent with the general health, safety and welfare.
XIII . The County should collect and analyze employment and other
_ economic data to help anticipate future land use needs.
XIV. The County should encourage citizen involvement in the land
use planning and implementation process.
XV. The County should aid applicants by providing conceptual review
sessions prior to the creation of detailed development plans and the
commitment of substantial investments.
XVI. The County should develop mechanism for assessing the short
and long-term impact of a proposed development on public expenditures
and revenues. When applicable, the County should require payments from
the applicant, to the extent it is fair and equitable, to upgrade a
given county service or facility.
XVII . The County should develop road standards to facilitate improve-
ment cost projections and to aid analysis of the impact a given
development proposal will have on future County road expenditures .
XVIII . The County should encourage cooperation among the County, all
municipalities, special districts and other agencies and jurisdictions
with interests in Larimer County to assure the coordination of efforts,
to implement adopted public plans for the County and to avoid duplica-
- tion of effort and subsequent increased costs to taxpayers.
XIX. The County should develop and implement incentives to encourage
I
r -100-
development to locate adjoinging existing compatible development.
XX. The County should encourage municipalities and special districts ,
in cooperation with the County , to establish a general urban service
area for each municipality. Formal agreements setting general urban
service area boundaries should include provisions for the joint city-
:ounty development of a land use plan in cooperation with the special
districts and utilities for the area between the municipal boundary and
the outer boundary of the general urban service area. These agreements
should also clearly define roles, responsibilities, timing and financial
agreements for the provision of all services to be provided within the
general urban service area of the municipality.
XXI. The County should investigate which services are provided by
the County within the area proposed as the general urban service area
of a municipality and determine whether the County should continue to
provide those services or pursue arrangements with that municipality
for it to provide specified services.
XXII. The County should work with the municipalities to develop and
implement mechanisms for preserving the geographic separation of these
cities.
XXIII. The County should protect desirable industrial, residential, open
space, business, and natural resource sites from the intrusion of
potentially conflicting land uses.
XXIV. The County should work with other governmental bodies , particular-
ly the state, to develop and implement incentives to keep prime ag-
ricultural, forestry and ranching lands in production.
XXV. The County should promote the efficient use and conservation of
energy through a variety of land use and transportation planning
devices including zoning, planned unit developments , clustering, higher
I
r -101-
densities in selected areas and development coordination .
XXVI. The County should encourage energy and other natural resource
conservation programs , such as the provision of alternative to private
automobile transportation; the use of energy efficient heating and
cooling systems, materials and construction techniques; the im-
plementation of alternative methods , such as recycling, for the disposal
of solid wastes and the use of water saving procedures.
XXVVI. The County should encourage the provision of housing to meet
the needs and financial capabilities of all the County residents.
XXVIII. The County should encourage the elimination of unsanitary,
overcrowded and unsafe housing conditions.
XXIX. The County should develop and implement techniques to encourage
remodeling flexibility of older homes.
XXX. The County should encourage an historical preservation program,
promote the preservation and restoration of designated locally valued
historical, cultural and archeological sites and structures , as well
as of natural areas; and provide encouragement and motivation for
private landowners to preserve historic sites and natural areas.
XXXI. The County should establish a program, including funding, to
obtain, develop and maintain areas for public open space and outdoor
recreation.
XXXII. The County should encourage the inclusion of scenic areas in
a permanent public or private open space system.
Hello