City Council Agenda and Packet 2005 01 25 Joint Meeting

Home Browse Search

The first two pages of Chapter Three really present the heart of the Plan. The Community Vision is stated and the Preferred Framework Plan is presented. The Community Vision and the Framework Plan are not consultant nor staff generated. The Community Vision and the Preferred Framework Plan are based upon the direction and input from a wide range of stakeholders of this community. The Framework Plan was developed to represent an integrated pattern of land uses, as broken out into seven Opportunity Areas. These seven Opportunity Areas were identified by residents in the first public workshop as those specific areas which have the potential to achieve the Community Vision. The characteristics of an Opportunity Area are defined on page 3-8 of the Plan. As described on page 3-3, the Framework Ptan is not a zoning map, but it is a tool to direct future land use decisions in a comprehensive manner based upon the Community Vision. Chapter Three presents a series of principles and policies by Plan element which are seen as means to achieve the Community Vision. Chapter Four contains those action steps necessary to implement the Plan. In other words, those tasks must be completed to remove identified barriers to the implementation of the Plan. 'The draft Plan does not reflect a complete Chapter Four. Staff requests further direction in the identification of additional actions desired for Plan implementation. Fiscal Analysis The Leland Group has provided the attached fiscal analysis as of its last revision on January 15, 2005. The methodology used in the analysis was similar for both the operating and capital components of the study. The operations component used the approved budget line for each service department out of the 2005 budget. Department Heads determined what portion of their budgets were attributed to residential vs. non-residential. The adjusted value was divided by the number of dwelling units and by the total of non-residential square footage to derive a unit cost per housing unit and per square foot. The resulting cost factors were applied to the new development by land use type. Both Options #1 and #2 were based upon a fiscal run of the Framework Plan. The primary difference betwE;en Option #1 and Option #2 was the single factor of open space. The capital side of the fiscal run requires that the actual value of all City capital assets (land and buildings) are used in the analysis run. The assumption for Option #1 was that the City had a full interest in all 1,609 acres of inventoried open space. As a number of open space acres were actually jointly acquired with the City of Lafayette and Boulder County, Option #2 was run with only those acres of open space in which the City has full interest, rather than a joint interest. The Department of Land Management provided an inventory of all Parks and Open Space Lancis which is on page 3-31 of the Plan. Option #2 was therefore run on an assumption of 1,100 open space acres rather than the 1,609 acres used in Option #1.