Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation And Mobility Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wellington planning commission previews Transportation and Mobility Plan, seeks public input
Summary
At a December work session the Wellington Planning Commission heard an overview of a draft Transportation and Mobility Plan, a linked impact‑fee nexus study and street‑design updates, and provided early direction on corridors, engagement and funding partnerships.
At a work session following its regular meeting, the Wellington Town Planning Commission reviewed a draft Transportation and Mobility Plan and asked staff and consultants to continue outreach and corridor analysis.
Planning staff described the project as a three‑part effort: a transportation and mobility plan that will tier from the town’s comprehensive and strategic plans, an Impact Fee Nexus Study to reassess road impact fees, and an update to the town’s street design guidelines and standards. The presenter said the planning horizon may extend to 2050 and the effort will run roughly 12–18 months. “This plan will look at up to 2050,” the presenter said.
Staff named contracted partners assisting the town as “FHU, Bellsford, and big studios” to perform planning, engineering and design work. The presenter said the project is in Phase 1 (vision and values) and described outreach already completed, including pop‑up events (Budget Bonanza and Mingle on Main), mailed postcards linking to an interactive map, social posts and a podcast. The interactive map allows users to place markers, categorize comments (safety, walking/biking, traffic, community connection) and up‑vote or down‑vote entries; staff reported the map grew from roughly 70 to about 133 contributions in recent weeks.
Commissioners and staff discussed priorities and corridors for analysis. Commissioners emphasized walking and biking connections, safer streets for all ages and routes to schools; they flagged retrofit needs in older neighborhoods and Old Town, and suggested focus corridors including 3rd Street, County Road 58, Al Canyon Road, 6th Street (business access), Highway 1 and potential rail/transit corridors. Staff urged commissioners to consider corridors in the context of land use and multimodal outcomes rather than automobile throughput alone.
Funding and partnerships were discussed. In response to a question about funding, Mr. Byrd (planning staff) said the plan work is paid from the town’s general fund and that the project includes a private donation from a developer negotiated in an annexation agreement that will match town dollars: “50% of this project is funded by the town, and 50% of it's funded by private donation dollars,” he said. Commissioners also raised opportunities to coordinate with Larimer County and CDOT on county or regional projects and to explore cost‑sharing where appropriate.
Staff described several outreach strategies to reach populations that do not typically attend meetings, including bilingual mailers (English front/Spanish back), kiosks at the senior center and targeted stakeholder outreach. Commissioners suggested engaging PTOs and high‑school students and using text‑message or school channels to reach families. Staff said the town will share the public work plan (the contract work plan) with the Planning Commission but not proprietary proposal materials used in consultant selection.
What’s next: staff will continue Phase 1 engagement, refine corridor and project lists based on feedback from the interactive map and commissioners, and return with updates and opportunities for additional public and commissioner review. Staff invited residents to use the interactive map and other outreach channels to submit comments.
