Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/04/2007 - RESOLUTION 2007-106 ACCEPTING THE I-25/SH 392 INTE ITEM NUMBER: 21 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December4, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Pete Wray SUBJECT Resolution 2007-106 Accepting the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan; Approving an Agreement Among the Town of Windsor, the City of Fort Collins, and Metro Acquisitions, LLC; and Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Among the Colorado Department of Transportation, Town of Windsor, and City of Fort Collins. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. On October 10,2007,the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board forwarded comments with no formal recommendation. On October 17, 2007, the Fort Collins Transportation Board voted(5-4)to accept the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan, with the recommendation that 10% of the project cost be set aside (earmarked) for transit improvements. On October 17,2007,the Windsor Planning Commission voted(5-0)to forward a recommendation to accept the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. On October 18, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board voted(5-0) to support a recommendation to City Council to accept the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. On November 26, 2007, the Windsor Town Board voted (7-0) to adopt the Resolution for Plan Acceptance and related intergovernmental agreements. FINANCIAL IMPACT Acceptance of Resolution 2007-106 would result in a cost sharing agreement between the City (25%),the Town of Windsor(25%)and Metro Acquisitions,LLC(50%)for contracting,consultant work,including request for separate action with Colorado Department of Transportation("CDOT") and Federal Highway Works Administration and if adopted,proceeding with the 1601 Interchange approval process and review by CDOT, with a total estimated cost for services of$153,561. The estimated share for the City of Fort Collins for this work is $38,391 (25%), unless the development does not proceed,in which event the City and Windsor must reimburse the developer for its costs thereby increasing the City's share to $76,782. December 4, 2007 -2- Item No. 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan (Plan) represents a joint plan between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor as directed by the Intergovernmental Agreement established in 2006. Rather than pursue a more traditional planning process including establishing a vision, goals and policy directives, this Plan provides a clear framework and direction to follow quickly by implementation. As a result, the Plan reflects a unique process with a focus on strategic implementation actions and identification of critical next steps to achieve the primary goal to fund and reconstruct the interchange. The key elements of the Plan include interchange design, west frontage road alignment, natural area buffers and funding scenarios. All will require additional discussions, refinement and coordination prior to finalization, as part of on-going implementation efforts. BACKGROUND The interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 serves as a gateway to both Fort Collins and Windsor. The interchange has failed to function at an acceptance level of service"C",particularly during the morning and evening peak hours. This being the case,numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials and staffs of Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address traffic congestion at this interchange. The importance of this interchange as a gateway into both jurisdictions is significant,as well as from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to existing and future development in the area. Although the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area as a high priority project, there is no Federal or State funding available now or in the foreseeable future. The existing interchange problem cannot be fixed by implementing smaller interim improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp widening. The bridge overpass along with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be replaced to meet the transportation needs for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to replace the interchange is approximately$21 to $25 million. In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at this interchange (see Attachment #3). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was for the two municipalities to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconstruction of this interchange. As such, Fort Collins and Windsor appropriated $50,000 each for a total budgeted amount of $100,000 to begin the process of developing the comprehensive interchange plan.This amount was later supplemented by an appropriation from the MPO of$26,000, for a grand total of$126,000 to be used towards the development of the plan. In August 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into a contract with the EDAW Consulting Firm to develop the comprehensive development plan. Additionally, EDAW partnered with the DMJM- Hams Engineering, BBC Consulting, and PBS & J Engineering firms to assist them with the December 4, 2007 -3- Item No. 21 development of the plan. A technical advisory committee(TAC)comprised of staff representatives from Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, CDOT, and the MPO was formed to work with the consultants and oversee the development of the plan. The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to implement improvements to the interchange, with particular emphasis on developing alternative funding mechanisms to allow the project to go directly into final design. Key Elements of Plan: Land Use The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) [See Figure 3, Page 4 of the Plan] is the focus of this study identifying existing and future commercial, employment and residential land uses on both sides of the interchange. The quality of development,views and open lands within the CAC is important for establishing this area as a primary gateway into Windsor and Fort Collins. Three fundamental drivers of the land use plan for the area are the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station in the immediate area of the interchange, the open space amenities at Fossil Creek Reservoir, and a series of transportation improvements (including relocation of the frontage road). Development would complement these three elements, creating new employment areas, neighborhoods, commercial areas, and a system of connected open space areas.The CAC contains 402 acres of commercial(252 on east and 150 on west), 114 acres of employment, and 369 acres of mixed-use residential on the east side [See Figure 5, Page 15 of the Plan]. Transportation The preferred transportation layout follows the tight diamond interchange configuration from the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). [See Figure 24,page 44 of the Plan].This design will improve both local and regional mobilityby alleviating traffic congestion and decreasing overall travel times. Based on the North Front Range MPO's Regional Traffic Model and CDOT's Environmental Overview Study(EOS)for the State Highway 392 corridor,the recommended cross section for the highway and interchange bridge is 4-travel lanes, in addition to the necessary turn lanes at intersections, pedestrian and bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The current City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (MSP) shows a 6-lane facility between US-287 and I-25 which was based on earlier analysis. Later in 2008 and once the 1601 Study process is complete, staff will consider supporting a recommendation to amend the MSP to make it consistent with this most recent determination, after first reviewing additional analysis from the 1601 Study process. The frontage road alignment located on the east side is consistent with the DEIS. On the west side of the interchange, three alternatives are identified in the Plan. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan currently shows a general alignment,which closely matches the DEIS location. The Plan identifies two alternatives to the DEIS to initially assess increasing the separation between the interchange ramp and frontage road intersections, and not bisect vacant land designated for future commercial development. A final west frontage road alignment will be determined in conjunction with the proposed future development in the area. Local bus service from the planned new transit hub at College Ave. and Harmony Rd. would act as a feeder system to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station or Park-and-Ride facility within December 4, 2007 -4- Item No. 21 the CAC. The DEIS proposes that the BRT parking area be located on either the east or west side of I-25. Ideally, a station located in the center of I-25 could be accessed from Park-and-Ride facilities on both sides of I-25 via a pedestrian bridge. If a BRT station is not constructed,the DEIS assumes that Park-and-Ride facilities would still be constructed along with the new pedestrian bridge over I-25. Additional transportation options for the local streets adjacent to the interchange could include a dedicated on-street bike lane for cyclists, a detached sidewalk for pedestrians and a trail for other users. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Board at its October 17th meeting recommended to City Council that ten percent (10%) of the overall interchange improvement project cost be earmarked for transit. A majority (5-4) felt it important to ensure that funding was in place in this project to increase transit amenities and service to and from the activity center and possibly between Windsor and Fort Collins. Natural Resources As part of the partnership between the City and Town of Windsor to reconstruct the interchange,the City has a unique challenge on the west side in balancing the need to support future development that will help contribute to funding interchange improvements, and preserving important natural resources including migratory roosting habitat, shoreline and wetland habitat. The Plan includes an inventory of existing natural resources and assesses corresponding setback buffers based on type of habitat The Plan seeks to maintain the integrity of the environment around Fossil Creek Reservoir through adherence to specific buffers that protect sensitive species and habitat. Ifneeded,wetland mitigation measures,both on site and off site,will take place to enhance key resources. The Plan's protection measures are set by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the City of Fort Collins, and Larimer County. The buffer zones identified in the Plan include a mile buffer from critical roosting habitat, between a 100—300 foot buffer from shoreline habitat, and for wetlands a 50 - 100 foot buffer. [See Figure 29 and 30 on Page 49 and 50 of the Plan]. The widening of SH 392 west of the interchange will result in wetland loss as the street cross section is expanded from a 2-lane to a 4-lane facility. The timing of this improvement will be separate from the interchange reconstruction project and either addressed as part of future development or part of CDOT's future SH 392 highway improvement schedule. The identified buffer areas form the basis for future development activities adjacent to the natural areas. As the area develops,the City will review development proposals according to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code.As part of the review process,an ecological characterization study(ECS)will be prepared. Final buffers will be established based upon the findings in the ECS. The resulting buffers will then be delineated prior to commencement of any construction activities and enforced by City inspectors during construction. Any disturbance within a buffer zone will be restored according to Section 3.4.1(E) (2)—Development Activities within the Buffer Zone. December 4, 2007 -5- Item No. 21 Funding Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challenge. The funding scenarios match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to repay anticipated bonds over a twenty year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction of the interchange bridge,ramps, frontage roads and landscaping is approximately$21 million to $25 million. To identify the most feasible strategy, three funding scenarios were identified. Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and includes a special assessment and property tax for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years; an impact fee imposed on the"travel shed"; and, a Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or other governmental support is assumed for this scenario. Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes financial support from CDOT($2.0 million), the NFRMPO ($1.2 million—future allocation) and, the municipalities of Windsor($1 million) and Fort Collins ($1 million); a lower special assessment than Scenario 1 on CAC landowners (undeveloped land only) that sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property tax on CAC landowners. Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden to a larger area and includes all municipal funding (Windsor and Fort Collins) from Scenario 2 and an expanded property tax district with a mill levy. There is also a small special assessment on all undeveloped CAC land that sunsets in 10 years and a PIF. hi the future, additional public funding(beyond existing assumptions)may become available through sources such as CDOT,NFRMPO and a future Regional Transportation Authority. While the Plan does not have a specific funding recommendation, it is assumed that one or a combination of these funding scenarios will be used to further negotiate a final funding package to support the cost of the interchange improvements as implementation continues. Implementation Staff has identified several implementation actions after Plan acceptance. One of the first steps is to develop new agreements to continue the partnership among the jurisdictions that have a direct interest in the interchange. This would include other governmental entities such as CDOT, as well as local developers. The options to receive approval for interchange improvements are: (1)wait for the current North I- 25 EIS process being conducted by CDOT to be completed, which may happen by the end of 2009 at the earliest or be pushed back farther;or(2)approach and pursue a parallel process by submitting to CDOT a Justification for Separate Action. Given the potential development timelines, staff believes that the second of these options may be more advantageous; if approved,this would allow the submittal of a CDOT 1601 Policy Directive. The second option listed above is supported by Town and City staff, based on a request by Metro Acquisitions, LLC "Lauth" (developer with options on properties on both the east and west sides of the Interchange). The Town,City,and developer are requesting a justification for separate action from CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in December. Under the first agreement that is being presented for Council's consideration, the cost for this request would be shared among the Town(25%), City(25%)and the developer(50%) . If Windsor and Fort Collins December 4, 2007 -6- Item No. 21 agree to move forward with this approach, the three parties could then proceed with an accelerated 1601 process and share a similar cost sharing arrangement. The request a justification for separate action from CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration represents the first step in initiating an accelerated 1601 process. The 1601 process is the Colorado Department of Transportation's policy to evaluate new interchanges or major improvements to existing interchanges along interstates and major highways. The 1601 process would initiate a feasibility study for the I-25/SH 392 Interchange and could include the following analysis: • Identify operation and capacity analysis for existing conditions and year 2030 • Identify all reasonable and feasible interchange access alternatives • Screen all of the alternatives (identify pros and cons) • Review environmental conditions in area • Work toward a single best alternative • Develop a funding plan A preferred alternative will be identified based on this analysis. Additional environmental analysis may be necessary which will most likely include an Environmental Assessment (EA). Both the 1601 and the EA will utilize the data currently being collected as part of the EIS and SH 392 EOS, and contained in the Improvement Plan. The 1601 process would be completed and approved prior to final design of the interchange improvements. It is anticipated that the Justification for Separate Action and CDOT 1601 process will take approximately one year. Again, if the Justification for a Separate Action is denied, the alternative would be to wait for the North I-25 EIS to be completed in 2009. An EOS is a planning study which evaluates potential transportation solutions by employing a context-sensitive solutions approach, and then considers potential environmental effects in the development and selection of alternatives. Although it is not a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study, the SH 392 EOS does address many of the same elements, and is intended to recommend a solution which is anticipated to be the starting point for future NEPA studies. The study does not clear a project for construction. If, at a later date, a federally funded construction project is pursued, a NEPA-compliant study would be required. The Federal Highway Administration,Federal Transit Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation have commissioned an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine the effect that adding various transportation improvements along I-25 will have on the lives of residents and commuters in the area. This study will build on the findings of the previously completed North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study, which was a Major Investment Study completed in 2000. This EIS is the next step in planning for transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor. The North I-25 EIS, currently underway in the region, is a federal requirement set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS is a more in-depth study to determine the purpose and need of fixture transportation improvements in the same area; identify alternatives to be developed; and document the anticipated impacts of those alternatives. The North I-25 EIS is the next step in identifying alternatives for transportation issues. December 4, 2007 -7- Item No. 21 The Environmental Assessment(EA)is a federally mandated study that identifies the environmental, economic, historical and social impacts of a proposed project. It results in one of two documents: an Environmental Impact Statement, which describes the project's probable impacts, or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Additional actions needed over the next two years include development of interchange preliminary design, completion of the North I-25 EIS and other environmental compliance actions by CDOT, and establishment of a special district within the Corridor Activity Center. The Town of Windsor is currently in discussions with Lauth(Metro Acquitsions, LLC),a national developer for a large commercial project on the northeast quadrant of the Interchange, and with the City for property on the west side. Because discussions are very preliminary,details of these future projects are not available at this time. Public Process Throughout each facet of the development of the Plan,the process has included public involvement and input from the key stakeholders including residents,property owners and businesses in the area. The Plan has also been guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of 29 members, including representatives from the City of Fort Collins, Town of Windsor, Latimer County, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and consultants. Throughout the planning process, in addressing environmental issues,the TAC included City environmental planners and representatives from the consultant team. In addition to the stakeholders meetings, the consulting team and representatives of the TAC also facilitated two public open houses to receive additional information, comments and feedback from the public on the proposed Plan. Two municipal websites provided the community with up-to-date information. By adoption of this Resolution,the City will be accepting the 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and approving two agreements. The first is an agreement among the Town of Windsor, the City of Fort Collins and Metro Acquisitions, LLC,to jointly file a Justification for Separate Action with CDOT and FHWA. Upon its approval of that agreement,the City and Town will jointly apply to CDOT,NFR-MPO,and FHWA for approval of the Interchange Improvements in accordance with the 1601 Process. The agreement would also provide that the Town, the City, and Metro Acquisitions, LLC would share the project's initial consulting costs as well as the subsequent costs generated by the 1601 Process. The second agreement is an intergovernmental agreement among CDOT, the Town of Windsor, and the City of Fort Collins under which the Town and the City would reimburse CDOT for the costs CDOT incurs in reviewing the conceptual designs,studies,and other documents filed by the Town and the City as part of the Justification for Separate Action and 1601 Process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed I 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan (October 12, 2007) 2. Proposed Plan Summary, October 12, 2007 3. Intergovernmental Agreement, March 2006 4. Minutes from the October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing December 4, 2007 -8- Item No. 21 5. Staff report on Natural Resource Framework, October 26, 2007 6. Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Highway 392 Interchange 7. Contract Between CDOT, Windsor and Fort Collins 8. Powerpoint presentation. INTERSTATE 9 tr � am V Interchange I prove ent Plan T^- w r " DO October 12 , 2007 .. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan Draft October 12 , 2007 Adopted tba /J409M Citvof Fort Collins City Planning & Community Development 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins , CO 80524 970-221 -6376 fcgov . com/ cityplanning Planning Department 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 970-686-7476 windsorgov. com For additional copies , please download from our websites, or contact us using the information above . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE PLAN Credits AGENCIES City / Town Managers Dave Martinez , CDOT Gloria Hice- Idler, CDOT Darin Atteberry , City of Fort Collins Long Nguyen , CDOT Kelly Arnold , Town of Windsor Pete Graham , CDOT Vicky McLane , Northern Front Range MPO IVIcll layUi 0 Consultant Team City of Fort Collins Pete Wray , Senior City Planner PRIME CONSULTANT Town of Windsor Bruce Meighen , EDAW , Inc . Joe Plummer, Planning Director Tom Keith , EDAW , Inc . Melissa Sherburne , EDAW , Inc . Technical Advisory Committee Megan Moore , EDAW , Inc . Brad Smith , EDAW , Inc . TOWN OF WINDSOR Linda Spangler, EDAW , Inc. Maria Michieli -Best , EDAW , Inc . Dennis Wagner, Director of Engineering John Ko , EDAW , Inc . Dean Moyer, Director of Finance TRANSPORTATION/INTERCHANGE ESTIMATION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Mark Mehalko , DMJM Harris Joe Frank , City Planning Director Myron Swisher, DMJM Harris Cameron Gloss , Development Planning Director Chuck Seest , Finance Director FUNDING Mark Jackson , Interim Transportation Director Dana Leavitt , Environmental Planner Ford Frick , BBC Rick Richter, Pavement Manager Adam Orens , BBC Sheri Langenberger, Development Review Manager Mike Freeman , Economic Advisor PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/TRANSIT LARIMER COUNTY Allan Brown , PBS & J Ryan Adams , PBS & J Mark Peterson , Engineering Director Rob Helmick, Principle Planner Martina Wilkinson , Traffic Engineer . ... ... ... . ............................................................................................................, Additional thanks to the Town Board, City Council, County Commissioners, Property Owners, Stakeholders, and general public that participated in this planning process. t.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................................................................................................................: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CREDITS I . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Table of Contents Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Chapter 1 - Project Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 T1 Interchange Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 T2 Frontage Road Realignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Key Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Transit/Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TT1 Integration of Multi - Modal Transportation Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Land Use Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 NR1 Community Asset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ResourcePlans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Transportation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LU 1 Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chapter 2 no, Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D1 Gateway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 5 - Interchange Improvement Plan . . . . . . . 43 Land Use and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Transportation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Land Use Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Gateway Elements/Scenic Character. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Natural Resources Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Interchange Area Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Transportation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Chapter 6 Funding 53 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Fair and Practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 53 Natural Areas & Open Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Interchange Cost and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Protected Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Funding Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 rr Selected Funding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Selected Administrative Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Revenue Modeling56 Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Development Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Chapter 3 Issues 33 Key Public Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 p - Potential Regional Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partnerships / Intergovernmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Authority Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 GMA Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Chapter 7 no, Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Action Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Transit and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Transit and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Chapter 4 - Opportunities & Constraints . . . . . . . . . 37 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 P1 Fort Collins Land Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 P2 Property Consolidation . . . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no . . . m . . . no 37 Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M 37 F1 Interchange Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Table of Figures Figure 25 — NW Frontage Road Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 1 - Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 26 - SW Frontage Road Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 2 — Area Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 27 — Bus Rapid Transit Station — Access from Figure 3 — Project Analysis Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 East & West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 4 - Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 28 — Range of Identified Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 5 - Developable Land Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 29 — Natural Resources Overview Map map Figure 6 - Future Land Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 coming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 7 - Level of Service Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 30 — Natural Resources Buffer Detail Map . . . . 50 Figure 8 — Existing Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 31 — Bridge Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 9 — Year 2030 Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 32 — Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 10 - Interchange Use by Origin Destination Year Figure 33 - Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 34 - Revenue Generation Mechanisms and Figure 11 - Interchange Use by Origin- Destination Taxing Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Year 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 35 - Development Assumptions (CAC only) . . . 56 Figure 12 — Existing Transportation Plans Map . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 36 - Revenue Generation Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 13 - Station Site Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 37 — Acreages & Unit Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 14 - Station Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 38 - Potential Public Funding Sources Scenarios Figure 15 — Station Site Evaluation — Outside of Eagle 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 39 — Funding Scenario Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 16 — Spillway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 40 — Implementation Phasing Schedule — In Figure 17 - Federally Listed Species for Larimer County , Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Colorado ( USFWS 2007) and Potential for Figure 41 — Development Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Occurrence in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 42 - Revenue Summary — Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 18 - List of State Special Status Species and their Potential to Occur in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 43 - Revenue Summary — Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 19 - Relevant Buffers Established by the City of Figure 44 - Revenue Summary — Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Fort Collins for Natural Habitats and Features . . 29 Figure 45 — Outreach Sample , Stakeholder Bulletin Figure 20 - Buffers established by Larimer County for Page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Natural Habitats & Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 46 — Outreach Sample , Stakeholder Bulletin Figure 21 - Existing Inventory of Natural Resources . . 31 Page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 22 - Buffers Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 23 - Vacant Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 24 — Future Transportation (Planned & Proposed ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. TABLE OF FIGURES III ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 1 interchange . This plan ' s key components include interchange configuration design , supporting land use Project Content in activity center, natural area buffers , west frontage road alternatives and funding scenarios . All of these components will require additional discussions , Introduction refinement and coordination prior to finalization , as part of on-going implementation efforts . The following section describes the Plan ' s purpose , . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ............................................................................................................ plan participants , planning process , public participation activities , and related planning ■ Develop action strategies to implement improvements documents . ■ Determine alternative funding mechanisms ( public and private sectors) ■ Advance to implementation sooner ■ Incorporate continuous stakeholder review ■ Present to participating agencies for adoption by governing bodies - s ■ Execute Intergovernmental Agreements , as appropriate . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ................................ Participants The bridge over 1-25 at State Highway 392 exit. In March 2006 , the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor entered into an Intergovernmental The 1 -25/ SH392 Interchange is the gateway to the Agreement ( IGA) that focused on cooperation , land use Town of Windsor and southeast Fort Collins . However, and development at the 1 -25/SH392 Interchange . The more than just a key gateway , it is integral to the purpose of the IGA includes the need to cooperate performance of the regional transportation system . among Fort Collins , Windsor, Larimer County , and the Transportation along the Front Range is inseparable North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization from land use . It is these land uses that will contribute ( NFRMPO ) on design and funding interchange to the economic sustainability of these communities . improvements . With new growth in Windsor and southeast Fort Collins Fort Collins and Windsor have joined together to lead in recent years , the capacity of the existing 1 -25/ 392 this Plan . These communities have also partnered with Interchange facility has been significantly impacted . In NFRMPO , CDOT , Larimer County, and local property order for new development to proceed adjacent to the and business owners to determine key actions and interstate , adequate public facilities need to be funding strategies necessary to move forward towards addressed . Plan implementation . Although the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this interchange as a high priority project, large amounts of federal or state A 12-month and three- phase process was used to funding are not in place . Towns and cities have not historically taken on the challenging task of funding accomplish the Plan ' s objectives . interchanges , but as times have changed , so has the role of our municipalities . Figure 1 on the following page , describes the three phases . Phase I focuses on an assessment of existing conditions , issues , constraints , opportunities , and Purpose preliminary funding options . Phase 11 describes future land use and transportation options . Phase III This plan represents a unique process with a focus on documents the preferred land use plan , transportation strategic implementation actions and identification of framework and funding mechanism , and the necessary critical next steps in process to fund and reconstruct the actions to achieve these results . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 — PROJECT CONTENT 1 . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 1 - Process 2006 2007 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept TAC Meetings ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Stakeholder Meetings Public Open House • so 1 • • • Figure 2 - Area Stakeholders Analysis Areas Stakeholders Public Involvement Key Benefits _ in area Activities to area Community-wide -the Fort Collins, Loveland, Public Meetings, Gateway to Community, largest area Windsor, NFRMPO, Newspaper Articles, Economic Development and Lorimer County, Website, Public Hearings Traffic Movement, Access to General Public, CDOT TAC Meetings Regional Transit Interchange-Travelshed Property Owners within Public Meetings, Interstate Access, New travelshed who Newspaper Articles, Neighborhood Services and primarily use the Website, Public Hearings Commercial Opportunities, SH392 Interchange Access to Transit Community Activity Property and business Stakeholder Meetings, Property Values, Retail Sales, Center (CAC) - the owners immediately Individual Meetings Property Development, smallest area adjacent to the SH392 Newsletters, Public Interstate Access, Improved interchange. Meetings, Newspaper Street Network, Transit Articles, Website, Public Oriented Development Meetings ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... .............. 2 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Public Involvement -a- � wuwntiae ,rt , The 1 -25/ 392 Interchange has a number of stakeholders . These can most easily be described in Figure 2 . These three scales can be used not only to r�� -- = - - - ---� — describe the stakeholders , but also the potential benefit of area . As one of Fort of Collins' four interchanges and Windsor' s primary gateway to the community , the _— , . _ _ communitywide benefit of improvements is clear. For those of the community who live in the travelshed , interchange enhancements mean a decrease in travel time and access to new services . For those who live Project website. and operate businesses in the immediate vicinity of the interchange , known as the Community Activity Area (CAC ) , improvements will allow development plans to proceed , increase property values , and increase sales rramportntion overview to local commercial establishments . Public involvement strategies were tailored to each group of stakeholders . At the communitywide level , a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC ) , consisting of representatives from the NFRMPO , Larimer County, City of Fort Collins and CDOT , assisted in directing the project . Other tools , such as two public meetings , _ council and commission presentations , a joint Town of Windsor and City of Fort Collins work session , meetings with Town and City Finance Departments , newspaper articles and a website , involved stakeholders at the community and travelshed levels . CAC stakeholders were involved through five stakeholder meetings , consisting of immediate property and business owners adjacent to the interchange as well potential developers . As future developers and operators of commercial enterprises , this group has the most to gain or loose from the success of the interchange . Direct mailings , four group meetings , individual meetings , and a series of bulletins were used to engage this group . open house. By attending stakeholder meetings , property and business owners within the CAC have helped to develop a funding strategy by identifying funding models that could be considered to expedite construction of the new interchange . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 — PROJECT CONTENT 3 . ............................. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 3 — Project Analysis Area Map - -- - - L gr r d I�Yty v158h�i 1Mr.bnr LIGA HARMONY ' COIJNTY ROAD 38 fa7 CaArrr 6M � - LofWand KECHTER . . -ik : TRILBY Fossil Creek Reservoir COUNTY ROAD 32 w i x F 5TTH p CROssROADa OWNTY ROAD 24E OS ITS 9 tntercPROJECT ANALYSIS k� AREA Iuxro � mat Flan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... .............. 4 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Southwest quadrant of interchange. Eastside of interchange. NO MW t mow o o ` [ Westside of interchange. Northbound 1-25 exit ramp. Related Plans A number of regional , county , and municipal planning documents and studies have been completed that influence the 1 -25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan . We must first understand existing guidance before we can plan for the future of the area . These documents provide general and specific guidance related to natural resource protection , future land use , and transportation improvements . In almost all of these documents , the 1 -25 /SH392 Interchange has been identified as needing improvement. In addition , SH392/ Carpenter Road is identified as needing significant enhancement and expansion . Relevant elements of these documents are summarized in this section . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 — PROJECT CONTENT 5 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN From pp . 8-9 of the plan : "The Plan is intended to : LAND USE PLANS a . Establish land uses and development patterns which reflect the needs and desires of the citizens ; City Plan (Fort Collins) - 2004 b . Provide guidance to the Town staff and policy This comprehensive plan was adopted February 18 , makers in making land use development decisions ; 1997 and updated May 4 , 2004 by the City of Fort c . Facilitate communication between the citizens and Collins . The planning effort involved the Fort Collins the Town government; City Council , the City Plan Advisory Committee, City d . Help coordinate various governmental functions ; staff, a consulting team , and the public . and e . Provide a basis for developing specific, necessary Purpose and appropriate regulations that govern the "City Plan illustrates how we envision Fort Collins over physical development of the Town . " the next twenty years , to the year 2025 — and shows us how we can get there , step- by-step . " SH392 is recognized throughout the plan as Windsor' s primary artery . Specific transportation policies are The City Plan is comprised of three primary sections : aimed at promoting the connectivity to its road network ■ The Community Vision and Goals section describes the to the regional system , the integration of multi - modal ideal values held by community members and where options including transit , and the development of they see their city in the future . This includes goals for " positive , aesthetically-appealing " entryways through land use , transportation , community appearance and design and landscaping . The 1-25 / SH392 interchange design , housing , environment, open lands , and growth is an opportunity to meet the transportation demands management . of the community, as well as promote the land use goal ■ The City Structure Plan is focused on the physical form to encourage new commercial activity in that area . and layout of the city . Four specific types of places found in Fort Collins are described as : Neighborhoods , Larimer County Master Plan (LCMP) - 1997 Districts , Corridors , and Edges. The Larimer County Land Use Plan was adopted as a ■ The City Plan Principles and Policies provide specific resolution on January 20 , 1988 . The Larimer County management guidance for each type of place (as Master Plan was later updated and adopted by the described in the Structure) , as well as communitywide . Larimer Board of County Commissioners on November 197 1997 . The plan was prepared as a cooperative Key visions set forth in City Plan that pertain to the I - effort with representatives from the Larimer County 25/ SH392 Interchange include the desire to promote Planning Commission , County Planning staff, Citizens multi -modal transportation options , an interconnected Plan Review Committee , and eight subcommittees . system of open lands , the development of new commercial activity centers near transit, and adherence Purpose of growth to a flexible Growth Management Area "The Larimer County Master Plan is a policy document (GMA) . Considering the nearby reservoir and open that establishes a long -range framework for decision space , the plans for future transit, and the area ' s making for the unincorporated area of the County . It growth potential and place within the GMA, the I - includes criteria for development decisions , decisions 25/ SH392 Interchange area is an ideal location for on public services and capital facilities and decisions many of these goals to converge . on environmental resources protection through its Guiding Principles and Implementing Strategies . " Town of Windsor Comprehensive Master Plan — 2006 The Windsor Comprehensive Plan was recently The LCMP has several purposes : updated in 2006 and adopted January 4 , 2007 . The ■ To communicate the land use policy of Larimer County plan was developed by the Windsor Planning to citizens , landowners , developers , and other Commission , Town Board of Trustees , Town staff, the governmental entities . consulting firm EDAW of Fort Collins , and its ■ To provide a policy basis for developing the Land Use subcontractor, Leland Consulting Group . Code and other land use regulations and procedures , and to determine whether they are in harmony with the Purpose community' s vision and implementation strategy. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ................. 6 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ■ To provide a basis for intergovernmental agreements unique combination of City-County integrated with the cities and towns of Larimer County, implementation strategies . The key to the success of neighboring jurisdictions , and the many public and the planning effort is the formulation and adoption of a quasi-public agencies that provide services to Larimer Transfer of Density Units program by Larimer County . " County residents . ■ To encourage County departments , other agencies , According to this plan , "transportation needs in the and private developers to design projects in harmony Fossil Creek Reservoir Area are inextricably connected with the natural characteristics of the land and the to city, county and regional transportation systems . capabilities of public service and facilities . Transportation planning considers land use planning ■ To provide a basis for setting priorities and funding needs , as well as area-specific issues (Chapter 3 ) . " mechanisms for public capital improvements in Larimer County . Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan — 1994 Loveland General Plan - 2005 Both 1 -25 and SH392 are recognized in the LCMP as The Plan was originally adopted in 1994 , and updated potential mobility corridors that could " provide/ through the General Plan in September 2005 . The accommodate future transportation technologies citizens , Planning Commission , City Council and staff including light rail or other passenger rail systems (Sec . of Loveland prepared the Loveland Comprehensive 5 . 2 . 1 ) . " These mobility corridors will be key to serving Master Plan . new development centers and , therefore will strongly influence the land use pattern . "The purpose of Purpose identifying potential mobility corridors is to reserve " In September, 2005 , the City Council adopted the right-of-way in the development of land use planning General Plan , a broad overview of the Comprehensive for future roadway extensions and expansions to Master Plan , which serves as a guide to planning many accommodate this concept. Therefore , as part of the aspects of Loveland ' s future over the next 10 years and future roadway network, it is essential that various beyond . The City Council also adopted the 2030 mobility corridors be identified for future transportation Vision , created by Loveland residents in a series of needs . " public workshops ( both documents are linked at left) . These documents updated the 1994 Comprehensive Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan - 1998 Plan , which was an outgrowth of the Agenda for the The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Area Plan ) was 90s and Beyond , Loveland ' s community visioning adopted by the Fort Collins City Council and Larimer process held in 1992 . County Planning Commission on March 17 , 1998 and March 25 , 1998 , respectively . The Area Plan was The Comprehensive Master Plan addresses issues well amended in 1999 and 2000 . The Area Plan was a beyond land use — several of the plan ' s elements joint planning effort between the City of Fort Collins (transportation , parks and recreation , open lands , and Larimer County. community design , and utilities , to name a few) focus on the physical development of the community , while Purpose other elements speak to cultural , social and "The primary objective of the Plan is to direct future educational aspects . " urban development toward municipal boundaries , while balancing preservation of open lands and critical 1=25 Corridor Plan - 2001 natural areas around the Fossil Creek Reservoir and The 1 -25 Corridor Plan was completed in May 2001 . areas between Loveland and Fort Collins , and while The plan was conceived and written by a host of maintaining sensitivity to the rights of individuals . municipalities , including Fort Collins , Loveland , Windsor, Berthoud , Timnath , and Johnstown ; the This project is unique in that both jurisdictions — counties of Larimer and Weld ; and the NFRMPO and operating under different land use regulations and CDOT . planning environments — came together and worked through many complex issues and policy decisions , Purpose ultimately resulting in a jointly adopted Plan . The Plan The 1 -25 Corridor Plan establishes the vision to is intended to balance urban development and promote attractive development, maintain regional environmental conservation by recommending a ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTENT 7 .. ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN character, and provide adequate services along a 35- Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan — 1994 mile stretch of the interstate between Berthoud to Loveland General Plan - 2005 northern Fort Collins . The plan divides the Corridor The Plan was originally adopted in 1994 , and updated into three subareas ; the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange through the General Plan in September 2005 . The Improvement project falls within Subarea 2 . citizens , Planning Commission , City Council and staff The 1-25 Corridor Plan recognizes the Fossil of Loveland prepared the Loveland Comprehensive Creek/Windsor Corridor as one of two primary scenic Master Plan . landscape corridors (Crossroads/ Loveland Corridor is the second ) . These are areas defined as " remaining Purpose lands along [the 1 -25 Corridor] that are not agricultural " In September, 2005 , the City Council adopted the or riparian , but still have dramatic views of the General Plan , a broad overview of the Comprehensive mountains to the west (p . 27) . " The Plan includes Master Plan , which serves as a guide to planning many specific Scenic Landscape Policies to " maintain and aspects of Loveland ' s future over the next 10 years and improve the scenic quality and landscape character of beyond . The City Council also adopted the 2030 the [ 1 -25] Corridor and minimize negative visual Vision , created by Loveland residents in a series of impacts of development along 1 -25" . Land use public workshops (both documents are linked at left) . development in this area must consider these goals These documents updated the 1994 Comprehensive and the important role that the area serves in Plan , which was an outgrowth of the Agenda for the protecting the magnificent viewshed from the interstate . 90s and Beyond , Loveland ' s community visioning process held in 1992 . 1-25 Subarea Plan — 2001 The 1 -25 Subarea Plan was published on August 19 , The Comprehensive Master Plan addresses issues well 2003 by the City of Fort Collins Community Planning & beyond land use — several of the plan ' s elements Environmental Services Advance Planning Department. (transportation , parks and recreation , open lands , community design , and utilities , to name a few) focus Purpose on the physical development of the community , while The Subarea Plan stemmed from a variety of planning other elements speak to cultural , social and efforts to shape development of the 1 -25 corridor in educational aspects . " northern Colorado . First, Fort Collins City Plan was adopted in March 1997 and identified this area as the 1 -25 Special Study Corridor. " The City Plan also sited the corridor in its Principles and Policies chapter, calling to "tailor the City Plan ' s citywide perspective to individual neighborhoods , districts , corridors , and edges" in Principle LU -4 , and identifying the 1 -25 Corridor as a " priority for future subarea planning " in Policy LU -4 . 5 . The Subarea Plan seeks to establish land use guidance for the areas east of the interstate . The Subarea Plan builds upon the design standards , transportation guidelines , and open lands policies set forth in the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1 -25 Corridor Plan (the Regional Plan , 2001 ) . While the Subarea Plan does not speak directly to the importance of the 1 -25/ SH392 Interchange , it does stress the importance of interchanges as gateway features and centers for commercial activity. Design and land use decisions must adequately serve those purposes . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ................. 8 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN T RESOURCE PLANS Fossil Creek Reservoir Resource Management Northern Colorado Community Separator Plan — 2000 Study — 1999 Resource Management & Implementation Plan for The Northern Colorado Community Separator Study Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space — 2003 was completed by EDAW in 1999 with the cooperation The Fossil Creek Reservoir Resource Management Plan of the municipalities of Berthoud , Fort Collins , Greeley , (RMP) was adopted by the Fort Collins City Council and Loveland , Milliken , Windsor, and Larimer County . Larimer County Planning Commission in 2000 . The updated 2003 RMP reflects newly acquired land use Purpose changes in the locations of access roads due to The Separator Study recognizes that rapid growth in increased traffic on County Road 32 . The Fossil Creek northern Colorado , especially along the 1 -25 corridor, RMP was completed in a joint planning effort between threatens the unique character of individual the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County communities . The affected communities agreed to governments , as well as local citizens . recognize this issue and enter into a cooperative agreement intended to maintain separation that is fair Purpose and equitable to landowners . The purpose of the Fossil Creek RMP was to build upon the vision set forth in the Fossil Creek Area Plan The area surrounding Fossil Creek Reservoir and Open ( 1998 ) , and specifically defines "how the important Space is proposed in the study to be a community resources at the reservoir will be managed . " The RMP separator, a goal that has been recognized by the addresses "how to balance potentially conflicting goals , acquisition of land by Fort Collins in that area . such as wildlife protection and public access and use , while responding to changing conditions both in terms of adjacent land uses and habitats at the reservoir. " Regarding lands adjacent to the reservoir, the RMP sets forth a resource management area of a '/4-mile buffer around the shoreline of the reservoir. Should private landowners decide to develop their land , they are encouraged to establish conservation easements in respect to that buffer. The goal is to manage the reservoir and open space comprehensively with adjacent , undeveloped lands for the maintenance of wildlife and other environmental resources . The RMP mentions several times the importance of avoiding eagle habitat during night roosting periods , which runs from November 15- March 15 . Land uses that are more accommodating to this period are those that primarily operate during an 8 to 12- hour period during the day, such as offices . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTENT 9 .. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN though these improvements have not yet occurred . T TRANSPORTATION PLANS Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan - 2004 The Master Street Plan (MSP) was first adopted in 1981 The City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan and has been amended over the years in accordance (TMP) was adopted by City Council through Resolution with the Fort Collins Comprehensive Land Use Plan , 2004-038 on March 2 , 2004 . City Plan , and the Transportation Master Plan (2004 ) . Purpose Purpose "The Fort Collins TMP 2004 serves a variety of "The Master Street Plan ( MSP) is a map- based purposes . It is a vision document that defines the long - representation of the City of Fort Collins' long -range term transportation system that Fort Collins needs in vision of its major street network . . . . and is intended to the future . The plan also provides policy direction for reflect the functional class (the category of street , e . g . , how decisions regarding the implementation of the arterial , collector, etc . ) of the ultimate street network . " transportation system should occur. It is also a The map provides a reference for guiding future framework document that serves as a comprehensive development by illustrating important transportation reference guide regarding transportation issues in Fort connections . Collins . Additionally, the plan provides priorities for implementing projects to meet short-term deficiencies Carpenter Road , directly to the west of 1 -25 , is not while working towards the ultimate transportation within the Growth Management Area (GMA) of the City system the City is trying to achieve . Finally, the plan of Fort Collins ; however, it is shown in the Master Street identifies transportation issues that need to be resolved Plan ( MSP) as a 6 lane major arterial . In the MSP, as part of the next plan update or under specific Carpenter Road continues to the west as a planned 6- department work plans (Section S . 1 ) . " lane facility into the City Limits and GMA. A Travel Demand and Level of Service Analysis with a 2025 Specific to the I -25/ SH392 Interchange , the area is planning horizon (conducted as part of the recognized in the Plan to be integral to the regional Transportation Master Plan ) demonstrate the need for network and an optimal place to locate transit serving Carpenter Road to be a 6-lane facility from College the Fort Collins , Windsor, and Greeley communities . Avenue to 1 -25 . SH392 , to the east of 1-25 , is shown as a 4- lane arterial , and the frontage road to the west Crossroads Subarea Transportation Study — 2003 of 1-25 is shown to be realigned . The roadways The Crossroads Area Transportation Study was outside the GMA are shown for contextual purposes prepared for the NFRMPO in January 2003 . only and are not part of the MSP . The city is currently considering adding the area immediately west of I -25 Purpose into the GMA boundary . It is important to note that The Crossroads Area Transportation Study was a SH392 through Fort Collins is now managed by cooperative effort between the City of Loveland , the CDOT . Town of Windsor, CDOT , Larimer County, the NFRMPO , and the development community . The study Town of Windsor Transportation Study — 1999 developed a transportation improvement plan to The Town of Windsor Transportation Study was support the rapidly developing six-square- mile area completed in November 1999 . surrounding the 1 -25/ Crossroads Boulevard (Larimer County Road 26 ) interchange . Recommendations Purpose included improvements to the I -25 interchanges at The study was done to complement the Circulation and Highway 34 , Crossroads Boulevard , and State Transportation Element of the Windsor Comprehensive Highway 392 . The study also recommended the Plan , which provides a "framework to begin to development of a parallel arterial roadway network. understand the Town ' s future transportation Improvements to the 1 -25/ SH392 interchange and the improvement needs . " Relevant to the 125/SH392 western frontage road adjacent to the interchange were Interchange Improvement Plan , Chapter 3 , Section E predicted to occur by 2010 and 2005 , respectively, recommends a conceptual access management strategy for SH392 , including restricted movements, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ................. 10 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN desirable access spacing , increased laneage , and SH392 Environmental Overview Study — 2006 desirable access spacing . The SH392 Environmental Overview Study (EOS) was conducted to meet the growing transportation needs on The plan acknowledges that "State Highway 392 , SH392 , Carpenter Road and Larimer County Road 32 , between 1 -25 and WCR 19 , and SH 257 , south of from US 287 through Windsor. The EOS does not SH392 , will experience the largest daily traffic volumes directly address the 1 -25/392 Interchange because it is in the GMA with traffic volume levels between 21 , 000 being evaluated as part of the North 1 -25 Front Range and 29 , 000 vehicles per day (vpd ) . " The plan also Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ) . The final report established a conceptual access management plan was published November 6 , 2006 . along SH392 between 1 -25 and WCR 15 . Purpose City of Loveland Transportation Plan — 2000 The SH392 EOS was initiated by CDOT "to identify The City of Loveland 2020 Transportation Plan was transportation solutions along the SH392 corridor to completed by the city on July 18 , 2000 . meet 2030 mobility needs (Chapter 1 . )" The study begins with an inventory of the natural and cultural Purpose resources found in the area , current services and land Factors such as residential and commercial growth in use patterns , census projections for population and Loveland "will all have a dramatic effect on the future employment , and estimates of future traffic demand of Loveland ' s transportation system . Mobility in the from the 2030 NFRMPO Traffic Demand Model . From community plays a large role in the standard of living there , several transportation system alternatives were for residents . A well- balance , well- maintained evaluated on three levels : initial , qualitative , and transportation system is critical for sustaining quantitative . A ` No Action Alternative ' was also Loveland ' s high quality of life . " Studies have shown evaluated in which the SH392 corridor would remain that the construction and maintenance of new streets unchanged . The alternatives were compared across have not kept up with growth in recent years . The east and west alignment groups ( in relation to 1 -25 ) . Transportation Plan seeks to analyze growth trends to The recommendations from this study include 4- lane adequately plan for transportation needs in the future . capacity improvements on SH392 and Carpenter Road , from US 287 on the west to SH 257 on the east, City of Loveland 2020 Transportation Master to "avoid unacceptable congestion and poor Level of Plan - 2002 Service (Chapter 6) . " The typical section shown in this The limits of the Transportation Master Plan do not report near the 1 -25 interchange includes a raised extend to SH392/ Carpenter Road ; however, there are median with left turn pockets , two through lanes in plan elements that have some significance to the I- each direction , and a bike lane in each direction . The 25/ 392 Interchange . Most notable are the EOS also recommends several multi- model elements to improvements at the East 71st Street crossing of 1 -25 , meet mobility demands, including transit, dedicated one mile south of 1 -25/ 392 . Most notable are the bike lanes , and pedestrian sidewalks . The EOS improvements at the East 71st Street crossing of 1 -25 , recognizes that if the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) location one mile south of 1 -25/ 392 . The plan shows an proposed in the North 1 -25 EIS in the near vicinity to overpass of 1-25 without an interchange , and also the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange is approved , bus service for shows realigned frontage roads on both east and west the surrounding communities would be especially sides of 1-25 . It appears from this plan that the viable . frontage road on the west side of 1 -25 is planned to be realigned further to the west of 1 -25 , likely an alignment that would avoid the residential housing development that exists adjacent to 1 -25 . The frontage road on the east side is also shown to be realigned , although not as far away from 1 -25 as on the west side . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTENT 11 . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2030 NFRMPO Regional Transportation Plan - 2004 North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement - Draft The 2030 Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning The EIS will determine the effect that adding various Organization ' s ( NFRMPO ) Regional Transportation transportation improvements along 1 -25 will have on Plan (RTP) was adopted September 2 , 2004 . the lives of residents and commuters in the area . Purpose Purpose and Need The RTP " provides vision for how local governments "The Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) and the want to see future regional transportation needs met Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) , in cooperation ( http ://www . nfrmpo . org/ planning/ rtp . asp) . 55 This plan with the Colorado Department of Transportation includes key transportation features that are directly (CDOT) , have initiated preparation of an relevant to the 125/SH392 Interchange . Most notable Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and is the inclusion of SH392 to the east of 1 -25 and evaluate multi - modal transportation improvements Carpenter Road to the west as Regionally Significant along approximately 70 miles of the 1 -25 corridor from Corridors. The MPO defines the term " regionally the Fort Collins Wellington area to Denver. The EIS will significant" as "A multi- modal , regional system address regional and inter- regional movement of comprised of transportation corridors that connect people , goods and services in the 1 -25 corridor. " communities by facilitating the timely and safe Current Draft Alternatives , include the following : movement of people , goods , information and services 1 ) No-Action ; ( NFRMPO , 2003 ) . " This being said , the NFRMPO 2) Package A - New general purpose lane in each further recognizes the 1 -25/ SH392 Interchange ' s bridge direction on 125 , commuter rail (US 287) , a feeder bus to be "functionally obsolete (Table 11 -4)" . This term is system and an improved interchange at SH392 . defined as "those bridges which have acceptable load 3) Package B — New barrier-separated tolled express carrying capacity , but impose unacceptable physical lanes in each direction , buss rapid transit restrictions (narrow width , restricted vertical clearance , station/ routes , feeder bus connections and an limited sight distances , speed reducing curves , or improved Interchange at SH392 . insufficient waterway adequacy) . " This study is expected to continue through the solution CDOT SH392 Access Control Plan - 2006 screening process in which a preferred Package will be The recommendations from this study include moving identified . A draft EIS is expected by mid-2008 . the intersection of the frontage road on the west side of Following that, funding will have to be identified for all 1 -25 further to the west, adding a signal , and allowing of the construction measures . A record of decision full movement access at the intersection . The study could occur as early as 2009 . The selected alterative also recommends reconstructing the interchange ramps will influence the future planning of the CAC and the to improve alignment of the ramp terminals . There are interchange . no recommended changes to the Westgate intersection just to the east of 1 -25 . CDOT SH392 Striping Plan - 2006 This plan puts forth intermediate changes to SH392 and its adjacent frontage roads such as the realignment of the northbound ramp and a new southbound turning lane . These changes are focused on improving the safety of the current interchange . Many of these changes would be modified once the new interchange is constructed . Implementation of these changes began in August, 2007 . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ................. 12 CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 2 can be seen roosting in the mature willow and cottonwood trees circling the water. The complex Existing network of wetlands and open water provides outstanding opportunities for wildlife viewing and other Conditions recreational activities . Fossil Creek Reservoir is a prized resource for the surrounding communities and a driving force in the interchange ' s planning efforts . The following sections describe the existing conditions surrounding the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange , issues , and Finally , the interchange area provides services to the constraints and potential opportunities . The following local and regional community. The area is comprised section focuses primarily on the CAC , but in certain of a variety of land uses , with most existing cases will make reference to the larger analysis areas . development located within the Town of Windsor. Hundreds of acres of vacant land sit poised for Overview development , and their fruition dependent on an improved interchange and frontage roads . The 1 -25/ 392 Interchange borders the western edge of The following sections further elaborate on the area ' s the Town of Windsor and the southeastern limits of the existing land use , transportation network, utility City of Fort Collins . This vital interchange serves many systems , and natural resources . significant purposes for Fort Collins and Windsor, and the neighboring communities of Loveland and Larimer Land Use and Aesthetics County . EXISTING LAND USE Foremost, the interchange is an integral part of the regional transportation network. Nearly all of Figures 4-5 illustrate the existing land use composition Windsor' s traffic passes through the interchange , and within the CAC . Developed land uses only comprise an increasing number of drivers are using it as an 126 acres , or 20 percent, of the CAC . alternative access point to Fort Collins . The interchange is also a key access point to residential The primary developed land use is commercial . areas in Larimer County as well as a regional Specific uses include retail stores and service related entertainment destination , the Budweiser Center. activities that depend heavily on their proximity to the According to some models , traffic here is expected to interchange . Adjacent land uses primarily include double or triple its current demand by 2030 . With this rural estate residential , low density residential uses and level of growth , the importance of the interchange to open space . the region ' s mobility is unquestionable . Being situated on the border of two expanding communities , the interchange area serves an important aesthetic role for Windsor and Fort Collins . Currently , no distinctive gateway features or signage exists , and drivers are most likely to pass through the area without recognizing this as the entryway to these communities . With innovative planning , the interchange area could transform into a striking , revenue-generating gateway for both communities . Wdi i Existing business on eastside of interchange. Perhaps the interchange area ' s most distinguishing feature is its environmental resources . Fossil Creek Reservoir and Regional Open Space , which sits just northwest of the interchange , is a critical resource for migratory waterfowl , nesting shore birds , and other wildlife . During the fall , as many as 50 bald eagles ............ ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 2 — EXISITING CONDITIONS 13 . . ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN CAC is privately owned . This is how the developable FUTURE LAND USE T land breaks down by land use : According to existing plans , growth is planned for this Figure 4 - Future Land Use area — transitioning the region from a rural LAND USE ACRES % AREA development pattern to a more urban pattern . Over Mixed-Use Commercial 1 S 1 24%General Commercial 244 39% 600 acres remain undeveloped in the CAC . Windsor Employment 114 18% and Larimer County zoning provide sources of Mixed-Use Residential 177 19% information about the future . Fort Collins' zoning data TOTAL 626 1000/0 does not include this area because it is part of the GMA and not yet within city limits . The western portion of the CAC , within the Fort Collins GATEWAY ELEMENTS/SCENIC CHARACTER GMA, is comprised of residential , farming , tourist, and commercial districts north of SH392 , and an airport Several studies acknowledge the scenic resources and district south of SH392 . The eastern portion of the character of the study area , such as the Northern CAC is predominately zoned by Windsor as Colorado Community Separator Study, Resource commercial , with some limited industrial on the south Management and Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek side of the interchange and some residential in the Reservoir Regional Open Space , Larimer County Open northern portion of the study area . Lands Master Plan , and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan . As urban development is Future land use plans for the interchange area provide perceived as one of the primary threats to scenic a clearer picture of how the area will be developed in resources , several land use plans have proposed the future . The future land use data on the western appropriate uses and densities in order to protect the half of the study area is based on the Fort Collins City area ' s scenic character. To control the visual quality of Plan ' s Structure Plan (2004 ) , and the Windsor commercial developments along 1 -25 , design information is based on the Windsor Comprehensive guidelines (such as the 1 -25 Corridor Plan and Plan (2002 ) . Development Design Standards for the 1 -25 Corridor) have been adopted by municipalities and regional Fort Collins City Plan proposes new mixed- use coalitions and apply to portions of the study area . commercial for the area . Adjacent to the CACs western border, the future land use is urban estate , The CAC contains two distinct visual character units . rural open lands , or a community separator. The land The eastern part of the CAC contains commercial use plan also account for the preservation of Fossil areas of Windsor, where foreground views of retail and Creek Reservoir. Integrating commercial and historic establishments dominate the character. Rural residential development with land preservation and natural lands , including cultivated landscapes , enhances the visual character and pedestrian farms and related outbuildings , water bodies and experience through walking paths , view corridors , and wetlands , and county residential lots , are located west educational opportunities . of 1 -25 . Agricultural lands in the foreground of these areas provide open , sweeping views of the foothills and Windsor' s future land use follows a similar pattern , Rocky Mountains to the west, and the Great Plains to however with less of an emphasis on open lands and the east . Fossil Creek is a significant component of the more on providing a residential , employment, and rural/ natural area . Aside from directional signs retail base . Within the CAC west of 1 -25 , > 80% of the associated with the Town of Windsor, there are no area is allotted to be either commercial or employment gateway features developed in this area . district . The remaining area is residential mixed-use . Outside the CAC , the area is bordered by various residential density classes and some open lands farther north . The total acreage within the CAC is approximately 760 acres . Of that , 634 acres are undeveloped . The entire ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 5 - Developable Land Map I 36� � CreS 1 Mix Use ia1 = 117 ral 181 3m 252 � I I _ 1 rF IL Iri. i �_ , . fIT fi Rlf�� N - Imo* . ;4 4 4 103 s•` tom .,,- t' +71 t NIL s'D11 i641-11 Ire } • 1 � 1 ; a5 AP , 4. ,mot. ". :. _ P '� Legend # _ '1�! mw +'� ."• „ Corridor A['livii Center 4 ► = _ . � ` ; # + •1 OeweIopable Land +' �- i . tr/� �;erler$f OrrimerCi$t xx & Nv. e� y� ar � 11(edUseResidarktiat rx - �� r� ti C. mpioymenl c> ne Developable Lane ( GrossIr • 4 A ■ I F ............ ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 15 Fossil /V • r, , , Swede � � � -1/ril�iy '�Ii •. ��, •�/ICI Vp AI �Wa� AI iiWtlf�'�� � .010 FAIAAOA of ro � � � I �/ r I �I Ii • f. �, � � «�� ' PI Va OPA Land Status IF W Ve row VAR AAA it owmMON ft"W~ WI use / •Ir / i 01 r AV Ate i< ♦ . b � J� ' �1 I • • • • iIl � I � r � / 25 . FUTURE LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Transportation movement is evaluated , then entire approaches are graded , and finally the intersection as a whole can be TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK given a single LOS . For two-way stop controlled (TWSC ) intersections , each minor approach is given a Currently, SH392 (a 2- lane arterial ) crosses over 1 -25 separate LOS and the worst LOS is reported as a single through the center of the site . On and off- ramps serve rating for the intersection . 1 -25 northbound and southbound from SH392 , and an access road paralleling the west edge of 1 -25 serves an Figure 7 - Level of Service Criteria RV dealer to the north and agricultural and residential Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) interests to the south of SH392 . The 4-lane Westgate Un-signalized Signalized OS Intersection Intersection Drive serves commercial areas just north and south of L B > to- Is >C > 15-25 > 207o 0--20 20 <_ l SH392 immediately east of 1 -25 , then turns into a 2- o- lo lane access road following the east edge of 1 -25 and connects to the 1 -25 frontage road through the south C > 25- 5 > 20-35 end of the property. The intersection of SH392 and -80 -50 > 55 > 35 55 Westgate Drive has traffic signal control . As noted in E > 35 > 55 Chapter 1 , approved future transportation guidance is 80 provided by the Fort Collins and Windsor The 392 EOS states : Transportation Plans (see Figure 12) . Additional " Currently , the highest volumes are found just east of ( - guidance can also be found in the SH392 EOS . 25 with over 20 ,400 vehicles per day (vpd ) . Volumes Existing Interchange decrease gradually traveling east and west to The existing 1 -25/ 392 Interchange is a diamond approximately 9 , 500 vpd at each end of the study interchange with two-way frontage roads that intersect area . The Level of Service (LOS) will continue to SH392 to the east and west of the interchange ramps . degrade as traffic volumes increase over time . The SH392 bridge over 1-25 is one lane in each Currently , the worst LOS on the corridor occurs at the ( - direction , with left turn lanes at the interchange ramps . 25 interchange and is LOS E . The data indicates that The one- lane ramps are currently spaced at 600 feet existing signalized intersections operate at LOS D or apart and have signal control ; however the ramps on better, and in most cases operate at a LOS of C or the north do not directly align with the ramps on the better. south . The frontage road to the west intersects SH392 Consistent with regional planning , the SH392 EOS approximately 120 feet to the west of the ramps , and considered future travel demand for the year consistent the frontage road to the east, Westgate Drive , intersects with the currently-approved NFRMPO 2030 Regional SH392 approximately 600 feet to the east of the Transportation Plan . Travel demand projections for the ramps . Both frontage road intersections are signal SH392 EOS were forecasted using the 2030 NFRMPO controlled . Travel Demand Model . Volumes on the corridor were 2007' s safety project at the interchange will add left projected to increase in 2030 to 37 , 500 vpd just east turn lanes on SH392 at the 1 -25 southbound and of 1 -25 and taper off to 21 , 000 vpd at the western northbound on ramps . The 1 -25 northbound offramp terminus and 24 , 600 vpd at the eastern terminus . will shift 100 ' to the east . These numbers represent a two- to three-fold increase in volumes over the existing year. In 2030 , all sections According to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , the of the corridor will operate at LOS of F . " overall performance of an intersection is determined As shown by Figure 8 , the interchange and nearby based on the level of control delay experienced by transportation infrastructure are currently operating at motorists at the intersection . Depending on the level of failing or near failing levels of service . Delay to the delay that is experienced , each intersection can be driver on SH392 and on the interchange ramps is scored on a Level of Service (LOS) scale and given a recurring and significant in the peak hours of the day . letter grade from `A' to ` F ' , with `A' being the best possible grade for the intersection . For signalized intersections , the delay for each individual turning ............ ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 2 — EXISITING CONDITIONS 17 . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 8 — Existing Level of Service Using the models , PM Peak Period select link analysis Existing Intersection Level of SH392 EOS 1-25 EIS was used on the links directly east and west of the Service, AM/PM (2006) (Ongoing) interchange on SH392 . The results of the analysis are West Frontage Road DIE CID shown on Figure 10 (2000 Base Year Model ) and on West Ramps CID F/F Figure 11 (2030 Build Model ) . East Ramps B/C BIB East Frontage Road BIB BIB Figures 10- 11 show percentage of total trips , by major Figure 9 — Year 2030 Level of Service jurisdictional origins and destinations in the area , that 2030 Intersection Level of travel on the SH392 roadway links directly east and Service with No Action SH392 EOS 1-25 EIS west of the interchange . Also shown on the 2000 Base (AM/PM) (2006) (Ongoing) Year map are current (2005-2006 ) ADT traffic counts West Frontage Road F/F F/F that were collected from the City of Fort Collins , City of West Ramps F/F F/F Loveland , and CDOT databases . The 2030 Build East Ramps F/F F/F Model map also shows projected traffic volumes East Frontage Road F/F F/F developed for the SH392 EOS and North 1 -25 EIS . In addition to the operational issues at the interchange , Interchange Alternatives the following design deficiencies were also noted : Several interchange types have been previously studied ■ SH392 and the interchange ramps do not meet current at the I -25/ SH392 Interchange . The following three AASHTO design and safety standards for sight distance interchanges were studied using considerations such as and clear zone . cost, traffic operations , and impacts to the surrounding ■ The existing SH392 bridge over 1 -25 , built over 50 environment : years ago , is functionally obsolete ; and the number of ■ Full Diamond , 600-700 feet between ramp terminals lanes and shoulder width on the bridge do not meet ■ Tight Diamond , 300-450 feet between ramp terminals current or forecast traffic demands . ■ Single Point Urban Interchange , all ramps converge in ■ In addition to operational deficiencies , inadequate the middle intersection spacing and lack of turn lanes also lead to safety concerns . The interchange configuration , which is used as the ■ The relatively steep profile grades at the west basis for this report, is a tight diamond configuration . intersection approach further reduce the sight distance This configuration is recommended as part of the along SH392 and provide minimal vertical clearance ongoing North 1 -25 EIS . According to the EIS , over 1 -25 . preliminary evaluations of this interchange ■ The interchange and surrounding infrastructure provide configuration indicate the tight diamond will help avoid little or no features to accommodate pedestrian or significant environmental resource impacts and will bicycle travel . allow acceptable traffic operations . The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor analyses found that Overall , the interchange is outdated and does not meet both the tight and the full interchange perform the needs of the existing transportation network. adequately ; however, frontage roads required Delays and potential accidents , due to deficient design adjustment. The following intersection spacing is characteristics, will only increase as development in the recommended from the North 1 -25 EIS . The following area continues . intersection spacing is recommended from the North I - 25 EIS : Interchange Use by Origins-Destinations ■ 600 feet between the realigned west frontage road and Working with the North Front Range Metropolitan the southbound ramp terminal Planning Organization ( NFRMPO ) , data from the ■ 450 feet between ramp terminals regional travel demand model was used to estimate . 600 feet between the northbound ramp terminal to the major regional origins and destinations , which Westgate Drive currently use and are projected to use the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange . The 2000 Base Year Model is calibrated to 2000 U . S . Census data , and the 2030 Build Model reflects the 2030 programmed transportation network and 2030 socioeconomic forecasts for the region . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 10 - Interchange Use by Origin Destination Year 2000 Interchange Use By Origin - Destination Year 2000 Otjr wta NrRMPO Ragoon 11 .6% Natl. v.- 1 .0% 26 7 `>': Select Links SH 392 / 1 .25 Tmoam 01 % 25.8% VAndsor 3 O ' L IF. 11 .4`S4, 0 1 % 9 . 7 °4 0 4°/. 0.0°ip . M Mkon L J 0. 1 % South L&M1V 0.1 % p 21„ , 5artn K4W 0.6% Sources : % = Based on PM Peak Period Total Trips from North Front Range 2000 Base Year Travel Model Color scale ranges from light to dark blue based on increasing percentage use of interchange. ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 19 . ............................. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 11 - Interchange Use by Origin-Destination Year 2030 Interchange Use By Origin - Destination Year 2030 Oursxlir NfRMPO Rogan 4.6% f-(Vf GaBiq ; 31 W.", Select Links SH 392 1 1 -25 01 's 15�n;•vv 392 10 . 6 ^'- Cori, rnf Weld 3.3% Greeley 4. 1 % 10 ft 'r_ 0. 36% conhN rHne. 19 .6° ' . 0 .6" 0 2 ';S So,m Lamw 0.0% 0 .0% a 0.3% Sources 14 = Based on PM Peak Period Total Trips from North Front Range 2030 Build Travel Model Color scale ranges from light to dark blue based on increase in percentage use of interchange. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 12 - Existing Transportation Plans Map 1 1 � , 1 ,swede Labe � + + { t dq �r . { R { k 1 1 1. e 1 / 1 �Y Y r { Legend Corndar /5c" C. nw Fort Collins Master Street Plan G]lhdor i2 La nG 5}- Ourhide al GM A J +. Major Adanil i6 LanasF Quleide of GMA Windsor Master Street Plan ' w iJe6ar1 Major Goilacksi [2 tltla 4on"1 Ruhl U&Jar AAeriil (4 tlru Lams) !iM — Ue�6ar5 IAinDr AY6o-rial {-0 tYru Li1M9) p ppy 19mm Into angeExisting Transportation trstip Plan east ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 21 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Transit Sites were scored with regard to the criteria listed above , and are outlined in Figure 14 . Some sites were The surrounding cities of Fort Collins , Loveland and determined to have fatal flaws . These fatal flaws had to Greeley , each have existing transit systems , which do with issues regarding wetlands and provide public transportation within each city . All of threatened/ endangered species . For the site to be these services consist of bus service on fixed routes . considered to have a fatal flaw with regard to wetlands The City of Fort Collins TransFort bus system runs the would mean that over 20 % of the site would impact Fox Trot service hourly on US 287 between Fort Collins wetlands . For a site to be considered a fatal flaw due to and Loveland . None of these transit elements currently issues regarding threatened/ endangered species , the provides service to the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange area . station site would need to impact threatened/ endangered species considered high quality . More In addition to these existing services , two proposed specifically, if a site were within a '/4-mile buffer zone projects are listed on the NFRMPO 2030 RTP . These of a bald eagle nesting area , the site would be projects are the Fort Collins to Greeley Transit Service considered to have a fatal flaw. during peak hours with four roundtrips each weekday via SH14 ; and the Windsor Transit Service that would Five out of the potential 14 sites were determined to establish transit service in the Windsor area . Both of have fatal flaws (Figure 14 ) due to issues with either these projects could provide a connection from these one or a combination of the following criteria : wetlands municipalities to a proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and threatened/ endangered species . However, under station at the 1 -25/ SH392 Interchange via SH392 . closer examination , it was found that portions of Sites A through D would be outside of the bald eagle buffer The North 1 -25 DEIS Package B currently includes a zone . Therefore , these sites should not necessarily be proposed BRT station near the interchange at 1-25 and considered to have fatal flaws due to threatened/ SH392 . endangered species . Since these sites are not necessarily fatally flawed sites , their scores were Fourteen potential BRT sites surrounding the 1 -25/ 392 calculated as per the criteria mentioned above , and Interchange were evaluated for the North 1 -25 DEIS are included in Figure 15 . Package B Alternative . Evaluations were made using a series of station site evaluation criteria outlined in The sites with the highest potential for the BRT include Figure 13 . the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants of the interchange . Sites A and B scored highest among Figure 13 - Station Site Evaluation Criteria the sites in the northwest quadrant. A portion of either Parks Wetlands Environmental Justice Site A or Site B could accommodate a BRT station Hazardous Threatened/ without encroaching on the '/4- mile bald eagle buffer Historic Property Materials Endangered Species zone . Site C is already developed and should be Existing or Platform Site Platform Site removed from consideration . Site D scored significantly Committed Relationship — Relationship — lower than Sites A and B , and should be removed from Infrastructure BRT Commuter Bus consideration . Site M was identified as the preferred Site Access Traffic Impact Access to Bus Routes site by the North 1 -25 EIS . Further discussion of potential BRT sites can be found in next chapter. Pedestrian + Bicycle Zoning Adjacent Land Use Connectivity Compatible with Access to Plans Destinations/ Proximity to Residential Origins Parcel Availability Visual Impact Expansion Opportunity Joint Development Engineering Opportunity Source: North 1-25 EIS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . .................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 14 - Station Site Evaluation Potential Sites Comments Site Score * 1-25 and SH392 BRT-A Fatal Flaw TIE FF 1-25 and SH392 BRT-B Fatal Flaw TIE FF 1-25 and SH392 BRT-C - Hazmat/ Fatal Flaw TIE FF 1-25 and SH392 BRT-D Hazmat/ Fatal Flaw TIE FF 1-25 and SH392 BRT-E Fatal Flaw/ Wetlands FF 1-25 and SH392 BRT-F Can be located to mitigate 6 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-G 12 1-25 and SH392 BRT-H Can be located to mitigate 6 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-I Can be located to mitigate 0 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-J Can be located to mitigate 4 impacts to Bald Eagle 2% grade 1-25 and SH392 BRT-K Location already developed 12 1-25 and SH392 BRT-L Can be located to mitigate 8 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-M Can be located to mitigate 14 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-N Property owner opposed 14 1-25 and SH392 BRT-A Fatal Flaw TIE FF * FF = Fatal Flaw Source: North 1-25 EIS Figure 15 — Station Site Evaluation — Outside of Eagle Buffer Potential Sites Comments Site Score - i-• - 1-25 and SH392 BRT-A Can be located to mitigate 14 impacts to Bald Eagle population .• + 't '' + � ` 1-25 and SH392 BRT-B Can be located to mitigate 14 impacts to Bald Eagle population 1-25 and SH392 BRT-C Location already 2 developed 1-25 and SH392 BRT-D 6 SH392 on Westside of interchange. ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 23 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Infrastructure Existing utilities and infrastructure related to site _ development are described in the following paragraphs . An electric transmission line follows along the west edge of 1 -25 from the north end of the property to about '/4 mile south of SH392 , then crosses _ _over to the east edge of 1 -25 and proceeds south a through the remainder of the property . Poudre Valley REA would supply power to the site (overhead or Fossil Creek Reservoir outfall station. underground ) from this transmission line . The Fossil Creek Reservoir collects runoff from a Xcel Energy has an existing 4- inch plastic gas main in 28 . 25-square-mile drainage basin , and has a capacity SH392 , entering the east edge of the property and then of 11 , 100 acre-feet . Peak design flood inflow to the serving the Ptarmigan Center north and south along reservoir is 80 , 800 cfs ; outflow from the spillway for Westgate Drive . Another 4- inch plastic main in SH392 the design flood is 68 , 926 cfs (Figure 16) . Outflow serves Eagle Ranch Road to the west of the site . Both from Fossil Creek Reservoir and Fossil Creek is of these lines would be expanded to supply the site with discharged into the Cache La Poudre River natural gas . approximately two miles east of the site . Qwest serves telecommunications to existing customers within the project area . Fiber optic lines are available east of 1 -25 , and the section west of 1 -25 is copper line fed . Interaction with the Qwest LDA Coordinator would be necessary to initiate telecommunications throughout the undeveloped portion of the site . The Fort Collins—Loveland Water District / South Fort Collins Sanitation District presently serves customers in the project area with potable water and wastewater removal . There is a 12- inch water line in County Road 5 and a 24- inch line adjacent to SH392 east of 1 -25 . Wastewater on the east side could be collected by extending a line to the interceptor, which is 'h mile east of County Road 5 on 32E . Wastewater on the west of 1 -25 may be combined with the Eagle Ranch gravity feed system . Windsor Public Works supplies stormwater service to the Westgate Commercial Center and Ptarmigan Business Park east of 1 -25 . Since portions of the study area lie in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area , stormwater improvements on the west side of 1 -25 will need to be coordinated with the City of Fort Collins . The site drains from south to north . The southwestern corner of the site (west of 1 -25 and south of SH392 ) drains to Swede Lake . The rest of the site drains to the north , and ultimately to Fossil Creek or to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Outlet (the Fossil Creek Reservoir outlet crosses the very northern portion of the site) . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . ...........0..0..0.. . . ........0..0..0..... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 16 - Spillway i i 1 t . I 0 100 200 40 ROO r' ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 25 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Natural Areas & Open Lands Other natural features include : ■ Outlet from Swede Lake PROTECTED LANDS ■ Prairie dog colony northwest side of intersection of SH392 and 1-25 Fossil Creek Reservoir is one of the region ' s most ■ Wetlands on south side of Swede Lake important wildlife habitats . A complex of open water, ■ Wetlands on Swede Lake outlet wetlands , and riparian areas makes it a critical area ■ Other wetland areas for raptors , migratory waterfowl and nesting shorebirds . In addition to its role in sustaining the Wetlands on the parcel have been mapped by the U . S . region ' s ecosystem , it is a valuable open space Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service resource for the community . The site offers outstanding National ( USFWL) Wetland Inventory ( NWI ) (Windsor, recreational opportunities and preserves key viewsheds . Colorado Quadrangle 1996) and by Larimer County The designated open space is supplemented by several (Cooper and Merritt 1996 ) . Both mapping efforts used private conservation easements and other smaller city aerial photography to determine wetland areas . or county protected areas . Wetlands identified by Cooper and Merritt were based on the USFWS wetland definition , where a wetland City or County Protected Areas : would require only one of the three parameters of ■ Fossil Creek Regional Open Space wetland vegetation , hydrology , or soil to be classified ■ Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area as a wetland . Larimer County wetland mapping has ■ Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area also classified wetlands by wetland type and assigned a ■ City of Fort Collins Natural Area off northeast edge of quality rating . This mapping can be considered a Reservoir preliminary tool for determining jurisdictional wetlands for regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Several conservation easements in the vicinity of the Act (the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit study area : program . A wetland delineation , based on the 1987 ■ Fossil Lake PUD conservation easement Wetland Delineation Manual , would need to be ■ Dickinson conservation easement performed to determine if all three parameters (i . e . , ■ Conservation easement - north side of the reservoir occurrence of hydrophytic vegetation , hydric soils , and ■ Conservation easement - southern edge of Swede Lake wetland hydrology) were present, and thus potentially regulated by the Corps if they were determined to be WILDLIFE HABITAT "jurisdictional . " Both NWI and Larimer County mapping show wetland A search of county, state , Colorado Natural Heritage areas in or in close proximity to the project area ( Figure Program (CNHP) , and federal databases was 21 ) . Wetlands identified by NWI mapping include performed to determine if significant wildlife species or Swede Lake , which is classified as lacustreine limnetic / habitat were present or have the potential to occur in open water / artificial / intermittently exposed / the area . permanent ( NWI code of L10WKZ) , and surrounding emergent wetlands classified as palustrine emergent / Numerous city and county natural areas and open saturated / semi permanent / seasonal (PEMY) . lands are present in the vicinity of the project area and Wetlands identified by Larimer County mapping include the following : include herbaceous wet meadow, herbaceous salt ■ Eagle View City of Fort Collins Natural Area - meadow, herbaceous , bare mineral soil , aquatic, and approximately 86 acres , 1 . 5 miles north of project area littoral . Larimer County mapping also assigns an on the west side of I -25 importance , quality, and sensitivity ratings for each ■ Larimer County Fossil Creek Regional Open Space -located around Fossil Creek Reservoir wetland , each on a scale of 1 ( low) to 4 (high ) . Wetlands found in the project area ranged from a 1 to ■ Fossil Creek drainage - located '/2 mile north of project 4 rating , with most falling in the 3 to 4 category . Both area the NWI and Larimer County mapping were done over 10 years ago ; a field wetland delineation will be ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN necessary to make a final determination on the status blue heron , white pelicans , a variety of waterfowl , of wetlands . wading and shore birds , and other raptors . Several prairie dog towns are also found in the vicinity, which Likely jurisdictional wetlands in the project area would can provide nesting and habitat values to the Colorado include wetlands directly associated with the Fossil State threatened burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia ) . A Creek drainage and the drainage channel flowing list of Federal and Colorado State listed species of from Swede Lake to Fossil Creek . A " blue line , " either importance in Larimer County is presented in Figures solid or dashed , represents a drainage on a 1 : 24 , 000 17- 18 respectively . A search of the CNHP database USGS quadrangle map , and typically represent a indicated that no rare or imperiled species and natural "waters of the U . S . " that are regulated by the U . S . communities (an element occurrence or EO ) have been Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the recorded in the project area or the immediate vicinity Clean Water Act ( 1972 ) . If impacts to jurisdictional (CNHP 2007) . wetlands are greater than 0 . 5 acre , a Nationwide Permit # 14 would be required for construction and the general conditions of the permit followed . 90 Presidential Executive Order 11990 ( 1990 ) , Protection of Wetlands, was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 and requires all federal agencies to avoid and minimize impacts to the nation's wetlands , whether those impacts are direct or result in the indirect degradation of wetlands . All impacts to wetlands for CDOT projects must be mitigated — the size of the impact does not matter, nor does it matter whether the Critical roosting habitats on portions of Fossil Creek Reservoir. wetlands are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional ( non - jurisdictional wetlands include irrigation ditches and Bald eagles are one of the more notable species found roadside drainage ditches) . Mitigation for all wetland in the project area . The USFWS follows the Northern impacts that are either jurisdictional or non- States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan ( NSBERT 1983) jurisdictional would be at a replacement ratio of 1 to 1 . guidelines for protection of essential wintering areas , which are important for survival and recovery of the Figure 17 - Federally Listed Species for Larimer County, eagle . Essential winter habitats are defined as Colorado (USFWS 2007) and Potential for Occurrence in the " Locations used by 15 or more eagles for two weeks or Project Area more . " Areas in or near the project area falling under Common Scientific Status Potential for Occurrence these regulations would be portions of Fossil Creek Name Name Reservoir and Swede Lake . Bald eagles are known to Bald Haliaeetus Threatened Observed within and in occur in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area , specifically at Eagle leucocephalus the vicinity of the project area. Fossil Point ; along the shoreline of the northeast corner Black- Mustela Endangered Potential habitat for of the reservoir; and along the northwest corner of the footed nigripes species (prairie dog reservoir. Bald eagles use these areas for staging Ferret colonies) present on areas before moving to roost sites , as day and night site. No known past or time roosting areas , and have also been observed present occurrence on site. foraging in other areas of the reservoir. Colorado Gaura Threatened Potential habitat Butterfly neomexicana (wetlands and irrigation Surveys found that the greatest numbers of eagles Plant ssp. ditch) present on site. occurred in December and early January , and that few coloradensis No known past or present occurrence on remained by March (ERO 2006 ) . The nearest active site. nest site to the project area is located approximately * There is designated critical habitat for the species within the county. two miles east of Fossil Creek Dam along the Poudre River. Recommendations by CDOW include : "Activities Important wildlife in the vicinity of the project area should be eliminated within '/4- mile radius of winter includes bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) , great roosts between November 15 and March 15 (also a ............ ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 2 — EXISITING CONDITIONS 27 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Recent communications with CDOW specific to the - - 1.•, _ A . project indicate that because of the high level of pre- existing activity at the 1 -25/ 392 Interchange area , line of sight requirements would likely be waived . In addition , if construction activities are in proximity to the northeastern corner of the reservoir (i . e . , haul road location ) , proximity to roosts in this location may be an issue ( personal communication with Brent Bibles , CDOW , 2006) . Open lands on the northeast corner of interchange. REGULATIONS recommendation stated in the Fossil Creek Area Management Plan ( 1998 ) and the Resource Both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have Management & Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek specific regulations related to natural habitat and Reservoir Regional Open Space , EDAW, April 2003 ) features , including wetlands and natural areas . See Restrictions may be necessary out to line of sight from Figures 19-20 . The City has established buffers in their roost to activities . land use code (Fort Collins Land Use Code — Article 3 , General Development Standards , Section 3 . 4 . 1 — Figure 18 - List of State Special Status Species and their Buffer zone performance standards) for these areas . Potential to Occur in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Statusl Habitat and Occurrence AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens SC Potential habitat present around Swede Lake perimeter, ditches and canals. Minimal refugia from predators i. e. fish, herons. Occurrence unknown. REPTILES Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis SC Potential habitat present around margins of Swede Lake, ditches and canals. BIRDS Bald Eagle Haliaeetus ST Potential habitat present in Swede Lake and Fossil Creek Reservoir area. leucocephalus Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST Potential habitat present in prairie dog town areas. Occurrence unknown. I Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC Potential habitat present in prairie dog town areas. Occurrence unknown. Western Snowy Plover Charadrius SC Potential habitat present in prairie dog town areas. Occurrence unknown. alexandrinus Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SC Potential habitat present in prairie dog town areas. Occurrence unknown. Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus SC Potential habitat present around lake margins. Occurrence unknown. MAMMALS 1 Black-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE, SE Potential habitat present. Occurrence unknown. Preble's Meadow Zapus hudsonius FT, ST Potential habitat present around wetland margins. Occurrence unknown. Jumping Mouse _ preblei Black-tailed Prairie Cynomys ludovicianus SC Known to occur on site Dog Swift fox Vulpes velox SC Potential habitat present in prairie areas. Occurrence unknown. PLANTS _1U_ Colorado Butterfly Gaura neomexicana FT Potential habitat present in wetland areas. Occurrence unknown. Plant var. Coloradensis Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis FT Potential habitat present in wetland areas. Occurrence unknown. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 19 - Relevant Buffers Established by the City of Fort The City of Fort Collins City Plan Principles and Policies Collins for Natural Habitats and Features determines the City can best achieve the values and Buffer Zone ideals expressed in the Community Vision and Goals Isolated Areas Standard" document and the basic framework of the future of Fort Irrigation ditches that serve as wildlife 50 feet Collins as reflected in the City Structure Plan to the year corridors Isolated patches of native grassland or 50 feet 2025 . Relevant policies include the following : shrubland Isolated patches of native upland or riparian 50 feet ■ Fort Collins City Plan and Polices — Policy ENV-6. 1 , forest Protection and Enhancement. The City' s regulatory Woodlots/farmstead windbreaks 25 feet powers will be used to preserve , protect, and enhance Naturalized irrigation ponds 50 feet the resources and values of natural areas by directing Naturalized storm drainage 50 feet development away from sensitive natural features — channels/detention ponds such as wetlands , riparian areas and wildlife habitat. Lakes or reservoirs 100 feet When it is not possible to direct development away Wetlands < 7 /3 acre in size so feet from natural areas , these areas will be protected in the Wetlands > 113 acre in size, without 100 feet developed landscape . significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds ■ Fort Collins City Plan and Polices — Policy OL- 1 .2, Wetlands > 7 /3 acre in size with significant 300 feet Open Lands, The City will conserve and integrate use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds. Stream Corridors open lands into the developed landscape by directing Fossil Creek and Tributaries loo feet development away from natural habitats and features , Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Conce and by using innovative planning , design , and rn Bald eagle communal feeding sites 660 feet management practices . When it is not possible to Bald eagle communal roost sites 1 , 320 feet direct development away from natural habitats and Red-tailed ferruginous and Swainson 's hawk 1 , 32o feet features , they should be integrated into the developed nest sites landscape in a manner that conserves their integrity . If Winter raptor concentration areas 300 feet integration will not effectively conserve the integrity of Great blue heron colonial nest sites 825 feet the natural habitats and features , then either on-site or Migratory waterfowl concentration areas 300 feet off-site mitigation will be applied . The City will Nesting waterfowl concentration areas 300 feet encourage and assist efforts by private landowners and Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Concern organizations to integrate open lands into new Migratory shorebird concentration areas 300 feet development, and to protect, restore , or enhance Nesting shorebird concentration areas 300 feet privately owned natural areas within the Growth Migratory songbird concentration areas 300 feet Management Area . Locations of Preble's meadow jumping mouse 300 feet ■ Fort Collins City Plan and Polices - Policy OL- 1 .6, Locations of rare butterfly species site analysis Preservation , Protection and Enhancement of Natural Locations of rare, threatened or endangered site analysis Area . The City will acquire and manage land and plant species water to preserve , protect, and enhance natural areas . Locations of geological or paleontological sites site analysis of special interest Other regulations and guidelines that may be specific Table distances may be modified as described in Section 3. 4. 1 (E) ( 1 ) to wildlife species in the project area include : above to meet performance standards. "Buffer zone table distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to topography. Measurements will be made from the ■ Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Act outer edge of the natural habitat or feature to the boundary of the lot, provides protection for plants and animals whose tract, or parcel of land that defines and describes the development. populations are dwindling to levels that are no longer sustainable in the wild . The Act sets out a process for listing species , which allows for petition from any party to list a plant or animal . ■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 . The Act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles , with limited exceptions . ■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The Act decreed that all migratory birds and their parts ( including eggs , nests, and feathers) were fully protected . ............ ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 2 — EXISITING CONDITIONS 29 . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ■ Programmatic Biological Assessment, Conference The following weeds have not been declared noxious , Report, and Conservation Strategy for Impacts from but are troublesome : Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive ■ Perennial Pepperweed or Tall Whitetop (Lepidium Species on Colorado' s Central Short Grass Prairie . latifolium ) U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service ' s programmatic ■ Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba ) biological opinion on impacts to federally listed endangered and threatened species associated with A weed survey of the site should be conducted before Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding of the any construction occurs . Questions to be addressed Colorado Department of Transportation ' s (CDOT) include : routine maintenance and upgrade activities on existing ■ How will costs be equitably apportioned between Fort transportation corridors of eastern Colorado over the Collins , Windsor, CDOT , NFRMPO and CAC next 20 years . landowners , and residents and business owners in the SOILS greater vicinity? ■ Which type of district is most appropriate to achieve the funding goals of the project? Soils on the site are dominated by the Wiley silt loamy , ■ If a district is formed , which municipality might oversee which are well drained upland soils that formed in its formation and administration ? uniform , silty , wind deposited material ( NRCS 1980 ) . ■ Will Larimer County participate in district These soils are mildly alkaline , and are typically used administration or revenue enforcement? for dry-farmed crops and for pasture and native ■ Which governmental entity will be responsible for tax or grasses . The range site for the Wiley silt loam is fee collection enforcement? " loamy plains. " Soils of the Longmont series are found ■ Will the municipalities support the bond issuance in a small area adjacent to the eastern perimeter of necessary for interchange improvements? Or will the Swede Lake . These soils are deep and poorly drained district be solely responsible? and formed in alluvium , mainly from clay shale . ■ What is CDOT' s role in funding or maintaining the Surface soils are strongly alkaline and are used for improved interchange? native grasses . The range site for the Longmont series ■ Who will "own " the overpass once it is improved? is "salt meadow. " None of the soils found in the project area are listed as hydric on the Colorado Figure 20 - Buffers established by Larimer County for Natural Hydric Soil list ( USDA 1980) . Habitats & Features. Natural Habitat or Feature Buffer Zone WEEDS Bald eagle winter roost sites 1 , 320 foot Bald eagle hunting and feeding sites 660 to 1 , 320 feet Control of weeds is addressed by the Larimer County Colonial nesting sites for great blue heron 825 feet Weed Control Districts and is regulated under Chapter and blackcrowned night herons 20 , Article III of the Fort Collins City Code ( 1987 ) . Wading bird, shorebird and waterfowl 300 feet production areas, wintering areas or Weeds identified on the Larimer County weed list feeding areas include : ■ Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) ■ Knapweed , diffuse (Centaurea diffusa ) ■ Knapweed , Russian (Acroptilon repens) ■ Knapweed , spotted (Centaurea maculosa ) ■ Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula ) ■ Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) ■ Toadflax, Dalmatian (Linaria genistifolia ) ■ Toadflax, yellow (Linaria vulgaris ) ■ Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima, parviflora ) ■ Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) Southwest vacant land and wetlands. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 21 - Existing Inventory of Natural Resources Fossil Creek Reservoir . 4 1 / r I ' 1 Swede Lake I Y / 9 - ._ t I RI Legend Potential Eagle Sues .1 = = Prane Dog Town Wetlands Corridor Act vdy Center o ao xc rax Interchange Improvement mrxisting Inventory of • Plan ML ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 2 - EXISITING CONDITIONS 31 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 3 ■ Which governmental entity will be responsible for tax or fee collection enforcement? Issues ■ Will the municipalities support the bond issuance necessary for interchange improvements? Or will the district be solely responsible? The following list contains issues relevant to the I - m What is CDOT' s role in funding or maintaining the 25/ SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan . The issues improved interchange? are listed according to their priority, as interpreted from � Who will "own " the overpass once it is improved? initial stakeholder, property owner and TAC meetings . GMA Expansion Key properties near the interchange are currently not within the Town of Windsor' s Urban Growth Area ( UGA) or the City of Fort Collin ' s Growth Management Area (GMA) . Inclusion of property within the GMA permits greater control of the development by the municipalities . Alternatively, properties outside these areas may develop at lower intensity which may or may not be consistent with the ultimate vision for the area . West Frontage Road at 1-25/SH392 interchange. Funding Partnerships / Intergovernmental Early in the process , funding emerged as high priority Forging successful partnerships between landowners to both stakeholders and the government entities and among agencies is an integral part of this project' s involved . Despite the obvious need to improve the success . Partnerships between landowners will interchange , there is a lack of adequate public funds to facilitate unified development of the area . finance the project . Landowners of the affected Intergovernmental coordination will serve as the properties are motivated to move forward and will be foundation for a viable financing solution . key to reaching a fair and equitable solution . Beyond the immediate stakeholders mentioned , there is The interchange serves two incorporated communities potential for the greater communities to play a small as well as residents in the unincorporated area . The role in the financing strategy. financial burden of upgrading the current facility will be borne by the City of Fort Collins , the Town of Windsor, Most financial issues are associated with ensuring an NFRMPO , landowners in the immediate vicinity , and equitable method of attributing improvement costs to CDOT . A taxing district will most likely be necessary to those parties that benefit directly from interchange collect taxes or fees , and to fund interchange improvements . Specifically , financial issues include : replacement and frontage road realignment . There are ■ What physical locations or classification of highway several issues that arise when cooperation is required users benefit from interchange improvement? from several jurisdictional layers : ■ How can costs be apportioned to follow benefit? ■ How will costs be equitably apportioned between Fort ■ What type of fee or tax structure is most appropriate to Collins , Windsor, CDOT , NFR MPO and CAC provide a reliable revenue stream ? landowners , and residents and business owners in the ■ What is the appropriate balance of cost burden greater vicinity? between residential and commercial land uses? ■ Which type of district is most appropriate to achieve the ■ Should future development be burdened more or less funding goals of the project? than current development? ■ If a district is formed , which municipality might oversee ■ Are fees , such as impact fees , special assessments or its formation and administration ? motor vehicle registration fees , a more appropriate ■ Will Larimer County participate in district funding mechanism to employ than property taxes or administration or revenue enforcement? public investment fees? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 3 - ISSUES 33 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Transportation Natural Resources With the current interchange , there are major traffic The protection of natural resources is a driving force in congestion and service problems . The interchange is the interchange improvement plan . In this case , a unable to adequately handle the traffic capacity that is regulatory requirement gives it precedence over many currently passing through it during peak hours . Some other issues of the project. Various levels of restrictions models suggest that traffic at the interchange will more exist pertaining to federally endangered species and than double by 2030 . With traffic already beyond its wetland protection . These resources center on Fossil capacity here , this issue is fundamental to all the rest . Creek Regional Open Space although , these resources A local road system that works in conjunction with a extend beyond these boundaries . functioning interchange has not been identified to- date . � AW . fA7 Wildlife habitat near Fossil Creek Reservoir shoreline. SEES Peak hour traffic on 1-25/SH392 bridge. Development including residential development and road realignment in the project area need to address TRANSIT AND TRAILS traffic volumes and flows will take place in or near areas where wetlands and other habitat important to Transit is a key component of the transportation vision wildlife presently occurs . Potential impact areas may of CDOT , NFR MPO , Fort Collins and Windsor. The include grassland which is important as a buffer location of this area as the gateway to Windsor and the between the Interstate and the lake and is likely used southern terminus of Fort Collins make it a strategic as a forage area for a variety of wildlife including location transit. The viability of this transit hub will raptors . depend on the land uses that are planned in the vicinity , the development of viable transit service and Other potential disturbance areas include wetlands , the provision of a new transit facility . A key issue will some which will be jurisdictional . The Fossil Creek be the need to preserve a parcel of land for a new outlet from Fossil Creek Reservoir is located at the transit facility. northern portion of this area . Water flows support riparian vegetation in this drainage which creates Trails also need to be developed as part of the habitat for wildlife , including great blue herons , which transportation system . Key issues associated with trails were observed along banks of the creek in January . in this area include : Other wetlands mapped by Larimer County are found ■ The locations of trails near sensitive natural resources around the perimeter of both Swede Lake and Fossil ■ The challenge with having trails and pedestrian Creek Reservoir to the west of the grassland area . crossings across 1 -25 and ; These wetlands may be jurisdictional by their ■ The need to preserve trail corridors in three connection to Fossil Creek which is connected to the jurisdictions . Poudre River, a "water of the US . " Wetlands along the perimeter of the lake and reservoir are dominated by mature cottonwood and peach- leaf willow with an understory of coyote willow and other grasses and forbs . The location of a potential raptor nest has been observed in this stand of cottonwoods . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 CHAPTER 3 - ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN The value of these wetlands to wildlife would be for species for food acquisition , nesting and denning , thermal and escape cover as well as perching and loafing , roosting , and as travel corridors and are nesting areas for birds including bald eagles and great influenced by what occurs in surrounding area . blue herons . The shoreline at this location may also Encroachment into existing habitat and introduction of provide feeding areas for shore and wading birds . people and their pets into areas adjacent to wildlife concentration areas can cause stress to these A second area of possible impact would be west of I - populations , which if it occurs at critical periods such 25 between the RV sales center and Swede Lake . nesting , can reduce the numbers of a population . Currently a distance of approximately 200 feet separates the RV property from the edge of Swede Land Use Lake . Wetlands along the lake margin are dominated by cottonwoods . The outlet to Swede Lake would need The current land uses found in the interchange area is to be crossed if a road alignment were to be located in a mixture of estate residential , commercial , and open this area . Wetlands that occur in this area would likely lands . The area is still in transition and its ultimate be found to be jurisdictional by the Corps if a form is still to be determined . Community plans connection to a "water of the U . S . " (the Poudre River) provide a glimpse of the future once there is the was found . As habitat for wildlife , the lakeside required transportation infrastructure . With improved wetlands in this location provide thermal and escape access and capacity, the area could transform into a cover for a variety of species as well as travel corridor thriving commercial center that also includes some to other portions of the lake and reservoir complex . integration of residential development and open space preservation . A key challenge will be the consolidation A third location where impacts to habitat would likely of parcels to ensure the area is planned holistically . occur is to the north and south of 392 where the drainage crosses cross ' s the roadway . Realignment of Design a roadway at this location may encroach upon the edge of an existing wetland . This area currently As part of the Interchange Improvement Plan , the site supports a cattail wetland . NWI wetland mapping area could transform into a distinctive gateway area for shows palustrine wetlands at this location and Larimer Windsor and Fort Collins . This would require County has mapped the area as having littoral and salt collaboration between the two communities to develop meadow wetlands . Importance of this wetland to a unified design theme for gateway elements and wildlife would be primarily as a movement corridor funding to support these enhancements . Such from other habitat areas and as escape and thermal elements could include signage , landscape features , a cover. This drainage continues to the south but is pedestrian bridge , and actual interchange design . concentrated in what appears to be a remnant channel that was used to drain agricultural water used for Utilities irrigating croplands . Several small stands of Russian olive and cottonwood trees are present along the The site ' s current infrastructure will need to be drainage . Habitat values in the location of the upper improved to accommodate the increased use that will drainage are minimal as little cover or other habitat is occur once the interchange is improved and the land is present. developed . Adequate public facility requirements necessitate that the property is able to be serviced by Development near or in wetlands and other habitats in water and sewer prior to approving future the project area will have the effect of reducing natural developments . habitat around a concentration area (Fossil Creek Reservoir and Swede Lake) for a variety of avian and terrestrial species . Fossil Creek Reservoir, Swede Lake , and the surrounding upland areas provide habitat for a ducks , geese , wading and shore birds , as well as various raptors . Grasslands , shrubs stands and wetland margins in the area can also be important to terrestrial animals . These areas are used by these ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 3 - ISSUES 35 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 CHAPTER 3 - ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 4 ■ Whether the proposed amendment would offer a desirable new "edge" to the community ; Opportunities & ■ Whether the existing boundary to be extended is contiguous to existing developed areas of the city, and ; ■ Whether the proposed amendment would contribute to Constraints the compact urban form of the city . Elaborating on the Issues List found in Chapter III , an P2 PROPERTY CONSOLIDATION assessment of opportunities and constraints that affect the planning and development of the interchange area Opportunity was made . The assessment is based on analysis of the The current land ownership pattern found in the existing conditions, property owner meetings , site visits , interchange area is not ideally suited for unified and TAC meetings . For each issue , a discussion of the commercial development to occur at one time . The opportunities and constraints is provided , followed by a main reason for this is the lack of large parcels with a map illustrating them collectively. small number of owners . Consolidating land in the process of sale for development would facilitate Partnerships cohesive transformation of the area . P1 FORT COLLINS LAND ANNEXATION Constraints Forging partnerships between private landowners will Opportunity be challenging due to conflicts of goals and perceived The potential exists for the City of Fort Collins to equitability to individuals . It may also be difficult to expand their GMA in the southwest quadrant of the identify willing buyers to elicit the process of land interchange area , north of County Road 30 and east of consolidation until the future funding structure for the Boyd Lake Road . interchange is in place . Constraints Funding If an appropriate opportunity exists , the City Council would evaluate the GMA expansion against the F1 INTERCHANGE FINANCING following criteria : ■ Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with Opportunities community goals , principles , and policies as expressed There are opportunities to fund the interchange in City Plan ; improvement primarily related to those stakeholders ■ Whether the proposed amendment has a positive net who will benefit as well as public sources (see Chapter fiscal benefit to the community ; I ) . The stakeholders most impacted by the poorly ■ Whether the proposed amendment is necessary to functioning interchange are the landowners in the accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably immediate CAC area . Because they will experience the accommodated on lands within the existing GMA greatest benefit from the project, such as heightened boundary ; property values , retail sales , and access , they have the ■ Whether the land proposed for inclusion in the GMA biggest opportunity to benefit and potentially contribute contains any environmental resources or hazard to funding . Other funding tools could include other constraints that make the area unsuitable for its beneficiary of the improvements , such as those within proposed use ; and the 1 -25/ SH392 travelshed who use the interchange on ■ Whether the proposed amendment would result in a a regular basis . The last opportunity for funding logical change to the Growth Management Area . comes from the surrounding communities , NFRMPO and CDOT ; all of whom will benefit from interchange Factors to be included in making this determination will improvements . include , but need not be limited to , the following : ■ Whether the proposed amendment would allow for the Three overall funding opportunities are uniquely suited logical , incremental extension of urban services ; to the issues associated with this interchange . These ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 4 - OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS 37 . . ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN options need to help ensure a bondable and reliable preferred in the DEIS . The second alternative is closer revenue stream . Opportunities include : to alignments preferred by stakeholders , opens up a ■ Focus on private sources in the immediate area and significant amount of land for development (and include a special assessment , public improvement fee therefore the opportunities associated with and property tax associated with CAC landowners , as development, refer to Land Use on page 40) . These well as an impact fees for the travelshed . alternatives would take on a westernmost alignment ■ Focus on private sources described above , as well as through this quadrant, allowing the land east of the financial support from CDOT, the NFRMPO , and the frontage road and west of 1 -25 to be developed . This municipalities of Windsor and Fort Collins . would create a new north / south local road integrating ■ Focus on private and public forces described above as properties in the area . This would also create a new well as an expanded property tax district. intersection several hundreds of feet away from the interchange . The location of the new frontage road on Constraints the east side of the interchange has already been As described in the Chapter III and later in Chapter VII , preliminary defined . funding constraints , include stakeholder's willingness to solve the problem , the need for large commercial Constraints development, ensuring the project can be bonded , the Constraints to the frontage road realignment include challenges passing new taxes , as well as which funding wildlife buffers associated with bald eagle roosting and tools are appropriate . feeding areas , Fossil Creek and wetlands . There is also the potential for direct impacts to wetlands Transportation adjacent to lake and along SH392 , as well as the dam spillway area . Mitigation and design measures would T1 INTERCHANGE REPLACEMENT need to address any direct impacts of frontage road realignment. Opportunity As discussed in the previous sections of this report , the interchange is currently operating at failing levels of service during peak hours of the day and does not meet AASHTO standards . The replacement of the interchange would alleviate identified concerns . - - Currently, the tight diamond is proposed as the 1 preferred interchange design . Constraints The foremost constraint to replacing the interchange is Northwest Frontage Road looking south. , the cost . Despite it being identified by CDOT as a high priority project , there is lack of public funds available to Transit/ Trails finance the project. Finding a viable and equitable funding strategy is paramount to the project. Related 71 INTEGRATION OF MULTI - MODAL to this , intergovernmental coordination is a factor that TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS has also constrained the replacement of the interchange . Opportunities The interchange' s convenient location along 1 -25 and T2 FRONTAGE ROAD REALIGNMENT between several growing communities makes it an ideal location to become a hub for northern Colorado Opportunity commuters . The proposed BRT from the North 1 -25 EIS The North 1 -25 EIS identifies two potential alignments could be integral to serving this purpose . Additional for the frontage road on the northwest quadrant of the multi- modal options that should be integrated into the interchange area . The first alignment leaves it close to development of the interchange area include bike and where it is , which is close to the highway, leaving open pedestrian lanes , bus stations for local service , and area to the west of the road . This is identified as possibly a pedestrian bridge to connect development ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........ 38 CHAPTER 4 — OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN on both sides of the highway . The NFRMPO is also Natural Resources considering the development of a regional serving transportation system . The strategic location of the NR1 COMMUNITY ASSET area and the potential to connect three communities provides an opportune location for this type of transit . Opportunities As described in the Transportation section of Chapter Wetlands - Various options for mitigating development 11 , a number of BRT sites scored high in the North 1 -25 impacts to wetlands within the interchange area exist, EIS , with the M alternative ( located in the southeastern including on -site , off-site , and mitigation banking . The corner of the Plan study area ) receiving the highest preferred mitigation approach will be dependent upon composite score . However, based on interviews with the location and classification of each wetland . There the 1-25/SH392 TAC , frontage road realignments and is the potential to also enhance key wetland area proposed future land uses may prove that the (mitigation sites) improving their functionality . southwest quadrant of the study area may serve as the best BRT location for the community . The BRT station will likely begin as a Park-and -Ride service . Unlike what is illustrated in the DEIS document, one opportunity is to access the BRT from both sides of the interstate (discussed in further detail in Chapter 5) . ' Constraints Each of the multi -modal transportation elements will need time , money , and public support to be realized . ' The BRT station in particular is part of the EIS process and needs further analysis to reach the most Endangered orchid, Ute Ladies-tresses (spiranthas diluvialis) . appropriate site . As the development of the interchange area progresses , it will be an ongoing goal Threatened and Endangered Species - Avoidance of to integrate these transportation options to connect the threatened and endangered species will occur where communities better, but will surely receive some public possible . Otherwise , mitigation measures could be opposition , inadequacy of funds , and design considered . challenges . Land preservation for facilities that are planned far out in the future posses another challenge . Other Wildlife - The interchange area provides habitat It will be up to the communities to determine whether to a multitude of wildlife species that are not protected land is set aside for this facility . A key factor in any by legal regulations . In these cases , the project should decision will the development plans of property owners . seek to avoid the species where possible . Constraints il Constraints include the numerous Federal , state , and local regulations summarized in the following table .1 Key applicable buffers include a 100 to 300-foot buffer from the riparian edge of Fossil Creek Reservoir and a 1 , 320-foot buffer from bald eagle roosting areas . BRT at 18'h Street in Denver, Colorado. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 4 — OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS 39 .. ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 22 - Buffers Constraints Name Jurisdiction Policy Guiding Regulation Bald eagle USFS (threatened) Endangered Species Act, Referred to CDOW raptor specialists' protection- Federal Western States Bald Eagle recommendation Protection Plan Bald eagle CDOW State Species of Concern List Various buffers: protection- state Communal feeding area = 300 ft Roosting = 1320 ft Raptor concentration area = 300 ft Bald eagle City of Fort Collins / City and County code as Yield to CDOW raptor specialists' buffer protection- local Larimer County recommended by the Fossil recommendations Creek RMP Wetland protection City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4. 7 Natural Lakes or reservoirs- 100 ft Habitats and Features-Buffer Wetlands < 1 /3 acre- 50 ft Zone Standards Wetlands > 1 /3 acre, without significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds- 100 ft Wetlands > 1 /3 acre in size with significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds-300 ft Wetland protection Larimer County 8. 2. 8. Wetland Development The following minimum buffer areas must be Standards established from the boundary of a wetland: 1 . Wetlands of one acre or less-50 ft. 2. Wetlands of more than one acre- 100 ft. 3. Class 3 and 4 wetlands of any size as delineated on Lorimer County Partnership Land Use System Wetland Classification and Protection Program Maps- 100 ft. Land Use supporting residential uses , integrate a mix of uses , LL11 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL and capitalize of future transit development. The largest vacant properties are described in the Opportunities following table . The interchange area has the potential to become a thriving commercial center of northern Colorado once Figure 23 - Vacant Properties transportation improvements area made . Being Parcel No Acres Future Land Use Jurisdiction situated along the interstate has proven to bring in 8622247702 30 Commercial Fort Collins substantial numbers of consumers . The area will attract business as a major destination point, as well as 8622000003 30 Employment Windsor bring in business from those who use the area on a 8615000001 34 Commercial Windsor regular basis for travel to other areas . A mixture of development in this area will likely bring the most 8615000021 36 Commercial Windsor success , as it must distinguish itself from the other big- box development centers along 1 -25 , such as Centerra , 8610000015 39 Residential Mixed Use Windsor Westminster/Thornton , and the upcoming Super Wal - 8622000077 39 Commercial Fort Collins Mart development on East Harmony Road . 8675000005 40 Commercial Fort Collins Property consolidation would encourage the (portion within CAC) development of this area in the most efficient, 8615000017 41 Commercial Windsor structured manner. The success of commercial 8622000004 58 Employment Windsor development within this study area will generate tax revenue for Fort Collins and Windsor. To ensure the 8615000020 78 Residential Mixed Use Windsor area ' s success , proposed developed must include ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 40 CHAPTER 4 — OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Constraints Design To realize the opportunity described above , the greatest challenge is the need to cohesively plan the area . D1 GATEWAY DESIGN Currently there are approximately 30 private landowners within the CAC . These landowners must Opportunity work together and communicate in order to create a As discussed in Chapter III , the 1 -25/SH392 development that will compete against other northern Interchange is clearly a central access point for two Colorado developments . Likewise , developers must growing communities . The interchange area has the coordinate with each other and City and Town opportunity to become a striking gateway for not only planners to reach the most lucrative mixture of Windsor and Fort Collins , but a memorable feature to development. A second challenge will be to carefully all travelers arriving in northern Colorado . Unique , integrate land uses with the surrounding natural thematic design features carried through on welcome resources . signs , landscaping , pedestrian overpasses and bridges , the area will serve the communities as an attractive , revenue-generating entryway . Land use can also support the gateway concept. New offices and other _ � �^ — r mixed -use development, back-dropped by Fossil Creek Reservoir and the mountains , can create a unique statement. The proposed BRT station development and the interchange are also unique opportunities to fulfill WJ 7 this goal . Y . gag Harmony Corridor Gateway Landscape features on Westside. a , � • Vag eg�. O�dr 40 • L Bridge at the Harmony Road exit on eastside. Constraints To become a noticeable gateway area , the project will require funding and design coordination between Fort Collins and Windsor. While both communities could have unique requirements , they should follow some common themes and integrate well with the entire area ' s design . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 4 — OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS 41 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................................................................................... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..... 42 CHAPTER 4 - OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 5 Overall , SH392 will need to be widened and reconstructed . The Plan addresses the first '/4-mile on Interchange either side of the interchange . The road in this section is expected to be a minimum of four lanes , following Improvement the cross section outlined in SH392 EOS . According to the EOS , additional ROW may be necessary . At a Plan minimum , additional ROW will be needed at intersections where left and right turn bays are necessary . The framework plan outlines the preferred SH392 will be widened and/or reconstructed to transportation , land use , and natural resources accommodate the new diamond interchange frameworks necessary to address current issues , configuration between Westgate Drive and the new capitalize on opportunities, and set the stage for west frontage road intersection . The roadway section funding scenarios described in the next chapter. will taper to the existing roadway width outside of these Transportation Framework limits . A significant portion of the roadway and associated sidewalks , curb and gutter, signals, lighting , The 1-25/ SH392 interchange will be completely and other elements will need to be reconstructed to reconstructed , largely according to the tight diamond accommodate the widened bridge cross section . configuration preferred in the North 1 -25 DEIS . This The frontage roads on the east side of the interchange will include bridge replacement, reconstruction of have previously been realigned to intersect SH392 at SH392 to tie in with the existing highway , frontage Westgate Drive . On the west side , the three frontage road relocation and/or reconstruction , ramp improvements , and acceleration/ deceleration lanes on road options (see Figures 24-26) would intersect 1 -25 . SH392 , creating new north -south road options . This will create a new signalized intersection at this location . The new bridge will carry a total of four lanes (two Option A, the proposed westernmost alignment , would through lanes in each direction ) , bike/ pedestrian path provide the optimal development opportunities ; however, the road is located within 100 feet of Fossil in each direction , back-to-back double left turn lanes , Creek Reservoir. Option B is sited to be outside of and a raised median . It will provide bike/ pedestrian access , consistent with future sidewalk and trail plans . recommended environmental buffers , except where The length of the proposed bridge will be significantly existing development is present. The North I-25 EIS longer than the existing bridge in order to preferred alternative would locate the frontage road accommodate the ultimate section of 1 -25 . Piers will closer to 1-25 (Option C ) . be located so as to preserve the median to allow for future transit plans on I -25 , consistent with the North I - The funding options described in the next chapter 25 EIS . It will be located with its centerline close to that address only limited frontage road and SH392 of the existing bridge . Phased construction of the improvements , as well as a new bridge and interchange ramps . Costs focus on the minimum bridge will be required in order to maintain traffic, amount necessary to construct a new interchange and which may require the new centerline to vary slightly SH392 to both frontage roads . The cost does include from its existing position . improvements associated with transit or Park-and- Ride All four ramps will need to be reconstructed to facilities . accommodate the preferred tight diamond alternative . The west ramps will intersect SH392 closer to 1 -25 than the existing ramps , and all ramps will need to be adjusted vertically to meet the proposed SH392 grade . Additionally , widening will be required along the outside edges of 1 -25 to accommodate the new acceleration/ deceleration lanes at the ramps . ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 43 . ............................. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 24 - Future Transportation (Planned & Proposed) . r' •sir ' i ' lwi , , .. . Swede Lake i r t �rL f i I � i I i i r F%* ; oil Legend Corridor AUUM center -ngF. Diarnard Ir."ange Future Road -Classifications Calleotor [21hru Lares; Nlnor Arlefal (4 IhrL LanEs i lVaJorMEral (4 thrL Lanesl + a rx ii1Wr�.'LLLJJJ � Jautu Improvement • i i Proposed ) Flan PP ........................................................................................................................................................................... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..... 44 CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . .................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 25 - NW Frontage Road Alternatives Legend FDsall OrEA Res. 33D Ft. Bu'er •. ., 0 Woe Jar � WYeJar & S&OIC0 Ft. BwWr CoRldorACtl ycerrter Tty'it 7lammd r L • r� ' Swede Lake F #" fp r APPrax. 2D7 TE-Et I APProx. 19D reEi x ■ • r�r Or i I I ' 1 • I I I I I A it r . I f�� I f ff I r f } � i A 1 I - � 1 i Fee- f J uJ 3J 4 1 inch equals 150 feet Inmrc Pangs Octa , Improvement NW Frontage • + Alternatives Plan ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 45 . ............................. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 26 - SW Frontage Road Alternatives Swede Lake Legend I f`yf F Fossll Creek Res. 33D Ft. 6u'er ® 'Ake73nda 54101) Ft. Eumer i I Carr1dvrl4UYHY Center } I Tight Diamond I r I I f I nrMJflff 92 , I r � I r I I +. ' 1 , r I I � . I r � I I I I � � , �p � r I I - I � r I I I I k 1 I I Fee- D 1vJ 3DO I 1 inch equals ,150 feet IsiE117�174Y7dg9 Improvement SW Frontage • s Alternatives r< Plan FF ........................................................................................................................................................................... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..... 46 CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 27 - Bus Rapid Transit Station - Access from East & West TRAM TRAVR VA -frl ILUE Pt ATIORM R69 Y14AM rn 'RAVEL *RAV£l LAM LANE 'C L lAN[ LOADMC LQADWV0 LAAC FTOLL L *A& LANE I Y/tl4tn E1.� WRff f SB 1 . 25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NB 1 -25 Note: The following cross section was modified from North 1-25 DEIS to illustrate a concept. This cross section differs from the single side access depicted in the DEIS. Details such as to// lanes, bypass lanes, etc. may not be representative of final design. Transit service such as local and regional bus service , Land Use Framework in combination with highway capacity improvements that include bike paths and sidewalks , will provide The future land use for the Corridor Activity Center alternative transportation options to communities (CAC) generally follows the City of Fort Collins City surrounding the 1 -25/ SH392 interchange . As describe Plan (2004 ) and the Town of Windsor' s in Chapter 2 , other transit options will be greatly Comprehensive Plan (2006 ) . The western half of the influenced by which transit options are selected in the study area may consist of commercial/ mixed use North 1 -25 EIS (e . g . commuter rail or BRT on 1 -25) . comprised of retail space , offices , and higher density residential units . The eastern side may consist of mostly Local bus service from the new transit hub at College commercial and employment parcels. Ave . and Harmony Rd . would act as a feeder system to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Park-and-Ride Areas to the east and/or west will be supported by hub within the CAC . According to the DEIS , if Package parking and commercial uses associated BRT/ Park- B is selected , a BRT facility within the CAC would be and-Ride facilities . New transit oriented development located in the median of the highway with a pedestrian may be integrated with adjacent commercial and bridge connecting it to a Park-and -Ride facility on the employment lands . Lower density neighborhoods will east side of 1-25 (see Figure 27 ) . There would be 143 be located in key areas , providing a compatible parking spaces at this location to provide for transition to lower density neighborhoods adjacent to carpooling services for local communities . As depicted the CAC . in Figure 27 , this plan proposes that the BRT be located in the center of 1 -25 and be accessed from Park-and- New development will adhere to design standards Ride facilities on both sides of 1 -25 via a pedestrian established for this area as described in both Windsor bridge . If the BRT alternative is not proposed by the and Fort Collins' land use codes . EIS , the plan assumes that Park-and-Ride facilities in this location would still be constructed along with the new pedestrian bridge over 1 -25 . Additional transportation options could include a dedicated on-street bike lane for cyclists , a detached sidewalk for pedestrians , and a trail for other users . ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ CHAPTER 5 — INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 47 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Natural Resources Framework The natural resource framework centers on the Fossil Creek Reservoir and Open Space and its associated wetlands . Existing regulations , standards , and guidelines should continue to protect the key natural resources in the area . The range of buffers identified include a 100 to 300 foot buffer of the edge of the natural features surrounding Fossil Creek in order to further protect this sensitive resource . A 50 foot buffer is identified for wetlands not immediately adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. Based on resource agency recommendations , a buffer of 1 , 320 feet is proposed to protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by CDOW (See Figure 29) . The identified ranges of natural resource buffers provide a framework for future discussions . For projects within the Fort Collins GMA, a final buffer setback determination will be made in response to proposed future development through the City' s Development Review Center. See Figure 30 As Figure 28 indicates , buffer distances increase with the sensitivity of the resource . This is reflected in the alternatives for the western frontage road alignments ( Figure 25) . Frontage road options B and C are located outside of recommended buffer distances (except where existing development is present) . Option C is located within the 300 foot Fossil Creek buffer; however a 100 foot buffer is maintained . Frontage road options A and B cross a potential jurisdictional wetland south of SH392 . Mitigation of existing wetland areas at a minimum ratio of 1 : 1 is recommended . Wetland mitigation sites could include the expansion of the existing wetland , enhancement of the wetlands associated with the existing canal , or off-site mitigation of existing wetlands such as Duck Lake . Additional information can be found in Chapter 2 . Figure 28 — Range of Identified Buffers Resource Buffer Bald Eagle 1 , 300 feet Fossil Creek Reservoir 300 feet Wetland (northwest corner 100 feet adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir Other Wetlands ` 5o feet .............................................................................................................................................................................. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........ 48 CHAPTER 5 — INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 29 - Natural Resources Overview Map I Fossil Creek Reservoir x Sweat:! Lake '• I 9 -- — Poll AI W, Legend "° Potential Eagle Sites 1300 rt Eagle Buffer yf Prairie Dog Town ` Wetlands _ Wetlands 50 ft Buffer _ FCR 100- 300 ft Buffer Corridor Actrvity Center tow Interchange Improvement Natural Resources • Plan PV ............ . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 49 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 30 - Natural Resources Buffer Detail Map i a r 1320' Bald Eagle roost sites t based on recommendation by CDOW l 300r Winter Raptor Concentration Area Buffer irefered to in both Larimer County and Fort Collins Land Use Codes ). Based on recommendations made by Andre Duvall . Colorado Wildlife Company. . I ` 100' Wrnter Raptor ConcentrationAreaBufferline. Future roadway and development may occuroutside of this boundary This boundary is based on the recommendation made by Andre Duvall , Colorado 1 Wildlife Company on December 13. 2W5 . a , r r f a r 1 COE Wetland Boundary F j delineated during CDOT EIS SH 392 5H 39Z a.. r � Legend 0 250 500 1 , 000 Fog Fossil Pant Eagle Buffer - Winter Raptor Buffer Area Interchange ge Improvement Improvement Detail Planir _ • ........................................................................................................................................................................... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..... 50 CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 31 — Bridge Concepts Itir.nnnr.,I MM , ConewleIkek Concrete PI ContnrteGtnirr Stg1141littrgr4rted 141rrrl'& 61161, ndGuardntitr tntrrRetarntiq1UHA t+ t anal rarrr boo u J — WNVf4t_ • ' � ��� INC Landscape Concrete Arched Concrete Integrated Retaining Wall Girder & Deck Signage b o 0 0 r �_----T . r. ._ nrnnn - - nnnn Interchange Area Design or stone veneer retaining walls and signage at each the Plan ' s budget , and the design is consistent with what High quality development should represent the has been constructed at other interchanges along the ( - gateway into the two communities (see Figure 31 ) . 25 corridor. Complimenting elements should include signage , streetscape , median treatments , landscaping , An alternative would consist of a single arch structure gathering areas , public art and other amenities . that spans 1 -25 , made of steel and concrete , with signage integrated into the bridge form . To keep the In addition to the character of the buildings , landscape design within the projected budget, transportation and signage , two structural elements will create the engineers recommend that the arch be a facade that character of the area , the pedestrian bridge (associated masks a more traditional bridge structure . This option with the BRT/ Park-and-Ride facilities) and the new is more distinctive , compliments the natural landscape interchange . These two features should complement found nearby , and would create a recognizable sense each other and include common design elements . of place for drivers , consumers , and residents . The design for the SH392 bridge could include a number of themes . One theme could consist of a double span bridge , concrete structure , and concrete bridge abutment . This option may be attainable with ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 51 . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 32 - Framework Plan In - N : OUNTY ROAD ]2E ti r YAPJM VOY o s Z v U S2 LL i Undevebped Land • ' • Rasdenlul Mood-Use ��t r C itmmeticud . i Rtmdontul Employment Local Roads 1 1 Frontage Atternahves I I : Major Roadways I I • • • • • • • Multt-use Traits 1 1 ' 1 I Protected' Nat Res i 1 � 1 1 Corridor Activity Center Potential BRT Site 1 1 r 1 1 1 Community Gatoways 1 I 1 1 1 I Feet : �.st►�IZtY ROAD 30 :00 1 W37C Interchan e ImprPL nt RU JIL ........................................................................................................................................................................... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..... 52 CHAPTER 5 - INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 6 enhancement because of interchange improvements 0 and more efficient traffic flow. The following is a Funding hierarchy of transportation improvement benefits : ■ Landowners whose property is adjacent to the interchange will have more lucrative development BBC Research & Consulting , (BBC ) was retained as a options once interchange improvements are complete . subcontractor by EDAW to assist the Technical Advisory Currently , adjacent properties are severely limited in Committee (TAC) and consultant team in identifying their development options because of the interchange ' s interchange capital funding options and , with input inadequate capacity . These properties have significant form the TAC , develop a preferred capital funding commercial potential if they can be attached to a plan . The following section describes the process functioning highway network. This small group , undertaken by BBC for identifying and evaluating referred to as the Corridor Activity Center (CAC ), will funding alternatives and developing a fair and experience the most benefit from improvements . practical funding model . ■ Residents , property owners , and business operators in close proximity to the interchange are directly benefited Fair and Practical through the increased functionality of SH392 . ■ All travelers who regularly use the interchange as their The foundation of BBC ' s funding model is the concept most convenient access to 1-25 will experience the that the cost of interchange improvements should be benefits of shorter travel times . This area is referred to borne principally by those that benefit from improved as the "travelshed . " highway access , and that beneficiaries should ■ Improvements at SH392 will relieve congestion at other participate in rough proportion to their degree of important interchanges because travelers will no longer benefit . Early in the planning process , consultants, avoid the 1-25/SH392 interchange . As a result, land owners, and community representatives residents and businesses in a wide area of Fort Collins acknowledged that defining a fair and practical and Windsor will benefit from increased network funding plan meant balancing many disparate factors . functionality . In the TAC discussions , the below graphic was ■ Occasional users and pass-through traffic are minor employed to represent the core issues involved in beneficiaries of interchange improvement . fashioning an appropriate interchange funding solution and to demonstrate that the requirement for practicality The consultants developed three funding alternatives implied an imperfect balancing of multiple community that allocate costs to closely reflect benefits . DMJM objectives . Harris engineering estimated the interchange development costs of approximately $22 . 0 million (see Figure 39 ) . Cost estimates are based on actual bid and construction costs of three bridges along I -25 that perform a similar function and are of comparable size • . and complexity . These bridges (SH52 , 120th Av and . Castle Pine Pkwy) were built between 2003 and 2006 . Unit costs for these bridges were inflated to present day in order to obtain a consistent $90/ SF used in the estimate for SH392 . Variance with estimates from the North 1-25 EIS can be attributed primarily to a higher bridge unit cost applied by that study . Minor variance Source: BBC Research and Consulting, Inc in funding year and project limits may also be factors . Interchange Cost and Benefits The cost estimate focuses on the minimum cost necessary to construct a basic interchange and SH392 Beneficiaries of interchange improvements are those to both frontage roads . The cost includes utilities , drainage , native landscaping , traffic controls and individuals , property owners , or businesses that signalization , construction maintenance of traffic , experience increased business volume , travel mobilization , and other incidental items . The cost does convenience , time savings or property value not include improvements associated with transit or ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING 53 . . ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Park-and -Ride facilities . The cost may need to be evaluated funding mechanisms that could generate modified based on selected outcomes in the North 1 -25 appropriate levels of revenue in a complex and EIS . uncertain environment. The above hierarchy of benefits is reflected in all three Funding Evaluation Process funding scenarios , and the parties who benefit most from the interchange improvement (CAC landowners) BBC evaluated several funding mechanisms and consistently bear a higher proportion of overall supporting institutions (e . g . special districts) that could improvement costs . be used to generate and collect funds for interchange improvement. Figure 34 presents a list of potential Figure 33 - Cost Summary revenue generation tools and administrative institutions Project Element Approximate Cost that were evaluated by the consultant team and the (Millions) TAC participants . SH392 $6. 8 SH392 Bridge $4. 8 Interchange Ramps $3. 5 The revenue generation tools in the list were evaluated West Frontage Road ( 1) $ 7 . 7 against the benefit theory principles stated above and 1-25 Accel/Decel Lanes $ 1 . 5 several other criteria , including revenue stream Subtotal $ 78. 3 certainty , ability to generate revenue early in the bond Engineering $ 1 . 5 payment period , and ability to generate revenue during Construction Management $ 1 . 8 Agency Review $0. 4 all phases of land development. Total Cost (approximate) $22.0 Source: DMJM Harris. Note. The following cost is an estimate Once an appropriate mix of funding mechanisms were and may vary depending on preliminary and final design. Cost will identified , administrative institutions were evaluated also change depending on components and alternatives selected based on a set of standards that included ease of in the North 1-25 EIS. Cost would increase based on the ability to formation , administrative requirements , and legislative accommodate transit options contained in DEIS. authority to impose the selected taxes , assessments and fees . Challenges Figure 34 - Revenue Generation Mechanisms There are several challenges to funding the intersection and Taxing Institutions Including : Revenue Institution ■ Multiple property owners adjacent to interchange , General Fund Metro District which makes fashioning a mutually agreed upon fee Property Tax Urban Renewal Authority agreement difficult to achieve and reduces the prospect Special Assessment District Special Improvement District of immediate commercial development; Public Improvement Fee Private Agreements ■ Absence of a committed large commercial project in Impact Fees Transportation Authority the immediate future ; Surcharges on Licenses Local Improvement District Real Estate Transfer Assessment Intergovernmental Agreement ■ Uncertain area development pattern and timeframe ; (private) ■ Need for an immediate reliable revenue stream for Utility Fee General Improvement District bond support ; and Lodging Tax ■ Multi-jurisdictional cooperation . Source: BBC Research and Consulting Traditionally , interchange improvement projects are The TAC and the consultant team selected a mix of funded largely by a single commercial project funding mechanisms that offer a fair apportionment of strategically located along a major corridor that can costs and reliable revenue production . The selected recover some of the interchange investment costs administrative institution has broad revenue raising through the new development enabled by the improved power and offers a relatively streamlined formation access . In these situations , development prospects and process . At this point in the process , additional advice property tax, or sales tax revenue generation , are more was sought from other city officials and the city certain than what exists at the 1 -25/ SH392 interchange . attorneys of both Fort Collins and Windsor. In light of these challenges , the consultant team ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . . 54 CHAPTER 6 — FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Selected Funding Mechanisms retail sales transactions by a covenant in the deed or the lease . A PIF is imposed at the point of sale and is Funding mechanisms were chosen because they can be usually a percentage of the sales price of purchased employed in a manner that reflects the core benefit goods- in essence , a private sales tax. The funding principles expressed above , encourages land scenarios apply PIFs that range from 0 . 2% to 0 . 5% . assemblage and site development, and generates This fee will produce revenue from developed property revenue during all phases of land development. Three and will capture spending from all customers including different scenarios , each offering a different balancing exogenous beneficiaries of interchange improvement. of these revenue options , were devised and tested . Funding mechanism options included the following : The funding mechanisms described above will generate revenue at all phases of property Special Assessment - A special assessment in this development . When land is undeveloped , the special context is an annual per acre charge placed on assessment and property tax will generate revenue . undeveloped property adjacent to the interchange . A Once land starts to develop , it will be assessed an per acre assessment will provide immediate revenue impact fee (Scenario 1 only) and property tax will for bond support and appropriately burden those continue to produce revenue . Developed land will be property owners with immediate and significant benefit subject to property tax and PIF . Once the 20-year from interchange improvements . The special bond is paid , all taxes , fees and assessments will be assessment is charged only on undeveloped property retired . and is removed when the raw land is converted to development—an encouragement to consolidate and Selected Administrative Institution develop properties . In addition , there is a 10-year sunset provision on this revenue stream in Scenarios 2 The TAC and the consultant team evaluated a variety and 3 . of administrative arrangements that could offer an appropriate mechanism for collecting funds and Impact Fee - An impact fee is a one-time fee assessed overseeing project implementation . The Fort Collins on new residential and commercial development within City Attorney' s office also provided advice on this issue . a jurisdiction . Typically , impact fees are applied on a Although a variety of special districts could be per unit basis for residential and a per square foot employed , a general improvement district (GID ) basis for commercial development. The purpose of appears to be the most appropriate institution . A GID impact fees is to recover the costs of expanding public is legally authorized to collect all the revenue sources facilities, such as fire stations , police stations , sewer recommended above and offers the greatest ease in and water supply systems , parks , libraries , or other organization and formation . A GID is a political government agencies and services in proportion to the subdivision of the state , organized under one demand created by the new development. In this municipality, and governed by the organizing situation , impact fees can be assessed on new municipality' s council . A GID has authority to construct construction within the travelshed and used to pay for a and operate any improvement or provide any service reasonable and proportional share of interchange that the municipality creating it is authorized to construction costs . provide- although in this instance , another institution , perhaps the organizing municipality , may oversee Property Tax - Property tax is an ad valorem tax that interchange construction . GID ' s have the authority to property owners pay on the market value of real and raise revenue by imposing property taxes , special personal property . A 5-mill levy will be assessed on assessments and other fees , tolls and charges on CAC properties to fund interchange improvements . A property and facilities located within the district. GID ' s property tax is productive during all phases of property are authorized to issue general obligation , revenue and development and will capture the value appreciation special assessment bonds . associated with more intensive land uses . The GID must be formed by petition signed by at least Public Improvement Fee - A public improvement fee 30% or 200 of proposed district property owners , (PIF) is a fee that commercial property owners require whichever is less . The governing jurisdiction will then their commercial tenants to collect on their customers' call an election for all district residents and landowners ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING 55 . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN to decide on organization . If a petitioning effort can Figure 37 — Acreages & Unit Assumptions o Acreage to Unit Conversion obtain 100 /o of property owner signatures , then an g election is unnecessary and a legislative action can Floor Area Ratio — 25% form the GID . Commercial/Office DU per Acre - Residential 6 DU per Acre — M/U Residential 12 Revenue Modeling Residential Unit/Commercial Space Potential Residential (units) 396 After the appropriate revenue generation strategy and M/U Residential (units) 612 administrative institution were selected , the following M/U Commercial (sf) I , o451440 steps were used to model revenues available to support General Commercial (sf) 21221 , 560 Office (sf) 11001 , 880 a hypothetical bond ISSUe : Development Period 20 years 80% developed ■ Quantify CAC gross acreage by proposed land use ; ■ Determine appropriate travelshed ; Development Schedule ■ Translate gross CAC acreage into possible new residential units and commercial space ; Development assumptions from the previous page ■ Apply proposed tax rates, fees and assessments ; and were used to model residential and commercial ■ Project future market values and commercial sales development in the CAC . Efforts were made to portray performance . an even pace of development over the 20-year bond payment period . It is important to note that the Figures 35-37 illustrate assumptions used to model consultants took a conservative approach by only development in the CAC . The interchange funding modeling 80 percent of total residential and scenarios used in this analysis were developed using commercial development potential over the 20-year hypothetical development assumptions . If development period . Development earlier on such as a very large pace , character or density varies from these commercial development would greatly improve assumptions , actual revenue generation may be funding alternatives . different from the results shown here . ■ BBC ' s funding model includes three revenue Figure 35 - Development Assumptions (CAC only) generation scenarios . The levels of fees charges and Proposed Land Use Vacant Gross Developable taxes were calculated to produce adequate annual Acreage Acreage funds to retire the full $22 . 0 million in bonds with Mixed-Use Commercial 182 121 reasonable coverage ratios . Efforts were made to Employment/Office 737 91 ensure a bondable , reliable revenue stream and to General Commercial 304 202 Mixed-Use Residential 137 94 maintain the appropriate cost/ benefit distribution Total 760 508 among participants which was discussed earlier in the chapter. The three scenarios are described below and Figure 36 - Revenue Generation Assumptions demonstrated in the attached spreadsheets . Property Tax Market Valus per square foot Scenario 1 . This scenario includes a special Residential $ 180 assessment (Commercial-$3 , 000 and Residential- Commercial $ 140 $ 1 , 000 per acre) and 5- mill property tax for CAC Office $ 120 landowners , an impact fee ($250 per unit) imposed on Initial CAC Assessed Value $5, 146, 900 Mill Levy 5. 00 the "travelshed , " and a 0 . 5% Public Improvement Fee Public Improvement Fee (PIF) (PIF ) . No municipal or other public support is assumed Sales Tax Producing Square Footage 80% for this scenario . Sales per Square Foot $275 Scenario 2 . This scenario includes financial support from CDOT , the North Front Range MPO and the municipalities of Windsor and Fort Collins , a special assessment (Commercial -$925 and Residential -$400 per acre) on CAC landowners (undeveloped land only) that sunsets in 10 years , a 0 . 5% PIF and a 5-mill ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . . 56 CHAPTER 6 — FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN property tax on CAC landowners . There is no impact Figure 38 - Potential Public Funding Sources fee under this scenario . Scenarios 2 and 3 Funding Source Contribution Scenario 3 . This scenario includes all public funding CBOT $ 1, 800, 000 North Front Range MPO $ 1, 200, 000 from Scenario 2 and an expanded property tax district City of Fort Collins $ 1, 000, 000 with a 5-mill levy . There is also a special assessment Town of Windsor $ 1 , 000, 000 ($ 150 per acre) on all undeveloped CAC land which Source: BBC Research and Consulting, Inc. sunsets in 10 years and a 0 . 5% PIF . The boundaries Note: Funding estimates are represented for discussion purposes only for the expanded property district would include at a and do not a commitment. Also please note, NFRMPO funding potential minimum several miles around the immediate CAC . would only be available if historic STP Metro funding levels continue, and if the Planning Council approves. The following pages show revenue streams available It is important to note that the above figures and tables for bond support under Scenarios 1 through 3 . Bonds are preliminary estimates only and do not represent a are assumed to be issued for the full amount of the formal commitment by any governmental entity . All interchange improvement project ($22 million ) plus public funds are assumed to be available at the 33% required coverage reserves and 5% issuance commencement of the bond payment period , with the costs . The assumed bond interest rate is 4% and the exception of North Front Range MPO funds . tenure of the debt is 20 years . The annual required bond payment is about $2 million over 20 years . All Potential Regional Transportation revenue rose from public sources and the CAC or other Authority Support stakeholders are assumed to be held in a fund supporting debt service payment . The three scenarios Efforts are currently underway to continue to evaluate are illustrative and the projected revenues are highly the feasibility of a regional transportation authority dependent upon uncertain projections of commercial (RTA) that would provide a funding source for road and and residential development. If funds are identified in public transit improvements in urban parts of Larimer the future , potential payback by CDOT may modify and Weld Counties . If approved by voters , the RTA will these scenarios . likely impose a1 % sales and use tax, and a $ 10 annual motor vehicle registration fee . RTA funds will be used Please see Appendix A, Figures 41 -44 for complete for regional road improvements , regional public transit funding scenario schedules . expansion , and distribution to local governments for local road and transit improvements . A private Key Public Funding contribution would still be necessary . The municipalities of Fort Collins and Windsor, the In the future , if an RTA is approved , these funds could North Front Range Metropolitan Planning provide substantial support to the 1 -25/ SH392 Organization , and CDOT have provided conceptual interchange improvement project. RTA support is not funding assumptions that can be considered in funding assumed in any funding model because voter approval scenarios for planning purposes . Table 6-6 shows has not been secured . potential public support incorporated into funding scenarios 2 and 3 . A summary of private , public and related contributions is outlined in Figure 39 . ............... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 6 — FUNDING 57 . ............................. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 39 - Funding Scenario Summary Scenario/Revenue Source Revenue Percentage Scenario 1 Government Support 1 $0 0% Landowner Support 2 $30,395, 888 48% PIF Support3 $33,241, 725 52% Total Funds Raised (20 years)4 $63,6371673 700% Scenario 2 Government Support $S, 000, 000 10% Landowner Support $ 72, 779, 691 25% PIF Support $33,241, 725 65% Total Funds Raised (20 ears) $51,021,416 700% Scenario 3 Government Support $5, 000, 000 10% LandownerSupport5 $ 16, 7101386 30% PIF Support $33,241, 725 60% Total Funds Raised (20 years) $54, 952, 711 700% Notes: 1. Includes funding from Fort Collins, Windsor, CDOT and NFRMPO. 2. Includes funding from special assessment, impact fee (Scenario 1 only) and property tax. 3. Includes funding from the public improvement fee. 4. 20-year total funds raised for bond support. 5. Scenario 3 includes a larger property tax district than Scenarios 1 and 2. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 58 CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN C H A P T E R 7 secure or initiate funding support including but not limited to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Implementation Organization and the Colorado Department of Transportation . Securing early public funding commitments is crucial to obtaining more favorable The following chapter outlines the steps necessary to bond payment conditions . implement the Partnerships , Transportation , Land Use , Natural Resource and Design Frameworks , as well as F2 : Engage Property Owners the Preferred Funding Scenario . Figure 40 outlines the Support from property owners in the Corridor Activity sequential steps and timeframe associated with each Center (CAC ) is necessary to induce public funding action . support and to form the General Improvement District that will administer the funding plan . Although it has Action Items been ongoing for some time , continued efforts to engage CAC landowners will ensure a more successful PARTNERSHIPS funding plan . P1 : Accept the Plan F3 : Form General Improvement District The Town and City should "Accept the Plan " by A General Improvement District (GID ) is the political resolution in order to set the stage for implementation . institution responsible for providing administration over The City may also choose to formally adopt the Plan . the funding plan . Once formed , the GID will collect Larimer County may also choose to formally recognize revenue , issue bonds and manage highway the document in order to provide additional planning improvements . Key steps to form the GID include : guidance in the area . Decide district administrator (Fort Collins , Larimer County or Windsor) P2 : Append the IGA - Implementation ■ Secure municipal agreements for an inter-jurisdictional Any funding scenarios are highly dependent on GID partnerships . One of the first steps should be the ■ Petition CAC property owners (at least 30% of district amendment of the IGA between the Town , City , and ownership required ) possibly the County to commit to implementation of the ■ Hold election for GID formation Plan . At this time , the Town and City could agree to ■ Determine GID Board of Directors (usually council commit funds to the 1601 / NEPA process (required by members) CDOT) . ■ GID Board to adopt preferred funding mechanisms and initiate bond underwriting process . P3 : Append the IGA - Funding The IGA between the City, Town , and County would be F4 : Transfer Public Funds to GID modified to outline funding commitments . Ideally , this Public funds will be transferred to GID . step would happen following the 1601 / NEPA compliance action . The IGA would be necessary to F5 : Bonds Issuance secure funding from CDOT . This IGA would also Once the GID is formed , funds from Fort Collins , outline bond requirements and each community' s role Windsor, other public entities , and landowners within in land planning and potential administration of the the GID will support bond payments . Bond issuance is General Improvement District . expected to occur immediately upon formation of the GID and final approval of bridge design . The following FUNDING steps will occur: ■ Transfer public funds to GID F1 : Secure Public Funding Commitments ■ GID to issue bonds Public funding should be secured at this time . Action ■ GID to collect revenue and make required bond items specific to F1 include engaging the municipal payments councils of Fort Collins and Windsor to dedicate funds towards interchange improvement. Additionally , other regional and state institutions should be contacted to ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION 59 .. ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN F6 . Revenue Collection A preferred alternative will be identified based on this GID to collect revenue and make required bond analysis . Additional environmental analysis may be payments . necessary at this time , which will most likely include an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a Categorical F7 . Continue to Explore Additional Funding Options Exclusion (CE) . The 1601 / EA or CE will utilize the data The current funding packages address the replacement currently being collected as part of the EIS and of a basic interchange . Additional funding contained in the Improvement Plan . A key mechanisms , such as an RTA, will be necessary to fund consideration at this stage is whether the frontage transit enhancements such as a future BRT or Park and roads are included in the analysis . Ridefacilities . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... ... ... ... ........................................................................................... EIS or Separate Action? TRANSPORTATION Reason for pursuing a separate action and 1601 Study : T1 : Preliminary Engineering ■ National developer discussing projects on both sides of Typically, 30% of design is completed in this stage . It Interchange will establish : ■ Need for an accelerated process to reconstruct the ■ Lane configuration of SH392 from Westgate Drive to interchange the west frontage road intersection , including tie-ins to ■ Greater predictability the existing roadway ; ■ Horizontal alignment of the four on and off ramps and Required Steps in Separate Process with CDOT : the northwest and southwest frontage roads ; ■ Request a justification for separate action from ■ Vertical profile of SH392 , on and off ramps for 1 -25 , CDOT/ FHWA frontage roads , and acceleration/deceleration lanes on ■ If approved — Proceed with accelerated 1601 Process 1 -25 ; ■ Environmental Assessment (EA) or Categorical ■ Bridge length and width , pier and abutment locations , Exclusion (CE ) and general structure type . ■ Prepare preliminary cost estimate . Reason for utilizing the ongoing EIS : ■ Ongoing study T2 : Separate Action/ 1601 Interchange Approval ■ Consistency of analysis Process/ NEPA . . ........................................................................................................................ An alternative to deferring to the ongoing North 1 -25 EIS for compliance , the Town and City may request a T3 : North 1-25 EIS — Record of Decision (ROD) justification for separate action from CDOT and the An alternative to the Separate Action outlined in T2 Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) . Based on would be to defer to the ongoing North 1 -25 EIS for the results , a decision will be made to utilize the compliance . The final signoff by the FHWA for the ongoing EIS (finalized in 2009) or to proceed with an reconstruction of the 1 -25 corridor is anticipated in accelerated 1601 process . The 1601 process is the 2009 . The 1 -25/ SH392 Interchange will be cleared with Colorado Department of Transportation ' s policy to the preferred alternative being the Tight Diamond . evaluate new interchanges or major improvements to Due to pending development , preliminary design and existing interchanges along interstates and major engineering could begin to ensure that a Record of highways . The 1601 process would initiate a feasibility Decision in 2009 does not significantly delay study for the 1 -25/SH392 Interchange and could development. It is also possible for the Town , City , and include the following steps : CDOT to consider allowing development to occur as ■ Operation and capacity analysis for existing conditions long as a funding package and improvement plan are and estimate year 2030 in place to replace the interchange . A 1601 process ■ Identify all reasonable and feasible interchange access would still be necessary . alternatives ■ Screen all of the alternatives ( identify pros and cons) ■ Review environmental conditions in area ■ Work toward a single best alternative ■ Develop a funding plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN T4 : Environmental Clearance and Final Determination completion . Action items specific for this plan to be of Western Frontage Road successful are identified below, and illustrated in the The Interchange Improvement Plan recommends three phasing diagram at the end of the section . alternative locations for the western frontage road . Based on further consideration of environmental TT1 : Provide Recommendations Regarding the North resources , mitigation , development potential and 1-25 DEIS, proposed development plans , the final alignment Cooperation between planning efforts is vital for the should be identified . The alignment of the frontage successful implementation of a plan . When multiple road may be considered during NEPA compliance studies promote the same vision , the desired outcome activities or addressed through local processes . typically comes to fruition sooner. Overall , this Plan Additional permitting will be necessary if wetlands are support generally supports both packages outlined in impacted . The North 1 -25 EIS will permit an alignment the North 1 -25 EIS . Two significant changes are that is much closer to the 1 -25 ramps , due to avoidance apparent: of wetlands . ■ Realigned West Frontage Road . ■ BRT Station located on either side of 1-25 or access T5 : Final Design from both sides . In this stage , all details of design are completed . Full construction drawings and specifications will be These changes should be provided as written produced , ready for construction bids . Final design comments to the North 1 -25 EIS planning team . cannot start until environmental clearance is complete . Final cost estimates would be prepared at this time . TT2 : Coordinate with NFRMPO Regarding Projects that Would Provide Regional Bus Service between Fort T& Inclusion in the North Front Range Transportation Collins and Greeley that Could Utilize a Park and Ride Improvement Program (TIP) at the 1-25/SH392 Interchange The SH392 Interchange project is already included in Work with the NFRMPO in support of a planned bus the current Fiscally Constrained 2030 Plan . The 2007 service network that will connect to the park and ride in — 2012 TIP contains a total of $ 1 . 81VI by 2008 . The the study area , with additional connections to potential source of the remainder of the funding must be BRT service , for regional connectivity to the Fort Collins identified in order for this to be included in a future TIP . Loveland Airport, Fort Collins , Greeley , and Loveland . These bus routes would serve as a feeder system to the T7 : Advertisement for Construction BRT system . Public request for construction contract bids . The lowest priced qualified bidder will have the successful TT3 : Coordinate with the Town of Windsor to proposal . Implement Bus Service Identified in the NFRMPO 2030 Plan to Utilize the Park and Ride T8 : Construction Contract Award and Notice to Work with the Town of Windsor in support of a Proceed planned bus service network to provide connections to Construction commences on the entire project . the park and ride and potential BRT service as well as to the Fort Collins Loveland Airport , Fort Collins , T9 : Construction Greeley, and Loveland . It is anticipated that construction of the entire project could be completed in 18 months , if all conditions are TT4 : Identify a Preferred Location and Construct a favorable . Park and Ride to Facilitate Carpooling and Eventually a BRT Station TRANSIT AND TRAILS A park and ride would be the first element of transit to be built in the study area , as this would serve multiple Developing a transit element in a successful project functions throughout various transit phases . Initially it requires building upon past and concurrent planning could serve as a carpool lot, ultimately serving as a efforts , identifying preferred plan elements , identifying park and ride for a BRT station . Therefore , funding resources for each plan element , and identification of the construction site is a vital identifying action items within a time line for component with several benefits . The first benefit is that ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION 61 . . ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN that a park and ride would serve individuals choosing NR3 : Federal Executive Order 11990 "Protection of to carpool . Secondly, the NFRMPO has already Wetlands" Compliance identified bus service between Fort Collins and Greeley , In addition , if this project receives any federal funding , as well as the Town of Windsor choosing to implement the Federal Highway Administration requires that bus service . This park and ride could be incorporated Federal Executive Order 11990 , " Protection of into those bus routes . Additionally , the site could Wetlands , " be implemented . This executive order potentially assist the Fort Collins Loveland Airport by requires that short-term and long-term adverse impacts providing parking to travelers and through bus service to wetlands ( irrespective of Clean Water Act connections to the airport. Finally , the North 1-25 EIS jurisdiction ) be avoided to the extent possible and to has identified an option that would include express avoid wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative . lanes and BRT , which would provide service to a park CDOT has developed a protocol to comply with and ride facility to improve regional mobility . New bus Executive Order 11990 , which includes the preparation routes would serve as a feeder system to the BRT of a Wetlands Findings Report and Mitigation Plan . system . NR4 : Endangered Species Act Compliance TT5 : Require Adequate Bike Lanes and Sidewalks from Habitat assessments will be performed prior to Developers as Development Continues for a construction to determine if suitable habitat is present Contiguous Network for federally listed species . Species may include Trail connectivity to existing off-street trails will be Preble ' s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius provided by on-street bike lanes and sidewalks along preblei ) , Ute' s ladies tresses orchid (Spiranthes SH392 as well as from off-street trails plan in diluvialis) , and Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura conjunction with Fossil Creek Reservoir. These facilities meomexicana coloradensis) . If suitable habitat is will be constructed as requirements from developers . present, then focused surveys will be required . Surveys will be performed during their prescribed survey NATURAL RESOURCES protocol windows between June and September. If any Federally-listed species are determined to be present NR1 : Perform Wetland Delineation on the site, the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers will Following the Preliminary Engineering , a wetland initiate a Section 7 consultation under the Endangered delineation and jurisdictional determination will be Species Act with the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service to performed to identify areas that are potentially negotiate "take" authorization , potential minimization considered to be waters of the U . S . and subject to measure , and mitigation . Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The delineation will be conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps NR5 : Bald Eagle Protection Act Compliance of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual . This The bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is covered wetland delineation should build upon previous by the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Mitigation for eagle delineation efforts . will be to perform construction adjacent to the buffers outside of the November 15 to March 15 winter NR2 : Section 404 Permitting roosting season . Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U . S . will require a 404 permit from the U . S Army Corps of Engineers . NR6 : Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance The activity will likely be permitted as an individual Immediately prior to construction , a survey should be permit. Unlike the nationwide permits , an individual conducted to ensure that no nesting migratory birds permit will require an alternatives analysis , including a are present , subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of no action as well as an off-site alternative . As part of 1918 . Construction will avoid impact to nesting the permitting process , a mitigation plan will be migratory birds . required to compensate for impacts to wetlands and waters of the U . S . associated with the construction of NR7 : Prairie Dogs the new interchange . Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) requires that any black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) be removed prior to grading . A professional licensed by CDOW should be used to either kill or relocate ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN prairie dogs . Regulations applicable to prairie dogs its associated wetlands should range from 50 to 300 are located at : feet . www.wildlife . state . co . us/WildlifeSpecies/ SpeciesOfCon cern/ Mammals/ BlacktailedPrairieDog/ btprariedogpg4 . LAND USE htm LU1 : Amend Plans In addition , prairie dogs are also regulated by the Fort As described in Chapter 1 , a number of Collins' Animal Control Code and Land Use Code as comprehensive , corridor and subarea plans provide describe in " Prairie Dog Policy For City Natural Areas" general guidance for this area . Select plans may need 1998 , which states that prairie dogs will be removed to be updated to reflect any final decisions related to prior to the commencement of grading either by the road system , new interchange , land use plan and relocation or humanely eradicating by city approve environmental buffers . One key plan that is methods . anticipated to be updated in the future is the City of Fort Collin ' s Master Street Plan . The Master Street Plan NR8 : Burrowing Owls should consider recommendations contained in the In addition , the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia SH392 Environmental Overview Study , Access Control hypugaea) is listed by the State of Colorado as Study and the Interchange Improvement Plan . Threatened and is subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Focused surveys will be performed prior to LU2 : Amend Zoning Codes to Formalize Buffer construction and removal of black-tailed prairie dogs . Distances If burrowing owls are present, owls will be removed Zoning changes could be considered to formalize prior to construction and prairie dog removal activities . decisions related to natural resource buffers . NR9 : " Noxious Weed Management" Compliance LU3 : Identify Lands for BRT/Park and Ride The importing of fill material from off-site locations will A key future step will be the identification of lands be carefully monitored to help prevent the importation suitable for the BRT and Park and Ride facility . of noxious weed seed into the construction site . Development plans of property owners need to be Invasion by noxious weeds will likely have harmful considered when making this selection . The City and effects to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Town should also discuss whether the land is acquired Space . Noxious weeds are regulated by Colorado by the City or the Town . Lands could be used as Executive Order D 006 99 and will be addressed by parking for development in the short-term and be any post-construction restoration and/ or landscape transitioned to other uses in the future . plan . Pre-construction weed surveys will be performed in the spring or early summer, prior to construction at LU 4 : Land Consolidation and Concept Plans the project site , as well as at the source for any fill The City and Town may wish to work with property material . If noxious weeds are discovered , an owners , investors and developers to consolidate land alternative import site may be selected . and develop concept plans consistent with the Land Use Framework described in Chapter 5 . NR10 : General Development Standards, "Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character" Compliance LU5 : Review the Potential for City of Fort Collins GMA Development on City Natural Areas needs to comply Expansion with the " General Resource Protection Standards for If an appropriate opportunity exists for GMA Easements or Rights of Way on City of Fort Collins expansion , the City Council should evaluate the GMA Natural Areas and Open Lands" . Some of the general expansion against the criteria described in City Plan . resource protection measures are those already described above . LU6 : Discontinue Development Moratorium Once a funding mechanism is identified to replace the NR11 : Determination of Final Environmental Buffers interchange , the Town and City may consider lifting the Based on the results of T4 , final environmental buffers development moratorium . should be identified . Buffers around Fossil Creek and ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION 63 . ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN DESIGN SUMMARY D1 : Preliminary Design In summary , initial action steps that are critical to the As part of the preliminary engineering phase , a set of success of this Plan include the following : 30% construction documents should be completed and would include : 1 . Accept the Plan . ■ Refinement of conceptual architectural design 2 . Amend the IGA to continue partnership/ initial ■ Refinement of general planting and irrigation plans funding . ■ Development of conceptual lighting design 3 . Request justification for separate action or utilize ■ Development of furnishings , materials and color existing EIS . palettes 4 . Commit funding for 1601 / NEPA (EA/ CE ) process ■ Development of preliminary plant lists and other compliance activities . ■ Development of preliminary design details 5 . Amend IGA to secure public and private funding ■ Development of conceptual signage and gateway commitments . features 6 . Form a General Improvement District . ■ Development of a preliminary cost estimate 7 . Discontinue development moratorium . ■ Preliminary Design Review submittal and review 8 . Determine final locations and funding for frontage meeting roads . 9 . Preliminary/ Final Engineering . D2 : Final Design 10 . Begin construction in 2009 — 2010 . As part of the final engineering phase , a set of 60% and 95% construction documents should be completed and would include : ■ Development of CAD layout of planting and irrigation plans ■ Development of preliminary construction details , lighting , and furnishing options ■ Development of preliminary construction specifications ■ Development of an updated cost estimate ■ Preliminary 60% design review submittal and review meeting ■ Final 95% Design Review submittal and review meeting 100% construction documents would be completed and would include : ■ Development of complete construction documents ■ Development of complete technical specifications ■ Updated cost estimate ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . .................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 40 - Implementation Phasing Schedule - In Progress Action Items 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2013 2014 2015 a P1 Accept the Plan L P2 Append the IGA - Implementation ca P3 Append the IGA - Funding F1 Secure Public Funding Commitments F2 Engage Property Owners F3 Form GID �® a F4 Transfer Public Funds to GID LL F5 Bonds Insurance F6 Revenue Collection F7 Con't to Explore Add' I Funding Options T1 Preliminary Engineering T2 Separate Action/ 1601 Interchange Approval Process/ NEPA T3 North 1-25 EIS ROD" Ems o T4 Environmental Clearance & Final Determination of W Frontage Rd m Q T5 Final Design T6 Inclusion in the Front Range TIP Ems T7 Advertisement for Construction T8 Construction Contract Award & Notice e� to Proceed T9 Construction 71 Provide North 1-25 DEIS Recommendations TT2 NFRMPO Coordination ca 06 TT3 Town of Windsor Coordination m T174 Identify a Preferred Location & Construct PnR 75 Require Bike Lanes & Sidewalks from Developers rai NR1 Perform Wetland Delineation a� o NR2 Section 404 Permitting e Z NR3-NR11 Fed Order 11990 Compliance LU1 Amend Plans LU2 Amend Zoning & Formulize Buffers LU3 Identify Lands for BRT / PnR a Cal LU4 Land Consolidation & Concept Plans LU5 Review Potential for FC GMA Expansion LU6 Discontinue Development Moratorium N D1 Preliminary Design o D2 Final Design Action Items 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2013 2014 2015 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION 65 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 66 CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Appendix A Figure 41 - Development Schedule ..-........................ - ---------- Land Use Category Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Residential Residential (units) - 99 99 Mixed Use Residential (units) - 153 153 Total (Annual) - 252 - - - 252 - - - Total (Cummulative) 252 252 252 252 504 504 504 504 504 Commercial General Commercial (SgFt) 555,390 555, 390 M/U Commercial (SgFt) 261,360 261, 360 Total (Annual) 876, 750 - - - - 816, 750 Total (Cummulative) 816, 750 8161750 816, 750 816, 750 816, 750 876, 750 11633, 500 11633,500 Total Sales Tax-Producing Sq. Ft (Cumulative) - 653,400 653,400 653,400 653,400 653,400 653,400 11306,800 11306,800 Office Office (SgFt) 250,470 Total (Cumulative) 250,470 250,470 250,470 250,470 250,476 Annual Commercial and Employment "Units" 408 125 408 Land Use Category Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 IFYear 18 Residential Residential (units) 99 - - - 99 Mixed Use Residential (units) 753 153 Total (Annual) 252 - - 252 Total (Cummulative) 504 756 756 756 756 11008 1,008 1,008 11008 11008 Commercial General Commercial (SgFt) 555,390 M/U Commercial (SgFt) 261, 360 Total (Annual) 816, 750 Total (Cummulative) 11633,500 11633,500 11633,500 21450,250 21450,250 21450,250 21450,250 21450,250 21450,250 21450,250 Total Sales Tax-Producing Sq. Ft (Cumulative) 1,306,800 1,306,800 11306,800 11960,200 11960,200 11960,200 11960,200 11960,200 11960,200 11960,200 Office Office (SgFt) 250,470 - - - - 250,470 - - - Total (Cumulative) 500, 940 500, 940 500, 940 500, 940 500, 940 500, 940 751,410 757,470 751,410 751,410 Annual Commercial and Employment "Units " 125 - - 408 - 125 - - - ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... APPENDIX A 67 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 42 - Revenue Summary - Scenario 1 Revenue Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Special Assessment (Comm - $3,000/ac. Res - $ 1,000/ac.) $ 11610,050 $ 11573, 556 $ 1,293, 038 $ 1,293,038 $ 11293,038 $ 1, 1711044 $ 1, 171, 044 $ 1, 171 , 044 $ 1, 1711044 $ 1, 171,044 Impact Fee ($250 per unit) 90, 855 155, 957 197, 111 97,568 99, 829 196, 396 104/520 106, 952 211, 695 I IZ249 Property Tax (5 mills) 25, 735 24,253 54, 630 220,430 220,430 217, 792 295,546 295,546 295,546 461, 346 PIF (0. 5%) - - 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 11796, 850 1, 796, 850 Subtotal $ 1, 726, 640 $ 1, 753, 767 $2,443,204 $2,509,461 $2,511 , 722 $2,4831657 $2,469,534 $2,471 , 967 $3,4751135 $31541,489 Beginning Fund Balance $ 7, 726, 640 $ 1,536, 865 $ 1,536,865 $2,519,269 $3,043, 345 $3,537, 681 $4, 015, 987 $4,494, 708 $5, 974, 795 $ 7,579, 777 Annual Bond Payment $ 1, 943,542 $ 1, 984,324 $ 1 , 985, 937 $ 1, 987, 646 $ 1, 989,320 $ 1, 991,229 $ 1, 993,246 $ 1, 9951048 $ 1 , 997, 114 $ 11999, 326 I Ending Fund Balance ($216, 902) ($447,459) $9, 808 $531, 623 $ 1, 054,025 $ 1,546,453 $2,0221741 $2,499, 661 $31977, 682 $5, 5191845 Revenue Category _ Year I 1 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 _ Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Special Assessment (Comm - $ 1 , 0851544 $ 11049, 050 $ 1, 049, 050 $4881013 $488, 013 $45115191 $366, 019 $366, 019 $366, 019 $366, 019 $3,000/ac. Res - $ 1,000/ac.) Impact Fee ($250 per unit) 1461116 180,549 1201298 225,365 726,252 192,211 1631494 135, 602 738, 788 1421054 Property Tax (5 mills) 4801190 50Z290 536,462 528, 871 694,672 687, 081 6871081 727,253 764, 835 7641835 PIF (0.5%) 1, 7961850 11796,850 1, 796, 850 21695,275 2, 695,275 2,695,275 21695,275 21695,275 2, 695,275 2,6951275 Subtotal $3,4881700 $31528, 739 $3,502, 660 $3, 937,524 $41004,211 $4,0041211 $31911, 869 $3, 9181150 $3, 9641917 $31968, 183 Beginning Fund Balance $9, 0081544 $ 10,535, 712 $ 12,034,434 $ 13, 965,639 $ 151961 ,038 $ 771975, 607 $ 19, 873,338 $211774, 505 $23, 719,456 $25, 664, 634 Annual Bond Payment $2, 007,571 $2, 003, 938 $2,006,319 $2, 008, 812 $2, 0111577 $2,014, 137 $21016, 983 $2, 0191966 $2,023, 005 $2, 026,221 Ending Fund Balance $ 7,0061973 $81531, 774 $ 10,028, 115 $ 1If956, 826 $ 13, 949,521 $ 15, 961,469 $ 17,856,355 $ 191754,539 $21, 6961451 $231638,413 ■ Special assessment is imposed only on undeveloped CAC property , $ 3 , 000 per acre commercial , $ 1 , 000 per acre residential . ■ Impact fee is applied on the entire travelshed , $250 per commercial or residential unit. ■ A 5-mill Property tax is imposed on the CAC only. ■ 0 . 5 percent Public Improvement Fee (PIF) is imposed on developed CAC retail property . ■ The CAC produces about 96 percent of revenues in this scenario . ■ Each commercial 'unit' is equivalent to 2,000 sf. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 43 - Revenue Summary - Scenario 2 Revenue Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Special Assessment (Comm - $529,313 $572, 890 $424,059 $424,059 $424, 059 $380,562 $380,562 $380,562 $380,562 $380,562 $950/ac. Res - $450/ac.) Property Tax (5 mills) 25, 735 24,253 54, 630 220t430 220t430 277, 792 295,546 295,546 295,546 461, 346 PIF (0.50%) 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 11796,850 11796, 850 Subtotal $555, 047 $537, 144 $ 1 , 377, 114 $ 1, 542, 915 $ 1,542, 915 $ 1,496, 779 $ 1,574,533 $ 1 , 574,533 $2,472, 958 $2, 6381759 Beginning Fund Balance $4, 355, 047 $4,283, 980 $3, 808,443 $3,478,040 $3, 132,677 $2, 725, 658 $2,378, 164 $2, 074, 713 $2,533, 311 $2, 638, 759 Annual Bond Payment $ 1 , 943,542 $ 1 , 984,324 $ 1 , 9851937 $ 1 , 987, 646 $ 1, 989,320 $ 1, 991,229 $ 1, 993,246 $ 1 , 995,048 $ 1, 9971114 $ 1, 999,326 Ending Fund Balance $2,411,505 $2,299, 656 $ 1 , 822,507 $ 11490,394 $ It143,358 $ 734,429 $384, 918 $ 79, 665 $536, 798 $ 11237, 027 Interest Earnings @4% $ 135,331 $ 131, 673 $ 1IZ619 $99,369 $85,521 $69,202 $55,262 $40, 688 $61,390 $89,467 of average balance Revenue Categorr Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 76 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Special Assessment (Comm - $950/ac. Res - $450/ac.) Property Tax (5 mills) 460, 190 502,290 536,462 528, 871 694, 672 693, 190 726,206 769, 788 769, 788 769, 788 PIF (0.50%) 1 , 796, 850 I , 796, 850 If796, 850 2, 695,275 2, 695,275 2, 695,275 2,695,275 2, 6951275 21695,275 2,695,275 Subtotal $2,257, 040 $2,299, 140 $2, 333,312 $31224, 146 $3, 389, 947 $3, 388,465 $3,421,481 $3,465,063 $3,465,063 $3,465,063 Beginning Fund Balance $3,583,527 $3, 984,406 $2, 006,319 $5, 788, 101 $7, 360,584 $8, 991 , 725 $ 70, 778,455 $ 12,554, 933 $ 14,461, 827 $ 16,4411898 Annual Bond Payment $2, 001,571 $2, 003, 938 $2,426, 758 $21008, 812 $2, 0111517 $2, 0141137 $Z076t983 $2, 019, 966 $2t023,005 $2, 026,221 Ending Fund Balance $ 1, 581, 956 $ 1, 980,468 $2,426, 758 $3, 779,289 $5, 349,067 $6, 977,588 $8, 701,472 $ 10,534, 967 $ 12,438, 822 $ 14,415, 677 Interest Earnings @ 4% $ 103,310 $ 119,297 $ 137, 197 $ 791,348 $254, 193 $3 79,386 $388, 399 $461, 798 $538, 013 $617, 151 of average balance ■ Special assessment is imposed only on undeveloped CAC property , $ 925 per acre commercial , $400 per acre residential . ■ Includes public funding of $ 5 million over 2 years . ■ A 5- mill Property tax is imposed on the CAC only . ■ 0 . 5 percent Public Improvement Fee (PIF) is imposed on developed CAC retail property . ■ The CAC produces about 90 percent of revenues in this scenario . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... APPENDIX A 69 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 44 - Revenue Summary - Scenario 3 Revenue Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Special Assessment ($ 150/ac. $95, 100 $89, 626 $ 751600 $75, 600 $75, 600 $65,857 $65, 851 $65/ 851 $65, 857 $65, 857 - Res and Comm) Property Tax (expanded area, 396, 090 394, 609 424, 985 590, 786 5901786 588, 147 665, 901 6651901 665, 901 831 , 702 5 mills) PIF (0. 50%) - - 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 898,425 11796,850 1179618501 Subtotal $49It190 $484,234 $ 1,399, 010 $ 1,564, 811 $ 1,564,811 $ 1,552,423 $ 11630, 177 $ 11630, 177 $2,528, 602 $2, 6941403 Public Funding ( 1 -time) $3,8001000 11200/ 000 Beginning fund balance $4,291, 190 $4, 164, 659 $3, 7061246 $3, 393, 651 $31066, 808 $2, 712, 798 $2,420,434 $2, 114, 318 $2,6921545 $3,4571593 Annual Bond Payment $ 7, 943,542 $ 7, 984, 324 $ 1, 985, 937 $ 7, 987, 646 $ 1, 989,320 $ 1, 991,229 $ 1 , 9931246 $ 1, 995,048 $ 7, 997, 114 $ 1 , 999,326 Ending Fund Balance $2,347, 648 $2, 180, 335 $ 1, 7201309 $ 1,406, 005 $ 1, 077,489 $ 721,569 $427, 188 $ 119,270 $695,431 $ 1,458,267 Interest Earnings @ 4% of $ 132, 777 $ 126, 900 $ 108,531 $95, 993 $82, 886 $68,687 $56, 952 $44,672 $67, 760 $98,317 I average balance Revenue Category Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 76 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 ISpecial Assessment ($ 150/ac. - Res and Comm) Property Tax (expanded area, 830/ 545 872,645 906, 818 899, 227 11065,027 1, 063,546 1 ,0961561 11140, 143 It 140, 143 1, 140, 143 5 mills) PIF (0.50%) 11796, 850 11796, 850 It796, 850 2,6951275 21695,275 2, 695,275 2,6951275 21695,275 2,695,275 2,6951275 Subtotal $2, 627, 395 $2,667,495 $2, 703, 668 $31594,502 $31760,302 $3, 758,821 $3, 797, 836 $3, 835,418 $3,835,418 $3, 835,418 Public Funding ( I -time) Beginning fund balance $4, 183, 979 $4, 979,231 $5, 838, 051 $ 7, 6191629 $9, 635, 728 $ 1It728,231 $ 13, 9341776 $ 161270,262 $ 18, 696, 125 $21,2151923 Annual Bond Payment $2,001,571 $2,003, 938 $2,006, 319 $2,008, 812 $2, 0111517 $2, 014, 137 $2, 0161983 $21019, 966 $Z023/ 005 $2, 0261221 Ending Fund Balance $2, 182,408 $2, 975,293 $3,8311732 $5,6701817 $7, 624,211 $ 9, 714,093 $ 11, 917, 793 $ 141250,296 $ 76, 673, 120 $ 19, 189, 702 Interest Earnings @ 4% of $ 127, 328 $ 1591090 $ 193, 396 $2641609 $345, 199 $428,846 $517, 051 $610,411 $707, 385 $808, 112 average balance ■ Special assessment is imposed only on undeveloped CAC property , $ 150 per acre , all land uses . ■ Includes public funding of $ 5 million over 2 years . ■ A 5- mill Property tax is imposed on expanded area (see map next page ) ■ 0 . 5 percent Public Improvement Fee ( PIF) is imposed on developed CAC retail property . ■ The CAC produces about 89 percent of revenues in this scenario . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE PLAN Appendix B Figure 45 - Outreach Sample, Stakeholder Bulletin Page 1 Project Schedule Pha + r 1 : [ rill F ' . 1 ' rilitil I left phnu• 11 : SC1 rt• MitneQwtaf.a.f rraSa. •rtd Phase Ill: lunPleentutadon n•\+rop MtpiVnerttainor action purl aatrrrdr I►urtmtp nut/t••wrt• karwry Wto uaa and d•aW r•Qt aettartl Air CAC FecNOW •do~ o1 FlItn Pb�e M P60 Documratt 0•toAryrq a w cbw eua FYttir Alin obcvrtatir ■ ■ ■ ■ Ti lasoome Stnkeho Mo. Mootlnps ■ ■ ■ Public Open Nouao ■ Plan Purpose Activity (enter i DtiNelop actian qulegKi to nnplt'Itiel linpro\ements to the i Inrentatr 2S1H hwA j92 hnnclun a• with articulareni haul j 'g Y • R P P on detdopeal altrmatne hinding meclunitmi to allow the project it to go dirt'ctly into III dnlgn. 'Ihe I'lan will go to thr cooprtanng AApticiea inducting City of Fan CAlini I awn of Windfor hit adopoon br thnr retpectier govenlmg bodlM (ntetgorernneonul Apeenirnu will be baud on this document. is aFproptiate. • tr , l '!t � , � • Drrehip action ttratcon to implefum . impro. rnlrnn z i1 � .� t• ..,. _ — Altenuuvr funding ntrchanttnu (public And . . 34Nil - Advance to impkmcnuuoo .cvniei i • Connnuout stAthoWrt renew Ptcwtiv to panlcipatttrg alcnctn foe adoption by poselintng bodk. uN•e Ex"tar lmngummincntal AgrtclI its t • Interchange Improvement Plan 7=Z!1 taauo t • Fall 2006 Stakeholder Bulletin Look inside to learn how we intend to build the interchange . . . ....................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... APPENDIX B 71 .......................................... . . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-25 / SH392 INTERCHANGE PLAN Figure 46 - Outreach Sample, Stakeholder Bulletin Page 1 Wlih lane pmwd, in 1l in"r aiO m muthrtw In Wwr wards. the eyed for ihr IniadijiHc awd the Ntdh Ftoet RaneF AtrmFw1 sun Po Cadimi in m c yl i die opamy of impaoremeni a chore, hu T6 money is nor- Plaun Ing Orpnia lllm .NVKMPO) on dr gn the esiuimg hINSH 392 Inmduny¢ fedrrry and lundi ig iu ierrhange Luplrarzmy hx bm1 •rpui&: iii4lt Imlp ". Iu enki rap In Jamuq 20061 dw Um of Fan CAlim AM tkd rlApkP it tojkroLmd jAp rrhi io pike ■nlid the lbwn of W-d rdmr mooed inia in The p,upoke d ehe I J!WSH 392 Jnindunbc inikmatr. udegvuc public firillitio tenet ht InogWkemheeneJ AgyfCm M ii(:Al n iding lml myvnemc PLia I+ w derelpp ad:&Wa geareg" "L Althou# dw Cdorado DgmrtH&mt of bud imc mild dcle iopmm m lire i-25 ]ed elk unpbnreoi unlreWMMkenei tD all: ULMchinbkc, TmWIx ado■ 4C VA)TI lui idevified den irp Gtprow RLLhdJ!01 lmehlktnW, Tie lxtgnk+r " dh 144ik lake ri1q+ r ik oh dic&rilig n a hiker Felorlrf PMIOnr dkete Ii iw f !tWXJ of dkc IGA imlw6 ilk ntnl ra cooprrahr altnnali� Rmelhiti inrtlkaniimi io alitm llir eu uding ara>atWC for a new inwrchwgryr deiigrk amenµ Fan Collim. Wolf oo- Laiinn Caumr- pmlco 10 p dimdr w iu riikir Ikuµi. (PR#ad the Project Spansars If you lum ally ilkK U01M isle-irirM% to cuiurrnk ahoui dw IrMH 392 1 ninchaux lmpromil nt Milk. plu � aunuu sk piuinT slnmarx fete WrapM !oa #Yumarar Smk i City Plammer, Clry of fore Callas blre€mi of Planning, Tawm of WH)dsor 2131 N❑reh CakgeRvenuerforTColllnkCCMZ1 M1 Walnui 57rleet, Whdsoi, COW550 ph❑nr. 970-721 {T378 f bane: 970-6a&74T6 E-mail pwrayMcgov,com Egnall, Jplslmmermvindswgov,€mm httplfkgm.coftadwarkeplanningl3921nierthenae4*p hilptflwwr .vkmndsoruow.com+towptanningpri4AUN Fmqucntly Askcd Questions n W+� l e ti1lJ1A Ara i♦t• ieAd igrrsdrt np Rhli fiq7 �i�� n4� 3lUr wr€� r1t5�0�15 � Ill{1 Open Houses IAThe Caiy of FoT( CJPIJiprs ,rot{ the Tin.-tl of WindiOT are feading Byallen+lmg uakdiiolller meetingLVroprliyaad bawneA ¢hrsiudy. wiihcmperarionfrweplarlmffGDwrpy, l�#f1 1 [}O awnersxslhwrnrlmpovemrntarrewallhelpde~clop alundingaritegbllaemilymgrei m* ihomg and CDO'!'. Mlvhbipgrl, ,1A •t shttlel 4IR MN id M4ei 101 tntprlpi! what isth■ Rurpaea vTtklr Plao� lhrtuhwlWillprlcdlhrnrw Wrliflingr- *.atakrhalfW% tillet4p We" the weld byoroiming IA `rodtvdopietlontrralcocerolmplrmntrfokproNtmerturo thnrwNhhwlahaulOtNPandthicuei�rgIhem16 lbrl- $�5H33 inser�l,airge, ,rllhparlku4lreilap an parlkipile- Thtrriglrinpuldial64i dM Ihroaplrllkcllp , ti Ft 41W a vWAE iuMing slra6rgk +. D be dmlliped. de+o1op4irg altcntatim Fuiidiirg mcchanlsms tie hpllaw the prlxJecr to PP dJrccrly loco 15nal draign, 1rho North l:•3Jt Eirtlito" rl•ntrx lnip� ! #Utwiipii at (EIS) If Alto studying Ihpphl4otMOAt# 10 tRr I nterchang ■- ilex dman this Rudy Mau to 10 r EI9t AThe Plan seeks 10 &%Vx p 0 f,llediiil{ Plan To advance the lnFcmhanFr concept being comideecd In ehe LIS. Qffie< chin minor modificaeimis, Ala€lk as the Jocm Ion of the wear fmhieaW roJ hi. ehe confipurarion would be thr same, Thies Nm n Luse allows it io br consrni€rad Almoner. What funitmg mocha mfihhni are lid Cainiforiol? AThe fitndl rig plin will I lhxiy be mnlpawd of wvml dilTrmn srrrrrrgks, but ihr prlmapy ones hnay br sprcial asKsmilimms and JsuPbrcr fM on pruprriy owners WILWet A dr60od MW ground LJae inrtxluapr, Orht:r poernil.J sowres may be iurlon ioul , start, and federal fi.nds- What de you used aka to doF heleel.l ei,e tl .h rbLader itltedilljo .head provide lopui. Tdl }roar ndgbbars About dhe Man sa rhea cait ilia Sn lot. it d: SAVE THE DATE ki - i F.fFebruary 1 4r 2007 : ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 APPENDIX B 1 1 • i Implementation Funding This plan's next steps are to continue tOZ771 with actions necessary to implement the Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary preferred funding strategy, land use, challenge. The funding scenarios match benefits with costs r and transportation and design schemes. and ensure a reliable funding stream in which revenue is I � ) ( f � � � ) � ) � ) �, iowlw=� �Initial action steps that are critical to the generated early in the bond payment. To identify the mostsuccess of this Ian include the following: feasible strategy, three combination-funding scenarios were p 9Y. 9 J JJJJ .J JJ J considered : J 1 ) ) 1 . Accept the Plan. J J 2 . Amend the IGA to continue Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and includes partnership/initial funding. a special assessment and property tax for CAC landowners, 3 . Request justification for separate an impact fee imposed on the "travelshed," and a Public action or utilize existing EIS. Improvement Fee (PIF) . No municipal or other governmental support is assumed for this scenario. -ass, , r - 4. Commit funding for 1601 /NEPA ��� . „fir r Y a, j .� - ' '— (EA/CE) process and other Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes compliance activities. — •- a financial support from CDOT, the NFRMPO, and the y 5. Amend IGA to secure public and municipalities of Windsor and Fort Collins; a lower special Is ea _ private funding commitments. assessment on CAC landowners (undeveloped land only) that �: :T ,. ..� � 1. ` - -' ' ' ' � . ;; n _ � 6. Form General Improvement District. sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property tax on CAC "°' • ' 7. Discontinue development landowners. Isms,_ �- r• ^�— - moratorium. +- 8. Determine final locations and Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden to a larger area and includes all municipal funding from Scenario funding for frontage roads. g P g 9. Preliminary/Final Engineering. 2 and an expanded property tax district with a mill levy. There �' t E is also a small special assessment on all undeveloped CAC P P . land that sunsets in 10 ears and a PIF. ' (oir} too In the future additional public funding (beyond existing _i Pete Wray, AICP assumptions) may become available through sources such Senior Planner CDOT, NFRMPO and future Regional Transportation Authority- plan Summary ® City of Fort Collins Public funds could use to supplement funding derived from 970-221 -6376 private sources, reducing the burden on private citizens. The I-25/SH 392 Interchange is the gateway to the in recent years, the capacity of the existing 1-25/392 pwray@fcgov.com Future funding source such as an RTA would still require a Town of Windsor and southern Fort Collins. However, Interchange facility has been significantly impacted. private match and therefore the institutional frameworks more than just a key gateway, it is integral to the In order for new development to proceed adjacent outlined above would still be required . performance of the larger transportation system. to the interstate, adequate public facilities need to Joe Plummer Transportation along the Front Range is inseparable be assessed . Planning Director from land use. It is these land uses that will contribute Town of Windsor to the economic sustainability of these communities. In March 2006, the City of Fort Collins and the 970-686-7476 Town of Windsor entered into an Intergovernmental jplummer@windsorgov.com Although the Colorado Department of Transportation Agreement (IGA) that focused on cooperation, land (CDOT) has identified this interchange as a high use and development at the 1-25/SH 392 priority project, large amounts of federal or state Interchange. The purpose of the IGA includes the _ funding are not in place. Historically, towns and need to partner with affected parties on developing cities have not taken on the challenging task of a plan; including design and funding to support To download the aor funding interchanges, but as times have changed, interchange improvements. Fort Collins and Windsor complete plan, visit � � so has the role of our municipalities. Before have joined together to lead this Plan, along with fcgov.com/cityplanning ��� - development can continue, a new interchange and coordination with North Front Range Metropolitan supporting land uses must be put into position. With Planning Organization (MPO), CDOT, Larimer - new growth in Windsor and southeast Fort Collins County, and local property and business owners. 1 � Purpose of Plan Process & Participants The Plan represents a unique process The 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan process has gone are eligible for annexation. There are 3 types with a focus on strategic actions and through three stages of development. Phase I (August-December As part of the partnership between the City and Town of of buffers associated with Fossil Creek identification of critical next steps in 2006) involved the existing conditions assessment, prioritization of Windsor to reconstruct the interchange, the City has a unique Reservoir and Swede Lake that range from process to fund and reconstruct the issues, and initial opportunities and constraints analysis. Phase 11 challenge on the 501to 1 ,320'. The most restrictive is a 1 ,320' interchange. As an alternative to (October 2006-March 2007) identified transportation needs, west side in buffer on the peninsula between the reservoir pursuing a more traditional planning infrastructure improvements, land use vision, and potential funding balancing the need and Swede Lake. This buffer is to protect process including establishing vision, strategies for the project. Phase III (April-Sept 2007) involved the to support future documented bald eagle communal roosting goaprrovl des a cand lear framewo lic rk d Ian development of the action plan and narrowed down the optimal development that will sites. A wetlands buffer of 100' is identified direction to follow quickly into funding mechanisms. IN du help contribute to the for this portion of the shoreline - which implementation . cost of the project and provide future sales tax revenue, while contain wetlands, and wetlands between Throughout the process, the Plan has included rigorous public at the same time preserving important natural resources Swede Lake and County Road 392. A buffer The key elements of the Plan include involvement and contribution from decision-makers. The Plan has including migratory roosting habitat, shoreline and wetland of 50' is identified for the wetlands south of interchange configuration design, been guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised habitat. The Plan inventories existing natural resources and County Road 392 . supporting land use in activity center, of 29 members, including representatives from the City of Fort natural area buffers, west side frontage Collins, Town of Windsor, identifies a range of corresponding setback buffers based road alternatives and funding scenarios. Larimer County, on type of habitat. The range of natural resource buffers All of these elements will require Colorado Department of — identified in the Plan provides a framework additional discussions, refinement and Transportation (CDOT), # The range of natural resource buffers identified in the Plan for future discussions. A final buffer setback coordination prior to finalization, as Northern Front Range ` I are based on discussions with the Colorado Division of determination will be made in response to part of on-going implementation efforts. Metropolitan Planning + t Wildlife, Environmental Consultants, and reviewing buffer proposed future development through the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization (NFRMPO), standards set forth in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. On development review process of the City of Key Objectives and the private sector. the west side of the nterchange, most of the adjacent properties Fort Collins for projects within its jurisdiction. The TAC has met • Identify Corridor Activity Center regularly throughout the with supporting land use process to provide - oversight and • Coordinate with CDOT on EIS information to the project As stated in the introduction, the purpose of the original IGA The establishment of partnerships with preferred alternative and 1601 team. included the need to cooperate among Fort Collins, Windsor, landowners and developers is also critical to process Larimer County, and the North Front Range Metropolitan the implementation of the Plan. Property • Include property/business owners, Private landowners have Planning Organization (NFRMPO) on design and funding owners and public entities will both development representatives in also been closely involved interchange improvements. This partnership has been integral collaborate to initiate the preferred funding process with the Plan. There are over 30 property owners within the Corridor to the success o the Plan to date, and is expected to continue strategy and create the supporting land uses Activity Center (CAC), directly affected by the interchange. through implementation . necessary to see the Plan through to fruition. • Assess natural resource areas adjacent to interchange How and when the interchange area is improved, developed, and Design funded has major financial implications for them. Because of this, identifies the elements needed to complete • Identify alternative funding the project team conducted five properly owner meetings for the The I -25/SH 392 interchange is Windsor's primary access the project of reconstruction of the interchange strategies immediate area and two public workshops for the greater community. Through these meetings, an open dialogue was established to point and the first of Fort Collins' four. Because of this, the including bridge replacement, access ramps • interchange serves as a gateway to these two rapidly growing and portions of the frontage roads. Initial Identify supporting frontage road ensure that the interests of private landowners are well-represented and local street network in the Plan . Two municipal websites provided the community with communities. Bridge design, landscape features, and concept sketches were identified as potential • Coordinate transit, pedestrian and up-to-date information. development standards will establish an identity for the area, design options to consider. As the project bicycle facilities in plan and will also influence how well the area is received by moves into implementation, more detailed The project team also looked to city, town, and county officials for consumers as a place to live, work, shop, and eat. The Plan design concepts will be reviewed and finalized. • Develop action strategies to direction . The involvement of the managers, planners, and legal implement improvements teams from the City of Fort Collins, Town of Windsor, and Lorimer :.- r.:��— County included three financing workshops, and ensured that the • Plan acceptance by Town Board Plan included financing tools that are feasible and will lead to the ( ,•rf � � ��� _ "'"�, �> and City Council timely improvement of the interchange. A joint worksession was also held between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Town of Windsor elected officials to discuss implementation of the Plan . a� m > a) 3 T z m O>I r 0(� 0 N 0O .L.Nc O w 0 0 Ind N �a OREA PKWY o O E '00 o mu C O N V c Ccr in E O ON x U x W lL � IL O ` y- _- - C O a Ivoa w+ ° o E a a ' - N - a O O V E C y 7 O N 'D a N t Q O) • © C a (n > C C - • • • O O O • T 'O d - • O N LE • � • • L N a • �� E 6 Ou • Q .E � o 1 ***IF ' ForrArr . I c ` m MONifT.ZwYt'!:`T? ,Ti'!Cl=j O ) Q w goal WOW 0 . U c V O Q LO- Q -C o E N o Z o z a, ovoo � S v ,• - . . r , rr• rrr . rr rr . , rurr rr, r • rrrrrrrr Zr p O p ) al CL •••ir ii tr E ' O C N O uoo 4 o r t 11 ooL0 > a C -0 y O) is R o II 1 � vL a) o ' c • (2�5 11 1 ac c 3 � c o w r 6 1 a o 0 -D a II 1 a a .c d ° a, pgD o o � .c S I is Ws O N C N 1 _ 401 O CDC N O U Ti 7 t N Nq � m O1cu o o E c a U yq o ' c a -0 o LL -0 p d d J d = w op, a E c (U LL N a ° ous o / Y ON NONVL 3-TOV3 ti i Framework Plan Elements Transportation Land Use The preferred transportation layout follows the tight diamond interchange configuration from m- , �! L e g e n d the North 1 -25 Draft Environmental Impact r> .• ; Statement (DEIS) . This design will improve both The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) is the focus of this study local and regional mobility by alleviating traffic "`"°""'A identifying existing and future commercial, employment congestion and decreasing overall travel times. "`OOAsO°A and residential Based on the North Front Range MPO's Regional land uses on both Traffic Model and CDOT's Environmental HARMONY COUNTY ROAD 38 sides of the Overview Study (EOS) for the State Highway interchange area . 392 corridor, the recommended cross section The quality of for the highway and interchange bridge is 4- development, travel lanes, in addition to the necessary turn views and open lanes at intersections, pedestrian and bicycle lands within the lanes and walks. The current City of Fort Collins KF HTeR CAC is important for establishing this area as the primary Master Street Plan shows a 6-lane facility based gateway into Windsor and southeast gateway into Fort on earlier analysis. Staff will consider supporting Collins. a recommendation to amendment this map to bring it consistent with this most recent Three fundamental drivers of the land use plan for the determination, later in 2008 after first reviewing area are the preferred Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station in additional analysis from the 1601 Study process. ntaeY the immediate area of the interchange, the open space amenities at Fossil Creek Reservoir, and a series of As part of the DEIS, the frontage road alignment Fossil Creek transportation improvements (including relocating the located on the east side is consistent with this Reservoir frontage road) . Development would build upon these three Plan recommendation . On the west side of the resources, creating new employment areas, neighborhoods, interchange, three alternatives are identified in commercial areas, and a system of connected open space the Plan. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Rojo areas. There are a total of 402 acres of commercial within Plan currently shows a general alignment, which 9 32, the CAC (252 on east and150 on west), 114 acres of closely matches the DEIS location. The Plan employment and 369 of mixed-use residential on the east identifies two alternatives to the DEIS to initially w side. assess increasing the separation between the , interchange ramp and frontage road • � intersections, and not bisect vacant land designated for future commercial development that will contribute to the cost of the project. A ITIT final west frontage road alignment will be determined in response to proposed future development in the area . Y ! Local bus service from the new transit hub at 57TH o College Ave. and Harmony Rd . would act as a m feeder system to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station or Park-and-Ride facility within the / CAC. This plan proposes that the BRT parking area be located on either the east or west side of 1-25. Ideally, the station located in the center of 1 -25 could be accessed from Park-and- Ride facilities on both sides of I -25 via a pedestrian OS COUNTY ROAD 24E bridge. If a BRT station is not constructed, the plan assumes that Park-and-Ride facilities would ' .. *A" still still be constructed along with the new pedestrian —� bridge over 1 -25 . Additional transportation options for the local streets adjacent to the +' interchange could include a dedicated on-street bike lane for cyclists, a detached sidewalk for Imp • 'L• + '`. pedestrians and a trail for other users. Attachment 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT T INT GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2006, by and between THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, a Colorado home-rule m4iicipality, hereinafter referred to as "Windsor," and the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado home-rule mutcipality, hereinafter referred to as "Fort Collins." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Windsor Town Board and the Fort Collins City Council have recently participated in discussions concerning potential benefits that would result from a cooperative agreement regarding land use and development in that area of Interstate 25 Corridor where it intersects with Colorado State Highway 392; and WHEREAS, Windsor and Fort Collins are both signatories to the I-25 Corridor Plan and are committed to regulating development in accordance with that plan; and WHEREAS, growth and development pressures and demands for municipal services exist in the area in question where both municipalities have designated territory within their respective urban growth boundaries (UGB); and WHEREAS, Windsor and Fort Collins are both committed to planned and orderly growth; to regulating the location and activities of development that may result in increased demands for services; to providing for the orderly development and extension of urban services, facilities, and regulations; to avoiding unnecessary duplication of governmental services; to simplifying governmental structure when possible; to promoting economic viability of both municipalities; and to raising revenue sufficient to meet the needs of the citizens of both municipalities; and WHEREAS, Windsor and Fort Collins are also both committed to habitat protection and environmental protection and mitigation; and WHEREAS, because of the proximity of the municipalities, the nature and quality of development within each of the municipalities will affect the nature and quality of development in the other municipality and the revenues of each; and WHEREAS, increased coordination and cooperation between the two municipalities, including planning for and managing growth and development of land, the resolution of conflict regarding urban growth boundaries, and the coordination of annexation policies and procedure, will enhance the ability of the two municipalities to achieve their respective and common goals; and 1 WHEREAS, applicable provisions of the Colorado Constitution and the statutes of the State of Colorado, specifically, § 29-20-101, et seq., C.R.S., authorize municipalities to enter into mutually binding and enforceable agreements regarding the joint exercise of plamiing, zoning and related powers; and WHEREAS, this Intergovenmental Agreement is entered into by Windsor and Fort Collins pursuant to the aforesaid constitutional and statutory authority as well as other powers afforded to home-rule municipalities by the Constitution of the State of Colorado; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations expressed herein, it is hereby agreed by and between Windsor and Fort Collins as follows-- 1. Scope of Agreement. Windsor and Fort Collins acknowledge that on June 28, 1999, they entered into two intergovernmental agreements regarding annexations in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir and amiexations east of Interstate 25. The City of Loveland Colorado and Larimer County, Colorado, are also parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding annexations in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. That Intergovernmental Agreement identifies the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area and affords Fort Collins the exclusive right to annex within that area. The second agreement regarding annexations east of Interstate 25 is solely between Fort Collins and Windsor; and, by its terns, Fort Collins agrees not to annex any territory east of Interstate 25 between Larimer County Road 34C and Larimer County Road 30 unless Windsor agrees to any such annexation. To the extent those agreements bind Fort Collins and Windsor, they shall remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified by the provisions hereof or by provisions of subsequent agreements between Windsor and Fort Collins. 2. Definitions. Corridor Activity Center. Corridor Activity Center (CAC) shall refer to the geographic area generally depicted on `Exhibit A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Comprehensive Development Plan for the Corridor Activity Center (CAC). Within twelve (12) months of the adoption of this Intergovernmental Agreement, Windsor and Fort Collins agree that they shall use their best efforts to develop and implement a mutually acceptable comprehensive development plan for the development of land and for the provision of urban services and facilities within the CAC. It is anticipated that in the preparation of the plan, Windsor and Fort Collins will consult with other entities, including but not limited to, Larimer County, Colorado; Colorado Department of Transportation; Colorado Division of Wildlife; North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; City of Loveland, Colorado, as well as property owners within and adjacent to the CAC. It is understood and agreed that Windsor and Fort Collins may require the expertise of outside consultants or other experts skilled in the preparation of such comprehensive development plans. Costs incurred therefor shall be borne 2 equally by Windsor and Fort Collins except to the extent that such costs are offset by contributions from other entities participating in the preparation of the plan. It is understood and agreed that the comprehensive development plan, as prepared and adopted by Windsor and Fort Collins, shall address all of the wide variety of issues contained in this Intergovernmental Agreement relating to cooperation between the two municipalities. As such, Windsor and Fort Collins acknowledge that while it is their intention to implement the provisions of this Intergovernmental Agreement, as defined, it may be necessary for either municipality to seek modification of this Intergovernmental Agreement to adequately address issues raised with regard to the CAC during the period of consultation referred to above. Windsor and Fort Collins agree that the comprehensive development plan may be adopted in whole or in stages by a majority vote of the Windsor Town Board and the Fort Collins City Council and shall include, at a minimum,provisions addressing the following: (a) Resolution of conflicts between the municipalities and the establishment of urban growth boundaries that do not overlap each other. (b) Land use regulations within the CAC. (c) Responsibility for providing governmental services within the CAC, including but not limited to, utility services, law enforcement, fire and emergency services, and code enforcement. (d) A drainage master plan for the CAC, including the planning, design, construction, maintenance and financing of drainage improvements and facilities. (e) Development and maintenance of parks, recreation services, and open space within the CAC. (f) Environmental standards, habitat protection, and environmental mitigation. (g) Setbacks, design standards, landscaping, architectural standards, building materials, massing, height, and view corridors. Such land use restrictions shall include, but shall not be limited to, commercial development, industrial development, residential use, mineral development, construction of cell towers and signage. 4. Urban Growth Boundaries and Annexation. (a) Windsor and Fort Collins agree that they shall make any necessary adjustments to their respective comprehensive plans or other official documents to reflect 3 their respective urban growth boundaries and other land use modifications as may be required by the subsequently adopted comprehensive development plan. (b) Upon final adoption of a comprehensive development plan, Fort Collins shall have exclusive authority to exercise its amnexation powers within its UGB as described in the plan. (c) Upon final adoption of a comprehensive development plan, Windsor shall have exclusive authority to exercise its annexation powers within its UGB as described in the plan. (d) Both Windsor and Fort Collins specifically agree that upon the receipt of or preparation by either municipality of any documents proposing annexation within the CAC, copies of all such documents shall be submitted to the other municipality for review and comment at least sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of annexation by action of the governing body of either municipality. (e) Windsor and Fort Collins specifically agree that in the event either municipality intends to approve any and all financial or other incentives in connection with a proposed annexation within the CAC, copies of all documents purporting to establish such incentives shall be submitted to the other municipality for review and (� comment at least sixty (60) days prior to any intended action thereon. ' (f) With the exception of the specific recitals contained herein, nothing in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall otherwise be construed as limiting or otherwise restricting the annexation powers of the respective municipalities within each municipality's UGB. 5. Shared Revenues. Windsor and Fort Collins understand and agree that the implementation of this Intergoverrunental Agreement and the achievement of its purposes, including plamiing for and regulating the use of land and the provision of urban services, facilities, rights-of-way, and other requirements, will require significant time and effort on the part of both municipalities, as well as the expenditure of substantial revenues. Accordingly, Windsor and Fort Collins agree to evaluate potential revenue sharing alternatives in percentages yet to be determined upon completion and adoption of the comprehensive development plan. 6. Reconstruction of the Interstate 25/Colorado State Highway 392 Interchange. Windsor and Fort Collins understand and agree that an essential component of the development of the CAC is the reconstruction of the Interstate 25/Colorado State Highway 392 Interchange. As part of the comprehensive development plan for the CAC, Windsor and Fort Collins agree to explore fully the creation of metropolitan districts or other financing mechanisms that will enable the reconstruction of this interchange and thereby promote orderly growth and development in the CAC. 4 z,F 7. Establishment and Funding of Reserves. To the extent necessary and for so long as this Intergovernmental Agreement or subsequent agreements addressing the CAC remain in effect, subject to paragraph 12 hereof, Windsor and Fort Collins agree that they shall antivally appropriate agreed upon funds to be administered by the Windsor Town Manager and the Fort Collins City Manager. These reserve funds shall be used solely for studies and other related joint efforts and cooperative activities between the two municipalities in the continued implementation of the intent and purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement or subsequent agreements addressing the CAC. 8. Good Faith. Windsor and Fort Collins agree to devote their best efforts and to exercise good faith in implementing and adhering to the provisions of this Intergovernmental Agreement throughout its term. Windsor and Fort Collins agree that they shall fully cooperate with one another in adopting such amendments as may be necessary to effectuate the intention of Windsor and Fort Collins as expressed in this Intergovernmental Agreement. 9. Intent of Agreement. This Intergovernmental Agreement is intended to describe rights and responsibilities only as between Windsor and Fort Collins. It is not intended to and shall not be deemed to confer rights to any persons or entities not named as parties hereto, or to require Windsor or Fort Collins to annex any property or to provide any services to any land. This Intergovernmental Agreement is not intended to limit in any way the powers or responsibilities of Larimer County or of any other political subdivision of the State of Colorado not a party hereto. M Effective Date. This Intergovernmental Agreement shall be presented to the Windsor Town Board and the Fort Collins City Council for adoption by resolution as provided by law. This Intergovernmental Agreement shall become effective upon its adoption by both municipalities. 11. Term. This Intergovernmental Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of three (3) years or until superseded by a subsequent agreement between Windsor and Fort Collins, further implementing the provisions set forth herein, whichever occurs first. 12. Annual Appropriation of Funds. It is understood and agreed that the financial obligations imposed upon Windsor and Fort Collins by the ternis of this Intergovernmental Agreement are specifically subject to the amzual appropriation of monies by the respective municipalities to fund those obligations. Windsor and Fort Collins intend to plan appropriation of such monies to fulfill their respective financial obligations Under this hitergovemmental Agreement. 13. Amendment. All amendments to this Intergovernmental Agreement must be made in writing and approved by resolution by the governing bodies of both municipalities. 5 i1G. it r. 14. Notices. Requirements of notice hereunder shall be deemed satisfied upon mailing to Windsor or Fort Collins as follows: Town Manager copy to: John P. Frey, Esq. Town of Windsor Windsor Town Attorney 301 Walnut Street P. 0. Box 2283 Windsor, CO 80550 Fort Collins, CO 80522-2283 City Manager copy to: City Attorney City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Fort Collins, CO 80522 15. Effect of Invalidity. If any portion of any paragraph of this Intergovernmental Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either municipality or as to both municipalities, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other paragraph(s) of this Intergovernmental Agreement except that if a requirement or limitation in such paragraph(s) is declared invalid as to one municipality, any corresponding requirements or limitation shall be deemed invalid as to the other municipality. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Windsor and Fort Collins have caused this Intergovernmental Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TOWN OF WINDSOR � � r hc[ y war SEEK,, mayor AT TST ry, tk r •� '�� ,;s� ;. jai% PRO. ED . S'LO RM: APPRO�ONTENT: own, ttomey T—owi—TiTimager CITY F R SLI�IPd�S By: ayo l�. f ��r • ���Cr111 soS [Print Name] E City C er APPROU D,AS FORM: ED OR CON T: Tify Attorney anager 6 v �.✓ Exhibit A Corridor Activitv Center City of Fort Collins l - i M1wM Vicinity Mapr Sdie:7 3 o0(r f Town of Windsor -carpenter-Raw -- _ --- -wav 392 T l is Legend TOWN OFWINDSOR, CO I Legend dorActivtyCerder ,,,=som Attachment 4 • • and Zoning :•. October 18, 2007 • It • Council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: W 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. a Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Wetzle Excused Absences: Campana, Stockover Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, Jackson,Leavitt, and S z-Sprague E Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consentand Discussion Agendas. I note— staff has requested Item #2, 220 E. Olive Street-Modification of Standards#27-07 be led and an additional condition added (it will be read into the record later.);There were two erro on Item #3, the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins--the adoption dates for the Timnath Comprehensive Plan was June 2007 and the Loveland Compre sive Plan was 2005,, Item #4, East Skyway Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment was continued a September 20'^meeting. Item #6, 1225 Redwood Street Minor Amendment would n T II an administratitre;review by staff but because of its potential compatibility issues with the ne hbo ht as been referred to the Board. Citizen participation: None 411V� , Chair Lingle ask members of the audience and or theil ard if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No additional items were moved froe Consent Agenda. Consent A e 1. Mi 9`° ` tember20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. eee-Mile Plan City of Fort Collins DisCuss�ems: 2. 22 live Street ification of Standards, #27-07 4. East Rezoning! d Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 5. Inters*--' tat- Hi ay 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 6. 1225 Redw tree Minor Amendment, #30-02B Member Schmidt in d for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 2 Project: 220 East Olive Street— Modification of Standards, #27-07 Project Description: This is a request for six stand-alone Modifications of Standard in conjunction with a pending multi-family redevelopment Project located at 220 East Olive Street. All six Modifications relate to density, lot coverage and height standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-GB zone district. The parcel is located at the northwest comer of East Olive Street d Mathews Street. 771,t:�I'u'u Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions—one conditi latmg to preserving the integrity of underground utilities and at the ti bmittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west ell eva ' she onstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G)— Building Height Re w and n 3.5.1(H)— Land Use Transition. h 0r n w. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other'kyidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is for six stand-elone Modifications in conjunction with a pending Project Development Plan located at 220 EastO1} Street. All six Modifications relate to development standards in the Neighbor " Conservation zone district. The pending P.D.P. would be a request for a redevelopmeritj, ject at the northwest comer of Olive and Mathews Streets across fr Lib The existing structure would be razed. The proposal consists of constructing a new fo to i q` ling of 14 dwelling units with parking below-grade. The f , gory would be d back' he first three stories except along a portion of the north fa t floor units uld offer a ption for live-work potential. Access to the underground pa would om the alley ong the west property line. This west property line is also the boun betwee he Downtown n and the N-GB zone. The lot measures 90' x 140' for a total of 12,60 re f W: Staff has been,Conlacted by an w )ling pr ner to the west at 230 Remington Street. The owner had intlicated tfiat he has rns with the building achieving a height of four stores along a portion of the west elevation, ;The o 0'` w was unable to attend the public hearing, is concerned aboutthe height and mass'of ttte west tion. While he supports the overall intent and design concept of ttre project, his pa' lar co `ms are as follows: 1 ,,:Fhe height and mass of he building's west elevation could be mitigated increasing the back of the`fourth floor from the third floor. atep,,, 2. The[ eight and mass of the building's west elevation could be mitigated with further architectural embellishment and detail. Both the applicant and architectural consultant have discussed these issues with the adjoining owners and all parties agree to'continue to meet in order to resolve these design issues. Jeff Fleischer of Vaught-Frye Architects presented slides that showed space and site plans, elevations, and building cross sections that highlighted the reduced square footage on each of the four building levels. Member Wetzler asked if they'd had conversations with the adjoining property owner. Owner Jay Stoner reported that he'd had an extended conversation with the owner who lives in Boulder. The Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 3 concern, he believes, is he thinks the structure is too flat and too big. He believes that impression comes from the review of the elevation drawings. He believes with a better understanding of the complexity of the elements of design, some of his concerns will be allayed. They want to be good neighbors and will do their best meeting with their architects to reconfigure. It will be a challenge, given the areas for which reductions might be considered are the bedrooms and bathrooms. His goal, however, is to make the neighbor a fan and not an opponent of the project. Public Input None. Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning &Zoning Board approve the six modification of standards for 220 E. Olive Street, #27-07, including the two conditions including the one being the approval of all affected utilities at the time of the review of the p.ID;P and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west elevation shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G)— Building Height Rev. ;Pnit Section II 1(H) —Land Use Transition. Member Smith seconded the motion. a Motion was approved 5:0. 10 '3 '"— � §. Project: East Skyway i yway Rezoning and Structure Amendment, # 19-07 H E.:. gay Project Description: This is a request to amend the City Plan Struc't n Map, and to rezone two properties on East Skyway Drive,initiated by Cit tall. The Plan amendment will change the existing land use designation to two properties from Urban Estat mercial and Low'Density Residential. The rezoning change is as foil, 1�11 'he firs erty is located at 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing " Wing is an Estate. The proposed zoning includes a change to erc n the west 2/3 of the property, and a change to Low Density R i 1 ;off the property. 2. The d prope y`{! .;;'` ted at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing Zoning an Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density Residenti °:the north 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south 2/3 of the pr " ''as Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval.: 4F Hearina Testimony,'Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported this is a City staff initiated action. The Plan amendment would change the existing Structure Plan designation for the subject properties from Urban Estate to a combination of Commercial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, along with partial retention of Urban Estate. The corresponding rezoning changes are as follows: 1) the first property is located at 209 E. Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. 2)The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property on the east, with existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a combination of Low Density Residential on Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 4 the northern 1/3 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of the property. The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire Court with its 9 fronting houses. The two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and zoned in April 2007 in Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Claire Court was already within the city limits. The first property at 209 E. Skyway Drive is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached home with a home occupation, and a separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The existing business is a small engine repair operation. The second property located at 225 E. Skyway Drive is 4.8 acres and includes an existing private Montessori School andlpariting lot, with a horse pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existing 61-de-sac with nine single family detached houses. .:Tr This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a s uence of two actions. The first action is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amend to'City Plan under its criteria found in Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the tw pe s along Skyway{ be consistent with the Structure Plan, under the criteria of Section 2.. ' )(2) and„(3) of the Land e.Code. The changes are recommended because the properties Sk 4o not reflect tha character of Farming or Urban Estate designations—they are more in c with"both commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north a t. They believe the Commercial designation is a substantive aspect of proposed changes and re the transitional, mixed-use character of area including existing U-Haul ah" Trucking business Im r Strip to the west and north, the existing single-family homes across Skyway,slhe Montesso "�ol to the east, the two vacant lots that abut to the south (which also appear cafl#iidples for fut rezoning,) and the properties to the south/southeast: City natural area, Humana,Strciety eadquarters, City Transfort facility and large-lot residen j nn Acres subdiviston. Addific"ri Ily, future commercial changes appear likely and would t ' vements to property such as landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and meeting LUC develop standa New commercial use and required improvements would enhance the street f and ap rance on EasfSkyway. i 3 Staff also believe the Low De, Q isi tion is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map and more approprrateafor rema easter of 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate because of the existing 4tontess000l located between residential, the existing homes on Claire Court alrl ady zoned RL," ,,,future opr ant of residential will match the existing neighborhood acrosithe street and the C16 6,Court ,1, Staff is recommending this item.move forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until the South College Corridor Plan IS completed in 18 months. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a panhandle extension of UEinto the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the Board's work session andwould be corrected prior to City Council review. Member Smith said Wray noted it was not appropriate to have UE between Commercial and Residential; would the same logic not apply between RL to POL? Wray responded that POL reflects public ownership of that property and is appropriate for City acquired land. Smith said his concern is the character of the property. Wray responded that the zoning designation is consistent with other publicly owned land and reflects an assembly of City acquired property. When looking at Skyway, they discovered the map did not reflect the particular POL parcel accurately. These recommended changes reflect the correct configurations. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 5 Chair Lingle asked, "In the existing UE, what is the status of 209 Skyway and the Montessori school— are they considered legal non-conforming uses?" Wray responded that the property is legal as a private residence with a home occupation small engine repair business and a detached warehouse for personal use. The Montessori school is allowed in UE and in Low Density Residential. The recommendation for the zoning change was made given the commercial uses to the west and LMN uses to the north. Chair Lingle noted the line between the C and LR did not follow the parcel line; did the demarcation come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared near the eastern edge of the commercial area. Wray reported the line was drawn 20 feet from the existing home to allow for setback. In the event the owners wanted to subdivide, it would be compatible with other lot sizes in the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skywayiwould.be to the south as opposed to the east. Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Sk � y m G`but has reservations with the proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN., e existing zoning is LIE, we're,changing it to RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her preferen Id be td ave as UE until the Corridor Plan is completed. sp ; Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff ha ' a chance to further review the UE zoning (found in rural settings) and think it Id be more suitab ,.. ng the edges. In the larger context, given the mix of uses and what els kyway, LMN id i I the transition more than UE. i'i" Public Input �. 2 iE �> Brian Schumm, 805 Molina, shared his reservati out the motion of commercial zoning to the east. There are reasons the County,and now the ,ty, should a pause to how the area is zoned. The existing Structure Plan seems'appropriate—th roposal is a patchwork of zoning—inconsistent with the Structure Plan we are going to allow co ergial east of the Kelmar strip, then all properties on the east side should have the same opp , nity to be commercial. Action now predetermines what will be studied and determined in` a Corridor Plan study. Randy Wbrbhan, 2 ay, noted the previous speaker(Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by zoning f0'the area. His ss has been approved in the County. The past few years, he's been tryin io fk with the Cou .1 d there because of the IGA(intergovernmental agreement,)with the City. Whataff member Pe ray says makes perfect sense—it is commercial south of them in the Larimer Hu Society and sfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access for commercia ' " ,a nice tran n into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the City Plan Structu n Map, d to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive. as : ,� Danielel Kanczes, 156 Spruce, asked if any homes will be torn down? Wray responded this was a proposal to ame the Structure Plan map and rezoning—there would not be any demolition of existing homes. Andrea Phillipe, 209 E. Skyway, said the proposal has a lot to do with progress.. Over the past nine years, they been trying to work first with the County and now the City to get the property rezoned. They're happy that now it is only one entity with whom they will need to work. The property is ready to be commercialized and would be an asset to Fort Collins. End of Public Input Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 6 Chair Lingle asked Staff member Wray if he had any responses to the issues raised in public input. Wray responded that at neighborhood meetings (summarized and included in the agenda packet,)the majority of neighbors are in support of the rezoning—only Mr. Schumm is opposed. Member Schmidt asked for more information on Aran Street. Does it currently run north and south? Wray responded Aran Street is a proposed future connection on the back side of the Kelmar strip starting at the U-Hall property and extending to Trilby. It would separate t commercial and residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exists. W onded no. It would happen as projects come forward—the appropriate dedication would place then. Schmidt asked if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, w be the party responsible for the dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would de d o pecifics of the proposal. c Chair Lingle asked Wray what is the approximate street frontage,for=209 Sk L. Wray responded 60-80 feet. Lingle has a concern about that remaining LIE but for a ent reason—it is narrow. Because of the street configuration of Boyne,Caurt to Colby Street, if ther , Id a an allowable street coming from Skyway drive to the sputklt is likely the development o ential would be limited to one lot on Skyway and a second lot off the soutft.` Wray agreed. T re's a potential for two, maybe three lots there. Lingle went further to state—the access be difficult Whethat tells him is there would be pressure in the future to have that area rez nd push commercal development further east. He'd rather see it included in the larger LIE p outh and used in some sort of cluster development proposal where that narrow strip uld ted operk'space—which would provide more protection from commercial to the residen I uni Et is a guessing game but it's a walk through on the potential for development in ea. Member Schmidt agreed:;,'She liked to see the rezo,' g more connected to the LIE zone, part of the Structure Plan, and leavesome flexibility on how it d e laid out for the future. She understands why the commercial needs to;be cleaned up now but d like some flexibility for the rest. Member Rolf 'E ray if he'd,considered leaving the large building on the west part of the property " onded they did consider that and their findings were the small engine repair mess (a large e) is a part of the home. Rather than split it they thought it would be betto'l culate the setb om the'eRdge of the building. Rollins asked 'rf the house, with the small en pair business. allowable use in LIE. Wray responded yes. Member Sch ked if a se 'Mate use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded that if another us q ieste i would trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at the proposed use a . het �, an enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, improvements, and right of way requirements might also be required based on the scope of t proposed development. Chair Lingle said he thinks there are basically two questions. 1) Is the property basically residential or commercial in nature? If commercial in nature and rezoned to C, would the Board be allowing an appropriate amount of intensification that is detrimental or not? 2) If appropriate to go with Commercial, is the 60-80 feet along LIE (or proposed RL) an adequate buffer to the existing residential to prevent a further encroachment of commercial? I think that commercial should not go any further east than the proposed line and having that strip east remain in LIE is probably more appropriate right now. Then allow 225 E. Skyway to be RL and the POL piece POL. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 7 Member Schmidt said she believes they are wrestling with spot zoning. What's happening now is allowed in UE. We're not totally saying it's commercial so keep it that way—it could be either UE or commercial. The impression is rezoning is happening because the applicant would like to intensify commercial uses. She keeps coming back to maybe we should wait for Structure Plan changes which are anticipated in the next 18 months. That would allow us to look at the whole in more detail. Member Rollins agreed. The South College Corridor Plan is going to happen—let's put off rezoning questions until that work is done. Member Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the motion la ales deny versus not recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the ightforward. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning &Zoning rd n rove the East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19-07, .Member Ro econded the motion. Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any rezoning as part of the larger South Colle ` '' cture Plan work. ,. Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he believes it should be considered in the larger context. Motion was approved 5:0. N44 �s Project: Interstate 25 8 State Highi y 392 Interdhange Improvement Plan Project Description: This is a request for a recomm do,on to City Council for acceptance of the I- 251SH 392 Interchange Improv nt Plan and related items, including amendments t Fo o the City of rt` ollins Master Street Plan. Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Hearina Testimony,Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported the interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 serves as both the southeastern gateway to Fort Collins and the western gateway to Windsor. The interchange has failed to function at an acceptable Level Of Service ("C")for the past several years. This being the case, numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials and staffs of Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT), have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address this failing interchange. The importance of this interchange from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to existing and future development, and gateway into both jurisdictions is significant. Although the Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 8 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area as a high priority project, there is no Federal or State funding available for a new interchange. In other words, the need for the interchange improvement is there, but the money is not. The existing interchange problem cannot be fixed by implementing smaller interim improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp widening. The bridge overpass along with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be replaced to meet the long-term transportation needs for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to replace the interchange is $ 22 million. In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovemmenta reement(IGA)for the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at t ' F change (see attached IGA). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was forth ,', o municipalities to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconst . f this interchange. ii The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to imp e t impro nts to the interchange. Key objectives included: • Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting I use $�+*o � • Coordinate with CDOT on EIS Process on pre ed altem tive Develop alternative funding mechanisms to, proje go directly intesign. Identify supporting frontage road and local street 1 .1 ',E rk ,, • Develop action strategies to implement improvemen :•. • Plan Process � l Existing conditions are: p • Interchange currently operating at a failing level of service • Area largely undeveloped Failing interchange reduces development potential. • Regionally importa esources and tr,, n space dose by. • Area serves as = tewa indsor, southeast Fort Collins. • Expected to Tonal tr' "t hub. • The Corridor Acti' '` nter ~AC) includes commercial, employment and residential. t Natural ResourcesiUHiF, 3n � �a' Recommended bUffefS are LLVVii:��CC'' • 10 to 300 foot buffer=of the of the natural features. • A 50 foot buffer is recommend Irwetlands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. A buffer of 1,320 feet is proposelio protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by Colorado Department oflwildlife(CDOW.) Transportation plea design includes: • 1-25/SH 392 bridge will be completely reconstructed. • Layout will follow,the 'tight diamond' configuration per North 1-25 Draft EIS. Construction wilLnclude: bridge replacement, ramps widening of SH 392 to tie in with new frontage roads and acceleration /deceleration lanes on 1-25. • NW frontage road alternatives. • SW frontage road alternatives. Transit &Trails: • Transit service, in combination with highway capacity, improvements, including bike paths and sidewalks will provide alternative transportation options. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 9 • Future local bus services could act as feeder system to proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Park-and-Ride facility along 1-25. • This Plan recommends that the BRT facility(if constructed)would be located in the median of the highway, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Park-and-Ride facilities on both sides of 1-25. • The BRT site could begin as a parking facility. Funding Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challenge,,:Three funding scenarios match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to repay anticipated bonds over a twenty-year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction of fhe interchange bridge, ramps, frontage roads and landscaping is approximately$22 million. Taldentifythe most feasible strategy, three combination-funding scenarios were identified: Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and modes a special assessment and property tax for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years, an i ct fee imposed on the "travet shed," and a Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or other° rnmen pport is assumed for this scenario. 6l,.. Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes fin support from CDOT ($2.0 million), the NFRMPO ($1.2 million —future allocation), and the municipa' ",of Windsor($1 million) and Fort Collins ($1 million); a lower special assessmiinton CAC landowne a loped land only) that sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property tax on CAC landowners. Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden to a larger area and includes all municipal funding from Scenario 2 an ended property tax district with a mill levy. There is also a small special assessment on i " d CAC land that sunset in'10 years and a PIF. In the future, additions fundi beyond existing assumptions) may become available through sources such CDOT, NFR an re Regional Transportation Authority. These public funds dby could be used to supplemen a ate sources, reducing the burden on private citizens. Future funding source: h as an ould still require a private match and therefore the institutional frameworks outlined a would still be required. While the Plan does not have a specific funding recommendation, it i need that one or a combination of these funding scenarios will be used to further negotiate a final u mg package to support the cost of the interchange improvements as implementation conti es. Critical Action Steps are: • Accept the Plan • Amend the IGAto continue partnership • Request justification for separate action or utilize existing EIS • Commit funding for 1601/EA process and other compliance activities • Amend IGA to secure public and private funding commitments • Assess APF Standards on future development at Interchange • Form General Improvement District • Preliminary/Final Engineering • Begin construction in 2009 —2010 The 12-month planning�rocess, initiated in the fall of 2006, is scheduled for acceptance by City Council on November 6 and the Windsor Town Board November 12, 2007. Staff requests a Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 10 recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Member Schmidt asked when you're looking at funding strategies at the end, at which step do you finalize whether you'll be using funding scenario 1, 2, or 3? Wray responded that while three funding scenarios have been identified, it will take further negotiations. Using the basis already established in scenario 2 (with financial support already identified for jurisdictions, MPO, CDOT;) it'll take more discussions with all, including property owners and developers. He anticipates that can happen in the next year or so. Member Schmidt asked if on the west side the buffers meet the wetland standards. Wray asked if it was from roads. Schmidt said yes—road buffering from the wetland wha0;,moving the frontage roads to the west. Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt responded it raerges fr&r 50 to 300 feet depending on the wetlands. It's based on the size and value of the wetlandsi� supporg wildlife habitat. Until an actual environmental ecological study is done we're just g'an estimaljon of the value. Because of development on the southeast side of Swed e t tire's been a lofrjf.disturbance in that area so right now we're proposing a 100 foot buff om the shoreline and the wetlands. Member Schmidt said it seems the roads meander h o e pa Will development drive their placement or will the layout of the frontage roads determineri, dev loped. Wray responded final alignment on the west side—the three frontage road options d be addressed as part of development. Ideally they will coordinate several property align on both the NW and SW side. There may even be an interim improvemenfbeJore the final interc is fully rebuilt. ,.g. Member Smith asked Wray to describe how the corridoractivity center, me to be defined— specifically interested in why the southeast boundary is grist going as.>ar to CR 5 and south to State Highway 392 to pick up the single,family residences ,;Wray respvrtded that they were primarily looking for land uses (C& E)on bgth stdes of the interchange that would'contribute to reconstruction costs. On the west—there is residential at'Mountain Range Shadows and south of the Growth Management Area is residential. Irr the northeast quadrant(Windsor side)there is vacant land that could potentially be mixed use residential. Member Sc if there VE`uld be development fees—residential properties assessed a special di ` % tie ,they would be benefiting from the interchange improvements. Wray respon in funding op an expanded property tax district with a mill levy was being considered all tF to College on t st and mast of Windsor on the east side. It would involve a lot more people a Itiple jurisdicti `` It would also be a lot more controversial. Some would say that's a more equita proach sin s a regional facility. Chair Lingle as r' ' ere the mmendation is coming from for the bridge being 4 versus 6 lanes. Where is that decisr mi ,i #rom, what is the data, how long is the life span? Interim Transportation Directo Jackson said the analysis for the 4 lane bridge is directly related to the recently completed 1-25, nvironmental Impact Study, local traffic impacts and forecasts both for the Front Range and metropolitan Denver. Lingle said he would like to be reassured that the decision is not totally being driven by cost. Jackson said that he does not believe that's the case. He believes they're looking at a long range horizon—to the year 2035 or roughly 25 years. Lingle wondered if planning for that time frame is standard practice. Jackson responded yes. Lingle asked if there were any 6 lane bridges along the 1-25 corridor. Jackson responded no—in fact the Harmony Interchange is a 4 lane bridge. Jackson said Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 11 on the west, where there may be more intense development, there will be planning for the proper amount of access for the level of intensity with an adopted access control plan. Chair Lingle referred to page 44 of the 1-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan—it shows only three thru lanes. He wondered if we were locking ourselves into something too narrow for CDOT's ultimate plan for 1-25 as seen so far from their lane expansion from Dacono to Hwy 66. Jackson said CDOT is evaluating two packages as a part of their EIS--one is through lanes with a transit element (bus and/or train) and the other are 1-25 lanes with a transit system on the Burlington Northern tracks. tli; . Lingle asked if we're moving on an accelerated schedule would we be cq ng ourselves to something that wouldn't work later with CDOT's planning. Jackson s ' °,j what the Board is approving tonight is a recommendation to more forward. Either CD7,, kage determination would be addressed in the final design of the interchange. A recomme ion ve forward does not preclude either CDOT(Federal Highway Administration approve , option ionally the 1601 would include a more fine grain analysis before design work is corn feted Member Schmidt wanted to commend the work of all those involved in developing °` Member Smith said it's a fairly complex project but very we11 thought out. It's a great p ri and he'll be supporting it. Chair Lingle said his concerns about bridge. sign meeting the long term needs of the region had been relieved. � �'rr.. Member Wetzler says is a long needed and e t ng'' Member Schmidt made a motion that the Plan' ' Zoni and recommend approval of the Interstate 25 & State Highway 39Z Interchange proveme Ian. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 50. e i3i Pro e 1 dwood Street— Minor Amendment, # 30-026 1 Project iption- This is 's ferral of a Minor Amendment to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwo treat into a supervised residential program specializing in voluntary drug an cohol rehabilitation. The existing building contains 20,500 square r#:feet. T arcel is 5.5 acres, located at the northwest comer of Conifer Street ,,�. ood Street and zoned Community Commercial— North College, Recommendation: pproval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Shepard reported this is a request to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwood Street into a supervised residential program specializing in drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The project would be located at 1225 Redwood Street. The facility would house clients, admitted on a Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 12 voluntary basis, who seek to recover from drug and alcohol addiction in a residential setting. The facility will be professionally staffed on a 24-hour and seven-days-per-week basis. The staff will implement a modified 12-step program. The treatment will consist of three basic components: detoxification and withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling. A licensed physician will supervise the admittance procedure and the facility will not admit clients in need of a medically assisted withdrawal. Such clients will be referred to an appropriate facility. The one-story building contains 20,500 square feet. Any building renovations would be to the interior only. There will be no exterior building modifications or site work. All existi parking will remain. The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located at the northwest comer of Co eat and Redwood Street. The property is zoned Community Commercial — North Colle ,, :• The proposed land use, Intermediate Health Care Facilit ° er ° in the C-C-N, Community Commercial, North College zone district. The P.D.P. as a whole complies with the applicable Cie are Develop tandards. • The Land Use Code is silent on most of the operational characteristics o °' ' ,termediate Health Care Facility. The applicant's pledge tgrm6et on a regular basis wit s ,lotatives from the neighborhood is found to be the most effective and systematic methoei hich to collaborate on solving neighborhood compatibilityissues as`they arise. ql Staff recommends approval. Chair Lingle asked Shepard if from his review � 'eves it would be an.intensification of its' existing use. Shepard said that intensification is a ten1 s s associated,with traffic. Even comparing intensification of use to a prior like facility(Win She icult. Whig Shadow's program which included a school and its use followed the scho I year ,: y had approximately 20 youth in a group home. It is likely,they,had more traffic' g and g than what is expected with A Life Worth Living. Lingle notedbccupancy limits woul _ e governe y building standards. Shepard agreed. Ems Member Schmidt asked, "Where is the closest neighbciood?" Shepard replied the closest neighborhood isato3the north=Nokomis P,U.D. To thg south and west is vacant land. To the east is an electrical, Appli Glen Petcavag i a representative of a group of Colorado businessmen whose goal is to creati r :r profit residenti g rehab program. Statistics show that in Colorado one in ten people have a d alcohol addict�:. It is the intent of the owners to put a dent in the problem. 1225 Redwood fit' + purposes n very little needs to be done internally except to update the fire suppression s The history of the p F a is: 1985 New Begis Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center 1993 Jacob Ce a substance abuse program • 1995 Diamond Crest Elder Board & Care Assisted Living Facity • 2002 Wing Shadow program which provided a variety of services for troubled youth The facility will deliver a modified 12-step program. The various steps include: Detox/withdrawal • Life Skills courses • One-on-one counseling Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 13 The program is residentially based and requires clients to remain at the facility. The facility will have 24 hours a day/7 days a week staffing. Member Rollins asked what will be the specific hours of operation. Petcavage responded 24/7. He went further to say the traditional model was 28 days. In this case, they will stay as long as necessary (average of 3.5 months) to complete all steps (detox/withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling.) There is a high staff to client ratio and clients do not leave for appointments without being stringently supervised by staff. Member Wetzler asked if they could slip away--take a break from the pros raza;,Petcevage noted the program is completely voluntary and at a fairly significant cost to the ' ' t. If they want to leave the program, arrangements are made with family members to pick therre�,�'' hey are taken to the airport (for out-of-state clients.) If would be rare that they would slip aw "; nd back given the limited access, the staff/client ratio, the program objectives. If they lea nd wa .ii; me back to the program, there would be an interview to see if the program was stii�a good fi am or if their return would be a problem for them or others. Wetzler asked how easy would it be for to steal away and get a drug fix. Petcavage responded it would not be very easy for a number o n ons, primarily because their money is taken from them while there,there are two exit points that area` `""' monitored, and they are drug tested at entry and during their stay. rl" Member Schmidt noted this is a private facility(not court ordered)with clients investing time and money in recovery. It's not a half-way house but rather a rehab'6anter. Petcavage agreed. If neighbors have concerns he offered an open door policy—let them know their concerns and given the client's confidentiality and HIPPA constraints, they w►l work with the neighborhood. Ab Member Schmidt asked how much traffic did they envision frorniyisitors and family. Petcavage expects 82 clients at capaci igV its will be structured and arranged a week in advance for Sundays NO and holidays only. They C ge traffic on any given Sunday to be 6 or 7 visitors. Family will be involved more as t et rea y F=eave the program. Chair Lingle asked if the psis fp a facility going to be local, regional or national. Petcavage said they would be starting r IAT oes by and referrals grow they expect a national ROOM mix. (4` ,; Chair Lingle noted the amendment is. ctly related to a change of use. He asked for clarification Mp from what to this? She and re onde 4 p p p 1 previous minor amendment(from Wing Shadow to current use (as day care))was not referred to tf a Board. This amendment is changing it from its current use to what's being proposed. Member Schmidt asked what was the difference between a rehab program and a large group care facility. Shepard said they a4 defined differently in the Land Use Code, Wing Shadow was a school, a group home, and administrative offices; this use is defined as a long term care facility. Public Input Danielle Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, noted her daughter currently goes to day care at this site. She attended the neighborhood meeting held a couple of weeks ago and she wanted to express her concerns to the Board. She has concerns about the change to a rehab center—she doesn't believe rehab is successful 99% of the time—in fact she knows people who can fool the system. Additionally, she thinks it'll bring crime to the neighborhood—violence and vandalism. She'd rather see it keep its current use. Planning &Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 14 Yvonne Ruth-Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce is a neighbor to Danielle. There are a large number of children in the area--she believes the rehab center will bring drugs and adversely affect the children in the neighborhood. She asked for clarification of a letter she'd recently received relative to the facility having medically assisted withdrawal. She has concerns about breach of contract—she believes the day care had entered into a three year lease for the facility. How does change of use fit into the fact there may be a breach of contract? Jim Ringenberg, attorney for the Pruess Family Foundation, said he wanted to clarify there is no written lease. He does not think the foundation, who has given significantlyr°tnthe community, should be placed in a category alluding to breach. He's also comfortable givers the discussion so far that reasonable minds can come together. s; End of Public Input Petcavage reported they have a physican on staff to do edicaPreview on intake to assess the addict's condition. There are some addictions that are, cal ,, ry difficult to withdraw from ;#f that's the situation, they are referred to another facility. They,4m' have a dical program per se:' Their program is for addicts whose withdrawal does not regwr It , rt. " t Chair Lingle asked them to address the misconception about out patient with people coming and going. Petcavage said the patient comes in to do the progr f they need to leave the facility (e.g. an appointment,)they are escorted by staff until they complier ro ram. When they leave the program arrangements are made for family to'pick them up or the scorted to the airport. Member Schmidt asked what was an accurate representation ofl cost"'Petcavage responded the program is $29,000 whether ' s 3.5 or 6 months. Schmidt asked him to comment on success rates. He replied that ev uggles. Theirs supports innovation. They want to improve the outcome and reverse t deadly _ N.se and the life problems it creates. Overall, it puts a demand on the field to impro utcome Member Smith noted on pa � „ aN '4 {�ere it talks about parking, it says minor amendments maybe authorize ;the Dira rp`, mply with the standards of the Land Use Code; is the Board replacing the Director 1-:,''tease? Director Gloss responded yes. r Chair Lin gleasked Deputy City Attorne kman a general question...he understood the whether there is a lease or not that is the_purviey f another entity. He did, however, want to know if there needs to be some evidentiary resolution to the tenant's right to do what is being proposed. Eckman said he believes the Code has a,provision that allows the Applicant to act with authority of the owner. Attorney for the owner, Jim Ringenberg, stated the owner gives permission to the application. Further, Eckman wantedao stress that issues raised before the City (e.g. Homeowner covenants or leases) are not the purview of the Boards—they are enforced in the courts. If there was a lease, which he believes there is not, and there was a breach—that enforcement would be handled somewhere else. Member Schmidt asked for clarification—once a use has been approved...couldn't it just roll back to the previously approved use? Staff member Shepard responded no—it's not cumulative. P� mm &Zoning Board October 18, 2m R# e Member Smith made a motion t approve ,22s Redwood ste-Minor Amendment, ,3o02B based _ tn dgsaFact _ page 6otn staff report. Member Schmidt seconded th motion. Motion was apppo_dso Other Business: An Meeting adjourned kkep.r Cameron c� kDirector vA §; Chair d MIN: y « � �a Im ��< �& '£ m MR : . � \ © . . y \\ ,+; ATV Pt2 t . } ;Vz tv. . ATTACHMENT 5 C itying 8. ty Development ege Av 0s,CO 80522-0580 Of FOtt Collins611 fax 970.224.6002 TDD fcgov.CorrV My lanning I251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan Report on Natural Resource Framework October 26,2007 In response to questions raised by individual Council members regarding natural resource habitat, preservation and mitigation for areas adjacent to Swede Lake on the west side of the I25/SH392 Interchange, staff has prepared this report. While most of this information is in the I25/SH392 Interchange Plan document, a concise explanation of the intent of the Plan and concepts identified for the natural resource framework are included,to be distributed as a read before item prior to the December 4, 2007 Hearing. Purpose of Plan • The I25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan (Plan)represents a unique process with a focus on strategic implementation actions and identification of critical next steps to achieve the goal to fund and reconstruct the interchange. The key elements of the Plan including natural area buffers, west frontage road alternatives and funding scenarios, will all require additional discussion, refinement and coordination prior to finalization, as part of on-going implementation efforts. In particular, the range of natural resource buffers identified in the Plan provides a framework for future discussions. A final buffer setback determination will be made in response to proposed future development through the development review process of the City for projects within our jurisdiction. This is a joint Plan between the City and Town of Windsor. The acceptance of the Plan represents an acknowledgement of the concepts, options, and implementation actions. By accepting the Plan, the Windsor Town Board and Fort Collins City Council agree to continue past partnerships and proceed with next steps in implementation. Natural Resource Framework As part of the partnership between the City and Town of Windsor to reconstruct the interchange, the City has a unique challenge on the west side in balancing the need to support future development that will help contribute to funding the project and provide future sales tax revenue, while at the same time preserving important natural resources including migratory roosting habitat, shoreline and wetland habitat. • The Plan contains an inventory of existing natural resources and identifies a range of corresponding setback buffers based on type of habitat(see attached Natural Resource Overview Map and Natural Resource Framework Area Map). where renewal is a way of life I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan Staff Report—Natural Resources Framework Page 2 of 3 The range of Natural Resource Buffers identified in the Plan are based on discussions with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Environmental Consultants, and reviewing buffer standards set forth in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. On the west side of the interchange,most of the adjacent properties are eligible for annexation. A variety of buffers are identified in the Plan. The buffers range from 50' to 1,320'. There are 3 types of buffers associated with the natural resources as follows: • The most restrictive is a 1,320' buffer on the peninsula between the reservoir and Swede Lake. This buffer is to protect documented bald eagle communal roosting sites. While the roosting sites and the buffer are within the study area,the proposed frontage road realignment is over 1,300' east of the buffer zone. In essence,there is a half mile buffer to the roosting areas. • A shoreline buffer of 300' is identified for Fossil Creek Reservoir and the majority of Swede Lake. A shoreline buffer of 100' is recommended along the southeast edge of Swede Lake. This portion of the Swede Lake shoreline has been impacted by human activities, which include the overflow structure for Swede Lake, an existing business that extends to the overflow structure and a broad area next to the shoreline and associated wetlands that have been extensively graded creating large stockpiles of soil. Swede Lake is a seasonal area habitat for 5 —6 months of the year. During the period when the lake is dry, the aquatic resources are non-existent,with diminishing use of the area by raptors, waterfowl and shoreline bird species. The identified 100' buffer for a portion of Swede Lake is based upon a report by Andre Duvall, Colorado Department of Wildlife in which he evaluated the shore line of Swede Lake from the aforementioned peninsula to the area impacted by development activities. This report addresses different buffers based on type of habitat and proximity to existing development. Based upon this report,the 100' buffer has been chosen for the properties on the southeast side of Swede Lake. A wetlands buffer of 100' is identified for this portion of the shoreline—which contain wetlands, and wetlands between Swede Lake and County Road 392. • A buffer of 50' is identified for the wetlands south of County Road 392 which exhibit characteristics of a monoculture wetland that typically lack diversity and are of low value to wildlife. For reference purposes, the following buffers are set forth in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E) -Natural Habitat and Features Buffer Zone Standards: • 1,320' - Bald Eagle Communal Roost sites • 300' -Waterfowl, shorebird, or wading production areas,wintering areas, or feeding areas • 50' —Wetlands< 1/3 acre in size • 100' -Wetlands >1/3 acre in size, without significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds • 300' -Wetlands>1/3 acre in size,with significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds The range of buffer areas identified form the basis for future development activities adjacent to the natural areas. As the area develops, the City will review development proposals according to where renewal is a way of life I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan Staff Report—Natural Resources Framework Page 3 of 3 • Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. As part of the review process, an ecological characterization study(ECS) will be prepared. Final buffers will be established based upon the findings in the ECS. The resulting buffers will then be delineated prior to commencement of any construction activities and enforced by City inspectors during construction. Any disturbance within a buffer zone will be restored according to Section 3.4.1(E) (2)—Development Activities within the Buffer Zone. If a natural area buffer zone is compromised, the City of Fort Collins (staff, with final decision rendered by the Planning and Zoning Board), as part of the development review process, will determine appropriate mitigation measures. Any mitigation has to meet the specific standards of the Buffer Zone Performance Standards of Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) will have jurisdiction of impacts to any wetlands on Swede Lake. As part of the 404 permitting process, proposed mitigation will be reviewed and approved by the ACE. Impacted wetlands are mitigated with replacement at a ratio of 1:1. The City can require additional mitigation measures beyond replacement as established in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. Both processes use the ECS as a baseline for determining required mitigation. hi summary, the Plan represents holistic approach to balancing the competing interests: • Provide for improvements to the interchange, • Support development which will help fund improvements to the interchange • • Maintain the integrity of the environment around Fossil Creek Reservoir. • where renewal is a way of life .................................. _.............................................................................._.............................................................................................................. ...... 1-25/SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 90- Natural Resources Buffer Detail Map 1320'Said Eagle roost sites based on recommendation by COOK 300'Winter Raptor Concentration Area Buffer (refered to in both Larimer County and Fort Collins Lantl Use Codes). Based on recommendations made by Andre Du vall,Colorado Wildlife Company. mi 1' 100'Winter Raptor Concentration Arm Buflerline. Future roadway and development may ocwroutside of this boundary. This boundary is based on the recommendation made by Andre Duvall,Colorado +� Wildlife Company on 0momber'13,2005. h k ' s� at B COE Wetland Boundary delineated during CDOT EIS. SN 392 - SH 392 Y Legend 0 250 500 000 FB-. Fossil Point Eagle Buffer Winter Raptor Buffer Area I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Natural Resources Buffer Detail ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 50 CHAPTER 5-INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .........................I...............................................--.................................................................................. ................................-.............................................-............. 1-25 SH392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure 29-Natural Resources Overview Map Fossil Creek Reservoir J� Swede Lake • it Legend Potential Eagle Sites 1300 ft Eagle Buffer Prarie Dog Town Wetlands Wetlands 50 ft Buffer FCR 100-300 it Buffer Corridor Activity Center Natural • • Map ..................................... .......................................................................................................I....................................................................................................................... CHAPTER 5-INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 49 ATTACHMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE This Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") dated as of December , 2007, by and between the TOWN OF WINDSOR ("Town"), a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado; the CITY OF FORT COLLINS ("City"), a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado; and METRO ACQUISITIONS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company ("Developer"). Town, City, and Developer may hereinafter be referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. The Town and City are parties to an existing Intergovernmental Agreement in which the parties pledged to cooperate to explore and implement solutions to existing traffic issues related to the State Highway 392/I-25 Interchange located at Exit 262 ("the Interchange"); B. Developer is the contract purchaser of that certain property, known as the Ptarmigan Towne Center at Windsor, located within the Town in the northeast quadrant of the Interchange, which property Developer is in negotiations to develop as a commercial retail center. Developer also holds an option to purchase property located on the western side of the Interchange. Both properties may hereinafter be referred to as the "Proposed Development." C. The Proposed Development would include at least 650,000 square feet of retail space and is projected to generate significant annual sales tax revenue for the Town, and an additional smaller percentage of annual sales tax revenue for the City from future development on the west side of the Interchange. D. The Interchange is an integral component of the local and regional highway system serving the Town, the City, and the North Front Range sections of the 1-25 corridor. E. The Interchange provides the main access from Interstate 25 to the Town and to the Proposed Development and provides access to the southern portion of the City. F. Traffic volumes at the Interchange are increasing due to significant state and regional growth and development pressures in the vicinity of the Interchange. The Interchange is currently over-capacity and operates at an unsafe and inadequate level of service to accommodate present and future growth. G. Although the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") and the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council, as the area 1 1239A I A1058786,10 1 metropolitan planning organization ("NFR-MPO"), acknowledge the development pressure in the vicinity of the Interchange and the need to accommodate future growth and ensure mobility in the area, and an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is currently underway for the entire I-25 corridor from Denver through the City, funding for improvements at the Interchange has not yet been identified. H. The Parties desire to accelerate the planning and improvement of the Interchange ("Interchange Improvements") to address current and future traffic concerns, to provide adequate access for the Proposed Development, and to facilitate the future development of all four quadrants of the Interchange. The current estimate for the cost to design and construct the Interchange Improvements is at least $21,000,000, as reflected in the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. I. Failure to make the necessary Interchange Improvements in the near term will increase congestion and safety concerns, and may preclude construction of the Proposed Development. J. To accelerate commencement and completion of the Interchange Improvements, CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") must render a determination that Separate Action from the Northern Colorado Interstate 25 Corridor EIS is justified for the Interchange Improvements ("Justification for Separate Action"). K. CDOT, NFR-MPO, and FHWA must approve the Interchange Improvements in accordance with CDOT's 1601 Interchange Approval Process (the "1601 Approval Process"). This process requires that a governmental entity apply for authorization to construct the Interchange Improvements and provide a statement regarding the source of funding for the proposed improvements. The process also requires that, in advance of the establishment of any funding methodology, a preliminary design of the Interchange Improvements and an environmental assessment be funded and prepared. L. This IGA sets forth the understanding of the Parties as to their roles in the process of working together to secure approval and financing for the Interchange Improvements. 1 1239A I A 105 V86.10 2 AGREEMENT The Parties to this IGA hereby agree as follows: 1. Role of Town and City. (a) This IGA serves to implement the cooperation pledged by the City and Town in the Existing IGA. Town and City each pledge to continue that cooperation, and agree that this IGA and the actions detailed herein are part of that cooperation. Town and City further pledge that Town will take the lead on actions detailed herein with respect to matters afl'ecting the eastern portion of the Interchange and City will take the lead on actions detailed herein with respect to matters affecting the western portion of the Interchange. (b) Town and City will jointly file a Justification for Separate Action with CDOT and FHWA and, upon its approval, Town and City will jointly apply to CDOT, NFR-MPO, and FHWA for approval of the Interchange Improvements pursuant to the 1601 Approval Process. (e) Town and City will engage engineers to work on the Justification for Separate Action and the 1601 Approval Process. (d) Town and City understand that, to the extent consultants are engaged to proceed with working on the 1601 Approval Process and preliminary design of the Interchange prior to approval by CDOT and FHWA of a Separate Action request, such costs are undertaken at the risk that CDOT and FHWA may not approve the Separate Action. The Town and the City accept this risk and agree to pay their pro rata share of consultant costs as set forth in this IGA. 2. Role of Developer. (a) Subject to the Parties entering into a cost-sharing agreement as described in paragraph 3(c) below, Developer will coordinate with Town, City, CDOT, and FHWA, and will engage additional consultants as necessary to prepare the Justification for Separate Action, and will contribute to the consultant costs as set forth in this IGA. 3. Joint Responsibilities. (a) The Parties agree to undertake in good faith all reasonable means to obtain the necessary authorization and funding for, and construction of, the Interchange Improvements, in the shortest possible time. (b) The Parties agree to work together in good faith to file a Justification for Separate Action and, upon its approval, to take the necessary steps to complete the 1601 Approval Process, environmental clearance, and preliminary design of the Interchange. 1 1239\I\1058786.10 3 (c) The Parties acknowledge that certain costs related to the design and approval of the Interchange Improvements will be incurred at the outset of this project. The Parties therefore agree to share the project's initial consulting costs as well as the subsequent costs generated by the 1601 interchange study and the costs of the CDOT 1601 review process on the following basis: Developer to pay fifty percent (50%): Town to pay twenty-five percent (25%); and City to pay twenty-five percent (25%). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree that the total combined costs paid by Town and City shall not exceed $76,780.71; provided, however, that_Town and City agree to reimburse Developer for Developer's contribution towards the costs for preparing and filing for a Justification for Separate Action and approval of the Interchange Improvements pursuant to the 1601 Approval Process if the Proposed Development does not proceed. The Town and City will each contribute 50% to any such Developer reimbursement under this provision. In such event, any engineering or other documents prepared for the Interchange Improvements will become the property of Town and City. TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO, By: Ed Stark, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Frey, Town Attorney 1 1239A I A 1058786.10 4 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, By: Doug Hutchinson, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney DEVELOPER: METRO ACQUISITIONS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company By: Gregory C. Gurnik, President 11239A1A1058786,10 5 ATTACHMENT 7 (Local SCDOTWRK) Rev 10/03 Project No. IM 392A-012 / (16639) 06 HA#00000 Local Agency/Region 4 (RP) CMS ID 06-000 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT made this day of_ 2007, by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("State"):the TOWN OF WINDSOR("Town"or"Windsor"),a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, Colorado, 80550, Vendor Number 2000340, FEIN: 846000728; and the CITY OF FORT COLLINS ("City" or "Fort Collins"), a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, PO Box 580 80522-0580, 2000023 FEIN: 846000587 . Town and City may hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Local Agencies." RECITALS 1. Authority exists in the law and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available and a sufficient uncommitted balance thereof remains available for payment of project and Local Agency costs in Fund Number 400, Appropriation Code 010, Organization Number 9991, Program 2000, Function 3020, Object 2312 1N Phase D, Reporting Category #4##, Contract Encumbrance Number#####, (Contract Encumbrance Amount: W00). 2. Required approval, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies. 3. Pursuant to 43-2-104.5 C.R.S. as amended,the State may contract with Local Agencies to provide maintenance and construction of highways that are part of the state (or local agency) highway system. 4. The Local Agencies anticipate a project for a new interchange and by the date of execution of this contract, the Local Agencies and/or the State has completed and submitted a preliminary version of CDOT form #463 describing the general nature of the Work. The Local Agencies understand that, before the Work begins, form #463 may be revised as a result of design changes made by CDOT, in coordination with the Local Agencies, in its internal review process. The Local Agencies desire to perform the Work described in form #463, as it may be revised. 5. The Local Agencies will be preparing conceptual designs, studies, and other documents in anticipation of a new interchange at State Highway 392 and Interstate 25 ("Interchange"). The interchange project will be subject to the procedures outlined in CDOT's procedural directive 1601, which is attached hereto by this reference. 6.The Interstate borders the western edge of the Town and the southeastern limits of the City. Nearly Page 1 of 12 11239A1\109665E.2 all of the Town's traffic currently passes through the Interchange, and an increasing number of drivers use the Interchange as an alternative access point to the City. Town and City recognize that the existing capacity of the Interchange has been significantly impacted by state and regional growth, and local growth in Windsor and southeast Fort Collins, to such an extent that the Interchange currently operates at failing or near failing levels of service, and is characterized by numerous design and operational deficiencies and substandard safety features. Town and City agree that entering into this contract with each other and the State will promote the health,safety,and welfare of residents of both communities by facilitating the timely and safe movement of people, goods, information, and services, by providing access to new services,by increasing property values and facilitating orderly future development of properties in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange, and by generating greater sales at local establishments. 6. The Local Agencies have made funds available for project Project No.IM 392A-012 /(16639), which shall consist of review services by CDOT of the conceptual designs, studies and other documents,referred to as the"Project"or the"Work."Such Work will be performed in unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and the Town, specifically described in Exhibit A. 7. The Local Agencies have funds available and desire to provide 100% of the funding for the Work. 8. The Local Agencies have estimated the total cost of the Work and are prepared to provide their share of the funding required for the Work, as evidenced by an appropriate ordinance or resolution duly passed and adopted by the authorized representatives of, both, the Town and the City, which ordinance or resolution expressly authorizes the respective Local Agency to enter into this contract and to expend its funds for the Work under the project. Copies of each ordinance or resolution are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 9. This contract is executed under the authority of§§ 29-1-203, 43-1-110; 43-1-116, 43-2-10](4)(c) and 43-2-144, C.R.S. and Exhibit B. 10. The parties hereto desire to agree upon the division of responsibilities with regard to the project. THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT: Section 1. Scope of Work The Project or the Work under this contract shall consist of review services by CDOT of the conceptual designs, studies and other documents at the interchange at Highway 392 and Interstate 25, Colorado, as more specifically described in Exhibit A. Section 2. Order of Precedence In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this contract and its exhibits,such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority: Page 2 of 12 11239\1\1096856.2 1. This contract 2. Exhibit A of Work (Scope ) 3. Exhibit C (Contract Modification Tools) 4. Other Exhibits in descending order of their attachment. Section 3. Term This contract shall be effective upon the latest date of execution of this contract by the State, Town, or City, as indicated on the signature page. The tern of this contract shall continue through the completion and final acceptance of the Project by the State, FHWA and the Local Agencies. Section 4. Project Funding Provisions A. The Local Agencies have estimated the total cost of the Work and are prepared to provide the funding required for the Work, as evidenced by an appropriate ordinance or resolution duly passed and adopted by the authorized representatives of,both, the Town and the City, which ordinance or resolution expressly authorizes the respective Local Agency to enter into this contract and to expend its funds for the Work under the project. Copies of each ordinance or resolution are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. B. The parties have estimated the total cost the Work to be $33,563.41, which is to be funded as follows: a. Local Agency Funds $33,563.41 Total Funds: $33.563.41 C. The maximum amount payable by the Local Agencies under this contract shall be $33,563.41, unless such amount is increased by an appropriate written modification to this contract executed before any increased cost is incurred. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the total cost of the Work stated hereinbefore is the best estimate available, based on the design data as approved at the time of execution of this contract,and that such cost is subject to revisions(in accord with the procedure in the previous sentence) agreeable to the parties prior to bid and award. D. The parties hereto agree that this contract is contingent upon all funds designated for the project herein being made available from Local Agency sources,as applicable. Should these sources fail to provide necessary funds as agreed upon herein,the contract maybe terminated by any of the parties, provided that any party terminating its interest and obligations herein shall not be relieved of any obligations which existed prior to the effective date of such termination or which may occur as a result of such termination. Section 5. Project Payment Provisions Page 3 of 12 11239A1\1096856.2 A. The Local Agencies will reimburse the State for its share of incurred costs relative to the project following the Local Agencies' review and approval of such charges, subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. B. The billing procedure for CDOT incurred costs shall be as follows: l. Upon receipt of each bill from the State, the Local Agencies will remit to the State the amount billed no later than 60 days after receipt of each bill. Should the Local Agencies fail to pay moneys due the State within 60 days of demand or within such other period as may be agreed between the parties hereto, the Local Agencies agree that, at the request of the State, the State Treasurer may withhold an equal amount from future apportionment due the Local Agencies from the Highway Users Tax Fund and to pay such funds directly to the State. Interim funds, until the State is reimbursed, shall be payable from the State Highway Supplementary Fund (400). 2. If the Local Agencies fail to make timely payment to the State as required by this section (within 60 days after the date of each bill), the Local Agencies shall pay interest to the State at a rate of one percent per month on the amount of the payment which was not made in a timely manner, until the billing is paid in full. The interest shall accrue for the period from the required payment date to the date on which payment is made. C. The State will prepare and submit to the Local Agencies,no more than monthly, charges for costs incurred relative to the project. The State's invoices shall include a description of the amounts of services performed, the dates of performance and the amounts and description of reimbursable expenses. The invoices will be prepared in accordance with the State's standard policies,procedures and standardized billing format. Section 6. State and Local Agency Commitments A. The Local Agencies shall be responsible for preparing the conceptual designs, studies and other documents required in accordance with the provisions of the CDOT 1601 procedural directive for the proposed new interchange. B. CDOT shall provide review services for the conceptual designs, studies and other documents as prepared by the Local Agencies for compliance with the 1601 procedural directive and other applicable state and federal requirements. C. The Local Agency Contract Administration Checklist in Exhibit D further describes the Work to be performed and assigns responsibility of that Work to either the Local Agency or the State. The "Responsible Party" referred to in this contract means the Responsible Party as identified in the Local Agency Contract Administration Checklist in Exhibit D. Section 7. Environmental Obligations The Local Agencies shall prepare its conceptual designs, studies and other documents in Page 4 of 12 11239A1\1096856.2 accordance with the requirements of the current federal and state environmental regulations including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as applicable. Section 8. Record Keeping The parties shall maintain a complete file of all records, documents, communications, and other written materials, which pertain to the costs incurred under this contract. The parties shall maintain such records for a period of six (6) years after the date of termination of this contract or final payment hereunder,whichever is later,or for such further period as maybe necessary to resolve any matters which maybe pending. Each party shall make such materials available for inspection at all reasonable times and shall permit duly authorized agents and employees of the state and the Local Agencies to inspect the project and to inspect, review and audit the project records. Section 9. Termination Provisions This contract may be terminated as follows: A. Termination for Convenience. The State may terminate this contract at any time the State determines that the purposes of the distribution of moneys under the contract would no longer be served by completion of the project. The State shall effect such termination by giving written notice of termination to the Town and the City and specifying the effective date thereof,at least twenty(20) days before the effective date of such termination. B. Termination for Cause. If,through any cause,the Local Agencies shall fail to fulfill,in a timely and proper manner,their obligations under this contract,or if the Local Agencies shall violate any of the covenants,agreements,or stipulations of this contract,the State shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract for cause by giving written notice to the Town and the City of its intent to terminate and at least ten(10)days opportunity to cure the default or show cause why termination is otherwise not appropriate. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,surveys,drawings,maps,models,photographs and reports or other material prepared by the Local Agencies under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its property, and the Local Agencies shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any services and supplies delivered and accepted. The Local Agencies shall be obligated to return any payments advanced under the provisions of this contract. Notwithstanding the above, the Local Agencies shall not be relieved of liability to the State for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Local Agencies, and the State may withhold payment to the Local Agencies for the purposes of mitigating its damages until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from the Local Agencies is determined. If after such termination it is determined, for any reason, that the Local Agencies were not in default or that the Local Agencies'action/inaction was excusable,such termination shall be treated as a termination for convenience, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the contract had been terminated for convenience, as described herein. Page 5 of 12 11239A1\109685G.7 Section 10. Legal Authority The Town and the City warrant that they each possess the legal authority to enter into this contract and that they have taken all actions required by their respective procedures,by-laws,and/or applicable law to exercise that authority, and to lawfully authorize their respective undersigned signatory to execute this contract and to bind each party to its terms. The person(s) executing this contract on behalf of the Town and the City warrant that such person(s) has full authorization to execute this contract. Section 11. Representatives and Notice The State will provide liaison with the Local Agencies through the State's Region Director, Region 4, 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO, 80631 (970) 350-2103. Said Region Director will also be responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this contract and will also issue a "Notice to Proceed"to the Local Agencies for commencement of the Work. All communications relating to the day-to-day activities for the Work shall be exchanged between representatives of the State's Transportation Region 4 and the Local Agencies. All communication,notices,and correspondence shall be addressed to the individuals identified below. Each of the parties may from time to time designate in writing new or substitute representatives. If to State: Pete Graham Resident Engineer CDOT Region #4 1420 2"d Street Greeley, CO, 80631 (970) 350-2126 If to Local Agencies: TOWN OF WINDSOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS Joe Plummer Pete Wray Director of Planning Senior City Planner Windsor Planning Department Department of Community Planning 301 Walnut Street 281 North College Avenue Windsor, Colorado 80550 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 686-7476 (970) 224-6754 Section 12. Successors Except as herein otherwise provided,this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Page 6 of 12 11239A1\1096656.2 Section 13. Third Party Beneficiaries It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terns and conditions of this contract and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the State and the Local Agencies. Nothing contained in this contract shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other third person. It is the express intention of the State and the Local Agencies that any such person or entity, other than the State and the Local Agencies receiving services or benefits under this contract shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. Section 14. Governmental Immunity Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract to the contrary,no term or condition of this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities,rights,benefits,protection, or otherprovisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended. The parties understand and agree that liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising out of negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments, institutions, agencies,boards, officials and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of§ 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended and the risk management statutes, §§ 24-30-1501, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended. Section 15. Severability To the extent that this contract may be executed and performance of the obligations of the parties may be accomplished within the intent of the contract,the terms of this contract are severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason, such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof. Section 16. Waiver The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this contract shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term,provision, or requirement, or of any other term, provision or requirement. Section 17. Entire Understanding This contract is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition,deletion,or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a writing executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal Rules. Section 18. Survival of Contract Terms Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that all terms and conditions of this contract and the exhibits and attachments hereto which may require Page 7 of 12 11239A1\109ES5E.2 continued performance, compliance or effect beyond the termination date of the contract shall survive such termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the event of such failure to perform or comply by the Local Agencies. Section 19. Modification and Amendment This contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or State law,or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automaticallybe incorporated into and be part of this contract on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth herein. Except as provided above,no modification of this contract shall be effective unless agreed to in writing by both parties in an amendment to this contract that is properly executed and approved in accordance with applicable law. Section 20. Funding Letters The State may allocate more or less funds available on this contract using a Funding Letter substantially equivalent to Exhibit C and bearing the approval of the State Controller or his designee. The funding letter shall not be deemed valid until it shall have been approved by the State Controller or his designee. Section 21. Disputes Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement will be decided by the Chief Engineer of the Department of Transportation. The decision of the Chief Engineer will be final and conclusive unless,within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of a copy of such written decision, the Local Agencies mail or otherwise furnish to the State a written appeal addressed to the Executive Director of the Department of Transportation. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Local Agencies shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of their appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Local Agencies shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract in accordance with the Chief Engineer's decision. The decision of the Executive Director or his duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals will be final and conclusive and serve as final agency action. This dispute clause does not preclude consideration of questions of law in connection with decisions provided for herein. Nothing in this contract, however, shall be construed as making final the decision of any administrative official,representative, or board on a question of law. Page 8 of 12 11239\1\109ee5E.z THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS CONTRACT CONTRACTORS: STATE OF COLORADO: BILL RITTER GOVERNOR Town of Windsor, Colorado By For Executive Director Department of Transportation FE1N: 846000728 Signature of Authorized Officer Ed Stark, Mayor CORPORATIONS: (A corporate seal or attestation is required.) Attest(Seal) By (Corporate Secretary or Equivalent, or Town/Local Agency/County Clerk) Effective: , 2007 City of Forth Collins, Colorado FEIN: 846000587 Signature of Authorized Officer Doug Hutchinson, Mayor CORPORATIONS: (A corporate seal or attestation is required.) Attest(Seal) By (Corporate Secretary or Equivalent, or Town/Local Agency/County Clerk) Effective: , 2007 Page 9 of 12 11239A1\109E85E.2 Exhibit A FORM 463 or SCOPE OF WORK 11239A1\109E656.2 Exhibit B LOCAL AGENCY ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION 11239A1\1096856.2 Exhibit C COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT AUTHORITY: FUNDING INCREASE/DECREASE AND APPROVAL LETTER Region: State Controller Policy letter on June 12, 1996 Complete section 1 and submit to CDOT Controller's office. CDOT Controller letter on May 23, 1996 (I)This form to be used for the following contracts/situations only (check the appropriate situation): _indefinite quantity, order more/add more _utility/railroad, underestimated total cost _CDOT construction, sum of CMO's LA construction, underestimated cost CDOT construction, underestimated total cost CDOT consultant, underestimated cost SECTION 1 (Region use) Date: (2) Project code (3) To: CDOT Controller (FAX #(303) 757-9573 or e-mail CONTROLLER) Project# (4) From: Office: (5) Phone # (5) FAX# (5) Region # (5) CDOT has executed a contract with: (6) Address: (6) FEIN # (6) Contract routing # (7) COFRS encumbrance#(indicate PO,SC or PC#) (8) Fund Orgn. Appro. Prgrm. Func. Object/Sub-obj N/P GBL Reporting Catg. Proj/Sub/Phase (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Original contract amount Has a Budget Request been processed to cover the contract amount increase? $ (10) yes no (14) Previous Funding Letter(s) total Preparer's name (1 5) $ (11) (Funding letter#1 thru: ) PHONE NO: This Funding Letter total Contract Administrator's/Business Manager's Approval $ (12) (16) (# ) PHONE NO: Adjusted contract amount CDOT Designee Approval $ (13) (17) Local Agency approval (18) SECTION 2 (Controller's Office use) (19) Total allotment amount Commission budget $ (19) $ (19) If construction: CE charges Indirect chgs Adjusted contract amount plus total CE& indirect CE pool elig. (19) $ (19) $ 09) charges calculation S (19) 1 have reviewed the financial status of the project, organization, grant and have determined that sufficient funds are available to cover this increase, effective as of (19) State Controller or Dele ee Date Exhibit C—Page l of l 11235\1\1096856.2 Exhibit C (20) (20) Exhibit C—Page 2 of l 11239A1\109685E.2 Exhibit D LOCAL AGENCY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CHECKLIST CDOT Form 1243 11234\1\10ee856_2 Exhibit D—Page I of I 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement 25 ' -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan Resolution 2007 Accepting the I -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan ; Approving an Agreement : - Town of Windsor - City of Fort Collins - Metro Acquisitions , LLC Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement : 2�•:;Y - Colorado Department of Transportation ' " ' ' " ' - Town of Windsor - City of Fort Collins 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Intergovernmental Agreement ■ IGA established in March 2006 between Windsor/Fort Collins ■ Continue previous annexation agreements ■ Establish Corridor Activity Center ( CAC ) at Interchange ■ Agree to Jointly create Comprehensive Development Plan for CAC 25 - ■ Agree that primary purpose of Plan is to • - reconstruct Interchange Plan Purpose To develop key direction for implementing the reconstruction of the I -25/SH392 interchange . Key Objectives include : — Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting land use — Coordinate with CDOT on EIS Process on preferred alternative — Identify alternative funding strategies — Identify supporting frontage road and local street network — Continuous stakeholder/public, agency, and y� - , r governmental review , •, t- , — Develop action strategies to implement improvements — Plan acceptance by Town Board and City Council Y I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT 8 tel:. n Process •Key highlights • accomplish included : Five property owner (stakeholder) meetings Monthly technical advisory • meetings • public open houses Review by Boards • Commissions , Agencies Pl® Other public outreach including news articles , website -C If-- - Ak cuvm �n comma Phase 1: Start-up/Assessment and Analysis Prioritize issues. Assess conditions. Analyze opportunities and constraints. Phase II: Interchange Improvement Plan Developed land use, transportation, infrastructure, and natural resource options to address issues. Phase 11I: Implementation Develop implementation action plan. identify financing mechanisms. Facilitate adoption of the Plan a,v of r rt cow.. 3 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Plan Participants Lead by Fort Collins & Windsor • A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC ) • A Stakeholder Group • Boards and Commissions • General Public 1 gend 1 City of F�ft Collins ---- ^ PRO- ALYSIS AREA 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement - 1 Comment Summary of Public Outreach Stakeholder Group o General support for overall Plan o Concerns about impacts of funding for CAC private owners o Work towards larger contributions from public sector o Need to coordinate interim improvements as first phase Public Meetings o All comments supported reconstruction of Interchange o How of can we get to implementation ? „ • � o Need to assess larger funding mechanism outside of CAC area to capture regional users Existing Conditions • Interchange currently operating at a failing LOS • Area largely undeveloped • Failing interchange reduces development potential • Close important natural resources/open lands • Area serves as gateway to Windsor, SE Fort Collins • Expected to be a regional transit hub • The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) is the area immediately surrounding the interchange and where the project will have the greatest impact I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT 8 Corridor • Boundary of focused planning area • Commercial/employment la • uses Property• • business owners City of Fan Collinx 1-25 / 392 Corridor Acitvity Center Plan y . . 1 b Y n � 1 Y y �e rt4 �n y •t:t u,o.11� 1 ` t f, Q b.►.ir.w:. �wraW ♦ City0 * Mor.aw " Lw A A� 6 I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT 8 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN weel iT I-a Pole 14 Pun dIF Q r jw�. .. ....._• p_.-.,... H.��.... _ten ��. Ciq'M Fan CoOi� North Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) * Coordination • Draft ElS . • • Alternative is for • diamond interchange and a potential Bus Rapid Transit istation • (one • the two • The final EIS is currently projected • • completed aiv of r rt cawa9 7 . n law C7, t Vr -AA Land Use • New employment areas • Neighborhoods • Mixed use areas • Commercial centers • Open Lands z , - Developable Lana ,.. .aw. . .. ,..1. Now Quad,."n �9 t to ru l Zs • . r Existing Inventory of Natural Resources .. I � ^ v - I J 3 Z� Natural Resources Overview MAP Natural Resources Identified Buffers : — 100' to 300' buffer `f from the edge of the natural features . — A 50' buffer is identified for wetlands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. — A buffer of 1 ,320' is identified to protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as ® ® ' defined by CDOW. I-25/SN392 Interchange Improvement Plen ws Natural Resources Buffer Detail Transportation 1 -25/SH 392 bridge will be completely reconstructed . _ Layout will follow the `tight diamond ' configuration presented in the North 1 -25 Draft EIS (4-Ln bridge) • Construction will include bridge replacement, \ r reconstruction of SH392 to tie in with new frontage roads , and acceleration /deceleration lanes on 1 -25 . a Cost of the improvements 7 approximately $22 million . : Y 1-25/SH392 Interchange • _ nt Plan ATTACHMENT 8 �►• lollFilm i� 171ty of r�d Collins ir _6 1 1 zs NW Fronbge Road Alt � rn � tiv � a -�. �-. 1 S 4 zs SW Front�g• Road Alt• rnatlr 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Transit & Trails • • Transit service ( in combination with highway capacity improvements , bike paths and sidewalks ) will provide alternative transportation options . • Local bus services could act as a feeder system to the proposed BRT/Park- n - Ride facility along I -25 . • This plan recommends the BRT facility ( if constructed ) include a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Park- n - Ride facilities on both sides of I -25 . • The BRT site could begin as a parking facility . • Trail connections can be coordinated with future development . I -25 Pedestrian Bridge 1 00 Bits Rapid TransitTypical Station located in the median of 1-25 • Bus loading lanes will be located on either side of platform �7 ' rl[�7�r MUM KX�CQUW MUM V� FM �EL �L =0 shoulder lumicle a 23' buffer from bus loading lam to the through-lanes; of 1-25 �liil liFE e pedestrian circulatiorowill be �TlPaoi::i' provided with a pedestrian L`t ii=ra- In= 161= 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Bridge Design 13 The SH 392 bridge will serve as a gateway feature . Bridge options include "-=-"""'` ii �'= �— • standard design like ' the Harmony/I -25 bridge • a double -span concrete structure similar to other along the corridor • an arched span is more unique and plays off of ���%�� �`r` � the near by landscape Framework Plan Highlights include : - Bus Rapid Transit accessible from both sides of the interstate with pedestrian overpass - Gateway bridge - CAC retail and mixed use development - Undeveloped Lands and trails to connect natural systems 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Alm F R A N ! W O R K L A N Funding Key Funding Concerns : • Limited public resources available • Costs to landowners must be fair and equitable • Some costs must be captured by the greater community • Lack of large commercial parcel ; many property owners involved • Must have reliable revenue stream for bond support • Uncertain development schedule 14 • Multi -jurisdictional solution 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement - I Interchange Ramps S3.5 West Frontage Road (1) S1.7 Engineering S1 .5 Construction Improvement Costs Project Element Cost (Millions) o $18.3 Management S1.825 ' Agency Review SOA ------� Total Cost � $22.0 Funding Three revenue scenarios were developed : Scenario 1 Includes a special assessment ( Commercial -$ 3 , 000 and Residential -$ 1 , 000 per acre ) and 5 -mill property tax for CAC landowners , an impact fee ($250 per unit) imposed on the "travelshed , " and a 0 . 5 percent Public Improvement Fee ( PIF ) . 15 • Minimal public support 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Funding Scenario 2 Includes financial support from CDOT , the North Front Range MPO and the municipalities of Windsor and Fort Collins , a special assessment ( Commercial -$925 and Residential -$400 per acre ) on CAC TIT ( undeveloped land only) that sunsets in 10 TIT a 0 . 5 percent PIF and a 5-mill property tax on CAC landowners . • Public support reduces burden on CAC Detail of Funding Scenario 2 Public Contribution • CDOT - $2 .0 million • North Front Range MPO - $1 .2 million (future allocation ) • Town of Windsor - $ 1 million • City of Fort Collins - $ 1 million • Public Improvement Fee (future development sales tax) Private Contribution • Special assessment of CAC vacant land (sunsets in 10 years) • Property tax on CAC land owners 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Funding Scenario 3 This scenario includes all public funding from Scenario 2 and an expanded property tax district with a 5-mill levy. There is also a special assessment ($ 150 per acre ) on all undeveloped CAC land that sunsets in 10 years and a 0 . 5 percent PIF . • Larger taxing district ; ; ; ; Funding Scenario Summary Scenario 1 ' s Percent of Contribution • Support Landowner Support IL 17 Government Support 0% x 1-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Funding Scenario Summary Governm Scenario 2 ' s Percent of Contribution . . . i i PIF SupportLandowner Support -�Y Funding Scenario Summary Scenario 3's Percent of Contribution Governmen i . . . .. . . PIF S ort Landowner . . . 2J • -.Y 18 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Critical Action Steps . . . . 19 1 . Accept the Plan 2 . Amend the IGA to continue partnership 3 . Request justification for separate action or utilize existing EIS 4 . Commit funding for 1601 /EA process and other compliance activities 5 . Amend IGA to secure public and private funding commitments 6 . Assess APF Standards on future development @Interchange 7 . Form General Improvement District _ 8 . Preliminary/ Final Engineering 25 '' ` 9 . Begin construction in 2009 — 2010 Follow CDOT EIS Process (2009) vs . Submit for Separate Action (2007 — 2008 ) Reason for pursuing a separate action and 1601 Study : • Nat' I developer proposing projects on both sides of Interchange • Need for an accelerated process to re-construct Interchange • Required Steps in Separate Process with CDOT — Request a justification for separate action from CDOT/FHWA — If approved — Proceed with accelerated 1601 Process — Environmental Assessment ( EA) 1-25/SH392 InterchangeImprovement Resolution 2007 ILCit of Fft 20 Accepting the I -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan ; Approving an Agreement : - Town of Windsor - City of Fort Collins - Metro Acquisitions , LLC Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement : _. - Colorado Department of Transportation - Town of Windsor - City of Fort Collins -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT 8 EPAM now sr. . I un'9°'r i � .anuv'Nnr 4�+ • - • Cityof Fan Collinx 21 RESOLUTION 2007-106 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING THE I-25/SH 392 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN; APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, AND METRO ACQUISITIONS, LLC; AND APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TOWN OF WINDSOR, AND CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS,the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange("Interchange"),located at Exit 262,borders the western edge of the Town of Windsor("Town") and the southeastern limits of the City of Fort Collins ("City"); and WHEREAS, the Interchange is an integral part of the regional transportation network as much of the Town's traffic passes through the Interchange, and an increasing number of drivers use the Interchange as an alternative access point to the City and as a key access point to the residential areas in Larimer County and The Ranch,'a regional entertainment destination; and WHEREAS, in recent years, the existing capacity of the Interchange has been significantly impacted by state and regional growth, and local growth in Windsor and southeast Fort Collins, so that the Interchange is unable to handle current traffic capacity during peak hours; and WHEREAS,the Interchange and nearby transportation infrastructure are currently operating at failing or near failing levels of service,and are characterized by numerous design and operational deficiencies and substandard safety features; and WHEREAS,some transportation models suggest that traffic at the Interchange will more than double by 2030; and WHEREAS, no gateway features exist at the Interchange area despite its location on the borders of the Town and the City; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") and the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council, as the area metropolitan planning organization ("NFR-MPO"), acknowledge the development pressure in the vicinity of the Interchange and the need to accommodate future growth and ensure mobility in the area, and an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is currently underway for the entire I-25 corridor from Denver through the City, although funding for improvements at the Interchange has not yet been identified; and WHEREAS,the enhancement and improvement of the Interchange will further many of the goals set forth in the City's master plan, including the promotion of new commercial activity areas, meeting the transportation demands of the community,promoting connectivity of local roadways to the regional system, and creating opportunities for multi-modal transportation options; and WHEREAS,the enhancement and improvement of the Interchange will promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City by facilitating the timely and safe movement of people,goods,information,and services,byproviding access to new services,by increasing property values and facilitating future development of properties in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange, and by increasing commerce at local establishments; and WHEREAS, with innovative and thoughtful planning, the Interchange area could be transformed into a unique and memorable,revenue-generating gateway for both the Town and the City; and WHEREAS, in light of the public benefits that would result from accelerating the planning and completion of improvements to the Interchange("Interchange Improvements"),the City desires to undertake all reasonable means to obtain the necessary authorization and funding for, and construction of, the Interchange Improvements in the shortest possible time; and WHEREAS,the Town and the City are parties to an existing Intergovernmental Agreement ("Windsor/FTC IGA") in which the parties have pledged to cooperate to explore and implement solutions to existing traffic issues related to the Interchange; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Windsor/FTC IGA, an I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan("Plan")setting forth the necessity for the Interchange Improvements and funding action strategies for implementation of such improvements has been prepared for the Town and City; and WHEREAS, acceptance of the Plan by the City will set the stage for the Plan's implementation; and WHEREAS, to accelerate planning and completion of the Interchange Improvements, the Town and the City have agreed to jointly apply to CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") for a determination that Separate Action from the Northern Colorado Interstate 25 Corridor EIS is justified for the Interchange Improvements("Justification for Separate Action");and WHEREAS, to accelerate planning and completion of the Interchange Improvements, the Town and the City have agreed, in accordance with CDOT's 1601 Interchange Approval Process ("1601 Process"), to jointly (1) apply to CDOT, NFR-MPO, and FHWA for authorization to construct the Interchange Improvements;(2)provide a statement regarding the source of funding for the proposed improvements;and,in advance of the establishment of any funding methodology; and (3) cause a preliminary design of the Interchange Improvements and an environmental assessment to be prepared and funded based in part on preliminary design work already completed as part of the EIS; and WHEREAS, the 1601 Process includes a requirement for public involvement and environmental review of the proposed Interchange Improvements, which the parties will also undertake and conduct to ensure that the environment and needs of the public are adequately addressed and protected; and -2- WHEREAS, Metro Acquisitions, LLC is a private entity that is the owner or contract purchaser of certain parcels of developable land in the area of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the parties and Metro Acquisitions, LLC recognize that until the Interchange Improvements are made it will be difficult if not impossible to develop these parcels for commercial purposes,and it is therefore in the best economic interests of Metro Acquisitions,LLC to cooperate and participate in the efforts of the Town and the City to accelerate the approval and construction of the Interchange Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Town, the City, and Metro Acquisitions, LLC have negotiated a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Highway 392 Interchange ("Cost Sharing Agreement") whereby the parties set forth their respective responsibilities with regard to securing approval and financing for the Interchange Improvements; and WHEREAS,the Town,the City, and CDOT have negotiated a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement whereby the Town and the City would agree to reimburse CDOT for the costs CDOT incurs in reviewing the conceptual designs, studies, and other documents filed by the Town and the City as part of the Justification for Separate Action and 1601 Process ("First CDOT IGA"); and WHEREAS,in furtherance of the Windsor/FTC IGA,the Plan,the Justification for Separate Action, and the 1601 Process, and by the terms of this Resolution,it is the intent of the Fort Collins City Council to accept the Plan, approve the Cost Sharing Agreement and approve the First CDOT IGA; and WHEREAS,sufficient unexpended funds have heretofore been appropriated by the Council to satisfy the City's financial obligations under the Cost Sharing Agreement and the First CDOT IGA. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the Interstate 25/Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan, which acceptance sets the stage for implementation of the Plan, including the identification and obtainment of funding commitments. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the Cost Sharing Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute the same whereby,among other things,the Town and the City have agreed to jointly file a Justification for Separate Action with CDOT and FHWA and, upon its approval, to jointly apply to CDOT, NFR-MPO, and FHWA for approval of the Interchange Improvements in accordance with the 1601 Process, and whereby the Town, the City, and Metro Acquisitions, LLC have also agreed to share the project's initial consulting costs as well as the subsequent costs generated by the 1601 Process. Section 3. That the City Council hereby approves the First CDOT IGA entered into by the Town, the City, and CDOT whereby, subject to the provisions of the Cost Sharing Agreement -3- referred to herein,the Town and the City have agreed to reimburse CDOT for the costs CDOT incurs in reviewing the conceptual designs, studies, and other documents filed by the Town and the City as part of the Justification for Separate Action and 1601 Process, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the same. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of December, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -4-