Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/04/2001 - RESOLUTION 2001-115 SUPPORTING THE COLORADO DEPAR AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 28 DATE: September 4,2001 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Kathleen Reavis SUBJECT: Resolution2001-115 Supporting the Colorado Department of Transportation's Widening ofUS 287, Along its Present Alignment from Highway 1 to the LaPorte Bypass. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City. This project, as well as future phases of the US 287 widening project, will be funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is seeking support from the City of Fort Collins for the widening US 287, along its present alignment, from Highway 1 to the LaPorte Bypass. CDOT's project recommends that the widening of US 287 use the existing highway alignment rather than the other alternative alignments that were explored during the environmental assessment process. BACKGROUND: CDOT is seeking formal support from the City Council for its preferred alignment for the US 287 widening project. As the outcome of the environmental assessment process, CDOT is recommending alternative A4 as the preferred alternative. Alternative A4 uses the existing alignment of US 287 and does not require the relocation of Terry Lake Dam. CDOT is not recommending the westerly alignment, which has been strongly opposed by the public as well as by staff. City staff is supportive of CDOT's recommendation to use the existing US 287 alignment and has also requested that a future phase of this project include an access management plan for the corridor so that raised landscaped DATE: September4,2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 28 medians can be installed as would be required by the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. CDOT staff has agreed to this request. The latest information from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the US 287 project from Highway 1 to the LaPorte Bypass is attached. Attachments: 1. Project Study Area Map 2. Alternatives Retained for Environmental Analysis 3. Proposed Typical Section for Existing Alignment(Alternatives A4 and A5) 4. Planning and Zoning Board letter of support 5. July 18 Transportation Board meeting minutes indicating the Board's support for this project RESOLUTION 2001-115 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUPPORTING THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S WIDENING OF US 287, ALONG ITS PRESENT ALIGNMENT,FROM HIGHWAY 1 TO THE LAPORTE BYPASS WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has conducted an environmental assessment process from which process CDOT has concluded that US Highway 287 should be widened along its present alignment from Colorado Highway I to the LaPorte Bypass;and WHEREAS, the City Council supports the CDOT proposal of widening US Highway 287 along its present existing alignment from Colorado Highway 1 to the LaPorte Bypass provided that the future phase of the widening project include an access management plan for the corridor so that raised, landscaped medians can be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Council supports the widening of US Highway 287 along its present alignment from Colorado Highway 1 to the LaPorte Bypass as proposed by the Colorado Department of Transportation upon the condition that a future phase of said widening project include an access management plan for the corridor so that raised,landscaped medians can be installed as required by the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 4th day of September, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ATTACHMENT Project Study Area Fort Collins, CO esr LaPorte Bypass LaPorte 7 RR s @� r x�� err idtx est icoxLn a v p r� �5 L ,p 'Y,Y J f••t ice♦ "�� �' at`,vi 1�,5! '� West Vine Dr. t ine r. =Alternative Alignments A4&A5 along the existing US28 US287 from SH1 to LaPorte Bypass Alternative Alignment B Environmental Assessment =study area boundaries *Map is not to scale Alternative Descriptions A4: Meandering alignment along the existing US. 287, which avoids Terry Lake Dam A5: Meandering alignment along the existing US 287, which relocates Terry Lake Dam to the north B: A new route connecting SH 1 to the LaPorte Bypass, south of the existing US 287 ATTACHMENT 2 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PREFERRED RECEPTOR BUILD No Action Alternative A4 Alternative AS Alternative B ALTERNATIVE ocioeconomics OW Acquisition 0 17.6 16.2 54.5 A4 or AS (acres) Potential 0 42-32 38-27 5 B Relocations Construction Cost' 0 $11.5M-$11.6M $19.IM-$19.2M $II.0M B Utility Relocation 0 $1.1 M-$1.2 M $I.6 M-$1.7 M $90,000 B Cost Disruption of None None None None No Preference Emergency Services Traffic LOSE LOS AB LOS AB Existing alignment—LOS B A4 or AS New alignment—LOS A afety otential for Increased Reduced Reduced No change A4 or A5 ccidents) Cumulative Impacts No cumulative No cumulative No cumulative No cumulative No Preference impacts impacts impacts impacts Cultural Paleontology No impacts Impacts unlikely Impacts unlikely Impacts unlikely No Preference Historic/4(t) No impacts 0 sites 0 sites 1 potential site A4 or AS rime and Unique armland Soils' N/A 4.9 acres 5.6 acres 25 acres A4 or AS No cumulative • Increased loss of prime • Increased loss of prime e Potential increase in the impacts to historic emulative Impacts sites A4 or AS impacts farmland soils farmland soils • Greatest loss of prime farmland soils 'Construction Cost does not include right-of-way acquisitions,relocations,and utilities. r The National Resource Conservation Service INKS)determined the value of prime and unique farmland soils is less than 160 points for all three action alternatives, therofore,no significant impacts will result. DRAFT Summary pacts f ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PREFERRED RECEPTOR BUILD No Action Alternative A4 Alternative A5 Alternative B ALTERNATIVE Environmental it Quality No change Potential improvement Potential improvement Potential improvement No Preference Geology&Soils No major No major No major No major No Preference subsidence areas subsidence areas subsidence areas subsidence areas Ecology No impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts Potential impacts A4 or A5 Wetlands No impacts 0.5 acre 1.36 acres 7.76 acres A4 Threatened, Endangered& No impacts No impacts No impacts Potential impacts A4 or AS Sensitive Species Water Quality No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No Preference Dry Creek Floodplain No No No Yes A4 or A5 Encroachment Parkland,Recreation, No impact No impact No impact No impact No Preference Trails&Open Space Visual Resources No change Moderate contrast Moderate contrast Strong contrast A4 or A5 Environmental Justice No impacts No disproportionate impacts No disproportionate impacts No disproportionate impacts No Preference Noise 21 residences 50 residences 41 residences 14 residences B 1 business 0 businesses 0 businesses 4 businesses Potential No impacts 3 sites 3 sites 1 site B Hazardous Materials • Increased fragmentation of habitat and decrease in wildlife numbers associated • Introduction of non-native with the habitat,potentially affecting • Introduction sof ous) native or threatened,endangered&sensitive species or invasive(noxious) g P No cumulative weeds invasive(noxious)weeds • Introduction of non-native or invasive Cumulative Impacts • Increased loss of wetlands (noxious)weeds A4 or AS impacts • Increased loss of wetlands • Reduction in hazardous ( • Reduction in hazardous • Greatest loss of wetlands materials materials • Increased floodplain encroachment • Change in visual characteristics • Reduction in hazardous materials DRAFT Summary of Impacts (cont'd) ATTACHMENT 3 111*14A all . . f�l, i4CSEC I (� EXISTINGALIG�IM T vq nu"'G` ' r (A Altem tives) d :J t 7P ++ ix .S`A�n rW x 149 otjt�icje of Ric ht-of Way Existing frees outside of Right-of Way URRM RRTER M(LOW SPEED) ML n•mYOm.m � -.._._ ._ -— urnm'rccwpiom� ` r a n IfFCM.rII nll.M — / vaarr ---n%p4„Y ,SCMxM cam, 4 WISHG i.CF i'GflMlti 8 " With future development of the internal street system, a the City of Fort Collins would prefer to see a raised K median through this Roadway Section. This may require future access considerations. POTENT XFMREMEDIAN TfiEATM ' :.;:, •. FOR EXISTING ALIGNMENT EXISTMO U.S.M II r H0. I I i.w.nm �w IrT v� Community Planning and Environmental Services ATTACHMENT 4 6a Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Jerry Gavaldon, Chairma .� �G Planning & Zoning Board RE: Draft Environmental Assessment for U.S. 287 improvements between S.H. 1 and the Laporte Bypass DATE: June 18, 2001 At the June 15, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board worksession, board members received a presentation from Kathleen Reavis, regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment for U.S. 287 improvements between S.H. 1 and the Laporte Bypass and would like to offer the following comments: • The Board supports Alternative A4 or A5 rather than Alternative B. Even though the project may cost more using the present 287 alignment, a new route would have substantially higher 1 environmental costs and overall negative impact to the community. Alternative B will do little more than promote a sprawling development pattern that disregards the need to reinvest in existing public facilities and private land. • We commend City staff for raising the need for future access management along U.S. 287. Such management will be needed to enhance traffic flow and make a safer, more attractive, northern gateway into our community. We appreciate the ability to comment on such an important issue. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact me. cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning Gregory Byrne, CPES Director Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0380 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 ATTACHIv[ENT 5 Draft minutes to be approved by the Board at their August 15, 2001 meeting. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD July 18, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins—City Hall West—CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord 472.8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould 482.1074 STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224.6049 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Dan Gould Brent Thordarson Bruce Henderson Mazy Waning Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Heather Trantham Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Gary Diede Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Kathleen Reavis Cynthia Scott Ken Waido GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Beatty Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18,2001 Page 5 stacking issues and staff agreed that this is something that will be addressed later down the road. Johnson: The last idea I had for a future phase is that we have the north end transit center being put in place and opening yet this summer and if we look at the Aztlan area as a place where people are going to be congregating and possibly circulating back and forth, we might look at that block between Maple and Cherry and make it inviting to come through that half block. If we put an alleyway in in the future, consider also having a very nice kind of ped facility that takes people over and directs them right to that park center. Ricord: Could you speak more to the aesthetic piece? Characterize it and help me understand a little bit more why#4 has a higher rating than 42 or the other alternatives in terms of aesthetics. Folmer: Basically, #4 provides extra space to work with. Miller made a motion to endorse the preferred alternative that staff has presented There was a second Discussion: Chair Ricord stated that he sees things a little differently after hearing that the other members would be supporting alternative#2. He stated that in looking through the analyses, either#2 or#4 are going to be a vast improvement over what is there now. However,forme it comes down to more of a philosophical question of values. In the case of having the added amenity for alternative modes and also the aesthetic enhancement,I'm willing to trade that off for LOS in this case. I'm more supportive of alternative#4 than #2. Chair Ricord called the question and the motion carried by a majority vote, 8—I. 4.b. US 287 WIDENING PROJECT—REAVIS Chair Ricord reminded everyone that there is a specific time allotted for each presenter to make a presentation, so members are asked to withhold comments and questions until the conclusion of the presentation. He stated that the board is being asked to make a recommendation, but it is not clear as to which alternative they are being asked to recommend. It says in the text that the thinking is either A4 or A5. He asked that staff speak in more detail about what exactly is the action they seek. Reavis introduced Bethany from CDOT and Shawn and Michelle from JF Sato as they are the primary presenters for the evening. From staffs perspective, it was felt that any of the alternatives that were along the existing alignment were preferable versus the alternatives that went to the west and was a new alignment/roadway. Bethany stated that the difference between A4 and AS is that A5 involves the relocation of the dam Other than that,the two alternatives are pretty much the same. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 8 Shawn explained the process that staff and the consultants went through in choosing what they feel should be the preferred alternative. The floor was open to members for comments/questions: Johnson: I don't like B. My inclination is to lean hard on A4. Henderson: I noticed under"noise"that A4 does have a greater impact than A5 does. Can you comment on that? Sato: CDOT has a policy about the noise so a noise contour would be built based on the proposed action and with most contours that were identified how many receptors within an area that will be affected. Once these are identified, then possible mitigation plans are looked at to avoid that noise. Trantham: I'm glad to hear that our concerns were heard in terms of alternative B the last time you were here. I'll go with A4. Yeldell: I think the $7.5M difference between 4 and 5 for those nine houses that are affected on the noise - - do a lot of noise mitigation. I like 4. Miller: I support alternative 4. Ricord: Footnote#1 at the bottom of the page talks about construction costs. It says that it does not include ROW acquisitions, relocations, and utilities. If we were to include those figures and add them to the cost of A4 and A5, would we still see the same disparity between the two roughly or would the cost of alternative 5 increase even more. Sato: Actually you would not see much of a difference. It would make some difference, as the property on one side is not really comparable to the property cost on the other side. Henderson moved to recommend alternative A4. There was a second by Miller. The motion carried by a unanimous vote 4.c. ROUNDABOUT RESOLUTION -BRACKE Bracke stated that the City Manger,the Mayor a couple of Council members have asked that staff come up with some criteria for when roundabouts are placed at intersections. The resolution before the board lists six criteria that staff feel should be looked at anytime there are intersection improvements in terms of whether or not it should be a traditional intersection or a roundabout. They are: 1. COST—both capital and maintenance costs 2. AVERAGE DELAY—this is the mechanism by which we determine LOS and the City maintains LOS standards 3. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS —there are currently vehicle accident prediction models and we can compare the safety of the two intersections 4. ALTERNATIVE MODE MOBILITY—the study shall include an evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle mobility 5. SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS—roundabouts generally may provide more than enough capacity to postpone or eliminate the need for roadway widening between intersections