Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-160-11/20/2001-ADOPTING THE NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL COMMUNITIES I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN RESOLUTION 2001-160 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL COMMUNITIES I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council desires to work in a spirit of cooperation with the northern Colorado communities on growth management issues that require regional solutions and/or approaches; and WHEREAS, the Interstate Highway 25 (1-25") Corridor is an important transportation corridor that has regional significance which transcends the interests of any single community, and the kind of development in such corridor should reflect the regional and interstate character and historical functionality of I-25; and WHEREAS, eight regional communities (the"Participating Jurisdictions"), including Fort Collins,have joined togetherto prepare the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan(the"Plan"), which Plan encompasses an area extending approximately one mile on either side of I-25 for a distance of approximately 32 miles commencing two miles south of State Highway 56 and extending north to Larimer County Road 58; and WHEREAS,January 18, 2000,the Council passed and adopted a resolution supporting the preparation of a Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan establishes a framework for the Participating Jurisdictions to work together on issues of regional significance, including: (a) the promotion of uniform quality in the character of development, (b) a local network of future multi-modal transportation improvements, (c) the protection of significant natural areas and open lands within the Plan area; and (d) the reduction of traffic congestion on local arterials and I-25, (e) the efficient use of public funds and private resources in the provision of public rights of way, (f) the more consistent protection of floodplains and floodways and their associated riparian habitats, (g) regional cooperation and coordination on transportation facilities of regional significance; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Plan by the City Council would not imply that the City would modify its current policies and standards to the detriment of the public health, safety and welfare of the community, which policies include but are not limited to the City's current policies and standards requiring that: (a) new development pay its fair share of the cost to provide needed public facilities and services; (b) the City not enter into any agreements with other jurisdictions to jointly fund or construct infrastructure improvements or provide services that might foster growth within the Growth Management Area that is inconsistent with City Plan; (c) community separators be established between Fort Collins and neighboring communities; (d) the location, timing, design and extent of development in those Corridor areas that are within the City limits be determined by the City according to its own land use policies and regulations as established by the City Council; and (e) a variety of housing that is proportionally balanced to the wages of the community's labor force be made available throughout the urban area while maintaining and enhancing neighborhood stability and encouraging the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and the preservation of affordable housing stock; and WHEREAS, an extensive outreach effort has been undertaken to inform and involve the various stakeholders in the preparation of the Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City that the Plan, as modified below, be adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan, amended as shown in Exhibits "A", and "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and referred to below as the "Amended Plan." Section. 2. That the City Council desires to continue to cooperate with the other Participating Jurisdictions in implementing the recommendations of the Amended Plan, subject to the following conditions: A) That special emphasis is placed on the Amended Plan's recommendations with regard to the development of a multi-modal transportation system and the provision of open spaces as community separators. B) That the City Council's adoption of the Amended Plan should not be construed as evidencing support for a future regional transportation authority, nor as an implication that roads shown on the Amended Plan will automatically become part of the City's Master Street Plan,which will continue to be reviewed and implemented according to the City's normal processes; C) That the City will direct its representative to exercise its weighted voting power as a member of the regional North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council with regard to any transportation issues in the Corridor that are related to the Amended Plan; D) That, because the effectiveness of the Amended Plan depends upon its actual implementation in a timely manner, City staff is hereby directed to collaborate with elected officials and staff from the Participating Jurisdictions to: 1) reconvene the Policy Oversight Committee and Staff Technical Team Committee that were organized to assist in the development of the Plan; 2) organize a Regional Open Space Task Force as a means of addressing the preservation priorities and required resources in the Corridor; E) That the City Council may revoke its adoption of the Amended Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan at any time that the Council determines that meaningful multi jurisdictional participation in the Plan has not occurred and is not likely to occur in a timely fashion. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held t ' 20th day of November, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATT � )� City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" ISSUES AND GOALS • Provide adequate transportation facilities for new development Goal LU.2 Develop a regionally preferred pattern of land use Objectives • Establish location and design guidelines for new development in the corridor • Integrate individual community land use goals • Balance land supply and demand to avoid an uncoordinated and scattered development pattern Goal LUA Maintain a distinct transition from urban to rural areas Objectives • Identify and define transition areas based on existing character and pending development • Utilize mechanisms for land and development rights acquisition to maintain the character of transition areas Goal LU.5 Preserve agricultural lands in appropriate areas Objectives • Ideru fy priority agricultural lands that contribute to rural character along the corridor • Utilize mechanisms for preserving agricultural land in appropriate areas Transportation Goal TR.1 Coordinate local and regional transportation plans Objectives • Coordinate recommendations with those in the North Front Range Transportation Alterna- tives Feasibility Study and the Crossroads Boulevard Subarea Transportation Study • Integrate transportation improvements with municipal transportation plans and the exist- ing regional transportation network • Develop interconnected roadway networks with multiple paths to destinations Goal TR.2 safe and efficient access to development in the corridor and the surround- ing communities Objectives • Establish location criteria for access from the local roadway network in the corridor • Coordinate local access control plans • Develop roadway network and street design guidelines for development in the corridor Goal TR.3 Provide safe and efficient linkages to surrounding communities 10 Objectives • Identify and define primary linkages between the corridor and surrounding communities • Coordinate primary linkage improvements between the corridor and surrounding communities 1-25 Corridor Plon ISSUES AND GOALS • Coordinate recommendations with the Northern Colorado Community Separator Study Goal RC.2 Enhance the quality and appearance of new development Objectives • Develop design guidelines and standards for new development in the corridor Goal RC.3 Preserve open lands along the corridor Objectives • Prioritize open lands for protection and/or acquisition • Coordinate regional open land conservation programs Coordination and Implementation `vim S i Goal Cl.l Establish a common vision for the corridor Objectives • Develop vision statements,maps,and illustrations for the desired future development pat- tern and character • Maximize opportunities for citizen participation and comment • Provide opportunities for ongoing and meaningful participation and multi-media commu- nication from the public,elected officials,and staff Goal C1.2 Develop and adopt appropriate strategies to implement the Plan Objectives • Identify conflicts between existing plans,policies,and regulations • Mutually adopt proposed policies and regulations • Establish consistent intergovernmental agreements Objeefive growth t2 1-25 corridor Plan CORRIDOR VISION III. Corridor Vision Although the general goals of the I-25 Regional Corridor Plan and Design Standards were clear from the onset of the project as a means of creating a framework f6t tleaek9mtvtt that focused on improving the quality,location, environmental sensitivity,and long-term viability of land uses. However,it was not clear how these goals would translate into future land use and transportation patterns for the Corridor. An initial series of Pubhc Open Houses were held early in the process to solicit feedback and ideas from Corridor property owners,residents,and businesses. Three alternative visions were developed to help participants visual- ize what the Corridor could look like in the future and determine where community preferences lay. This "visioning"process identified"How?"and"Where?"future development might occur in the Corridor. They re- sponded to the issues identified early on,asking questions such as: If current development patterns were not desirable,then where should development occur?If,tilt-up,concrete panelized structures were not desirable, what characteristics should new construction have? Would agriculture remain a viable use in the Corridor in the long-term? What types of transportation system would best serve future development patterns? Each of these questions,among others,was thoroughly evaluated during this process. Following is a description of each alter- native. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Alternative 1-4ncoordinated Development "— -- ---- _ -— _-- Dvde ,mwlptli'IC IWmP1o,AhY nMbNryw ��'--- led-m dnibpMnllNb Llped/.-1,nibNpdw to - .1.d pR1601dnfbpmeNpnmpAldeklmiwd A, ihpupA�pnw W.,dpm6kmpyb b dnMw, inodwwma�mnrywnbeyatl honnym k. rearm.i�mwlpnmibMllry,a¢en.PmwMokner 01.1.nd nxyoppmml WwMntlies. Yb'J 3Y " lin'empk Inr Pmw�W""'" �.: b p dt ndm ! 4sem dd.rekPmwsmM pn hh a np�nef wemmmpmplbl ryl u Inn k pedrnbpmh m Idpl I dry wind.Audofewpb mawf demh _ i - M6iCd No�9 n'y,,, ¢ �,, tea.„, -UIfwMWMY3 npdM} - , This alternative demonstrates the implications of unrestricted growth on the Corridor. Existing patterns of 13 development would continue to occur in a shallow,linear pattern along frontage roads or in an uncoordi- nated pattern at interchanges, FMThe scattered development pattern would depend largely on the frontage road system for circulation,limiting pedestrian and bicycle mobility and hindering the efficiency of alternative modes. i I-25 C.r,dor Plan CORRIDOR VISION CORRIDOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES During the visioning process,five Corridor Design Principles were developed. Each principle represents a broad goal to be addressed by the plan and the accompanying design standards,to achieve the Preferred Vision. These principles were fine-tuned and supplemented throughout the planning process as various issues arose and the Vision became increasingly clear. Following is a fist of the Corridor Design Principles,accompanied by a sum- mary of each. Establish a range of development types and intensities within the Corridor. Focus urban levels of de- velopment within compact"activity centers". LULULU The accompanying rMOM design standards closely examine these activity centers and break " I: them into a series of design components.Standards for multi- modal connections,landscaping and screening requirements,and menus of design elements are all provided to improve the quality and appearance of residential,commercial,and industrial devel- opment often found in these centers;more detailed standards are provided for transit nodes and urban development cores served or expected to be served by high frequency transit in the future. Other standards are provided for areas in between the activity centers to help locate specific land uses and create a more open character of development. Coordinate local and regional transportation investments to increase future mobility and mode choices within the Corridor. Long-range viability of the Corridor's transportation system is per- ^ ` haps one of the most critical and challenging issues that the region must address. Rapid growth trends can help invigorate smaller I ' communities in the Corridor,but without significant local and re- gional investments in transportation they also bring a rapid in- crease in traffic congestion and a decrease in mobility. Although transportation improvements are being addressed at a local level, coordinating these improvements with ambitious growth plans for f neighboring communities and the greater region has been an ongoing challenge. In addition to coordina- tion issues,a statewide lack of funding for transportation improvements leaves most Corridor roadways in danger of failure within twenty years. The Preferred Vision,as illustrated on the previous page,proposes a north-south local roadway system to — alleviate congestion on I-25,serve local trips between communities and activity centers,and better serve 17 desired land use patterns. In constrained areas,it promotes a modified interchange and frontage road system. It also emphasizes the integration of long-range plans for alternative modes,such as commuter rail,into current and future developments.This plan and the accompanying Design Standards address how and where the parallel roadway system might occur. Both documents also provide specifications at a lo- cal and site scale for providing appropriate supporting infrastructure for pedestrians,bicycles,and transit. Preserve natural areas,open lands,and views that contribute to the open character of the Corridor. The open character of the Corridor is not only scenic for motorists and residents,but provides an impor- I-25 Corridor Plan CORRIDOR VISION tant visual separation between communities and in- creases the value of new development nearby.Partici- pants in the visioning process expressed concern about the encroachment of development on these sensitive ar- eas, $ PtF I °{§{Y ,4 4 rl" u•S ,It t,I}9� f`` ;. particularly those,such as river corridors and wet- lands,that provide wildlife habitat and contribute to wa- ter quality. Acknowledging that outright preservation of all open lands within the Corridor is not feasible;the Preferred Vision approaches the protection of open areas under several layers of specificity.The standards establish boundaries for easily recognized areas,such as riparian corridors,where development should not occur. Other less tangible areas,such as views,are protected through broad setbacks and a more open character of development,including informal landscape buffers and reduced building heights. Maximize community benefits within the Corridor by improving the overall quality and functionality of development. The quality of existing development within the Corridor varies greatly.Little incentive exists for a developer orW business owner to go beyond the minimum require- ments provided without some guarantee that adjacentfi properties would be developed to equally high stan- dards. The Preferred Vision strives to create an expec- tation of quality development that is visible throughout the Corridor. This expectation will be reinforced through the application of the design standards. The standards reflect a growing recognition that just as transportation improvements need larger coordination to be successful,development can also be im- pacted positively or negatively by the quality of what surrounds it. The COLLidor is poised to receive a g,eaFde9­oh?evrde- R� nated,plantredInannet. fit that is inviting to investms, { a flr�,t�r ,fir developers, 18 I-25 Corridor Plan EXHIBIT "B" TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTERCHANGE DESIGN GUIDELINES Many of the interchanges along the Corridor were constructed at a time when access was only necessary to service rural and agriculture uses. As a result,as new development occurs along the Corridor,the current interchange configurations are not of sufficient standards to accommodate forecast traffic demand. Therefore,in addition to the north south arterial design guidelines,it is also important to establish minimum design guidelines for the interchanges within the study area so as to not restrict future development from encroaching adjacent to the existing interchanges and preclude opportuni- lies for future interchange modifications. Based on minimum standards to accommodate back to back left turn lanes across the interchange overpasses,it is rec- ommended that at a minimum 660 feet of right-of-way be preserved between the north and south bound on and off ramps. It is further proposed that the minimum distance for an adjacent frontage road or signal not be closer than 600 feet,and preferably 1000 feet,from the adjacent interchange on and off ramps. It should be noted that these minimum interchange spacing guidelines imply a standard diamond style interchange, similar to the recently completed I-25/Barmony interchange. In certain locations,other interchange improvement de- signs might be examined and require different right-of-way preservation requirements. F1 #D1N6 opinent activity along die Collide, __.1. �leng-d�e-Eorridor. local and regional sources mid thiough both public and pLiVi sector Tun,, of tile(ollidV1,�Wirlf aS gt()Wdl in haffill!flOiLl existing residents of be area As part of tile Planning pi 'I licir!i ill laillich plan level cost estinlates rii ; developed for die at teii to accommodate faftne development and It jutisdiefillid 11tanSPOL on plarl These costs irstni d I o not ittela e local or collecto. level 41 iiiaddido,itoti,eaite,i::I ,li,il,i lfflininrl, lk,iill I nit few!cost estilinates were dit;eloped 1-25 Corridor Plan - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT rin tile CBRtt�d}ItfIC3 r fftecflafmmst�used to create an iiicenfiille-f���- The funding ol projects,Still�lllays that set we lutlid ife-julisdictions aiting f!:25;4, regional irmss could be fol to generate fee,or aVisii�t Bmel Tile minfion of mi RT-A wouldLequite local voter approl��-rl Regional Eong Range Transportation P] houndatim,but well set we as a V,oinising soul ce of funding 42 1-25 Corridor Plan