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