This chapter presents the recommendations of the Steering Committee
regarding implementation of the 24 Road Corridor Subarea Plan. The
Committee evaluated a variety of implementation plans which are summarized
in this chapter. The chapter then concludes with implementation recommendations
for the “Preferred Plan.”
(Res. 109-00 § 7, 11-1-00)
Answering the basic questions of what (type of future do residents
want), where (is the appropriate location within the community for
these activities to take place), and who (is the primary responsible
party) is obviously important. How these decisions are made and executed
is equally important. If the decisions cannot be implemented for lack
of funding or political support, then the grandest of visions will
fail.
The recommended implementations actions are based on the following
assumptions:
(a) The public sector should provide the policy framework, regulations
and programs which guide development in the public interest and to
provide the infrastructure and basic services.
(b) Development will be dependent primarily upon private investment in
response to market forces and trends.
(c) All land use and transportation decisions by their nature will create
different opportunities and constraints for different properties.
The importance of these three assumptions is that they recognize
the public sector has a limited ability to change or direct market
trends, although they can direct or manage how and where these forces
physically manifest themselves, and that inequities exist and will
be created which benefit some properties and not others.
|
Table 14 summarizes the range of actions presented to and discussed
by the 24 Road Steering Committee.
|
Table 14: Summary of Possible Implementation Actions
|
---|
Action
|
Discussion
|
Responsibility
|
---|
Revise Grand Junction Growth Plan or adopt 24 Road Corridor
Subarea Plan.
|
Goal
• Revise recommended land uses in the 24 Road
Corridor.
Implication
• Requires City Council approval and then modifies
Growth Plan.
|
Public
|
Revise existing Planned Development (PD) zone or establish a
new mixed use zone for large-scale planned commercial, residential,
and industrial developments.
This zone would be applicable to the 24 Road Corridor and other
areas where appropriate, subject to the following:
• Significant benefit to the City as a whole,
based upon cost benefit analysis.
• Minimizes or mitigates any potential adverse
environmental and social impacts.
Other criteria.
|
Goals
• Complement or refine existing PD zone districts.
• Allow flexibility in intensity and mix of
land uses.
• Concentrate commercial development in compact
centers or districts (rather than letting it spread out in strips).
• Encourage high-quality visual environment.
• Phase development to allow rational expansion
of infrastructure.
Implications
• Existing PD zone may presently provide land-use
flexibility – no need to create new zone.
• Design standards should be added to existing
language.
|
Public
|
Create design standards for new development.
|
Goal
• Encourage high-quality visual environment
(materials, site planning, signage, landscaping, architectural design).
Implications
• Adherence to “design standards”
likely to increase cost of development.
• Lack of guidelines or standards is likely
to perpetuate existing type and quality of development.
|
Public
|
Prepare a Secondary Road Master Plan that establishes the location,
standards for design, and construction of all area roads.
|
Goal
• Establish interconnecting, logical road network.
Implications
• Parties responsible for constructing minor
roads likely to be individual developments unless other mechanism,
e.g., an “improvement district,” is in place.
• Requires coordination between land owners
and City.
|
Public
|
Establish a “general improvement district” to provide
cost-sharing of “public improvements.”
|
Goals
• Create amenities and enhancements that add
land value and improve community image.
• Plan, construct and maintain key image-giving
visual elements, e.g., boulevard landscaping along 24 Road, Leach
Creek recreational improvements, “gateway/entry design features,”
golf course, etc.
Implications
• Without method for cost-sharing, improvements
to public areas will require capital improvement funding from General
Fund and be limited by availability of funds.
• Individual property owners are unlikely to
voluntarily finance perceived “area-wide” public or private
improvements/amenities, e.g., golf course, trail system, etc.
|
Public/Private
|
Create organization to represent property owners, plan, and
implement desired area improvements.
|
Goal
• Create institutionalized method to address
goals and issues by encouraging cooperation, collaboration and high-quality
visual environment.
Implications
• Requires cooperation for the benefit of the
many, at perhaps the expense of the few.
• Some improvements and actions may be impossible
to implement without cooperation.
|
Private
|
Following is a summary of background information relative to
several of the development tools described above.
|
(Res. 109-00 § 7, 11-1-00)
(a) Overlay Zone.
The use of overlay zoning is one way to
create a more flexible and discretionary alternative to traditional
Euclidean zoning. An overlay zone is defined as “a mapped overlay
district superimposed on one or more established zoning districts
which may be used to impose supplemental restrictions on uses in these
districts, permit uses otherwise disallowed, or implement some form
of density bonus or incentive bonus program.”
Overlay zones are distinct from “floating” zones
because of several features, the most significant of which is that
overlay zones are mapped and floating zones are not mapped.
An overlay zone supplements the underlying zone district with
additional requirements or incentives. Underlying zoning regulations
remain in place. Examples might include special requirements such
as design standards or guidelines, additional setbacks or height limits.
A parcel within the overlay zone will thus be simultaneously subject
to two sets of zoning regulations: the underlying and the overlay
zoning requirements.
Overlay zone boundaries are also not restricted by the underlying
zoning districts’ boundaries. An overlay zone may or may not
encompass the entire underlying zoning district. Likewise, an overlay
zone can cover more than one zoning district, or even portions of
several underlying zoning districts.
(b) Improvement Districts.
Improvement districts are a legal
vehicle established by the City Council, or appropriate legislative
body, whereby improvements to public property are financed by special
tax assessments on affected private property.
Traditionally, improvement districts have accomplished street-oriented
improvements, such as street paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks and
drainage projects. Other types of improvements in public areas can
be funded in this manner as long as they contribute to the public
good.
The purpose of an improvement district is to provide financing
and distribute costs over a specific area. It allows a city or county
to construct and pay the entire cost of an extensive project within
a very short time. The improvement also makes the improvements affordable
to the benefited property since payment for improvements is usually
carried over 10 years.
(c) Design Guidelines and Design Standards.
Design elements
including architectural style, use of materials, landscaping, signage
and site plan features and elements can be addressed in the guidelines
and standards. Without strong political support for their application,
guidelines and standards will be ineffective. Traditionally, these
tools are used in areas where there is a unique development pattern
or character, such as an historic district or where there is a particular
type of development to be controlled, such as retail or commercial.
There should also be a method for the review of projects subject to
the guidelines, such as a design review board comprised of citizens
and professionals in the design field.
Because guidelines are advisory and often voluntary, challenges
to them can be successfully argued. Standards are regulations adopted
by the City Council or other appropriate legislative body and become
part of the land use “code.” In either case, specificity
in intent and language is desirable.
(d) Other Property Owners or Business Owners and Entities.
These are all examples of institutionalized or legally organized
methods for collaboration and cost- and profit-sharing. Many downtown
or other business districts have been modeled after shopping centers,
where agreements governing the “Common Area Improvements”
responsibilities, etc., are used. In situations where there may be
many unequal interests, and therefore unequal benefits, contractual
agreements establishing organizational structures may be of benefit.
(e) Implementation Recommendations.
The Steering Committee
discussed how the 24 Road Corridor Subarea Plan could be implemented
through both public and private means. These options fall into the
general areas of policies, programs and capital investments.
(1) Implement 24 Road Improvements.
Expand 24 Road to a
five-lane parkway, with landscaped median, as soon as possible in
order to meet transportation requirements as well as “set the
tone” in the area for high-quality development.
(2) Adopt a Subarea Plan.
Incorporate the recommendations
of the Steering Committee into the Grand Junction Growth Plan by adopting
the 24 Road Corridor Subarea Plan.
(3) Create a Mixed Use Zone for the Area.
Current Grand
Junction regulations provide for several planned development zones;
however, they do not contain sufficient criteria to achieve the vision
for 24 Road Corridor. A new mixed use zone could address issues and
opportunities specific to the 24 Road Corridor.
(4) Adopt Design Standards and Guidelines.
Develop design
standards and guidelines to address the design and planning issues
related to commercial development as well as larger land use, open
space, and transportation framework issues in the corridor.
(5) Develop a Secondary Road Network Master Plan.
Establish
the location, type and character of secondary roads within the project
area, including key access points and interconnections.
(f) In addition, the Steering Committee discussed two other potential
options:
(1) The establishment of a public/private entity to provide for cost-sharing
of “public” improvements, i.e., two additional lanes on
24 Road, boulevard landscaping, Leach Creek recreational improvements,
a possible golf course, and gateway/entry designs.
(2) The potential to create an organization to represent property owners
and plan, implement and maintain desired area improvements. This would
“institutionalize” private sector involvement and create
the means for agreement/cooperation among private sector interests
and with the public sector.
Although landowners support the five elements described above,
including the concept of more rigorous design standards than the City
has in place today, it remains to be seen whether they are willing
to step forward to participate financially in exchange for more flexibility
in land use and site design through the planned development (PD) process.
The potential for cost-sharing between the City and landowners for
improvements to a five-lane 24 Road was discussed, with no resolution
at this time.
|
(Res. 109-00 § 7, 11-1-00)