HomeMy WebLinkAboutLONGVIEW MARKETPLACE @ SHENANDOAH - PDP - 47-95B - DECISION - PROJECT EXTENSIONPassed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held tfif 6th day of March, A.D.
2001.
EEL
/Mayor :.
TTEST• `--:
City Clerk
�a
h
ac
t
A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.BY-THE,COUNCU, OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLIN'S as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager, in reviewing requests from private developers for the.
City's exercise of its eminent domain powers, shall review such requests and, present -for Council's
consideration proposed real property acquisitions through the use of eminent domainwhen the
following circumstances exist:
(a) There is a sufficient public.purpose to.justify.the' acquisition by eminent domain;
(b) It is clear that theeminent domain proceedings are not being,commenced primarily
to advance -a -private interest or private use;�
(c) The:developer.hm, to the .m.aximum extent possible, 1redesigned ;the project to
alleviate or minimize the need for the proppsedleascrreinf6r.right-of-way; .
'
(d) All reasonable efforts have been made to obtain theeasements and/or rights -of -way,
byprivat'e agreement- and -those dforts.have-been unsuccessful
.(e) The improvements. for which the. easements or rights-of-.Nvay.X6 needed.w.ill'be
utilized.by more than one person;.partnership or other entity, and:are nece 't 0
connectthe . proposed � development .with existing infrastructure, such, as
tran sportation, water, . sewe r,s tormwater or other utilities; and-
(f) The developer has entered into an agreement with the City., satisfactoryin form -and
substance to. theCity.: Manager and City Attorney,' that sets'f6rth. the parties'
respective' rip-h
u1wUU"1rj w1w
the property'a
Section 2. Any st
City Council to ensure . that .. th
incidental private.benefit that.may,be
developer,to pay all co'sts"of
to said proceedings.,.
me. . is n . eces I sary in the public interest; notwithstanding any
Iferred uponthe'developpr submitting thecofidemnatioii'
RESOLUTION 2001-40
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FORTHE EXERCISE OF
THE CITY EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN,CONJUNCTION, WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OFPRIVATE PROPERTY
30-day Extension
This letter should also be considered a formal response to your request for a 30-day extension to
the resubmittal deadline. I have approved this extension in order to provide additional time to
resolve the outstanding issues. With the extension, the new deadline will be June 16, 2003.
Should you have specific questions or require additional information regarding these responses,
please feel free to contact me at (970) 221-6765.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Current Planning Director
Attachment
cc: Greg Bryne
Steve Olt
Cam McNair
Gary Diede
Matt Baker
Sheri Wamhoff
Mark Jackson
Tom Reif
--- Page 9 of 9 ---
RESPONSE:
18. A copy of the City Council's resolution concerning use of eminent domain in conjunction
with development activities is attached for reference.
We are extremely interested in filing any and all appropriate repays with Long View
Marketplace. Who would be the direct contact at the City to negotiate and finalize said
agreements?
RESPONSE:
19. Please contact Matt Baker with SO for filing of repay agreements.
Neighborhood Issues
We are disappointed with the vague nature of this response. We too have the notion that
"development must pay its own way;" however, we cannot be held responsible to pay the way
of others (both past and present). This issue is well beyond the scope of Long View
Marketplace. While we volunteer to be an eager participant in this coordination effort, it is
necessary for the local agencies to spearhead this process. We are hoping for a proactive
solution by City staff, but with this not being the case, what do we do and whom do we contact
to ensure that this project is not held captive by neighbors in Lorimer County subdivisions.
RESPONSE:
20. The City's development review process encourages those impacted by future development to
provide written comment and/or testimony. It does not place a restriction on the ability for
parties to make such comments based upon the location of their residence.
Even though the established process allows neighborhood comment to be incorporated into the
review bodies' deliberations, please keep in mind that the Planning and Zoning Board must
evaluate your proposal based on established criteria. Staff cannot assure a particular outcome;
however, we are not aware of any issues raised by neighboring property owners, thus far in the
process, that would provide grounds for Project Development Plan denial based on the City's
adopted development standards.
I would encourage you to continue your dialogue with area residents that expressed concern over
the project and would make our staff available to facilitate discussions, either in one-on-one
sessions with neighbors or in a larger setting, such as a neighborhood meeting. If you choose to
include staff in your neighborhood outreach process, please contact the Project Planner, Steve
Olt, to go over the logistics and setup a schedule.
--- Page 8 of 9 ---
the issues that will require diligent coordination and negotiation.I What, if anything, has the
County offered to contribute thus far? Has the City been keeping the County informed and
involved, or should we be actively approaching the County? As far as the bus stop is
concerned, our most recent direction from City staff was to locate the new bus stop just south
of the intersection of the Private Drive (3/4-acess) on College Avenue. Is it desired to
maintain, shift, or remove the existing stop at the southwest corner of College and Carpenter?
17. The City is coordinating the developer's designs with the County staff. I believe it is safe to
assume that the County will express reluctance to contribute financial support to this
development, similar to CDOT's reaction. The developer seems to be implying that the east side
of Carpenter is not their responsibility to correct, arguing that it is an existing deficiency. They
need to be reminded that Carpenter at College is presently a "TEE" intersection, and the existing
lane configuration works for that type of intersection under the current conditions. When the
developer constructs and adds traffic to Avondale at College, they need to align with the existing
Carpenter Road, as well as install the necessary improvements on Carpenter that are a result of
their project. Even though it is true that some traffic from Ridgewood Hills will use Avondale,
SO picks up the cost for that improvement. However, the connection of Avondale to College,
coupled with the traffic from the development, the need to align the intersection with what is
across the street, and the needed left -turn lane northbound onto College, are all direct costs to
this project. If the project has an impact on the street system, then the project is responsible for
correcting the deficiencies, even if they are off site.
The bus stop alluded to in our last comment is for northbound buses that would stop on the
northeast corner of College @ Carpenter. That is one reason why the pedestrian improvements
around the College @ Carpenter intersection are so important. There may be some confusion
about bus stops, and it is important to reconcile this question. It is my understanding that the
status of the existing bus stop for southbound buses (currently located on the northwest corner of
the Carpenter College Ave intersection) may be relocated to just south of the Private Drive. This
needs to be verified as part of the design review process.
Once the City and/or County can reach a consensus as to the amount of interim improvements
needed on Carpenter Road, then we will approach the appropriate landowners for our
responsible portions. If and when it is determined that Long View Marketplace needs to
acquire off -site ROW on Carpenter Road, then we will make a `fair offer" based upon current
market value of the land in question. After that has been done, we feel that the City/County
must take over the ROW acquisition process should our initial attempt be unsuccessful.
Failure to do so may drag the process on for years. Any further delays will make this project
unfeasible.
--- Page 7 of 9 ---
that reserving the ROW was an oversight in the first place. The request from GOCO does not
seem that onerous to us. The acquisition is necessary to meet the requirements of both the
City's Street Master Plan and the South College Access Plan. Why has the Cityfailed thus far
to step up and support its own plans? Do you want us to initiate the discussion with higher
levels?
RESPONSE:
14. The city will provide assistance in working out the ROW from Long View Farm Open
Space; however, there may be costs to the developer to acquire this ROW. City staff will work
with upper level managers in this effort. The developer should provide the necessary legal
descriptions and maps to identify the roadway ROW needed.
We are willing to "reserve" the space for this ultimate median by providing an interim striped
median. We need the City's assistance and assurance as to where exactly this median will be
positioned. Basically, the City needs to commit to the future 4-lane arterial alignment of
Carpenter Road at this time in order for our Avondale Road design to proceed. Logic and
precedence would both indicate that future widening would occur on both sides of Carpenter
Road. Again, lane alignment and traffic safety can and will add time and complexity to this
design.
15. The developer should be able to lay out the ultimate and interim designs on Carpenter Road,
just as they must do for College and Avondale. We will be glad to help.
Carpenter Road
As mentioned above, we wholeheartedly agree with this statement (that Avondale would not
necessarily need to move further to the north). How and who decides the future section of
Carpenter Road so that our team can design Avondale Road today?
RESPONSE:
16. Carpenter Road is designated as a 4-lane arterial street on our Master Street Plan. The
design specs for this are in LCUASS (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards). Carpenter
Road is also identified on the South College Access Control Plan as having double lefts, a right
turn lane, and it will need wider receiving lanes to receive the future double lefts off of College
Avenue. These would be in addition to what our standard cross-section shows.
If necessary, our traffic engineer will further define those improvements that are directly
attributable to this development, and those necessitated by regional traffic and existing
deficiencies. This may more clearly define who builds and pays for each particular
improvement. Traffic signal relocations, refuge medians, and ROW acquisition are amongst
--- Page 6 of 9 ---
imperative to have complete cooperation and consent from the City regarding this issue,
especially if the desired placement requires additional off -site ROW and other improvements.
RESPONSE:
11. We would expect the cost share to be more like 60% SO and 40% developer, especially with
the additional dedicated turn lanes requiring longer mast arm length and additional cost. The
signals would need to be placed in the proper locations to accommodate the ultimate future
improvements for Carpenter and Avondale. In relation to College Avenue, the signals' locations
would be subject to CDOT review and approval. CDOT structural standards are incredibly
robust and future relocations expensive. Additional pocket ROW would most likely be needed.
We would reserve final determination of SO portion of the signal cost as a part of the design and
construction process indicated in #3. Again, I would suggest a meeting with Matt Baker of the
Engineering Department for a complete discussion of the City's SO capital expansion fee
program, and the methods for calculating reimbursements to developers from this program.
We would not expect to design/build anything that could possibly endanger any citizen. The
complicated issue not explicitly mentioned here is pedestrian refuge islands/medians. Both
City SO and we would like to avoid moving medians in the future. Unfortunately, if is very
questionable as to how much interim improvements could remain in the ultimate condition,
particularly relating to these islands. We have every intention of closely coordination this
issue with the City, but once again, another item has the ability to impose further delays and
additional costs.
RESPONSE:
12. It may not be possible to avoid moving medians in the future, ultimate project. For the
interim situation, all pedestrian facilities must be provided.
Avondale, Strasburg and Longview Drive
Previous telephone conversations with both Melody Homes and Sheri Wamhoff indicated that
the development agreement for Ridgewood Hills Third Filing had a bond issued for this
portion of Avonable. Either way, this development should not be responsible for paying for
this stretch of road. We would; however, like to coordinate the contiguous construction of
Avondale to achieve a more efficient and effective product.
RESPONSE:
13. We, too, would expect the developer to coordinate and execute the complete construction of
Avondale.
Our design team has done everything it can to facilitate this ROW acquisition; including
research, meetings, attorney fees, paying for an appraisal, paying for Staff time, etc. It has
become clear that we need assistance from the City in order to acquire the ROW. It appears
--- Page 5 of 9 ---
We can do this (install street lights in the parkway) for the interim improvements, but what
happens in the ultimate condition? We feel that future burden is the responsibility of the City
and/or CDOT.
RESPONSE:
8. We agree that the future burden of moving the streetlights will be CDOT's and the City's
responsibility when they undertake the ultimate widening project.
We agree that the above suggestion (northbound double left turn lanes can be replaced by a
single left turn lane) will lessen the roadway widths at College and Avondale; however, we are
not convinced that overall this is the least expensive design solution. First of all, neither the
extent nor cost of additional improvements needed on Carpenter Road is known at this time to
make a fair comparison. Secondly, we would then be faced with the dilemma of off -site ROW
acquisition since the improvements are interim. Furthermore, this could impose significant
burdens and delays by necessitating both County and neighborhood approvals. What exactly
is meant by "informed consent" of the neighborhood? We already know that neighbors
southeast of this intersection will hold this project hostage until significant improvements are
made to Carpenter Road (LCR 32) all the way from I-25 to Hwy 287. This massive
coordination effort, legal ramifications, and additional unknowns do not make this clearly the
"better and less expensive design solution."
9. This was a suggestion to save costs. If the developer does not want to take this approach,
that's their prerogative.
Informed consent means that all of the potentially affected interests are informed, and that
the issues and potential solution(s) are identified. The end result will not necessarily mean
that opposing parties will approve of the final outcome (see response to question #20).
This sounds great on the surface (no improvements on the east side of College Ave.); however,
what happens when interim medians, turn lanes and other geometry affect the existing/overall
traffic operations? To date, our design iterations have proven that traffic & transportation
requirements drive much of roadway improvements and widths.
RESPONSE:
10. This, too, was a suggestion to save costs. The design details will need to be addressed by the
developer and their design professionals.
Will City SO pay N and we pay the other t/a? We too have the desire to place the traffic signals
in a location that best accomodates future widening, however, the latest direction given by City
Engineering Staff makes this impossible. Particularly when you look at future double medians
for pedestrian refuge and the maximum allowable spacing from stop bar to mast arm. It is
--- Page 4 of 9 ---
believe this would be more than sufficient for any future widening scenario but would like the
City's assurance on this issue.
RESPONSE:
4. It will be sufficient for the developer to dedicate the ROW to the SFCWD easement along the
development's frontage on College Avenue. If additional ROW is needed in the future, it will be
acquired at that time, and the sewer line relocation would also be dealt with at that future time, if
necessary. Other ROW will need to be dedicated for other streets (Avondale, Carpenter, etc.).
In some cases, the developer will need to acquire the off -site ROW and then dedicate it to the
appropriate jurisdiction (the City, CDOT, or possible the County, depending on the situation).
We are a little confused by this statement (about ROW dedication). It is our interpretation that
we will dedicate ROW for the ultimate College Avenue widening along our frontage only.
However, it will not be the responsibility of this development to acquire any additional ROW
beyond our property boundaryfor the ultimate condition. Is this what was meant by this
statement?
5. For the development's adjacent frontage, we are not asking for the ultimate ROW dedication
now, as that would impact the existing sewer line. Having the ROW dedicated back to the sewer
line easement will suffice for now, but the site improvements need to be placed to accommodate
the ultimate design. At such time as the ultimate roadway improvements are built, the additional
ROW will be obtained and the issues with the sewer line will be dealt with. The developer will
not have to acquire off -site ROW for the ultimate College Avenue design. However, the
developer may have to acquire and dedicate some off -site ROW for the interim improvements.
The interim ROW dedication seems fair and typical of other developments. However, what is
the difference between "reserving the space for future widening" and actually dedicating the
ROW?
RESPONSE:
6. This seems to be a moot question now, but space reserved for future widening would simply
be an indication on the plans and plat that future widening is expected. When the ultimate
widening becomes imminent, then that property would be acquired by the ultimate widening
project.
We will dedicate the appropriate utility easements to be located between the existing SFCSD
exclusive easement and the edge of the additional City ROW for College Avenue.
RESPONSE:
7. No response needed.
--- Page 3 of 9 ---
We would like further explanation as to what a "complete" design effort entails. Issues such
as raised medians (glue -down or otherwise), western curb and gutter, inlet placement, and bus
stop location are just a few of the issues that will need to be agreed upon in precise detail.
Furthermore, the interim (4-1ane) improvements still appear to exceed what is typically
required of a development. Does the City intend on paying for the additional design and
construction costs?
xr;�ruN�t:•
2. A complete design effort is what is necessary to build and inspect from. The design needs to
be completed per CDOT standards and approved by CDOT as well as the City. Per prior
conversations with CDOT, medians are required to control the access points, and CDOT will not
accept piecemeal medians. If medians are installed, they need to run the length of the College
Avenue improvements being made with this development project, or approximately from
Colland Drive to Triangle Drive. The eastern edge of the existing median may be able to be
utilized, but the western edge would more than likely need to be rebuilt. CDOT will not accept
glue down medians, and the City will not accept them either. The southbound bus pullout is
needed, as CDOT will not accept the bus stopping in the travel, turn, accel or decel lanes. The
bus currently stops in the 10-foot shoulder. This shoulder goes away with the development of
this property. The developer will need to move and/or put new inlets in place to collect the
drainage, meeting CDOT and City standards. The City Street Oversizing program (SO) will
share in the design costs in the same proportion that the construction costs are shared. I would
suggest a meeting with Matt Baker of the Engineering Department for a complete discussion of
the City's SO capital expansion fee program, and the methods for calculating reimbursements to
developers from this program.
We are in complete agreement with the (SO) comments. We would expect for SO staff to be
very involved with the interim design if they are to be contributing a large amount of funds.
One concern that we have is how the design of the off -site public roadway improvements will
affect.the schedule of the on -site PDP. Optimizing the interim design to best accommodate the
ultimate configuration will require extensive coordination, especially when you look at issues
such as the placement of medians, traffic signals, and inlets; lane geometry, and the fact that
the ultimate alignment is yet to be defined.
RESPONSE:
3. The on -site and off -site designs need to be completed in tandem. They cannot be separated.
We intend on dedicating the full ROW required for the ultimate roadway width of College
Avenue apartfrom the interim design. The FCLWD/SFCSD will not allow ROW to be
dedicated on top of the their exclusive easement, regardless of where physical improvements
will lie. Therefore, we cannot dedicate ROW any further west that than the current SFCSD
easement. The maximum additional ROW we can dedicate is approximately 65 feet. This
would result in a western half -ROW width of 115 feet without any dry utility easements. We
--- Page 2 of 9 ---
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
April 24, 2003
Mr. Rodney K. Jones
Quadrant Properties, LLC
16253 Swingley Ridge Road Suite 220
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Mr. William C. Bates
King Soopers &City Market
Division of Dillon Companies
65 Tejon Street
Denver, CO 80223
RE: Response to the Long View Marketplace Project Development Plan letter of April 18,
2003/Granting of 30-day PDP resubmittal deadline extension
Dr. Mr. Jones and Mr. Bates:
This is a follow-up to your letter of April 18, 2003, where you requested further explanation and
clarification to comments made in my most recent letter, dated April 14, 2003, regarding the
proposed Long View Marketplace PDP. With each of my responses, I have included your
original comments and. questions.
College Avenue Improvements
Can we assume that the future 6-1ane widening will be symmetrical about the existing
centerline? CDOT's Environmental Assessment (E,4) in all likelihood will not be ready until
sometime in 2004. Our project cannot afford to wait for the EA to determine the ultimate
alignment
RESPONSE:
1. Our assumption has been that the future 6-lane widening of College Avenue would have to be
asymmetrical and offset to the west. This is based on the fact that the west side is undeveloped
and it is likely that CDOT will want to avoid damaging the existing developments on the east
side, if possible. If the developer wants to assume a symmetrical design and get concurrence for
this approach from CDOT, that's acceptable. Otherwise, the developer may need to wait for the
EA to be completed.
--- Page 1 of 9 ---
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020