HomeMy WebLinkAboutNIX FARM NATURAL AREA FACILITY - PDP/FDP - 10-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5)� C � U T �
To: Mr. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
From: Charles Hatchette, M.D. GeneralCare Health Services, Inc. MAY 3 0 2001
RE: Nix Farm traffic impact
Date: May 27, 2001
Dear Mr. Gloss,
After review and reflection on Mr. Sears' reply to the Nix Farm development proposal traffic
impact concerns we have raised, I feel we must renew our objection to this proposal since some
significant planning issues remain unresolved.
Although the estimated traffic volume generated by this development is "estimated" to be 100
trips per day, this estimate was informally generated through conversations with Natural Resources staff
since traffic volume could not be derived using customary references. Trip volume could easily rise if
these informal estimates are inaccurate, or if staffing levels were to increase in the future, or if there were
a future change in the use of this facility. This informal estimate does not include the impact of any
associated activities, such as "trailhead parking".
Development of the GeneralCare Clinic project was contingent upon granting a public assess
easement adjacent to the railroad track to enable the construction of a future bike path between Old Town
and Prospect Avenue, running along the North side of the railroad tracks. To my knowledge, no planning
has been done to relate Hoffinan Mill Road and this proposed bike path. Issues regarding easement width
and how best to accommodate both the existing road and the path are still unresolved.
At the very least, a street planning effort should be completed before Hoffman Mill Road becomes the
main entrance to a large, permanent new City facility. Where is the logic in allowing this project to move
forward if it is known in advance that access cannot legally be upgraded to current City street standards?
A traffic engineering study in April of last year concluded that:
1. Acceptable pedestrian level of service could NOT be achieved with the proposed design.
2. The level of public transportation service would be in the "D" category, since the closest
present or anticipated bus route is over 1320' distant.
A unique development situation exists for this area, since it is a narrow strip of land that is
sandwiched between the railroad track and the Poudre River, and the ONLY exit (onto Lemay) is
increasingly difficult, especially for southbound traffic. Development of land to the East and Southeast of
the internal medicine clinic may well be impacted by traffic engineering concerns, even without the
burden created by this new facility.
The anticipated addition of physical therapy services to those services already offered by
GeneralCare may significantly increase the daily traffic volume contributed by our facility.
It is NOT our intention to propose any link between Timberline and Lemay, as suggested in Mr.
Sears' letter, nor do we suggest that the only acceptable eastside access route must run between the
existing ponds. Rather, we propose that a comprehensive and formal feasibility study be conducted
regarding a connection between the proposed facility and Timberline Road before this project is
approved, given the adverse impact on existing businesses in the area, and the potential for future
problems. We think it is good planning to address these issues now.
Sincerely,
Charles Hatchette, M.D.
GeneralCare Health Services, Inc.
1025 Pennock Place
Fort Collins, CO 80524