HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION - PDP (RE-SUBMITTAL) - 26-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONWhat will the posted and design speed limit be on Pleasant Valley Road?
According to the September 24`h neighborhood meeting, and per my subsequent conversations with Craig
Foreman of Parks Planning, a parking lot will not be constructed for park users. With the connection of
Pleasant Valley Road, the closest access point to the park soccer fields will be in the new subdivision.
This means that many park users will now utilize the public street for parking. I request that a small
parking lot be built on the north end of the park to minimize narking in public streets If the park
was not a public facility, and was instead a different type of use generating the same traffic volumes, a
parking lot would be required.
As a third generation northern Colorado native, I have watched the Front Range grow with trepidation. .
This enormous growth makes good planning even more important. I believe that the requests outlined
above are purely "good planning."
= Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate a detailed response to my requests, and would be
happy to meet with you in person to discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
Roxann Mackenzie Hayes
cc: Cameron Gloss, Director of Planning
Mr. Don Leffler, Design Development Consultants (FAX: 970-282-7123)
City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Commission
Kathleen Reavis, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning
Tom Reiff, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning
Eric Bracke, City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer
Eugene Coppola, Traffic Engineer
October 4, 2001
Page 4 of 4
At the neighborhood meeting, it was stated that the City's Natural Resources Department did not want to
have roads connecting across the ditch to the east of the new subdivision. According to Section 7.2.1,
third paragraph, connectivity is required "around the development perimeter every 660 feet." Is a formal
appeal going to be filed for not meeting the connectivitv requirement for Andrews Street north of
Pleasant Valley Road to subdivisions to the east and west?
At the neighborhood meeting, we were informed that Pleasant Valley Road was going to be built to 34-
feet in total width. The current cross-section of a Residential Local Street (according to Figure 7-9F of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) is only 30-feet in width. I request that Pleasant Valley
Road be built to Residential Local Street Standards, with a 16-foot travel lane and 2 7-foot park
lanes (for a total of 30-feet in width).
Except for slight horizontal and vertical control, no traffic calming measures are proposed at this time. I
request that traffic calming measures be appropriately evaluated at this time especiallv the
consideration of raised crosswalks. I believe that the engineering study should also look at other
portions of Pleasant Valley Road to determine if the proposed development should install other traffic
calming measures. I would like to receive a copy of the engineering study (including calculations and the
specific sections of the MUTCD and other manuals referenced). This engineering study should be
stamped/signed by a Colorado professional traffic engineer.
According to the neighborhood meeting minutes of 17Ju100, several ideas were presented and discussed
that have since changed. I am a firm believer that if the facts change after presentation at a neighborhood
meeting, that a detailed letter describing the changes be presented to all affected property owners so they
understand the whole story:
17Ju100 Neighborhood Meeting
24Se 01 Neighborhood Meeting
"There would be a three-way stop at Pleasant
The plan presented at the 24Sep01 meeting did not
Valley and our proposed north -south street" (now
have a three-way stop.
called Andrews Street).
"The townhomes would feature alleys for rear-
Alleys were not presented at the 24Sep01 meeting.
loaded garages."
"We will explore mitigation options to increase the
The developer seemed to be reluctant at the
buffering for Siena."
24Sep01 meeting to discuss buffering via
landscaping or fencing between the multi -family
and single-family residential areas. I request that
significant buffering be placed between multi -
&a lv and single-family residential areas.
"Will construction traffic come through Overland
At the neighborhood meeting on 24Sep01, it was
Trail Farm? A. No, construction traffic will come
stated that construction traffic will be utilizing
in from Elizabeth Street."
Pleasant Valley Road. I request that construction
traffic not be permitted to utilize neighboring
subdivision roads, and instead use Elizabeth
Street for access. This should apply to ALL
construction traffic, including subdivision
improvement traffic and homebuilding traffic.
October 4, 2001
Page 3 of
continued as proposed, it will also act as a 2 Lane Collector. As a general rule, collector streets should not
have a large number of houses fronting on it as it causes driveway/traffic conflicts. Speeds generally
increase on collector streets, which also leads to safety hazards for neighborhood children. A good
example of how a collector should not be designed is W. Lake Street. The numerous traffic calming
measures on this road (from speed bumps to signs) show that a collector with houses fronting on it simply
does not work. I would prefer to not investigate traffic safety measures "after the fact." Instead, I'd like to
be proactive and build the development right the first time.
Another point of concern with cut -through traffic is the poor level of service currently being experienced
at Elizabeth Street and Taft Hill. I have not seen an engineering study that has been conducted at this
intersection, but due to the large amounts of traffic and poor geometry, the level of service at this
intersection must be at least a D or lower. Traffic accidents are also multifarious. Because of the safety
hazards, many drivers will go to great lengths to avoid the intersection - which leads to cut -through
traffic.
According to Section 7.2.3.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, "New streets shall be
laid out to minimize opportunities for cut -through traffic." The proposed street layout as proposed fails to
address cut -through traffic and violates these standards. I request that Pleasant Vahev Road be
extended from Overland Trail Farm to Andrews Street, and end at that Point creating a
backwards "L". However, a bike/pedestrian connection should. be installed to connect. Pleasant Valley
-Road. This option would still accomplish the connectivity issues, and provide two points of access for
emergency purposes.
I would also like to make the following recommendations and suggestions:
Section 4.5.3.0 (Special Studies) of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards "provides the Local
Entity with the opportunities to request specific focused traffic analyses that may be unique to the
proposed land use action." Number 7 of this section discusses a Neighborhood Transportation Impact
Evaluation: ""The TIS may be required to include a focused analysis of the potential project related
impacts on adjacent residential neighborhood quality of life issues such as potential cut -through traffic
and speeding/volume concerns." I request a Neighborhood Transportation Impact Evaluation be
conducted by the applicant on this proposed development This TIS should include the following:
predictions on pedestrian use (including to/from the soccer and baseball fields). The TIS should -also look
.at "cut -through" traffic based on surrounding development, as well as increased traffic to utilize the
soccer and baseball fields. Please provide me a copy of this TIS.
The TIS should also address the usefulness of a multi -way stop at the intersection of Pleasant Valley
Road and Andrews. Section 2B.07 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Millenium
Edition) states that Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure if certain traffic conditions
exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users
expecting other road users to stop.... The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an
engineering study. " The Options element of this section then states: "Other critera that may be
considered in an engineering study include: B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near
locations that generate high pedestrian volumes."
To establish a baseline for determining future problems, I request that traffic counts be taken for at least a
week at the following locations:
• Intersection of Azuro Dr. and Pleasant Valley Dr. - all legs
• Intersection of Elizabeth Street and Azuro Dr. - southern leg -
• Eastern -most Intersection of Pleasant Valley Road - all legs
October 4, 2001
Page 2 of 4
2751 Pleasant Valley Road
Ft. Collins, CO 8021
(970) 498-5724 — work
(970) 416-7994 — home
roxandmatt@yahoo.com
October 4, 2001
Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
218 N. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
(970)221-6750
FAX: (970) 416-2020
cplanning@ci-for-t-collins.co.us
RE: Sperry — Kelley Property
Peakview Estates Subdivision
Dear Mr. Shepard,
(01N s
In April of 2001, we were evaluating the purchase of a house at 2751 Pleasant Valley Road, located in the
Siena Subdivision. At that time, I contacted the City of Fort Collins to ask the status of the application for
development of the vacant property immediately west of Siena. Ginger Dodge, Planning Technician with
the City of Fort Collins, informed me that the application had been "pulled." When I asked if this meant
the application would have to be resubmitted and go through the whole process again, and if the new
application would be subject to the current regulations, she said "yes." Based upon this conversation, we
decided to purchase the house. Therefore, I was surprised to receive a postcard in the mail notifying me
that a neighborhood meeting was being held on 24Sep01 concerning this property.
I was unable to locate in your Municipal Code or Land Use Code the ability for a project to be completely
removed from the application process, then reinstated at the old regulations. Could you please quote me
the exact sections in vour code that allow you to reinstate an application to the old regulations? I
believe that the project should be subject to the current land use regulations, and have based my_
comments on current regulations.
As you know from the neighborhood meeting on Sept. 24th, I am most concerned with the connection of
Pleasant Valley Road and its proposed design. I am not opposed to connectivity, as I believe it allows
circulation for emergency purposes. However, I believe that connecting the subdivisions at this single
location will cause a "funneling" effect. Since Pleasant Valley Road will be the only road connecting
Overland Trail Farm to Peakview Estates to Siena to subdivisions further east, traffic will be concentrated
to this road. Since this road also has very few existing traffic calming measures, vehicle speeds will be
fairly high. Providing a closer access point for the soccer and baseball fields will also encourage more
traffic in our neighborhood.
We also must look at the types of subdivisions that are to the west of Siena — mostly multi -family. Can
you give me the location of other fairly new development that has this type of connectivity between
multi -family and single-family residential?
The City of Fort Collins current Master Street Plan (approved revision 7Nov00, printed 19Ju101)
identified W. Lake Street as a 2 Lane Collector Street. It is my opinion that if Pleasant Valley Road is
October 4, 2001
Page 1 of 4