HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY LEMAY CROSSINGS, LOT ONE, FILING ONE - FINAL PUD - 36-96D - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDY (4)j Ted Shgpard - Re. Mulberry/Lemay Croy Questions Pa e 3
1.,
enforce the code as stated in criteria 2.1? I would like Paul or Steve
to comment on this at the hearing.
5. 1 would like a summary statement from Eric regarding the applicant's
contention that this project would result in a significant reduction in
VMT and that the traffic congestion in South Ft. Collins would be
significantly lessoned by this project. What I heard on Friday was that
there would be "minimal" improvements to traffic in the south.
6. Impact of large retail developments - this project has been portrayed by
some as being an all or nothing proposition. That is, this retail
project or none at all in North Ft. Collins. I would like someone from
staff (perhaps Bob) to be prepared to discuss the impact of a regional
shopping center
versus other alternatives which could meet the discount retail needs of the
citizens
of North Ft. Collins without causing such large traffic impacts. Compare
and contrast
this project with a smaller, less intense development at this location
(perhaps 150,000 sq ft or so with an 80,000 sq ft. discount retailer and
70,000 square feet of other
retail)? How about smaller retail on North College? Were other
alternatives discussed with the developer with less impact to the
transportation system? Were transportation infrastructure limitations ever
discussed with the developer? What is
the impact of a large regional shopping
center like this versus smaller, dispersed shopping centers closer to
where people live?
In summary, because this project was given preliminary approval by
voters who probably are not familiar with the LDGS and the LUPP it is
necessary that we address how this
project meets the applicable
criteria at the final review. I also want to get relevant facts out on
the table for both the boards and the public's information. Thank you
for helping to answer these important questions. I'm sure you agree
that it is important to get all the questions answered regarding such an
important project as this.
Regards,
Glen
Ted Shepard - Re: Mulberry/Lemay Cros, , Questions Page 2
packet for the final review. Has there been a new analysis? Has
anything been done to address these concerns beyond the fact that the
applicant is "donating" $200,000 toward the construction of the
pedestrian/bicycle path over the Poudre River? What is the level of
service for Lemay and Mulberry, Lincoln and Lemay, Lemay and Vine today,
5 years out, and in the long term. How are the new members on the board
supposed to make informed decisions in this area without the TIA? The
applicant has volunteered to give interested board members a copy of
their three inch thick binder before the meeting. As of Tuesday morning I
don't have a copy yet.
I asked for a summary of the report at the work session and was told there
wasn't one. I
think this is unacceptable. Board members should not have to wade through a
3" binder to get information required to make
their decision. I would like to have a summary analysis in the normal
LDGS format (showing current, short term, and long term traffic counts and
LOS), or preferably in the format we use for the
LUC (bicycle, pedestrian, vehicular). I would also like a summary
of what has changed in the project from the preliminary. I would like each
P&Z member to get this by Wednesday.
2. Lemay/Vine intersection - staff stated at Friday's work session that
the Lemay/Vine intersection is currently at LOS B, will immediately go
to LOS D with this project, and will fall below acceptable LOS in 2004.
1 would like this information verified . If this is true, what is the
rational for the staff recommend
of approval of this project? How does staff reconcile failure of
this intersection with criteria A2.1 which states "can the additional
traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic) generated by the
land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and
community transportation network without creating safety problems? Can
impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet city traffic flow
delay policies?" The overpass included in the master street plan is
expected to cost $20M. Where is this money coming from? What is the
timeframe for putting in the overpass? How do we explain a failing
intersection caused by this project to the citizens that traverse N.
Lemay every day? At what point would staff recommend a denial of a
project based on a failing intersection?
3. Pedestrian safety - I want to know how many pedestrians will be
walking to the project from Lincoln west of Lemay, Lemay north of
Lincoln, and Lincoln east of the Buffallo Run complex. What sort of
sidewalk system exists for these pedestrians? How safe is it for
pedestrians to walk along busy streets with no sidewalk? How does staff
reconcile the situation on these roads with criteria 2.1 mentioned above? I
am also very concerned about the lack of a pedestrian connection to Buffallo
Run
4. When I ask questions 2 and 3, 1 get the response that "these are
existing deficiencies and we can't ask the developer to pay for them.
We have been told that they will be fixed through future (undefined and
without any date certain) capitalimprovement projects". Why doesn't staff
require
offsite improvements or other mitigation for these situations? Even if
we can't charge the developer, does that mean we shouldn't or can't
!Ted Shepard - Re: Mulberry/Lemay Cros• Questions Page 1
From: Eric Bracke
To: "glen_colton@agilent. com"@FC1.GWIA, "jerry_gavald...
Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2000 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Questions
Hi Glen,
Hopefully I will be able to answer some of your questions in this response, but keep in mind that the next
two days are quite busy for me in regards to the roundabout. However, I'll do my best to answer the big
issues.
Item #2: The Lemay and Vine intersection was not even considered in the original TIS. Under the LDGS
process, it was typically to go no further than'/2 mile from the project site. The WalMart project is
approximately 3/4 mile away from the intersection. However, the intersection has been analyzed in the
recent TIS (submitted 10/1999).
I came in yesterday to do the additional analysis you requested concerning this intersection. I was able to
get significancy better LOS that the Walmart consultant. In the year 2000, 1 can maintain LOS B with the
Walmart project. With the Walmart project, in the year 2007 the intersection will be at LOS E, which is
failing by our standards. Without the Walmart project, and continued growth in the area, the intersection
will be at LOS C. Without the Walmart, and continued growth in the northeast, the intersection is
projected to go to LOS E in the year 2015.
It is important to remember that the intersection in question goes away under the Master Street Plan.
Item #5: Please keep in mind that showing a VMT reduction is not part of our guidelines for a TIS - under
the LDGS or the LUC. However, the Walmart consultants did prepare a brief analysis showing that having
the facility in the north would result in a VMT reduction. I can neither support or argue the validity of the
VMT study. The methodology they used is reasonable. The actual words they used are substantial rather
than significant reduction. The estimate is a range from 0.6% to 1.9% reduction. These numbers are
minimal from a perspective that this range would not be noticeable to the average citizen nor will it
eliminate congestion on College Ave. Please keep in mind that no one solution to the VMT problem is
going to happen. It will take a large number of very small solutions, such as land use, trip reductions,
telecommuting, carpooling, etc.... to solve the problem.
see you Thursday
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
City of Fort Collins
email:ebracke@ci.fort-collins.co.us
>>> "COLTON,GLEN (HP-FtCollins,ex2)" <glen_colton@agilent.com> 01/18 8:31 AM >>>
Hi folks,
I wanted to put in writing some of my questions and concerns regarding
the Mulberry-Lemay Crossing project that I brought up at the work
session on Friday. My main concern is that the P&Z board has not been
provided with the facts on transportation necessary to make an informed
decision. Point number 1 summarizes my concerns and requests in this
area. The other questions are ones that I will want answered at the
hearing.
1. No Transportation Impact Analysis in the staff report - at the
preliminary hearing there were significant concerns over traffic,
transportation infrastructure, and pedestrian access and safety. In
fact, these were the major grounds for denying the project at
preliminary. I find in inexcusable that no analysis was included in our