Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY LEMAY CROSSINGS, LOT ONE, FILING ONE - FINAL PUD ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 36-96D - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILs Trolley Stop Trolley Stop z f r S j�l 1 1i,Y 4� Transtort stop I t, T Trolley Stop _ 1 r rp Trolley Stop ` 1 ----o-- e Tronefort Route --a---� Trolley Route Figure 14 PROPOSED TRANSIT ROUTES AND STOPS 1 I've got just a few issues. You've heard most 2 everything over a few times here and previous nights, too, 3 but just a few issues I'd like to bring up. 4 First of all is traffic. That keeps coming up, 5 of course. The lack of infrastructure and the inadequate 6 roads in the area. Look at the north Lemay and Lincoln 7 Avenue. Go drive the roads and look at this. It's 8 ridicules to think about any more traffic there. I was 9 stuck on north Lemay at the Vine intersection for like 20 10 minutes this evening trying to get home from work. Build 11 the infrastructure first, then look at development. 12 One of the other issues that came up at the 13 preliminary hearings here is that the Wal-Mart traffic 14 engineer stated, the delivery trucks for this development 15 would come down Lincoln from the east into the backside of 16 the development. Has anybody looked at Lincoln in that 17 way? That's in the county. That street is totally 18 inadequate for that kind of traffic. 19 You've heard about the poor intersections. I 20 won't go into those. I'm not sure how the new idea for 21 the roundabout at Mulberry and Lemay re&lly will fit with 22 this. 23 One other thing about the traffic, and especially 24 the number of projections, these are all based on the 25 south Wal-Mart store staying open. There are no 51 1 shopping in the north as I can. I don't find everything I 2 want here. And I do go to the south side for some things. 3 But it turns out that Wal-Mart is one of the places that 4 I've not been hardly ever to find things that I want. 5 Two examples of many, many things were bulk oil, 6 that I finally found at Country General. Wal-Mart doesn't 7 have it in bulk prices. Another thing was a simple pink 8 bathtub mat that I got for my mother for Christmas. 9 Wal-Mart didn't have it. I had to go to a factory store 10 in Loveland. They had it here. So I don't believe that 11 I'm going to be finding what I want at the new Wal-Mart 12 any more than I found at the old Wal-Mart, even though I'm 13 a north -side resident. 14 I believe very strongly that the Wal-Mart that we 15 have in the south side is all we need right now. I don't 16 see any reason in putting in a larger Wal-Mart right 17 now. 18 There was a certain amount of talk that was 19 addressing the direct effect now that the Wal-Mart store 20 is not going to have on floodplains. The problem was, 21 as -- at a neighborhood meeting about two years ago before 22 the original P&Z decision, there was mentioned by one of 23 the City engineers, I think it was, who was mentioning a 24 dike that would have to be built on Lemay or at least 25 elevated to a higher level. I wanted to find out just 27 1 addition to Station Number 1, which is half a mile away, 2 and Station Number 6, which is a mile away, both of which 3 in PFA's opinion are within the acceptable five-minute 4 response time. But PFA goes on to say that with the 5 addition of the new station, service to this area is 6 improved because it is not separated from the north and 7 northeast by any railroad crossing. So it is unaffected 8 by railroad traffic. So you have that enhancement as 9 well. 10 And finally -- and this I think is maybe perhaps 11 the most crucial fact -- you need to look at what has 12 happened even just in the period between preliminary and 13 final approval with regard to residential growth in this 14 immediate area. 15 At the preliminary, there were a number of 16 projects in various stages of planning approval in this 17 immediate area. Today, in addition to the Bava neighbors, 18 Greenbriar, the Country Club, Lindenmeier, and all of the 19 well -established northern neighborhoods, there are five 20 significant multifamily and single-family projects which 21 all have final approval from the City of Fort Collins and 22 are now entering the construction phases. Three of those 23 are City -certified affordable housing projects. That 24 represents somewhat in excess of 2,000 dwelling units in 25 addition to those projects and the north area that are now 12 1 machines, things of that nature. 2 We have a condition of approval that the trucks 3 turn off their engines and not idle. That condition of 4 approval has been satisfied with two signs placed in the �,P4 vRFc 5 truck area. They're 20A feet minimum each. 6 The last condition of the approval was that the 7 applicant contain the necessary approvals for a final PUD 8 at this stage of the game from CDOT, Colorado Department 9 of Transportation. And our feeling is that those 10 approvals have been granted and that condition has been 11 satisfied. 12 As we did at the work session,,briefly, I will go 13 over some of the elements of the site and landscaped plan 14 that are different from preliminary, different in the fact 15 that we have more detail. They're more refined. We feel 16 we have a set of plans that we can send out an inspector 17 and determine whether or not they've met the plans when 18 evaluating a certificate of occupancy. 19 This includes the highlights. Would be the 20 outdoor seasonal sales area, which is just south of the 21 garden center. This is 10,800 square feet. It's defined 22 by a low decorative fence that matches the garden center 23 itself. And it's got landscaping. It's got some -- six 24 trees that will help mitigate that. 25 We've got, as I mentioned, more detail on all the 33 1 everything operated acceptably with those improvements. 2 In some instances the intersections actually operate 3 better with the addition of site -generated traffic and the 4 site -committed improvements. 5 Not only does the site have a lot of improvements 6 going in the area, but the construction of this site will 7 alter the way people drive in the north side of Fort 8 Collins. Eric BRACKE touched upon the fact that we're 9 expecting a reduction in what's called VMT, or vehicle 10 miles of travel. 11 Quite simply, this means that there. is really not 12 adequate shopping opportunities for people living on the 13 north side of Fort Collins. And those people are driving 14 to the south side of Fort Collins to pursue those shopping 15 activities. If they have shopping options on the north 16 side of town now, their trips are much shorter, it reduces 17 traffic on the north/south streets in Fort Collins, 18 specifically South College Avenue, and as a result you 19 have improved operations and also improved air quality due 20 to the reduction in VMT. 21 With that, I'm going to turn this presentation 22 over to Mark Goldberg to discuss the various modes of 23 transportation other than by automobile. And I'll be 24 available to answer questions. 25 MR. GOLDBERG: -Thank you, Kathleen. I would like 7 1 have -- have not yet received, but will receive a letter 2 that threatens litigation against the City. And I believe 3 that that would be another justifiable reason to discuss 4 this in executive session. It takes a two-thirds vote to 5 go into executive session. 6 MR. COLTON: Okay. Could we have a motion on 7 that? And then we can have some discussion. 8 MR. GAVALDON: I move that we go into executive 9 session. 10 MR. COLTON: Is there any discussion of the Board 11 members? Okay. 12 MR. ECKMAN: Do we have a second? 13 MR. COLTON: Oh, can we have a second? 14 MS. MEYER: I'll second. 15 MR. COLTON: Okay. Any discussion? Could we . 16 have roll call, please? 17 THE CLERK: Meyer? 18 MS. MEYER: Yes. 19 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 20 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. 21 THE CLERK: Craig? 22 MS. CRAIG: Yes. 23 THE CLERK: Bernth? 24 MR. BERNTH: Yes. 25 THE CLERK: Torgerson? 3 1 The discussion item, discussion agenda tonight 2 consists of one item which -- as I'm sure everyone here 3 realizes -- is the final application on the Mulberry/Lemay 4 Crossings, Lot 1, Filing 1, Planned Unit Development. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. Okay. At this time 6 we're going to see if there's anyone who wants to pull any 7 of the items off of the consent agenda. So the consent 8 agenda -- or Items 1 through 10, with the exception of the 9 minutes. And I just wanted to see if anyone from the 10 audience or the Board wanted to have a hearing on any of 11 these items, if so, raise your hand. 12 Okay. I didn't think anybody would be interested 13 in all those resolutions. 14 MS. CARPENTER: I have a conflict on Item 8. 15 MR. COLTON: Okay. 16 MS. CARPENTER: And I also have a correction for 17 the November 14th minutes. They were continued? The 18 November 4th minutes? I thought it was the October. 19 THE CLERK: No. Also the November 14th are 20 continued to the next meeting. So if you have a change, 21 you can let me know. 22 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. 23 MR. COLTON: Okay. So what we'll do is separate 24 out Item Number 8 so Jennifer can conflict out of that. 25 So can we get a motion on the other consent items, please? • is 7 PCe \ I 1 a 1 db �1 I c 6* Wide Bile Lane will be Constructed from Mulberry Street to Uncoln Avenue Connectinq with the 7 J!!L ' Poaore River Trail ' x 6 t �. 113i L Y Traffic Signal to ouoe f Cyclists and Pedestrians to Cross Mulberry. Street and Lemey Avenue I: r Existing Poudre River Tmil L r P J, Bicycle Pwlron u') O—b - Bi,) - Parking Existing Poudn River Trail Figure 13 BICYCLE AMENITIES TABLE 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR - YEAR 1999 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ....... -- - - ----- LANE GROUPS (for Stop -controlled) BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC Lemay Avenue/Mulberry Street (Signalized) C (18.5/0.834) C (17.1/0.769) Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue (Signalized) B (6.9/0.423) C (15.6/0.735) Lemay Avenue/Riverside (Signalized) C (19.4/0.705) C (18.3/0.771) Mulberry Street/Riverside (Signalized) B (14.6/0.497) B (14.3/0.625) Lemay Avenue/Vine Street (Signalized) B (14.6/0.846) D (30.7/0.835) Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street (Signalized) -- B (10.410.732) Link Lane/Mulberry Street (Signalized) B (12.3/0.565) B (10.4/0.629) Mulberry StreeU12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB R B SB R B EB L D WB L - C Lemay Avenue/Access Drive A (Stop -controlled) WB R - A Lemay Avenue/Access Drive B (Stop -controlled) WBR A Lemay Avenue/Access Drive C (Stop -controlled) WB R - A Lincoln Ave/Lincoln East PUD (Stop -controlled) SB R A A _ _ Lincoln Avenue/Buffalo Run (Stop -controlled) NB L and R B B WB L A A Lincoln Avenue/12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB L B B NB R A A WBL A A 12th Street/Access D (Stop -controlled) EB L - A EB R - A NB L - A 12th Street/Access E (Stop -controlled) EB L - A EB R - A N B L --_ A 12th Street/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L -- A EB R -- A NB L A 27 142 It 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary 5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the 6 foregoing Planning and Zoning Board Hearing of 7 Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, was taken on Thursday, January 8 20th, 2000, at 300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, 9 Colorado; that said meeting was taken down by me in 10 stenotype notes and thereafter reduced under my 11 supervision to the foregoing 141 pages; that said 12 transcript is an accurate and complete record of the 13 proceedings so taken. 14 I further certify that I am not related to, employed 15 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys 16 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the 17 case. 18 Attested to by me this 27th day of January, 2000. 19 20 21 2 2 ,� O 23 24 25 Anne Hansen Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 My commission expires: 02/13/03 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (/G 140 Wal-Mart. And it's not about a lot of these other things." But I appreciate the fact that everybody is concerned as they are. I did read this entire traffic study. I'm an architect, and some of that goes over my head. But I rely on the experts, and I think Eric 's an expert. And he's confident that we're meeting the criteria that we need to meet. And there's a certain point where we need to defer to the experts. And so I'll be supporting the motion. MR. COLTON: Okay. Roll call? THE CLERK: Gavaldon? MR. GAVALDON: Yes. THE CLERK: Craig? MS. CRAIG: No. Cis Foie- XqT2vtcrJr- THE CLERK: Bernth? MR. BERNTH: Yes. THE CLERK: Torgerson? MR. TORGERSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Meyer? MS MEYER: Yes. THE CLERK: Colton? MR. COLTON: Yes. So that concludes the hearing. We appreciate everyone's inputs. And we'll see where it goes from here. 139 1 I have a lot of faith in Eric and his wand, by 2 the way. And I really applaud the work he's done with the 3 roundabout coming through and the other improvements he's 4 recommending, though he catches a lot of feedback from us. 5 And I think he takes it in great stride. And I hope he -- 6 and I will continue to echo, the northeast needs those 7 improvements. And please, with the growth and all the 8 activities going there, we do need to put our priorities 9 and our priority house in order to make that happened. 10 So -- but I do want to compliment Glen and Sally 11 for their thoughts in this because this is very 12 significant to accomplish -- to bring out the best 13 projects. Thanks. 14 MR. TORGERSON: I'll try to be brief. I guess I 15 just wanted to say, first of all, I really appreciate the 16 fact that there are so many citizens who care enough to 17 get this to the point that it is. And everybody on both 18 sides of the fence has been civil, and I appreciate that, 19 too. 20 There are a lot of good issues that were brought 21 up tonight. A lot of those don't relate to the LDGS. And 22 I'm all about judging this relative to the code that it is 23 supposed to be judged by and not by other issues. I think 24 Cheryl White, one of the citizens that spoke, said it 25 best. "This is about land use, and it's not about 138 1 luck, I guess it meets the criteria. 2 And I do kind of agree with Sally on some of the 3 things that came out in the memo tonight as far as things 4 we were or weren't supposed to possibly look at. But I'm 5 ignoring that just like I'm ignoring the lawsuit. 6 I guess that's it. I probably missed something, 7 but you guys wouldn't want to hear it, probably. Any 8 other comments? 9 MR. GAVALDON: You know, I've got to commend Glen 10 and Sally for taking the other side of the fence and 11 really helping bring out some things because we do bring 12 up stuff in work session with staff that we would like as 13 a Board to work on. 14 And yes, I'm being -- I think Eric can really 15 attest to that. I've been really harping with Vine and 16 Lemay. I see a need for improvements. But we've got to 17 take that from a different process and also get the right 18 funding and make sure we get the right contributions for 19 it. 20 But what everybody else brings up is important 21 because it strikes the so-called balance in getting the 22 best project. And I think it's so important that we 23 continue to foster everyone's inputs on the Board and 24 through the community so we can continue to make these 25 necessary improvements. 137 1 those lists. 2 We've got some hard decisions to make. You know, 3 there aren't roads out in the northeast. Where's it all 4 going to come from? So again, I stand by my vote at 5 preliminary. And there's been a lot of new things that 6 came out within -- like today or the last couple of days 7 that are causing me to say, "Well, okay. Some of them" -- 8 "my biggest concerns were addressed from preliminary." 9 Sorry. I'm getting long-winded here. But after 10 getting beat up for a year on this, I've got to -- got to 11 get this stuff out, you know. 12 And some of these guys, they didn't like the 13 lawsuit, but I don't like being called, you know, 14 "arbitrary and capricious." I don't like having, "You've 15 got a political agenda," all this stuff that's floating 16 around. You know, sorry. You know, you can -- if you 17 want this job, you can come and have it. 18 Let's see. I don't know. Those -- those are the 19 main things that I have to say. So even though I don't 20 think it is the best thing for the community in terms of 21 traffic impact, it is going to be a -- we do need the 22 retail. It will be a nice looking project. Assuming Eric 23 can waive his magic wand and really do what he says he's 24 going to do to Lemay and Vine, to make all those 25 improvements and keep it acceptable through 2010, good 136 1 over the Mulberry," to, "It's coming in. We've got some 2 money for it." Okay. Great. 3 We went from, "Gee, you know, the sidewalks 4 aren't there. And we've got it in our plan to work on it 5 sometime, but we don't know when the funding is coming." 6 Well, we now have identified funding. 7 There were a lot of questions around Lemay and 8 Vine. Like I said, I went through that earlier with some 9 of the information. You know, I -- where are we going to 10 come up with $17 million to do that overpass? We better 11 start figuring that out soon. And I've heard a lot of, 12 "Well that's in our master street plan so, you know, it's 13 okay." 14 Well, last time I saw it the City had $490 15 million_ worth of traffic needs over the next 20 years and 16 potential sources for 250, maybe half of it. Okay, things 17 like that are going to compete with Mason Street 18 corridors, possible bypasses, Vine Street arterials in the 19 north. All right, where's all this money coming from, you 20 know? And to say we've got it in a plan somewhere and we 21 have to wait until the next capital improvement plan which 22 competes with more than those things, it competes with 23 libraries, cultural centers, everything else that the 24 people in this town want, you know, there's no assurance 25 that some of these projects are going to meet -- make 135 1 people living and put one here about the same size instead 2 of having one big huge one where that it may -- at least 3 some of the traffic is going to be diverted from the 4 south, but there's going to be a lot of -- you know, it's 5 a regional center. It's going to generate a lot of 6 traffic on the north that is unnecessary for that smaller 7 discount retail. 8 I don't think I have to ask Eric or any of the 9 traffic people to say that regional shopping centers 10 create a lot more traffic than smaller community shopping 11 centers or neighborhood ones that could provide the same 12 services but not at a super -huge location. 13 That's -- you know, people in Fort Collins are 14 wondering, "Why is our traffic in Fort Collins getting as 15 bad as it is?" Eric says there's a lot of little things 16 we can do. Well, this is one of them. In the city of 17 Fort Collins, we've got to start figuring out how to get 18 back to the original LDGS intent, which is to have smaller 19 community shopping centers closer to where people live. 20 Not the super biggest thing you can possibly put in. 21 Like I said, I had some very strong concerns at 22 preliminary. Some things popped out of the woodwork. 23 Since that preliminary, we went from a, "Well, we think 24 that we'll work together" -- "we think we'll work together 25 on putting together a pedestrian bypass and bicycle path 134 1 but I don't know what's really going to happen way out 2 there to those people having to drive on that road. You 3 know, it's beyond the scope. Yet this is a regional 4 shopping center where 20 percent of the traffic is going 5 to be heading straight up North Lemay which is two lanes, 6 no shoulder, I mean. 7 I think we're just having too small of view. And 8 I think it is the purview and responsibility of people, 9 like myself, on the Board to have that broader view even 10 if staff says, "Gee, I have these guidelines that say I 11 can only go a quarter mile or these policies." I think we 12 owe the community more than that. 13 I've agreed all along that we need retail in the 14 north side. And this project is going to be the best 15 looking 200,000 square -foot store around. I have no 16 problem with that. Is it the best thing for Fort Collins? 17 I don't think so. 18 I think -- you know, I would ask Mr. Goldberg, if 19 you really wanted to do the right thing for Fort Collins, 20 why doesn't he take a few of those regular -size Wal-Marts, 21 like an 80,000 square -foot one, put it on North College 22 where the people up there can -- will be close to it? 23 Don't have to travel all the way down to this 24 intersection. Why don't you take one and put it out in 25 the Mountain Vista area where we're going to have 25,000 133 1 to be interpreted in this thing. It's not black and 2 white. 3 And, you know, when I read things -- you know, 4 the first thing I want to say is, my vote at preliminary, 5 I'll stand by it 100 percent. When I read criteria that 6 say, "Can the additional traffic, all modes, generated by 7 the land uses within the project be incorporated into the 8 neighborhood and community transportation network without 9 creating safety problems? Can the impacts from the 10 additional vehicular traffic meet City traffic flow 11 policies? Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed 12 so that opportunities for these travel modes are 13 integrated into the overall system? Does the pedestrian 14 circulation system accommodate pedestrian movement from 15 the neighborhood to the site and throughout the proposed 16 development safely and conveniently?" 17 These things don't say, "Can I require the 18 builder to do it?" These things don't say, "A 19 quarter -mile limit." They don't say, "A half -mile 20 limit." You know, I think from our optic and our 21 viewpoints, there are bigger impacts beyond a half mile. 22 I mean, I have no idea what's going to happen north and 23 Lemay and Country Club as a result of this -- the traffic 24 from this. 25 We did finally get an analysis of Lemay and Vine, 132 7/t G Cit--t t W - n 1 and six conditions that staff has recommended they have 2 met. And it is -- and the reason is, it is in substantial 3 compliance to the approved preliminary plan and it is 4 compliant -- and is compliant to what it meets in the LDGS 5 process. 6 MR. TORGERSON: I'll second. 7 MR. COLTON: All right. Twenty minutes to make 8 some comments. Do you want to make some comments? 9 MS. CRAIG: I guess I'll make one comment. And 10 that is, that I'm not going to support this, but.I 11 wouldn't support any vote tonight because issues came up 12 at executive session that I wasn't comfortable with. And 13 I feel we're talking about things that were given to us 14 last minute and we really didn't get a chance to digest or ' 15 discuss. And they irritated me. And so I will not be 16 supporting this or any vote that would have come up 17 tonight. 18 MR. COLTON: Well, I've got a few things to 19 say. Part of this is because I try to do -- like Jerry 20 mentions, I try to do the best job I can. I looked at the 21 LDGS, the land use policies plan, and I interpret it for 22 the best of the community, in my best judgment. And I've 23 been around five years. And, yeah, I don't always 24 disagree with staff. Sometimes I'm wrong disagreeing with 25 staff. Sometimes I think staff is wrong. There's a lot 131 G AVil-L Odni - p? GT7 0n1 ^-P/ RO-rE 1 that everthing's been done reasonably prudently possible 2 so this project can go. 3 I cannot ask Mr. Goldberg to go fix every street. 4 I cannot ask other people to go fix every street. But I 5 cannot ask the taxpayers to fix every street because 6 there's a balance we have to strike. The mitigation and 7 all that, they all have done what was reasonably expected 8 and asked for. Ted has -- and staff has given their stamp 9 in saying, "Yes. It's ready to go." 10 However, there are opportunities that we have to 11 work on. I hate to say problems. There are 12 opportunities. We do have to work on other streets. We 13 do have to make an effort. And I think that's where Eric 14 has our inputs from workshop and Ken McNamara and his 15 group has our inputs. We want some streets worked on that 16 is a city-wide, community -wide process. We got to do it. 17 But long-winded ways, I cannot say no to this. 18 So along that -- and I want to add one thing. I 19 do appreciate the Board members with their inputs and 20 their questions and everything they ask for because that's 21 our role. And that's what's neat about this Board. We 22 bring out the best of everything to make our improvements 23 for our community. I think you can see that tonight. 24 So I move for the approval of the Mulberry/Lemay 25 Crossing, Lot 1, Filing 1, Final PUD 26-96D, with the five 130 e Z I,,JG c. Jr., I ni e Or i"1 Of I d Al 1 Council felt just as uncomfortable being sued by the 2 applicant as we do being potentially sued by a -- 3 neighborhood groups. Cuts both ways. 4 MR. GAVALDON: So if anyone has more questions, I 5 don't want to take the thunder of our Board members, but 6 I'm ready to go with a motion as I have reviewed this 7 thoroughly. So without anyone jumping in to make a 8 comment, I'd like to proceed. 9 But first a couple comments before the motion. 10 We listened to a lot of information. You brought a lot to 11 us. We had to listen to it. We digest it. We sort 12 through it. The applicant did their presentation. They 13 brought information. Did they bring enough information to 14 say that we have to go back and sit and continue this 15 meetina? I don't think so. I really think we have all 16 the information we need and all your testimony. And I'm 17 sure you know I go back and pick what people say to make 18 sure we get their answers, their questions heard and 19 addressed. It's important that we do that. 20 Is this project in substantial compliance to the 21 LDGS and to the process that we have tonight? Is it or 22 isn't it? That's a question we've got to study and 23 analyze. Is there differences that say, ,Oops, we've got 24 a problem. We need to ask Mark -- Mr. Goldberg to go back 25 to the drawing board?" I don't think so. I really think 129 1 was in a sandbox saying, "We want it this way. We want it 2 that way." Hey, that's cool because you take an interest 3 in your area. You don't want -- you want the impact to be 4 minimal or substantial, however you look at it. I think 5 that's fair. 6 But we here have to sort through a lot of data. 7 I'm one of the ones who asked for a three-inch ring binder 8 from Lucia and Kathleen. I read it. I go through it. 9 It's the second time I reviewed it. It's a big, thick 10 one. And then, of course, Lucia has another nice binder 11 that comes our way. We look at that. We study it. We go 12 in and out of it. 13 Ted provides a substantial amount of information. 14 Eric does a lot of work. Everybody puts their heart and 15 soul into this. We really work hard. 16 Whether we agree or not, at least we can walk out 17 of here and say, "We did our part." And, yeah, lawsuits 18 come in. Well, might have to hang on and go to Paul and 19 say, "Okay. Paul, help us out here," because we're 20 volunteers and we want to work with integrity and with our 21 hearts and minds to do a very good job for this entire 22 community. 23 So I'm ready to go with a motion. And -- 24 MR. COLTON: I want to make one comment, also, 25 because lawsuits go both ways. And I'm sure the City 128 1 projects. And again, it just feels uncomfortable and 2 unseemly when we're threatened with personal lawsuits, not 3 that I have much to worry about, trust me. But it just 4 doesn't feel right. And I would just like to put that on 5 record. Thank you. 6 MS. MEYER: I want to concur with my 7 colleagues. I do not appreciate having threatening 8 letters and getting them. And essentially for me because 9 I was late getting here, approximately two minutes before 10 I walked into this Board room. And I'm with them. I 11 don't think this is the way you do business with people. 12 MR. GAVALDON: I'm going to echo my thoughts as 13 well as what Dan and Mikal and Judy has done very well. I 14 don't need to repeat. But I'd like to make some 15 observations. 16 One, you're right. We're volunteers. We don't 17 get any money. But we get food, and that's okay with me. 18 And I guess we do okay with that. But we do more than 19 just for food and sitting here and doing things. We take 20 a big interest in our City. We look at the community as a 21 whole. But yet we've got everybody in sandboxes. Bava 22 has their sandbox. Well, my grandmother used to live over 23 there. So I take pride in that. 24 Everybody has sandboxes on the south side of 25 town. We brought -- projects come our way and everybody 127 1 the preliminary? 2 MR. SHEPARD: No. There's nothing I see. I 3 think it's in substantial compliance with the preliminary. 4 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. And the other 5 issue I wanted to bring up is, I think Bridget Smith read 6 a letter from an attorney that was brought to the Board. 7 Maybe some of the other members would be interested in 8 commenting, too. But,to me I think it's -- it's really 9 nasty legal tactics to threaten to sue Board members, 10 especially when we received the lawsuit -- or the threat 11 of a lawsuit literally minutes before we convened. And 12 this project was approved, I think, 11 months ago. It's 13 been a foregone conclusion that Mr. Goldberg was going to 14 pursue the project. And it seems to me a really poor way 15 of doing business, to threaten a lawsuit moments before we 16 convene. I don't intend to even take it into 17 consideration or let it sway my vote one way or the other. 18 MR. BERNTH: I can only go on record, too, that I 19 do feel it is a bit inappropriate. And I guess there's 20 probably been the opportunity to -- on both sides with 21 those kinds of -- I hate to say threats, maybe that's not 22 the correct word. But again, it just seems unseemly to a 23 certain extent. We are volunteers on this Board. We do 24 the best we can. We spend time, I should say at some 25 points inordinant amounts of time working on these 126 1 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I had another question 2 relative to that. I know it's not a part of the LDGS. 3 But just for reference, have we had any large shopping 4 center projects recently that purported to reduce VMT, or 5 does that typically increase VMT? 6 MR. BRACKE: I believe that projects don't 7 increase VMT. People increase VMT. I think there's a big 8 difference there. No one is forcing anybody to drive. 9 Okay? This was the first project that ever did an 10 analysis of it that I know of. I'm not familiar with any 11 other in the 12 years I've been here. 12 MR. TORGERSON: I suppose it doesn't matter if 13 it's not part of the LDGS anyway. 14 MR. COLTON: Okay. Are we ready to move on? 15 Does anyone have any more questions, or is that it? 16 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I have a question for Ted 17 and I wanted to make a general comment, too. Ted, some or 18 us weren't here on the Board when the preliminary came 19 through. I've looked at it and everything. But I just 20 wanted to get .for the record, is -- would you say that 21 this project is substantially compliant with the 22 preliminary? There's -- the developer actually brought up 23 quite a few issues that were new in the project and 24 they've purported to be positive additions to the 25 project. Is there anything that you see as not meeting 125 1 of the apple with one project. But if you start doing 2 other projects and more people start carpooling, more 3 people start vanpooling, more people start walking or 4 riding their bikes, it's all of them added up that make 5 the difference. It's not one project, and it's not 6 reasonable to assume one project should have that 7 responsibility. I wanted to make that clear. 8 MR. COLTON: Right. I agree with you a.100 9 percent. 10 MR. BERNTH: Eric, could you read verbatim 11 what -- just eluding to that correspondence back and forth 12 between you and Glen. Would you read that last sentence 13 just to be clear, again? You wrote it. 14 MR. BRACKE: I don't have a copy of it. 15 MR. COLTON: I just read it. 16 MR. BRACKE: Oh, I do have a copy. Okay. 17 Beginning with, "Please keep in mind?" 18 MR. BERNTH: Please. 19 MR. BRACKE: "Please keep in mind that no one VMT 20 solution is going to help. It will take a large number of 21 very small solutions, such as land use, trip reductions, 22 telecommuting, carpooling, etc., to solve the 23 problems. See you Thursday." 24 MR. BERNTH: Thank you. 25 MR. COLTON: That's it. Mike. 124 1 question. And it's very similar to what he said. But you 2 left one sentence off at the end. I just wanted to get it 3 out because even though VMT is not -- reduction is not 4 part of the LDGS process, I think it was widely heralded 5 that during the election that this project would help to 6 relieve congestion on South College. I just wanted to get 7 this into the record. Eric said, "I can neither support 8 or argue the validity of the VMT study. The methodology 9 they used is reasonable. The actual words they used is 10 substantial rather than significant reduction. The 11 estimate is a .6 percent to 1.9 percent reduction. These 12 numbers are minimal from a perspective that this range 13 would not be noticeable to the average citizen nor will it 14 eliminate congestion on College Avenue." 15 You disagree with that or is that -- 16 MR. BRACKE: 'No. I mean, I wrote that. 17 MR. COLTON: Again, this is a highly unusual. 18 And since the Board did not give the preliminary approval 19 and the voters did, I just wanted to get out some 20 information about that particular issue. 21 MR. BRACKE: I think it would be important to add 22 though, there is not one single action the City could take 23 to eliminate congestion on College Avenue or the other 24 arterials. It's going to be numerous. Many, many small 25 things that do it. And you're not going to get a big bite 123 1 specify how many vehicle trips, how many bike trips, or 2 how many pedestrians. So that's just a rough proportion, 3 I guess. And I think it's a very optimistic split as far 4 as the numbers. So we emphasize the need for those 5 connections. As I said, south on Lemay and west on 6 Mulberry. 7 As far as not being able to require anything 8 additional for those other legs, I feel that we've 9 required the extent that we could. And if there's other 10 issues, that they may be more legal issues than 11 transportation issues. I guess I would look to Paul or 12 someone for a clarification on that. 13 But based on the primary directions of travel for 14 this center, those were the routes we emphasized for the 15 pedestrian improvements. Again, there are bike lanes 16 going north and west. And there are city -slated projects 17 to take care of those needs as well. So. 18 MR. COLTON: Right. Yeah. No. I appreciate the 19 fact that we are -- do the city -funded projects. I just 20 wanted to follow-up on the off -site impacts. Thank you. 21 Okay. Other questions? I had one thing I just 22 wanted to -- Eric had made some comments earlier on 23 vehicle miles traveled. And I just wanted to, I think, 24 add one thing, too. 25 He had sent me a written response back to that 122 1 north on Lemay, 160 going west? I'm just taking half of 2 your estimated bike and pedestrian. And 50 going east. 3 And wondering, how we can just have a set quarter -mile 4 limit, and not looking at the number of trips when this is 5 a rather significant number of trips? Why do we feel like 6 we don't have the flexibility to ask for some off -site 7 impact beyond a quarter mile? Is it written somewhere in 8 our guidelines that it can only be a quarter mile? 9 MS. REAVIS: Well, the -- 10 MR. COLTON: Or is it just customary? 11 MS. REAVIS: No. The issue is -- the quarter 12 mile comes out of our current standards. That 13 quarter -mile limit is in our current pedestrian level of 14 service standards. We don't have a limit. We don't have 15 the ability to require that under the LDGS. 16 What -- what I looked at when I looked at the 17 project and I looked at the trip generation and the 18 distribution of it, the majority of the trips are going 19 south on Lemay and west on Mulberry. There are some trips 20 going north on Lemay and the trips on Lincoln. But it's 21 very hard to predict the number of pedestrians and the 22 number of bicyclists. And I just use the only sort of 23 methodology that was available using some regional 24 load -split projections and that sort of thing. 25 But generally on any development, we don't 121 1 MS. CRAIG: I just had one architectural 2 question. When the architect came up and talked about it, 3 is the building going to have brick facade, or is it going 4 to be brick -colored concrete? 5 MR. SHEPARD: It's a brick -colored concrete. 6 MS. CRAIG: So there is no brick facade on this 7 building? 8 MR. SHEPARD: There's some brick -detail features. 9 But what we call the building field is very similar to the 10 jumbo brick that you see on the walls in this -- chambers. 11 It will be sandblasted red, but it will be a concrete 12 product. 13 MS. CRAIG: Will it have the gray in between so 14 it looks like it's brick? 15 MR. SHEPARD: Yes. It will have mortar joints. 16 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. COLTON: Any other questions? I just had one 18 more for Kathleen Reavis. And it just -- again, I 19 appreciate that we're getting the sidewalks near, but I 20 just had a question on the off -- the quarter -mile 21 rule. I mean, I guess I look in the A, 2.6, pedestrian 22 circulation. And it says, "Sidewalk and bike -way 23 extensions may be required based on the impacts created by 24 the proposed development." And then I look at your 25 analysis that shows maybe -- was it 200 people a day going 120 1 final amendments to the LDGS -- before we adopted the land 2 use code and went into the transition ordinance. So it's 3 not dissimilar to a lot of the other types of projects 4 that you've acted on as a Planning and Zoning Board. 5 MR. COLTON: Okay. I just wanted some 6 clarification. 7 MR. ECKMAN: One other point to be made, I think, 8 in that, is that the vested rights provisions of the City 9 vest the project once the infrastructure is constructed. 10 And presumably the infrastructure would be constructed 11 with the development that is presently before you. 12 Then once it is vested, the development has to be 13 completed in that manner unless there is requested before 14 this Board an abandonment of the remaining parcel of land. 15 And one of the criteria for abandonment is that you have 16 to look at the part that has already been developed and 17 make sure that it is in and of itself still qualified for 18 approval under the Land Development Guidance System. And 19 that -- those provisions are found on page 109 of the Land 20 Development Guidance System. So I think that should give 21 you some comfort that you would not be compelled to 22 authorize an abandonment of the other parcel unless this 23 parcel still remained qualified for approval under the 24 LDGS. 25 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. 119 1 The requirement that each large retail establishment meet 2 the big -box standards and guidelines is in the big -box 3 standards and guidelines. But the phasing of a 4 multiproject, multiphase 42-acre PUD is more of a function 5 of the community regional shopping center point chart. 6 MR. BLANCHARD: And if you look in the big -box 7 standards, Mr. Chairman, it's -- you go back to the 8 ordinance that passed it, and that's where you find it. 9 In Section 3, that states, "It's amended" -- it refers 10 specifically to Activity C, the community regional 11 shopping center. And it amends that particular section of 12 the LDGS. 13 And I'd like to point out, too, that when we talk 14 about the lack of guaranties on subsequent phases, is it's 15 not dissimilar to what you all have faced in the past with 16 LDGS projects where the multi -- when you recall some of 17 the -- some of. the residential projects that were 18 approved. And the way they got their density was to clump 19 the multifamily in the high density in the end. And as 20 you know, there was no guarantee because, in fact, the 21 City did not get some of those projects. They were 22 pulled, or they ended up being purchased for open space. 23 It's not dissimilar to the day care centers where 24 we awarded points. And there were always questions about 25 whether those were going to be built until some of the 118 1 supporting. 2 MR. CARNES: They were submitted in evidence. I 3 don't happen to have them. So anyone could help 4 themselves. And I quote whatever they say. I think the 5 examples just given by Ted were pre big -box standards. 6 Those were adopted in January of 195. I think these 7 particular things were done at that point. 8 So I think, you know, the law is based on a 9 reasonable person and common sense. And I fancied myself 10 as being a reasonable person. But I don't think no one is 11 24 hours a day. That's why we need boards and juries and 12 things like that to approximate a reasonable person. 13 So all I know is, if this Lot 1, Final PUD 14 somehow gets approved, there's nothing that can compel 15 this community to -- to do the rest of it. And having 16 been on the big -box task force where we came up with the 17 standards, our whole purpose in having that prohibition 18 was simply to prevent -- protect the community investment 19 and infrastructure. If the big box goes down, there's 20 nothing else there. We're going to -- it's going to take 21 a lot of time and difficulty to recover. 22 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I've been 23 looking through the big -box guidelines, and I just can't 24 find that particular provision. 25 MR. SHEPARD: That's because it's not in there. 117 1 the work session -- that it took one year to build Pace 2 Warehouse which is now Sam's Club. It took the next year 3 to build Builder's Square and it took the third year to 4 build Steele's. So that was one year per anchor, three 5 years. Was there ever a guarantee that we would get the 6 other two anchors after Pace pulled their building permit, 7 no, there was not a guarantee. No bond was posted. 8 That's the market risk that the developer takes. 9 We see this as Phase 1, Lot 1, of a multiphase 10 shopping center. 11 MR. COLTON: I'm processing that just because of 12 the big -box standards, how it relates. Because I think 13 it's different than some of the other -- 14 MR. SHEPARD: It's not a big -box standard, per 15 se, it's a requirement of the point chart. The point 16 chart requires that large retail establishments be in 17 community regional shopping centers. So it's not in the 18 standards and guidelines, per se, for individual big -box 19 consideration. We evaluated this as a community regional 20 shopping center based on point chart C of the LDGS. 21 MR. COLTON: Okay. I think I want to ask Mr. 22 Carnes if that -- if he agrees with that assessment that 23 it's in the point chart. Or if you can point to a 24 specific -- if you can come to the speaker. If you can 25 point to a specific point in the big -box guidelines 116 1 gate that Wal-Mart is going to be doing to mitigate 2 that. And then that whole industrial area would be 3 removed from the Poudre River floodplain. 4 MR. TORGERSON: Is any of that a part of that 5 project or is that a proposed part of -- 6 MR. SCHLUETER: No. That's part of our master - 7 planning project. 8 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. 9 MR. COLTON: This is a question for someone from 10 staff, but I think Mr. Carnes -- maybe someone else raised 11 the issue of the big -box standards requiring big box to be 12 part of a shopping center. And it was on the preliminary, 13 but now it's coming in as a -- by itself, I guess. I kind 14 of shared the concern of, so what if we approved this and 15 the second part doesn't come in? How does that meet the 16 big -box standards? 17 MR. SHEPARD: The test was that it meet or exceed 18 the minimum point chart score on the community and 19 regional shopping center point chart. That test was met 20 at preliminary when the 42-acre shopping center came in as 21 a multibuilding center much as Harmony Town Center, 22 Harmony Village, Harmony Market, in that the preliminary 23 PUD indicated a shopping center. 24 Some shopping centers get built one phase at a 25 time. For example -- and I think I pointed this out at 115 1 don't make you run around there. A gentleman named Brad 2 Edwards brought up a question about a dike on Lemay? 3 MR. SCHLUETER: Sure. 4 MR. TORGERSON: Could you address his concerns? 5 MR. SCHLUETER: The dike that he's talking 6 about -- actually there's another drawing here that shows 7 the cross section. This is a cross section showing Lemay 8 Avenue over to the west (indicating). This is the river 9 over here. Right now Lemay acts as a dike, but it's not 10 accepted by FEMA as a levy because it doesn't meet the 11 free -board requirements. And if we would come in there, 12 we would probably build the levy with a dewatering system 13 and the compaction that's required and the three-foot 14 free -board requirement. 15 And we would probably be adding a foot higher to 16 that. We would do it on the west side. We've already 17 talked with the landowner over there. And we would 18 probably -- might even do some of that with the roundabout 19 project. And if you go back to that other slide -- that 20 one, yeah -- what in effect it would do, FEMA would take 21 all this out of the floodplain (indicating). Except 22 there's one problem, is there's existing culverts that go 23 underneath Mulberry here that would let water from the 24 river back up into there. 25 So we could probably do something like the flat 114 1 bringing in, they're bringing in just enough fill to make 2 their site drain basically because it is flat. As far as 3 the criteria, I think that Lucia probably hit it the best, 4 is that, you know, it's been a farm field. It's been -- 5 it's not like a topographic feature that is prominent like 6 a rock outcropping or a stand of trees.or wetland or 7 something like that. 8 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to test it 9 against them because it was brought up by a citizen. And 10 I just wanted to make sure we're given -- where we are 11 with this. And Lot 2 won't be filled until it comes 12 before us, right? 13 MR. SCHLUETER: That's -- no. They're going to 14 be doing the grading as they're doing this site. The 15 overlying. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And is it going to be the 17 same level or is it going to be some mitigation until it's 18 that level? 19 MR. SCHLUETER: It's -- it's actually the rough 20 grading of the site. The pads will pretty much be where 21 they're going to be. They have applied to FEMk for a 22 letter of map amendment for their building sites. 23 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very 24 much. 25 MR. TORGERSON: Why don't I catch you there so I 113 1 there on Lincoln and Lemay is a quarter of mile from this 2 project boundary line? 3 MS. REAVIS: For example, connecting into the -- 4 Buckingham Street, for example, in the neighborhoods 5 there, as well as the homes on Lemay, was over a quarter 6 of .a mile from the edge of the Wal-Mart property. Again, 7 we couldn't measure from the edge of Lincoln and 8 Lemay. We needed to measure from the edge of this 9 development. And it was just a hair over a quarter of a 10 mile. This is one of those examples that's proposed -- or 11 brought about some of the questions and potential changes 12 to the .pedestrian level of service criteria. It's just a 13 hair beyond, but we wouldn't have been able to require it. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Glen, I have one for you, sir, 15 please. Thank you. Chris Rickard brought up a discussion 16 item, the neighborhood -- the natural features, 2.3, about 17 the amount of fill coming and how it applies to the 18 process. Would you be able to address that in Phase 1 and 19 how it applies and what issues or what safeguards we have? 20 So it won't be an issue in Lot Number 2? The topography 21 considerations, would that be yours? 22 MR. SCHLUETER: I'm wondering if it isn't more 23 Ted's area. 24 MR. GAVALDON: Oh, I'm sorry. 25 MR. SCHLUETER: As far as the fill they're i i 112 i 1 side. So it's the same criteria that we would have to 2 i live up to. i t 3 In some cases where the improvements might be x 4 temporary until, say, full -street improvements are made, 5 then in those cases we may do something a little 6 different. And we have had that happen at some locations 7 where we know we need to build some improvements for 8 pedestrian facilities. But the only -- they have a short 9 life because eventually the full -street improvements would 10 go in to provide the detached sidewalks and that sort of 11 thing. So in some cases we have had to do something a 12 little different in our design. But generally speaking we 13 designed them to live up to our own standards. 14 MS. CRAIG: In this particular project, if it had 15 come in under the land use code, what other improvements 16 that the City is making would you have requested of the 17 developer? 18 MS. REAVIS: The pedestrian improvements that 19 we're talking about here on the -- on Lemay and on 20 Lincoln, we -- under the current land use code, with the 21 way the pedestrian level of service is written, we still 22 would not have been able to require these because they 23 were beyond a quarter -mile distance to specify in the 24 level of service manual. 25 MS. CRAIG: So north of Lincoln, that empty lot ill 1 sidewalk goes. Are you going to go from the empty lot up 2 into where San Cristo and the other housing is up there in 3 Andersonville? 4 MS. REAVIS: Again, we don't have the detailed 5 plan identified for that. But with the transit stop at 6 the corner of Lincoln and Lemay, that would be a priority 7 route. I mean, how do we get people from -- that live in 8 those neighborhoods to the transit spot at Lemay and 9 Lincoln? That. is one of the important destinations. So 10 it would be addressing the sidewalk connectivity along 11 Lincoln -- or along Lemay. Excuse me. 12 MS. CRAIG: Now when we talk about off -site 13 improvements and we talk about the pedestrian plan that 14 you've put together and what you've looked at and what you 15 had the study done to show what is needed, as far as 16 pedestrian access to regional shopping centers, or any 17 shopping centers as a matter of fact, you went into levels 18 of service and you went into sidewalks on both sides and 19 some of that. When you get done with this, would this -- 20 will this reach the targeted level of service that you 21 require of developers that come through the land use code? 22 MS. REAVIS: That's our intent. I mean we -- we 23 try to hold ourselves to the same criteria that we hold 24 the development community to. The level of service 25 criteria applies to the City as well as to the private 110 1 project. It's just part of our pedestrian plan projects 2 that we have on our list. 3 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. And the second question 4 is, I know you're working on the design of the pedestrian 5 access to the bridge that's proposed as a part of this 6 project. And Mr. Goldberg has offered to kick in funding 7 for that. Would that bridge happen independent of this 8 project, or is that contingent on this project? 9 MS. REAVIS: Well, it would depend. I mean, 10 they're kicking in a portion of the funds on the project. 11 If we didn't have that funding, I don't know that we would 12 have enough funds with just the grant funding we have to 13 complete the projects. We would have to look at that. 14 But we are planning to -- we're still in the 15 process of working on the design for the pedestrian 16 connection along there and the bridge design. We're 17 planning to have that completed by March. So I think if 18 we were to operate under the circumstances without the 19 funding from this project, we just have to look at, do we 20 have enough to do it at this time without that or how much 21 can we do at this point in time? 22 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. 23 MS. CRAIG: Kathleen? Kathleen, while you're up 24- there, I wanted a better understanding of what you're 25 going to do on Lemay, north of Lincoln, as far as the 1 what sequence. But I can tell you that the area -wide 2 improvements should be done within, I would say, 2002 at 3 the latest. So definitely started in 2001. 4 MR. COLTON: Okay. I appreciate your work on 5 that. And if I'm seeming a little defensive, it's because 6 this is one of the major issues that I had at preliminary 7 that I don't think was addressed. And it sounds like 8 maybe some of that pushing got some results. But I don't 9 feel like it met City policies on requiring that all modes 10 that -- I'll read it all later -- that it be safe for all 11 modes traveling to a project like this. And I couldn't 12 see how we're going to have, according to her estimates, 13 you know, multiples of people walking to this -- on wide 14 shoulders or dirt shoulders, as I can see tonight. So you 15 know, T don't think I'm crazy in asking these things. I'm 16 trying to do it for the benefit of the people. And I 17 don't think it met City policy the way it was described a 18 year ago. So. 19 Other questions? 20 MR. TORGERSON: Kathleen, I just had a couple 21 follow-up questions. With the schedule that you just 22 described, is that independent of this project? Would all 23 of that occur independent of this project, or would it be 24 affected one way or the other? 25 MS. REAVIS: No. It's independent of this 108 1 neighborhood to the transit spots. That's our first level 2 of work. And we'll see how -- funding -wise how much that 3 takes us and be able to try to accomplish that as quickly 4 as we can. And then we'll concentrate on the pedestrian 5 connections within the neighborhoods. 6 So at this point in time I don't have it in 7 detailed design plans and a schedule laid out. But that's 8 our intent as far as how to tackle the issues in that 9 areas. So I can't.guarantee that every street would be 10 done all at once, but we will work away at them, again, 11 targeting the transit accessability first. 12 MR. COLTON: Okay. But what I heard you say is 13 that it's high on the list? You're going to get the 14 majority of it done probably in 101? 15 MS. REAVIS: That would be my hope, is -- when we 16 try to go in and do a whole area at a time, it's just 17 without all of the final cost estimates on the project. 18 It's hard to say if we have enough -- we only get a 19 certain amount each year in the fund. And what we found 20 in some of the areas, we have to go in and do half of the 21 project one year and then wait for the remainder of the 22 funding and then do -- you know, finish out the second 23 part. 24 So without that detailed information, I can't 25 tell you exactly what street would be done, you know, in 107 1 prioritized system. And I went back through that list and 2 look at where -- we had identified this area as a need 3 originally when we were -- we were developing the list. 4 And I went back to check, where did it fall out in the 5 list priority -wise. And based on the annual amount of 6 funding we get each year, where did I anticipate that 7 falling out. And it should -- based on everything I know 8 today and the current projects that are on the list, it 9 should be able to be funded over the next -= probably in 10 2001. 11 Given the extent of the work that needs to be 12 done there, we may not be able to complete all of it in 13 one year. It may take a couple of years for funding. But 14 there is funding identified, and it is at the top -- close 15 to the top of the list. So I'm confident that we'll be 16 able to get to it in a shorter amount of time than I was 17 able to say a year ago. We did get to a lot of the 18 projects on our list in 1999. So things moved up quite a 19 bit, so. 20 MR. COLTON: Okay. So you anticipate all these, 21 the west on Lincoln from Lemay, the east to Buffalo Run 22 over to like Link Lane and north on Lemay to be completed 23 in 2002? 24 MS. REAVIS: What we're going to do is start with 25 the emphasis on pedestrian connections from the 106 1 putting it over the top. 2 MR. COLTON: Okay. And I appreciate that. And I 3 guess we'll have some comments on -- at the end towards 4 relying on future undefined funding of projects for 5 bringing the levels of service up. 6 Kathleen, you still there somewhere? Okay. 7 Kathleen Reavis -- Reavis. This is another one where I 8 was actually pleasantly surprised tonight, I guess, on the 9 sidewalks to Lincoln, west on Lincoln, east on Lincoln, 10 and north on Lemay. Again, I just want to let people 11 know, this is the first time I've heard -- tonight was the 12 first time I've heard that we had dedicated funding or a 13 source of funding for sidewalks to the neighborhoods that 14 are impacted who are actually giving us a bunch of hard 15 time tonight for actually pushing on this issue, holding 16 up the process. But I think -- this is the first time I 17 ever saw a dedicated source of funding. 18 Again, a year ago was when, "We realize it's a 19 problem. We hope to get some funding. Trust us." And I 20 want to get -- that's my impression. I guess, I get -- I 21 want to hear from you, what has happened? 22 MS. REAVIS: Basically when you raised the issue 23 on Friday, I went back -- we have a list of prioritized 24 projects for the annual pedestrian plan funds. And again, 25 it's projects that are community -wide, and they're in a 105 1 evidence, I think, that showed that it was not going to be 2 able to meet the level of service at Lemay and Vine in the 3 short-range future. Now Eric is saying it's 2010. And I 4 appreciate that. But why so late? 5 So I guess that's all I want to say about that 6 one. And maybe we can move on to other questions. Eric, 7 would you like to respond to that? 8 MR. BRACKE: If you take a look at that -- that 9 statement, it's at -- it was going to the immediate impact 10 with this project at full development. Okay? It was 11 still bringing it up to a level of Service D under the old 12 signal phasing. Okay? we change signal timings all the 13 time. I mean, it's a constant effort. It was still 14 within the level of service guidelines. 15 In terms of the long-term future, we were looking 16 at what the master street plan improvements were -- were 17 saying. That intersection wasn't going to exist sometime 18 in the future. With the realignment, the actual 19 intersection of Lemay and Vine was going to be 20 significantly north of there, and it will be gone. 21 And so that's where we were coming from on 22 this. And the immediate impact of this project was being 23 mitigated -- or could be handled by that system. Just 24 there's other developments going on that are impacting 25 this intersection, also. It wasn't this one that was 104 1 something I asked the questions, and I think it was going 2 to turn unacceptable in 2004 or 2005. I can't even 3 remember now. It's too late. Didn't read the minutes. 4 So we had a lot of late information, 5 contradictory information. Even this time we got the 6 packet from the client -- or the applicant, his traffic 7 engineer, which showed Lemay and Vine at a level of 8 Service F in 2004 with.or without the traffic from this 9 project. And so I called up Eric and said, "How can we 10 allow this project to continue?" And then like on Monday 11 or Tuesday he went through and ran calculations, I think, 12 which show -now it's going to be acceptable to 2010. 13 So I guess I want to pass on to people, here's 14 the sort of information that I've kind of had. And you 15 kind of wonder why we're confused or make some of the 16 decisions we've had. We have had a lot of conflicting 17 information on that intersection. And I just want to 18 make -- I think Eric's done a lot of good work on a lot of 19 these intersections,.the roundabout. He's done a lot of 20 good work, and I appreciate the work he did on Monday. 21 But it's very confusing and, I guess, contradictory to us 22 when we're trying to make a decision up here. 23 And we do have criteria that says, "Can the level 24 of service desired by the City be met with the traffic 25 from this project today and into the future?" And I had 103 1 MR. BRACKE: Budget. And I didn't have the money 2 for it until this year. I had a lot of projects going on 3 this year. And when we decided to do this, we need to buy 4 some equipment, some signal heads. We're in the process 5 of timing every signal in the community. And first thing 6 in this year, we bought the equipment. 7 MS. CRAIG: So what is the cost to fix this? 8 MR. BRACKE: It's going to be several thousand 9 dollars. And that's just the equipment, plus the time. 10 MS. CRAIG: Thank you. 11 MR. COLTON: I just wanted to follow-up on the 12 Lemay/Vine thing because that's been a primary concern of 13 mine over time. And here's kind of the events I've seen. 14 Last year when we had the preliminary, we were 15 told, first of all, that we couldn't have an analysis of 16 that because it was beyond a half mile, which I kind of 17 question why we never went beyond that because in the LDGS 18 it says, "Traffic transportation impact analysis may vary 19 depending upon the complexity of the project." But we 20 finally did get an analysis kind of at -- towards the last 21 minute for the hearing. But I think all it showed was 22 2000 -- a 5-year and a 20-year plan. 23 So at the hearing, and the 2000 the short-term 24 plan showed it still acceptable. The long-term, it showed 25 unacceptable. And I think at maybe 1:00 in the morning or 102 1 past the short term. It would be -- this is assuming. 2 And I still included all the growth and all the projects 3. that are improved -- approved out there and everything 4 else that's proposed, including the Mountain Vista plan, 5 that we can maintain that level of service out there at 6 the geometry for a while. 7 MR. GAVALDON: So we can maintain B through -- 8 past 2004 then? 9 MR. BRACKE: Still be -- 2004, I think it's a 10 level of Service C. C, D, with this project, B without 11 it. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So it would be C with the 13 project and B without it, 2004, so -- 14 MR. BRACKE: And that includes if this project 15 was built today and all the traffic started, it would 16 still be a B. It would be a very high B almost into the C 17 range, but it would still be a B. And as all the other 18 growth occurs, that starts pushing it up. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Glen, those are all the 20 questions I have for now. Eric, thank you very much. 21 MS. CRAIG: Eric, since it's fresh on your mind, 22 I wondered from way back when you gave this earlier this 23 evening, why did you wait until next week to improve this 24 intersection since we've known for over a year that it's 25 obviously a very sore point with people in this area? 101 1 proposing, yes. 2 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Eric, can we move to Lemay 3 and Vine. There was data shared that in 2004 it shows as 4 an F level service? And can you expand with your 5 improvement recommendations that you have in place or 6 coming in place? 7 MR. BRACKE: Hopefully by next week we will have 8 changed the signal phasing on that -- that intersection. 9 Right now it's what's called a two-phase signal. That 10 means you have the north/south movement and an east/west 11 movement. I'm going to make it a split -phase movement 12 which means that all north traffic will go including the 13 left turn, clear that out, changing the cycle length, too, 14 and also bringing it down. Then all southbound traffic 15 will move, the rights, the throughs, the lefts. Okay? 16 Right now because of the geometry, one left turn 17 can hold up quite a bit of cars, a great number of cars. 18 This will help clear those out. We can bring that 19 intersection down to Level B today with or without this 20 project. 21 Using that as the base, optimizing it, and 22 looking at all different kinds of cycle lengths, I was 23 able to -- at Glen's request, when I started looking at 24 all these different years, I can keep that level of 25 service, you know, fairly reasonable into a little further 100 1 that actually backs up into the through movement. And we 2 have looked at this. And we know that that intersection 3 even with these improvements is -- sometime before 2010 is 4 going to fail. Okay? That's why we looked at the 5 roundabout option. 6 And we know that the master street plan calls for 7 it to be a -- Mulberry to be a six -lane arterial. If we 8 did the six -lane arterial sometime in the future similar 9 to all the developments along Harmony Road, we know that 10 Harmony Road, for example, is going to be a six -lane 11 arterial from College east to the interstate. We know 12 that's going to happen. We know that's going to happen 13 with Mulberry if we don't do something different. And 14 that's why we were looking at the roundabout. But it does 15 meet the level of service standards in my opinion. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Very good. Can we move to 17 Lemay and Lincoln? Do we have all the right-of-way 18 established for making those improvements as it calls for 19 in our plans? 20 MS. REAVIS: The right-of-way either exists or we 21 have received documents dedicating the right-of-way if 22 necessary for the improvements. 23 MR. GAVALDON: So we have everything in place, 24 all four intersections -- 25 MS. REAVIS: For the improvements they're 1 study and the study we were doing on the modern -- and the 2 study we were doing on the modern roundabout. 3 We looked at the Mulberry and Lemay intersection 4 under a lot of different scenarios and different timing 5 plans. And they're showing that the Mulberry/Lemay 6 intersection would go to a level of Service C. We used a 7 different timing scheme with some other issues, and we 8 showed a level of Service E by the year 2004. It's not 9 that far off. It's just different timing. But it still 10 is acceptable in the short term, in terms of the immediate 11 impacts. 12 If that four -lane improvement would be -- let me 13 back -- take a couple of steps.back. The issue with that 14 intersection now is poor geometry. Okay?_ You have one 15 lane northbound at the intersection. It needs to be two. 16 If you look at Nancy York's picture and you see the 17 pictures of the northbound traffic, there's a right -turn 18 lane with one vehicle in it and everybody else is merged 19 over into one lane. This project with the four -lane 20 improvement would create those extra -- the extra through 21 lane which helps mitigate that. 22 Also, there's incorrect geometry. It needs a 23 double left. It's needed a double left -- westbound 24 double left for a long time. And traffic, actually, 25 because there's so many westbound left turning vehicles, 98 4 1 certificates of occupancy. 2 Before we do that, we'd like to sit down and have 3 a full discussion with the applicant that that's pending 4 to let them know the seriousness of that. And we haven't 5 had that discussion yet, but it's certainly available to 6 us as it is on any project. We're confident that our 7 procedures are in place and we'll get the connection. 8 MR. GAVALDON: So there's no need to put anything 9 on this project since it was part of the ODP process that 10 was approved originally? it MR. SHEPARD: That's correct. This project is 12 carrying the burden by building to their north property 13 line. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very much for the 15 update. I just wanted to bring that out and also note 16 that we have a process in place for that. Great. 17 Eric, can you please help us on this -- help me 18 on -- I'd like to get some more clarity on Nancy York's 19 concerns and her numbers that were brought up just for the 20 record so that way everyone can hear what numbers we're 21 working with and how her numbers tie or don't tie into the 22 process. 23 MR. BRACKE: Okay. There were two studies that 24 were going on. Actually three studies, including the 25 access management plan along that corridor. But this 97 A) a 0 A -IC D a Al S 1 finished, we need to offer the applicant one last 2 *surrebutter to this presentation we've had here. 3 MR. COLTON: Okay. If we can keep it brief, 4 please. 5 MR. GOLDBERG: Mark Goldberg, for the record. We 6 have no further statements to make. 7 MR. COLTON: Thank you. Okay. So we're going to 8 bring it back to the Board now for questions. And, Jerry, 9 you were starting out I think. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. 11 MR. COLTON: We could break this down to -- well, 12 I don't know. Let's start. We probably have some traffic 13 questions and others. Go ahead. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Well, I'll try to keep mine 15 focused, too, and won't have speakers coming up and down. 16 Ted, can you please help me on the Buffalo Run issue with 17 the cross -- the connection to the Wal-Mart project there? 18 There was a discussion at work session. Is there an 19 update on that, sir? 20 MR. SHEPARD: Yes. The update is that the 21 Buffalo Run approved plans called for a sidewalk 22 connection to the -- their south property line, which is 23 the Wal-Mart north property line. If they fail to 24 construct that, we have a standard operating procedure for 25 enforcing that improvement, and that is the withholding of .cam /, o-r J GIXAE4� r— AL 96 1 this code and then asking -- you know, using a few 2 slogans, such as, "have met all the conditions," when 3 we've raised some conditions that haven't been met in our .4 view. 5 We all want to do the right thing here. And I 6 think the important thing is -- is that we look at how 7 it's going to affect the future and the people who live in 8 the northeast, the east, the downtown area. And there's 9 no question that the traffic impacts are major and are 10 going to be a -- a -- it's going to be a serious blockage 11 in that area. And that's the basis I wish you would deny 12 it. 13 The railroad track issue has been covered by this 14 gentleman. And it's true. The cars don't back up into 15 College Avenue when the train -- when the trains come 16 by. In this area there's three train tracks. And they do 17 back up into those intersections. And I think that 18 traffic engineering is going to have a heck of a problem 19 trying to mitigate those. And I would like to know 20 exactly what the development proposes -- a way to mitigate 21 it. Thanks. 22 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. 23 MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman, if there's no further 24 input from the public, we're very close to Board 25 deliberation. I do think we need to -- if the public is 95 1 approved -- approving with six conditions previously 2 recommended by City staff, the Preliminary PUD for a 3 community regional shopping center project in north Fort 4 Collins which includes a proposed Wal-Mart store, is not 5 the only thing there. There's other than this as well. 6 Known as the Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Preliminary 7 PUD which ordinance would also overturn and reverse 8 previous decisions of the City's Planning and Zoning Board 9 and City Council denying the project and make a finding 10 that the project complies with all relevant provisions of 11 the Code and Charter of the City. 12 Then I'm quoted correctly as saying that I 13 question how the average citizen was familiar enough with 14 the City's Codes and Charter to determine the project was 15 in compliance. That was my question and remains today. 16 Thanks. 17 MS. YORK: 'I'm Nancy York. And really they've 18 covered -- really pretty well covered the points. I do' 19 want to point out that -- that Wal-Mart and Mr. Goldberg 20 alone funded this -- the vote, that is, the spending to 21 influence the vote. And that was -- that was $114,000, 22 while the opponents raised on the order of $3,500. And in 23 no mean -- the idea of buying the vote is really the 24 influence of advertisement. We do know, and you know 25 better than maybe any of us, that the complications of NE 1 spent -- and it's not Mark Goldberg's money, it's 2 Wal-Mart's that behind this. And this attorney was 3 twisting the facts. 4 The election also was not representative of the 5 people who are going to be affected in a large way by the 6 traffic on this -- in this box. Thank you. 7 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 8 MS. KILKELLY: I'm Kathleen Kilkelly again. And 9 I would just like to respond that 16,000 voters is 10 scarcely a majority mandate in a City with over 100,000 it people. Particularly not being inclusive of many, many 12 county people directly impacted by this. What possibly 13 should have been done in hindsight was to declare a 14 special election district. And those people who would 15 have been most directly affected then would have been able 16 to contribute to their vote on whether or not this was 17 suitable for their part of town, their neighborhood, and 18 their community. 19 MR. CARNES: Yeah. My name is Gary Carnes, and 20 I've been quoted and misquoted several times. 21, I've been a citizen of Fort Collins for the last 22 20 years. And contrary to rumor, I don't plan to move to 23 Boulder. I was -- I was interviewed about a week ago, and 24 I just insisted that the ballot language be printed in the 25 paper. The ballot language was simply that an ordinance f (/X /LE Q v 7- Tfi'L 93 1 MR. COLTON: She probably took six to eight 2 minutes. Raise your hand, again. I see three or four 3 hands. I'll give up to two minutes to each of you. Okay? 4 So why don't you come forward. 5 MR. HALVORSON: I'm not an attorney. An attorney 6 is very clever at words. 7 MR. SHEPARD: Sir, could you give your name again 8 for the record. 9 MR. HALVORSON: Curtis Halvorson, 1824 Cannes 10 Court, northeast Colorado. 11 Just a couple of points that Lawyer Liley made 12 about railroads in the downtown. There's no comparison 13 between the traffic web that's available downtown compared 14 to what we have available at Mulberry and Lemay. 15 Absolutely no comparison. There are many routes to go if 16 the train comes through downtown. 17 On shopping, we have recently gotten a very nice 18 shopping center up on the northeast part of town on 19 College where Albertson's provides all the services that I 20 could think of that -- anything that a shopping grocery 21 store could provide at this big box. 22 As far as the election being bought, I was the 23 one that made some statements that could have been 24 interpreted as an election being bought. I was speaking 25 figuratively. But for the amount of money that Wal-Mart G,vD O'T ��iQv�%G 92 1 And as people -- well, as citizens who live in this City, 2 who pay taxes, who voted in good faith, and who voted 3 their conscience, I would be offended by that kind of 4 comment. And I would turn to Kelly Olson, whether you 5 agree or disagree with him, he is an astute political 6 observer. He has observed, on many occasions after 7 elections where a lot of money was spent, that money 8 rarely determines any issue in the City of Fort Collins 9 because the electors can't be bought in this City. 10 Thank you for your time. We urge your approval it of this project because it has met each and every 12 requirement of the City. Thank you. 13 MR. COLTON: Paul, you're looking at me like you 14 have something to say. 15 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think according to the 16 procedures which the Board apparently approved in 1997, 17 then there's an opportunity for public surrebuttal focused 18 only on the issues that were raised in the rebuttal. 19 MR. COLTON: I'm not sure how to do that. 20 MR. ECKMAN: Hopefully there wouldn't be a 21 massive undertaking to accomplish that. 22 MR. COLTON: Okay. Is there anyone who would 23 like to have a rebuttal back to what Ms. Liley just said? 24 If there's one or two people that have a -- 25 MR. ECKMAN: Again, it would have to be limited. 91 1 with the legal issues and the election. I think this is 2 not the time or place to get into a legal argument. It is 3 now 10 or 11 months since the initiative was filed. And 4 one would think if there were objections, they would long 5 since have been made and objections brought. We haven't 6 seen that. But if it comes, we are confident, having done 7 the research, having looked at the cases, it would 8 withstand constitutional scrutiny. And if it does come, 9 we will argue it in the proper forum. 10 I'm curious, too, who talk about the election 11 being bought. And I want to make one brief comment about 12 that. Aside from the fact that that is a somewhat 13 inappropriate comment to make in a hearing of this sort, 14 think about what those people are saying when they say 15 that. It is actually a very elitist and an almost 16 sneering disregard for the citizens of this City. First 17 the spokesperson says that the average citizen voting 18 can't understand the issues. You can vote for President 19 and Governor and on constitutional amendments, financial 20 initiatives, but you can't vote on a land use issue. And 21 now the election is bought. The citizens should make no 22 mistake who's really being targeted by that comment. Not 23 Mark Goldberg, not Wal-Mart, but every citizen, 16,000 24 plus of them who voted for it is being told that they have 25 no political integrity, that their vote is up for sale. i 1 adoption of the big -box regulations said, "There is no 2 size limitation. Instead, we will deal with this through 3 a combination of multiple entrances, parking orientation, 4 architectural features." That's the way we're going to 5 deal with the size issue. 6 What about the size of the site then? Is it too 7 small? Is that the problem? Let's look again. We 8 provided a couple of charts and I think they're up there 9 now just to show you so we don't have a double standard 10 here. These are the only two other projects, shopping 11 centers approved under the LDGS and under the big -box 12 standards. And you will note that in every category this 13 project is better, including better than the recently 14 constructed Harmony Town Center. 15 If you look at parking, we have less parking than 16 required -- than allowed, I should say, by either the LDGS 17 or the land use code. It averages 4.95 per thousand. 18 Also, if you look at' the categories, it has less 19 building coverage. It has less parking and less driveway 20 pavements. And it has more open space and 21 landscaping. So again, if you use the same standards and 22 if you apply them fairly, this project is better than the 23 other projects that have been approved by this Board and 24 this City. 25 And the final comment that I would make has to do 89 1 And if you use the analysis suggested by some, 2 there is no large commercial project that could meet that 3 test. Every intersection in the City of Fort Collins 4 would eventually fail. 5 It is not Wal-Mart traffic which causes the 6 intersections to fail. It"is the growth that comes in the 7 north without improvements being made. And that's why in 8 the long-range future you are always entitled to consider 9 both the growth and the improvement. But it's not 10 Wal-Mart which makes the intersections fail. 11 Railroad. I just want to make one quick point 12 about the railroad. It is the very same railroad that 13 travels along Vine and curves and heads down the Mason 14 corridor and travels and blocks the entire west part of 15 Fort Collins. And the difference there is, that there is 16 no outlet. The entire western part of the City is blocked 17 when the railroad, that very same railroad, goes by. That 18 has never been used as any test to deny any project. In 19 fact, the City routinely approves commercial projects all 20 along the South College corridor, which are routinely 21 blocked by the very same railroad we're talking about 22 tonight. 23 Parking and the shopping center. Just one minute 24 because we always hear this issue about the size and it's 25 too big. But the citizen committee that recommended the 88 1 improvements and that they had a responsibility to put 2 capital improvement dollars and that was the only way that 3 they were ever going to get development joining hands with 4 the City in making those improvements to come to the north 5 to balance the growth to the south. 6 Read the policies. Look at policy 39, 40, 41. 7 The northeast is specifically designated as a desired 8 direction of growth. "The City should promote, improve 9 traffic, ped circulation, and transit." And it talks 10 about the City obligation in that. So I think when we use 11 these policies, understand the context in which those 12 policies were adopted and promoted by the City. 13 Nancy York made some comments about the Mulberry 14 and Lemay intersection. And I would urge the Board 15 members to ask Eric Bracke to address those. She dealt 16 with other traffic numbers and figures which are not in 17 our traffic study and not before you. I would simply make 18 this kind of comment. This traffic study complies with 19 every requirement of the LDGS. It meets every level of 20 service test as it has consistently been applied in the 20 21 years in which the LDGS was in effect.. And if you treat 22 this project the way you treat every other project, 23 including the Harmony Town Center, just approved as a 24 big -box LDGS project, you will use exactly the same 25 analysis.. 46F3 v T'T)l L 87 1 don't know if the applicant desires to. 2 MR. COLTON: Okay. We want to.keep this real 3 short. 4 MS. LILEY: I would be happy to keep this real 5 short, Mr. Colton. Just a couple of comments to 6 clarify. And I think it is important because there were 7 some new issues brought up and this is the only 8 opportunity that we may get to deal with them. 9 A lot has been said, and I envision a lot more 10 will be said about the goals and objectives and the land 11 use policies and the use of those to deny the project. I 12 want to remind you, look at the goals and 13 objectives. Look at the land use policy. You can't read 14 them in a vacuum. 15 You will find that this City for a period of 16 about 20 years has encouraged exactly this kind, of growth 17 to the north and the northeast of Fort Collins. And every 18 single policy practically in the goals and objectives in 19 the land use policy planned for this area will tell you 20 that. In fact, it goes so far as to say it encourages a 21 shopping center with a supermarket in the northeast. And 22 it directs growth. And I'm reading now from the land use 23 policies, "To the desired areas with City incentives 24 regarding fees and streets." Because the City recognized 25 that this is an area totally deficient in capital END Q F G c i 1 ZE^J ---,P/tN/0go,*T 86 1 don't wait for the taxpayers to -- for the City to come up 2 with the money to improve the infrastructure and then 3 development happens. It just doesn't happen that way. 4 If Mr. Goldberg can't go through -- it's been 5 five years tied up. You know, a lot of this capital is 6 tied up for five years going through this process. If he 7 can't do it, do you think a small business person is going 8 to do it? No. I don't like the way I see the City going. 9 The only people that are going to do it, they are 10 going to be developers, and add to the growth of the City 11 are going to be the big-time people. Small business 12 owners are not going to put up with this crap. 13 It's not a popularity contest. You have a job to. 14 do. You need to make sure that all the I's are dotted and F 15 the T's are crossed and all the plans are followed right. 16 Whether you like Wal-Mart or not is not the issue. If Mr. 17 Goldberg has met the requirements, he needs approval. And 18 the City wants it. Thanks. 19 MR. COLTON: Thank you. All right. I don't see 20 anyone else. Don't see anyone else. So we're going to 21 cut off public input now and bring it back to the Board 22 for questions. We don't need a rebuttal or anything, do 23 we? There wasn't even a -- 24 MR. ECKMAN: I don't see any request for 25 any. Our plan -- our procedures call for rebuttal. I 85 1 have the means of transportation to get to the southbound 2 end of town. So, yes, for some people, for a lot of 3 people on the north end of town, this will be a 4 salvation. Thank you. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. Okay. I don't see 6 any -- boy. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Slide one in here real quick. I 8 just want to voice my opinion in support of this 9 project. I own a business on Mulberry. I think Mr. 10 Goldberg has done a tremendous job with his group in 11 putting this together. And, you know, a lot of these 12 issues as people are bring up, it's going to lighten 13 traffic as far as the south end or increase or decrease, I 14 mean, it's all counterproductive there. You people are 15 appointed. You are not voted. The people in the City 16 Council that have voted against this thing, quite a few 17 are not there anymore because the people who voted them in 18 didn't get what they wanted. Give us what we want. We 19 want it. Bob Johnson. 20 MR..AGNEW: Hi. My name is Andrea Agnew. I have 21 a business at 808 South Lemay. 22 It takes a lot to get a project through the 23 City. There's a lot of work that's involved. And 24 developers are the ones that really do the work. I mean, 25 they -- they're the ones that put the streets in. We 84 1 And I've driven this intersection and I already 2 know how congested it is. And suddenly what I don't see 3 in your planning is the increased -- the promised increase 4 of pedestrian, bicycle traffic crossing this road in the 5 midst of this traffic, hurtling across the road to buy 6 their TV sets and so forth to pack on their bikes back 7 home. 8 And I think -- I just want to say, better figure 9 all that wonderful pedestrian traffic in there. And thank 10 goodness there are emergency facilities near by because 11 you're going to need them. Thank you. 12 MS. WHITE: I just had a question since I didn't 13 use all my time. Can I make one last comment? Can I 14 readdress one comment I forgot to make. 15 MR. COLTON: As long as I don't see anyone 16 else -- 17 MS. WHITE: Is that legal? 18 MR. COLTON: Real quick. 19 MS. WHITE: Okay. I just wanted to make the 20 point that I've heard so many people now saying, who's 21 going to go shopping on their bike, who's going to -- you 22 know, who's going to want to go buy a TV on their bike? 23 We seem to be forgetting that not all of us are fortunate 24 enough to have a vehicle. There are people that live in 25 that area, many a people who live in that area that don't 83 1 neighborhood, and the Fort Collins High neighborhood were 2 all opposed to this development because they know that 3 it's going to impact them very adversely with the traffic 4 and the safety issues that have been previously 5 mentioned. 6 So you need to keep that in perspective. This is 7 your job. You're representing all of us in making this 8 decision. And that is why I'm here. So thank you very 9 much. 10 MR. COLTON: Thank you. All right. There's no 11 one at the microphone. So if you want to get your 12 comments in, you better stand up now and start working 13 your way down or I'm going to say going, going, gone here 14 in a minute. So anyone else? I see one coming down. 15 Come on. I know this is hard to do, but if you want to do 16 it, now's the time because I'm going to close it here in a 17 minute. 18 MR. HERMANN: I'll be quick. I'm trying to talk 19 through a vail of laryngitis. I'm Eric Hermann. I live 20 on Whedbee Street just uphill from the project. I'm going 21 to bear with Mark Goldberg and Associates a little bit. 22 And I'm going to assume a happy gleeful horde of bicycle 23 traffic coming into this area to get their little -- their 24 tools and fix their bikes and then come across the 25 intersection into Wal-Mart. Lh 1 this development will generate. And if you don't even 2 know which kind of intersection you're going to be having 3 there, with the proposed current plan that you see here or 4 the possible roundabout or traffic circle, whatever it's 5 called, that's also being sent to the CDOT, how can you 6 know what the traffic is going to be and how it's going to 7 be handled for those areas? And I don't know how you can, 8 you know, make this decision without making some more 9 decisions on that intersection. It's going to be very 10 difficult for pedestrians and bikes to get to the Wal-Mart a 11 development. 12 But the other issue I wanted to bring up with 13 traffic is the argument that it was going to save traffic 14 going down south. It's not an issue. The growth down 15 south already is going to probably cancel out any 16 lessening of traffic that's down there anyway. And it has 17 nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is the local 18 neighborhood impacts that this side of town is going to 19 have to worry about because there's a lot more of the 20 established neighborhoods that are around here. And a lot 21 of those established neighborhoods have voted against by 22 the popular vote, which is an unbinding vote, but 23 nonetheless, it is a popularity contest that we're talking 24 about here. And the number of the Old Town neighborhoods, 25 the Eastside Park Neighborhood, my University Acres 81 1 once Wal-Mart comes, I'm sorry, I can't buy that. 2 Granted, yeah, there might be a few people, but I think 3 most people, everything is down there. Our theaters, our 4 eating. Everything is down at that end of. town. So to 5 say.Wal-Mart is going to be our saviour and we'll never 6 have to go south again, I just -- I don't buy into that 7 either. 8 And I think people need to realize, that is not 9 just going to be Wal-Mart. There's going to be -- as. 10 proposed in previous meetings, there's going to be a huge 11 multiscreen theater there. You look at what happens on 12 Horsetooth when those theaters let out. What happens? 13 And also, too, you're going to have like a big home 14 improvement store. Look at Home Depo trying to get in and 15 out of there. 16 I think we need to realize what's going on here, 17 and I hope you will not approve this. Thank you. 18 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 19 MS. OLSON: I'm Connie Olson. I reside at 1304 20 Green Street. And I just want to say that the previous 21 speaker had a lot of my same sentiments. And I just had a 22 few other things I'd like to add. 23 The main issue I still see is traffic and that 24 the infrastructure around this development is not going to 25 be able to handle the massive increase in traffic that 80 1 stopped in that. 2 Sometimes the trains are there 15, 20 minutes at 3 a time. I've seen traffic back all the way up to where 4 Wal-Mart is going to be in this big complex. I've.been 5 there. So I know what that's like, and it's frustrating. 6 I've seen people doing dangerous things because they get 7 stuck in traffic. Going the other direction in the lanes 8 that they shouldn't be and passing people. It's crazy. 9 I guess I have an issue with Wal-Mart in the fact 10 that with all this, never once did they even work with the 11 communities to say, "Hey, maybe we can just build 12 something a little bit smaller. We'd like to be there and 13 provide you with the services." But, gosh, let's at least 14 kind of compromise. They did that with Safeway off of 15 Harmony, and look, everybody bought into it. I think they 16 should be able to do that here. 17 Now we're talking about possibly putting in a 18 roundabout. Well, this wasn't an issue with Wal-Mart 19 before. They say, "This is not going to increase 20 traffic. You guys go by there anyway. No big deal." Now 21 all of a sudden we need a roundabout to take care of all 22 the traffic. 23 The train's already been mentioned. They're a 24 big issue. And I think, too, that people that say that 25 they'll never have to be to the south end of town again PE 1 there. 2 I'd also like to make a note that the people have 3 spoke by a vote. Please approve it. We voted yes. 4 That's what we want. Thank you. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 6 MS. COIL: Hi. My name is Janice Coil. And I 7 live on the north end of town. 8 I just want to start off by saying that I lived 9 in Fort Collins for about 20 years. Mostly I've lived on 10 the south side of town. And within the past probably year it and a half, my husband and I have decided to get out of 12 that part of town and move up to.the north because it was 13 just getting so congested and so built in that area, we 14 couldn't stand it. So we moved a little bit north. And 15 now it seems that the congestion and all the craziness is 16 going to follow us up into that part of town. And I don't 17 think that's a really good idea. 18 I guess the thing is, I don't have an issue with 19 having shopping available on the north side of town. What 20 I do have an issue with is the fact that we're building 21 such a huge project in that particular location which is 22 so busy to begin with. I, again, like a lot of people 23 here, travel that road every day. Especially like this 24 morning I was coming into work, I got stopped by a train. 25 It went back for, oh, gosh, probably half a mile. I got 78 1 features?" 2 For those of you who are contemplating final 3 approval of this project tonight, I would ask you 4 individually to answer how the addition of 200,000 cubic 5 yards of fill within the floodplain is consistent with 6 this component of the LDGS. Thank you. 7 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 8 MR. AUGUSTINE: Hi. My name is Ron Augustine. 9 I'm a business owner down at -- in the industrial park 10 downtown. My business is on Lincoln Avenue and Industrial 11 Drive. And as I'm speaking for my employees that I have 12 down there, we very much would like to see this thing pass 13 and support our needs in the area. The truck traffic that 14 we have down there right now is -- is definitely ongoing 15 as businesses start to grow and stuff. I don't think this 16 is going to be a matter with the truck traffic on Lincoln 17 Avenue. I travel Lincoln/Lemay everyday back and forth 18 doing business. 19 We do way too much business in the south side of 20 town back and forth, and I don't think that we need to be 21 doing our business down there. We need to be doing it 22 locally. And we also -- I'm also going to be soon to be a 23 north -side resident. And so my family and I already know 24 the impact of moving up there and what's going to happen. 25 But we feel like it's going to be an asset to us also up 77 1 reasonable people could develop regulations that would 2 permit bringing in million of cubic yards of soil to raise 3 a building site so that this project can meet guidelines. 4 How precipitous can humans become when trying to fool 5 mother nature without considering the disastrous calamity 6 that will result when challenging the nature flow of the 7 Poudre River at this site. And all due respects to our 8 City staff, I have little confidence in their analysis of 9 this problem. 10 If the findings and the collusion -- if the 11 findings of the City Council, an elected body, can be 12 overturned by a ballot initiative, such as has occurred in 13 this instance, why do we have a City Council? Why do we 14 have a Planning and Zoning Board, a City and Planning 15 Zoning staff? Or for that matter, any form of City 16 government? Just do it by ballot initiative. Thank you. 17 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 18 MR. RICKARD: Good evening. My name is Chris 19 Rickard. I live in Fort Collins. 20 I'd like to refer to Section A(2.3) in the LDGS 21 that talks about natural features. It says -- or it asks, 22 "Do the physical elements of the site plan adopt well to 23 the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the 24 disturbance of topology, water bodies, streams, wetlands, 25 wildlife habitats, vegetation, and other natural 76 1 denied by the City Council. They both disapproved this 2 project because they found it did not meet the City's Code 3 and Guidelines. 4 These folks can tell you as much as they want, 5 and they can spend $114,000 on advertising to the voters 6 that it meets the standards. But it clearly doesn't --. 7 didn't. Doesn't now. And that is what you all need to 8 decide. Thank you. 9 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 10 MR. TOWNSEND: Good evening. My name is Charlie 11 Townsend, and I have lived in Fort Collins for almost 45 12 years and have lived on Gregory Road the last 30 years. 13 This is an area that will be negatively impacted by this 14 development. 15 I have attended several neighborhood meetings, in 16 which the developer participated, as well as all Planning 17 and Zoning Board and City Council meetings which have 18 dealt with this project. 19 In today's Coloradoan there was a letter to the 20 editor which describes very well the characteristics of 21 the individuals seeking the approval of this irresponsible 22 and massive development and the motives of some of his 23. supporters. I have to say that I truly agree with the 24 opinion of the gentleman who wrote that letter. 25 It is difficult for me to visualize how 75 1 traffic at that location that is getting much, much 2 worse. It illustrates the City's concerns, and 3 particularly related to the two bridges on Mulberry and 4 Lemay and the narrowness of those bridges and the fact 5 that there will be insufficient stacking lanes for 6 traffic. I would guess with a roundabout or a standard 7 intersection because you have narrow bridges very close to 8 the intersection. 9 And the public safety issue is one of the key 10 criteria that you all have to look at as seated members of 11 the Planning and Zoning Board, is that cars stack up to 12 the south on Lemay to the west on Mulberry. They will 13 cross railroad tracks backing up. And that is a severe 14 question of public safety that you should consider. 15 The other -- the other issue that we brought up 16 tonight is the legal issue. Under the State Constitution 17 and the City Charter, the Planning and Zoning Board has 18 the responsibility to decide whether land use decisions 19 follow the City's Code and Guidelines. That is your 20 job. And these same regulations say that any appeals 21 should go to the Council for final decision. 22 The issue here tonight is not whether the popular 23 vote says that they want this project but that the Board 24 follows the rules and guidelines. And this project was 25 denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. It was also 74 1 that works, would ask that you vote for this project. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. JENNETT: Hi. I'm Gina Jennett, and I live 4 in Old Town. 5 And I guess, first I'd like to say that you all 6 are in a tough position. This is a controversial project 7 with quite a few complicated issues. And I know it won't 8 be easy. But I think the two things that I would like to 9 leave with you -- three things, are number one is, the 10. role of this body is to examine the plan and determine 11 whether it does or does not need to meet the City's 12 guidelines. That is your most important role here. 13 We heard very much about traffic, and I think 14 that it's disingenuous by the developers to say, "Well, 15 this Lot 1 will only produce two-thirds of the traffic, 16 and therefore, the whole thing is fine." Because if you 17 look at all the traffic, the surrounding intersections 18 will have major problems including a level of Service F at 19 Vine and Lemay. 20 I think that you need to also look at the issue 21 of what improvements will be made. We've heard recently 22 that the City's interested in doing a roundabout at 23 Mulberry and Lemay. And no matter what you feel about 24 that, whether it's a good or bad thing, I think it's a 25 major recognition that we have a very severe problem with 73 1 that area can be. We don't need a regional shopping 2 center attracting scores -- hundreds of thousands of 3 people on an annual basis in that particular area. Thank 4 you. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 6 MR. MOHAN: Thank you very much. My name is Jim 7 Mohan. I'm a resident of Fort Collins at 2405 Denby 8 Court. 9 I've come up to dismiss -- there's some concerns, 10 I guess, about the south store closing. I'm also the 11 district manager in charge of operations for Wal-Mart 12 stores in the north end of Colorado. We plan leaving the 13 south store open. That's a very good location for us. 14 One of the reasons that we're trying to get the 15 north store opened up is due to the small size of the 16 south store. We're just too tight down there. We need 17 the large store open to take some pressure off the 18 existing location. We will not close that location. We 19 need it. We feel it's very important to what we do with 20 our business here in town, and our customers on the south 21 side of town want to continue to shop that location. 22 A second reason not to lose that location, it 23 would just be incredibly hard to try to ever replace it 24 again. So we do want to leave that location there. 25 I would also just -- as a resident and somebody 72 1 down to Pueblo. The response of the two Canadian women 2 who lived in British Columbia was, "Ugh." So I'll just 3 leave that with you. 4 One thing that I do believe that is extremely 5 important with respect to this particular development 6 proposal is the imperative need to view the overall 7 cumulative impact that this proposal would put upon the 8 City, particularly the northern part of the City and more 9 particularly the northeastern part of the City. And 10 acknowledging the fact that the Mountain Vista area will 11 grow with the significant number of people. I believe the 12 number is something in the order of 35,000 people at 13 buildout based upon the Mountain Vista area plan. It is 14 clear that we will need and will certainly expect 15 continued availability of commercial services so those 16 35,000.plus or minus people that live in that area will 17 not have to drive down and fight the traffic in the 18 southern part of town where most of our larger commercial 19 services are. 20 However, I think the issue of this particular 21 development is simply, right idea in the wrong place. I 22 think there is a need for commercial services and there 23 will be. And there probably is a need in that particular 24 location. But this is a land use issue, not necessarily 25 how pretty the big box or any associated development in 71 1 looks good. Close to I-25, yes. Lemay and Mulberry and 2 Vine, no. Thank you. 3 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 4 MR. FREEDMAN: Excuse me. Thank you. My name is 5 Phil Freedman. I live at 201 South Grant. 6 I've lived in Fort Collins for 24 years and lived 7 in the downtown area for almost 19. I have relatively 8 small occasion to go down south, finding that most of my 9 needs are accommodated by the shopping in the north part 10 of town and in the midtown -- midpart of town. So I 11 failed to understand sometimes why we have a society and 12 as a community such a preoccupation with a need for 13 excessive amounts of shopping, but that's another story. 14 Let me give you just a quick event that occurred 15 a couple of days ago. I had the occasion to fly to Fort 16 Lauderdale. And as the plane was landing about 6:00 in 17 the evening, when the lights were just coming on, the 18 gentleman behind me that was from the area was talking to 19 two women behind -- next to him that were from Canada 20 coming down for a cruise. And he was extolling the value 21 of the south Florida area by saying that it's one giant 22 city all the way from Palm Beach to Homestead, Florida, 23 with the Atlantic Ocean and the Everglades forming the 24 east/west boundary. That's an area approximately the same 25 size as the Colorado Front Range from the Wyoming border 70 1 sure where this is coming from, or if we can't learn from 2 the people in Loveland. 3 Today's traffic, not tommorrow's traffic because 4 we're growing in the northeast. But in today's traffic I 5 don't go home anymore on Lemay from work. I work at CSU. 6 The last time I did this, I made a mistake. And on 7 Lincoln I was trying to turn left on Vine and I couldn't 8 and the cars were backed up -- stacked up to.the 9 railroad. And I was really uncomfortable because I was 10 trying to get out of that left -turn lane and I had no 11 place to go. Today's traffic can't handle what we've 12 got.. I'm not sure who is thinking about a regional 13 big -box shopping center there. 14 Lucia Liley told us at a meeting recently that 15 Lemay was perfect just like Harmony. Lemay is two 16 lanes. Harmony is four plus. I cannot -- I don't know 17 what -- what this is all about. 18 Now this bike trail. Have you gone grocery 19 shopping or to a discount store on a bicycle? You can't 20 carry the stuff home. This bike business must be 21 something to make us sound cute. But we've got -- the 22 basics are -- and you've already decided this once. I'm 23 not sure why we're here again. But a regional big -box 24 shopping center just does not fit into this little 25 space. There's nothing wrong with the architectural. It 69 1 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Delores Williams. I live at 2 1520 Hillside Drive. And I've lived in the northeast area 3 for about 34 years. 4 Some people have said that we in the north won't 5 travel south anymore if there is a Wal-Mart in our 6 neighborhood. Recently I've been to Home Depot, 7 Pedersen's Auto, Lifestyle Furniture. I don't -- I 8 haven't been to Wal-Mart in a couple of years. I haven't 9 found what I need there. 10 I do travel, when I need something like that, li Kmart and Stein Mart. So please don't think that the only 12 reason this should be built is to keep us out of the 13 south. It just doesn't compute. 14 Another item, the northeast residential growth 15 will overburden our meager roads as it is without any 16 regional shopping center. We've only got Vine and Lemay 17 for arterials. We have to make those really do a lot of 18 work for us while we grow to the northeast. I don't think 19 you've driven that way to recognize that and not paid 20 really good attention to what you're going to burden us 21 with in the northeast. 22 Regional, remember this is a regional big box. 23 Loveland had the sense to put the outlet mall on I-25. 24 When I go out to the outlet mall, I don't bother the 25 people in Loveland. I'm not on their streets. I'm not 68 1 planning, traffic, drainage, etc., and I firmly believe 2 that they would not give their approval on a project if 3 they weren't confident that they have met all these 4 standards. They want to be responsible for a successful 5 project, also. 6 As for the argument that the person of average 7 intelligence could not have understood the wording on the 8 ballot issue, I consider myself of average intelligence. 9 And having followed this issue for so long, I wasn't 10 bought, I wasn't bullied, I simply understood the issue 11 and I voted yes. 12 I've never been held up in traffic on Lemay as 13 far back as Lincoln as some people are proposing. And I 14 drive that road every day and that's without any 15 improvements that are proposed. 16 There's no factual evidence saying that the south 17 Wal-Mart will close. And, in fact, if you look at other 18 cities, the size of Fort Collins, you'll see that we can 19 support two Wal-Marts.. 20 . I think it's time to follow our trained 21 professionals, City staff, and let this project move 22 forward. Everyone seems to view themselves as an expert 23 on drainage, traffic, etc. But the City staff is trained 24 in these areas. And I hope you will follow their advice 25 and approve this issue. 67 1 be built there. 2 Mr. Goldberg has presented his plans. As a 3 resident of Fort Collins, I'm very proud of this 4 project. I'm proud of the things that have happened 5 because of the opposition. I think they've done a fine 6 job of making sure that every standard was met. The staff 7 has done a wonderful job in making sure that every 8 standard that we have in Fort Collins is met, and that 9 makes it such a fine place. By meeting all those 10 standards, this is a project that we can all be proud of. 11 And you should all be proud to vote for it. Thank you. 12 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 13 MS. WHITE: My name is Cheryl White. I live in 14 northeast Fort Collins. 15 And first I'd like to point out that even though 16 we've been subjected to violence of flushing, stomping, 17 stabbing, drowning, goring, composting along with the -- 18 along side of the hand of God sweeping away a well-known 19 symbol, let us remember this is a land use issue and not 20 whether or not we like a particular retailer or what 21 effect it's going to have on area businesses. 22 Over the past several years we have watched this 23 developer jump through the City's hoops to meet and exceed 24 the standards set before them. Our City staff consists of 25 professionals trained in the areas of development, 66 1 I quote, "To encourage development that contributes to 2 Fort Collins as a unique place by reflecting its physical 3 character and adding to it in appropriate ways." The idea 4 behind this was to reduce uniform appearance, reduce a 5 massive scale of big box, and expand the range of 6 activities that are possible at the site in harmony with 7 the identity, character, and scale of the community. 8 These standards go on to list various articles 9 against which this proposal must be evaluated. Because of 10 time limitations, I'm not able to discuss each one. So 11 I'll enter my own evaluation into the record. Needless to 12 say, I found deficiencies still exist. 13 One comment I would like to make in summary, 14 please see what it is. It's a big box standing alone. 15 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 16 MR. JOYCE:. Hi. I'm Steve Joyce. I reside at 17 1124 Cobblestone Court. I've lived in Fort Collins about 18 24 years now. And all of that time that I've been in Fort 19 Collins, I've owned property adjacent to the center at -- 20 my brother.and I own Supermarket Liquors. 21 Over the last five years we've received I don't 22 know how many cards, I think from you people or at least 23 from the City, advising us that this project was 24 eminent. From the very beginning when we bought the 25 property, we were told that a large shopping center would 65 1 development proposal appeared for preliminary approval, 2 the staff recommended approval with six conditions. 3 Well, it's been a long road, and we're here once 4 again. Staff are recommending approval again but without 5 any conditions. The reason for this is that staff believe 6 that five of the six conditions have been met. And the 7 one which remains no longer applies because it concerns 8 Lot 2. 9 I've been told that Phase 2 or what will happen 10 on Lot 2 is in process. But right now all we have to 11 evaluate is Phase 1, Lot 1. We have no guarantee that 12 Phase 2 will not be withdrawn. And in the words of Ms. 13 Liley, "Whether or not Lot 2 is ever approved." We cannot 14 consider what might or might not happen regarding Lot 2. 15 So we're here tonight to evaluate this, Lot 1 only. 16 This creates a rather interesting situation. You 17 see this plan for Lot 1. What is it you see? I'll tell 18 you what I see. I see a big box standing alone. Exactly 19 what the City of Fort Collins was seeking to avoid when it 20 adopted the standards and guidelines for large retail 21 establishments in 1995, which I'd like to enter into the 22 record. 23 The major purpose of these standards was to 24 prevent exactly what you see before you tonight. A big 25 box standing alone. The goal of the standards was -- and 64 1 like for us all to live in apartments crammed together and 2 walk and ride bikes, but we live in the West. We're 3 Westerners. We like our cars. We want our freedom. And 4 that's going to be hard to change. 5 I want to commend you for the work that you 6 do: This is a great city. Let's not forget that. We 7 live in a wonderful place. And I agree, we do need the 8 Wal-Mart. It's a great -- they are a great neighbor. 9 They do so many things. You talk to their employees, they 10 are -- most of them are pleased. 11 We have the Distribution Center that is not too 12 far away from us. They provide wonderful employment 13 opportunities and scholarships. And we could go on and 14 on. I studied businesses, and Wal-Mart is one of those 15 that has impressed me immensely. So I want to thank you 16 for your time. 17 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 18 MS. KILKELLY: Good evening. My name is Kathleen 19 Kilkelly. I live at 920 Inverness which is in the county. 20 And I'm a 30-year resident of Larimer County. 21 I am one of those people who did not get a chance 22 to speak. We hear about "the people have spoken." I'm' 23 one of those persons this project will directly affect, 24 but I did not have that chance to speak. So tonight I'm 25 going to tell you that in November 198, when this 63 1 and the work that he has done. I also want to respect the 2 opposition. We need to do these things in a kind manner 3 as possible and respect those that oppose us. 4 As we look at this project and as we look at the 5 Choice City -- beautiful city, wonderful city, love living 6 here, I want to live here the rest of my life -- it's an 7 incredible place to live. And as you look at the way the 8 City is running right now and the streets, I find it very 9 difficult myself. And those in the area that I live in, 10 LaPorte, Bellview, I've also talked to a lot of people in 11 the Wellington area, and it's a nightmare to go to south 12 Fort Collins to shop. It's not only a nightmare, it's not 13 only pollution that's involved, there's also the problem 14 of safety. 15 When you go on College and you come across an 16 intersection on Drake or any of .those roads and you get 17 caught in the middle of the intersection because the light 18 has turned red, and the intersection to the south and the 19 cars are backed up that far, we know we have a problem. 20 So I'm for it because of spreading the traffic patterns 21 out. I think we can do that. And no matter what we do, 22 people want to live here. They want to come to America to 23 experience the thrill of living in America. And we're 24 going to have growth. 25 I know there's no -growth people. And they would 62 1 I feel primarily, the reason I'm here tonight, I 2 believe that the citizens have spoken. I believe they 3 understood what they were doing. I spoke with many people 4 during -- leading up to the election. And the people I 5 spoke with all clearly understood the issues and voted in 6 favor of this project. 7 It's my belief that the regulations have been met 8 in every way and plus some. My feelings would be that 9 since the developer, the proponent, has met all of their 10 requirements and gone beyond them in most every instance, 11 that this project should be approved. If there are 12 problems with those procedures, they should be addressed 13 by changing the ordinances of the requirements so that 14 future developments meet whatever would be the appropriate 15 level felt to be. But I believe in this instance 16 everything has been met and the project should be approved 17 and go forward. Thank you very much. 1g MR. TRUJILLO: Hello. My name is Marty Trujillo. 19 I live at 5220 West County Road 52E in Bellview, Colorado. 20 Glad to be here this evening. Want to thank the chairman 21 and the Board for letting me speak. I` 22 I want to commend you for all the good work that 23 you have done and the great work you've done. It is truly 24 a choice city that we live in. It is great to be here. 25 I want to commend Mark Goldberg and the patience 61 1 MR. CLINE: My name is Ken Cline. I live at 1010 2 Smith Street. It's across from Harris Elementary School 3 in most of the maps that we've seen on these displays. 4 I find one of the true treasures of Fort Collins 5 to be the -- the small stores downtown. And I'm afraid 6 that putting a big box this close to that area will 7 seriously threaten that. And that's a big concern that I 8 have. And for that reason, mainly, I oppose the project. 9 I'm also concerned about the traffic implications 10 we saw that this will increase traffic. And that's 11 another concern I have. Thank you. 12 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 13 MR. ATTWOOLL: My name is Bill Attwooll. I live 14 at 2806 Antelope Road, Fort Collins. 15 I'm a manager of a business downtown, and I have 16 to admit I've worked professionally on this project. But 17 I'm here tonight as a private citizen to express my 18 support. I've been following this process very closely, 19 attending all of the public hearings at the Lincoln Center 20 and whatnot. And I'm genuinely impressed with the efforts 21 that are being made. I think this will be a great credit 22 to our community. 23 The Wal-Mart, this will not be a typical 24 Wal-Mart. It will be a wonderful addition to the 25 community and much needed. 60 1 guarantees -- have been given the store would stay open. 2 In fact, you look at Wal-Mart history and their stated 3 policies, and it's very clear the store will close quite 4 shortly. And then everybody from the south will be 5 driving up north. So there -- it's just -- you know, you 6 have a lot of questionable traffic numbers. And I think 7 you need to err on the side of -- of caution here, you 8 know. If you approve something and it turns out that 9 these numbers were wrong, we're stuck with it. We have to 10 live with it anyways. 11 Another issue I have is, I see now we're talking 12 about one half of the project basically versus what was 13 the full project before. That kind of minimizes the 14 impacts initially here. 15 The other issue is the full project buildout that 16 we have. This is only part of the development. There 17 will be adjacent developments. I just read today in the 18 Northern Colorado Business Report in Evans, Colorado, I 19 believe, where just across -- adjacent across from a super 20 Wal-Mart was going in, another big -box store, Super K-Mart 21 or something like that. So this will bring a lot more. 22 You have to consider all of the impacts of the 23 area before you approve a development of this size. 24 Anyway, that's about all I have to say. Thank you. 25 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 58 1 to see some big -box development in my area. 2 In the last year I've been threatened with 3 minor-league baseball parks and closer to the -- closer to 4 the river than Wal-Mart. I've been threatened with an 5 amphitheater, 2000-seat amphitheater closer than Wal-Mart 6 to the river. And there seems no concern whatsoever about 7 the floodplain for these people. 8 And the housing developments, we've already seen 9 one housing development, and another one is coming closer 10 to the river than Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart is supposed -- 11 according to the plans that I have read and the studies I 12 have made, they're going to make a lot more improvements 13 than just being there. They're going to improve our 14 quality of life and destroy some of the smog that lies 15 around there. 16 And I've got one more thing I want to say. You 17 use my taxes that I pay and -- to pay the City planners, 18 these people who said Wal-Mart meets all these 19 requirements. And if you're going to call them a liar and 20 vote them down, then fire them and get some people to 21 think the way you do. Otherwise, let them do their job 22 that you pay them to do with my tax money. Thank you. 23 MR. COOPERSMITH: My name is Howard 24 Coopersmith. I live at 1205 Steeplechase Court. And I 25 both live and work up in the northeast part of town. 57 1 starting to occur out there. So I really encourage you to 2 approve this. Thank you. I'd like to commend Mr. 3 Goldberg for the quality of the project, too. 4 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 5 MS. VELASQUEZ: I am Kathy Velasquez. I live at 6 205 Third Street. 7 I'm the co-chair of the Buckingham Neighborhood .8 Committee. And I have a few resentments I guess I'd like 9 to air. Some of them are that we have been told that the 10 voters are totally unprepared to vote on the issue that 11 was put before them and then was to ask you to please once 12 again consider the Wal-Mart procedures. I am definitely 13 prepared. I sat through about 30 hours of meetings, and 14 I've studied it. And I'm a voter. And I voted for it. 15 And, again, I live in the neighborhood. And, yeah, it 16 would be something good for us. 17 But as the person before me stated, we need some 18 anchors there that are something that we can hold on to. 19 "We" being the lower income people in the area. We 20 currently -- my husband and I are both disabled. We 21 currently drive to Greeley once a week to buy groceries 22 because they're so much cheaper there. And we have to 23 make pennies count. And even saving the money by shopping 24 locally is nothing compared to what we can save when we go 25 to Greeley where there are some big -box stores. I'd like 56 1 problems for Fort Collins. 2 Unless Wal-Mart were to mitigate to move out to 3 I-25 like they -- please vote to refuse this proposal once 4 and for all. Thank you. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 6 MR. BUDERUS: My name is Mike Buderus. I reside 7 at 2813 Adobe Drive. I've been president of the northeast 8 Fort Collins Business Association for probably -- a few 9 too many years, actually. But we have about 50 or 60 10 members in that area. 11 This area is faced with a lot of challenges as we 12 go forward and especially -- I'm sure Planning and Zoning 13 is aware of those -- as we start to develop and grow to 14 the northeast. 15 I think one of the -- the issues when you look at. 16 this project is, first of all, will development occur 17 there? And I think you have to say, "Yes, it will." So 18 the next question is, "What type of development?" If you 19 look at this project, I think if you look at it logically 20 and what's being provided by Mr. Goldberg, this could be a 21 centerpiece and anchor for development to start to occur 22 out in that area. 23 I was born and raised out there. There's a lot 24 of shopping that hasn't been out in that area. And you've 25 already heard that there are developments that are 54 1 Lemay project due to traffic, railroads, and floodplain 2 problems. That opinion is unchanged. However, we are 3 disenfranchised by being county residents rather than city 4 residents and could not vote in a very questionable 5 referendum initiated by Mr. Goldberg and Wal-Mart's money. 6 Nonetheless, residents of this area have an important 7 impact on the City's committee as well as on the serious 8 developing problems on Lemay Avenue traffic. 9 In the Coloradoan yesterday the big banner 10 editorial headline read, "Wal-Mart project must be 11 approved." Well, I expect nothing less from the 12 Coloradoan. They acknowledged that the land use question 13 is not to be decided by public vote. The results of the 14 public vote last year, again, minus us northeast 15 residents, shows Wal-Mart got 57 percent support versus 43 16 against. But it cost Wal-Mart $4.96 a vote versus 29 17 cents per vote opposed. This meant that a grassroots 18 opposition was 17 times more effective in getting support 19 than Wal-Mart who spent 23 times more money. Translated, 20 this suggests Wal-Mart couldn't win in a legitimate 21 referendum that includes all the people, City and County, 22 affected by Goldberg's proposal. 23 Planning and Zoning Commission has been 24 courageous in its past decision on this project despite 25 Mr. Goldberg's threats of personal litigation against its 53 1 to do plans like that. And I'm afraid that the bike trail 2 is going to be terribly impacted. 3 One other thing is, the intersections I think 4 are -- or the plans, the studies on the intersections are 5 too limited. The staff gave only intersections at Lemay 6 and Mulberry. It didn't give the other intersections. 7 There was no level of service planned for Lincoln and 8 Lemay that was submitted tonight. They gave a diagram of 9 how the turn lanes were going to be changed, but they 10 didn't say how the level of service is going to be 11 affected. I use Lincoln quite a bit. And the Lemay 12 intersection at Lincoln is going to be something that will 13 impact me. Thank you. Bye. 14 MR. COLTON: We might take one more person and 15 then go take our 10-minute break and come back. Why don't 16 we go ahead and take it now until 20 till. 17 (Recess from 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.) 18 MR. COLTON: Okay. We're back live at the 19 Planning and Zoning Hearing, having watched at least a 20 good part of the eclipse, and we're ready to proceed on 21 with citizen input. So go ahead. 22 MR. HALVORSON: My name is Curtis Halvorson. I 23 live in northeast Fort Collins. 24 Last year our Greenbelt Homeowners Association 25 went on the record as being overwhelmingly against this 52 1 exactly how this was going to affect the -- the building 2 of an additional higher dike on Lemay because of the 3 additional traffic due to Wal-Mart, but there wasn't any 4 discussion on that. I think that's something that needed 5 to be added to the discussion, and it was not. That's a 6 deficiency of what we we're talking about here. It's an 7 indirect effect because a dike on Lemay due to additional 8 traffic of Wal-Mart would definitely affect the 9 floodplain. It would expand it just like anything else 10 would. Even though it's an indirect effect of Wal-Mart, 11 it would still be every bit as much a -- an inevitable 12 outcome as any kind of direct effect by Wal-Mart being in 13 the floodplain which apparently is all right now. 14 One other thing I want to mention. I am a very 15 major user of the bike trail. Mr. Goldberg mentioned how 16 great the access is going to be, how much better the 17 access is going to be with their pavilion of people is getting on the bike trail, but he didn't mention anything 19 about how the bike trail itself is going to be improved to 20 be able to handle all that additional traffic capacity. 21 I've been talking with Craig Foreman of the Parks 22 and Recreation. I tried to talk with some people in the 23 Department of Transportation to try to get traffic 24 densities on the bike trail like on all city streets. 25 They have no -- nothing in the works right now to be able Ali 1 not meet the necessary criteria for development. Thank 2 you. 3 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 4 MR. WILSON: My name is Gil Wilson. I.live at 5 1733 Elim Court in Fort Collins. That's at the north end 6 of town. It's Adriel Hills. 7 Down through these years I've been coming to this 8 same building and expressing my viewpoint, which is, 9 hoping to see this project go forth and be built. It 10 would be wonderful if I could avoid driving clear across li town, like so many people have to do, to shop at the south 12 end. 13 And I think we need to compliment the staffs here 14 tonight. The City staff was very professional in their 15 presentation, as was Mr. Goldberg. 16 And just quickly in conclusion, just one thought 17 I'd like to have you think about, I think with all the 18 hundreds of qualified attorneys we have in Fort Collins, 19 it seems rather odd that this squeaky group needs to go to 20 Boulder of all places to find somebody to threaten the 21 voters of this community. Thank you. 22 MR. COLTON: Go ahead. 23 MR. EDWARDS: My name is Brad Edwards. My 24 residence is at 2828 Cherry Lane in Fort Collins. 25 I am a north side resident who does as much 49 1 LDGS criteria A2.1. Quote, can the addition -- additional 2 traffic, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic 3 generated by the land uses within the project be 4 incorporated into the community transportation network 5 without creating safety problems? No. 6 Currently traffic is impacted by bridges to the 7 southwest and train tracks southwest and north. Routinely 8 traffic backs up across the Mulberry and Lemay 9 intersection during rush hour and when trains pass. 10 To the north, the Lemay/Vine intersection, 11 traffic is projected to go from level of Service D to F by 12 2004 according to table 4, intersection capacity analysis 13 summary, in your packets. Traffic currently backs up 14 through Lincoln on Lemay during rush hour. 15 The proposed roundabout at Lemay/Mulberry may 16 very well be able to handle 10,000 vehicles per hour or 17 the 7,000 vehicles per hour demand that is projected in is the near future. But what about the traffic and trains at 19 the intersection of Lemay/Riverside, Riverside and 20 Mulberry, and vine and Lemay? 21 A project of this size which is projected to 22 generate thousands of vehicular trips per day in a City 23 which -- in which we are already driving more vehicular 24 miles traveled, increasing over 8 percent a year, and a 25 project that is surrounded by impacted intersections does 48 1 who would show ignorance or contempt for final authority. 2 Vacate this hearing. 3' MR. COLTON: Thank you. 4 MS. YORK: Good evening. My name is Nancy 5 York. Any development proposal which conforms to the 6 rules adopted by this City should be allowed to 7 develop. But here's the rub. In your hearing of the 8 Lemay/Mulberry Crossings Preliminary PUD, the Board found 9 there were off -site impacts that were not properly 10 mitigated. The situation has worsened. it Policy 70 of the land use policies plan, which is 12 the basis of the LDGS, requires, quote, regional community 13 shopping centers will not be allowed to create demands 14 which exceed the capacity of the existing and future 15 transportation network of the City. 16 April 198 traffic counts at the Lemay/Mulberry 17 were over 45,000 vehicles per day. The Lemay/Mulberry 18 supercenter is projected to generate 19,000 additional 19 trips per day. The level of service is currently D 20 according to the January Mulberry/Lemay intersection 21 alternatives analysis, and, quote, is projected to drop to 22 Level F, total congestion, with short-term projected 23 growth. 24 It also notes that increased congestion will 25 impact emergency vehicle response time, which relates to HFA 1 because you are the final authority. The staff does not 2 give approval. Staff does not determine whether or not 3 the requirements are met. Staff does a great job of 4 evaluating and recommending, but you have the authority. 5 The final authority. 6 And when -- when our term of service started on 7 the Board -- mine was about five years ago -- Paul Eckman 8 explained that this Board performs quasi judicial 9 functions, which are interpreting and applying the code 10 and charter, making findings of fact and conclusions,. 11 following strict rules of conduct in procedure. You've 12 had the benefit of expert advice and counsel and have been 13 protected from undue influences and conflict of interest. 14 Voters had none of the above. As the only appointed Board 15 in this City with quasi judicial authority, you have very 16 special powers and duties to uphold the City Code and 17 Charter. 18 Some would say that this hearing must proceed for 19 reasons of due process. Due process is what happened one 20 year ago before this Board and Council. The code states, 21 "Application for final plan may be made only after 22 approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of a preliminary 23 plan." The Board did not approve the preliminary 24 PUD. The code and charter make no provision for voter 25 approval. Protect the integrity of the Board from those 46 1 that contributed to the denial of the preliminary PUD. We 2 feel that some of those have not been sufficiently 3 addressed, as other people will speak to this evening. 4 Thank you very much. 5 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 6 MR. CARNES: I am Gary Carnes. And having been a 7 member of the Board, I can appreciate how conflicted some 8 of you must be in having denied this preliminary PUD in 9 November 198, and having the correctness of your decision 10 affirmed by the City Council on appeal. 11 The basis for denial was just spearheaded by 12 another citizen. And City Council concluded that the 13 project cannot be incorporated into the neighborhood and 14 community transportation network without causing safety 15 problems. 16 I thought it was a rather -- talk about tactics, 17 it was interesting that whereas the big -box standards 18 adopted five years ago prohibit standalone big boxes, 19 they're coming in with the Lot 1 or Phase 1 which is, 20 guess what, a standalone big box. If you approve that -- 21 if that is approved, then they wouldn't have to come in 22 •for the additional phase. And guess what they got? A 23 standard big box which they wanted from the beginning. 24 A lot of the problems are on the south half of 25 the site. So we're here tonight as a citizen agenda 45 1 The Colorado constitution provides that the 2 initiative power is reserved to the voters of every city, 3 town, and municipality as to all local, special, and 4 municipal legislation of every character. However, the 5 power of initiative is not a limited and does not extend 6 to nonlegislative matters. Rather initiative exceeds to 7 the peoples' right to legislate. It is not applicable to 8 determine how previously and active public policies such 9 as Fort Collins, the LDGS will be administered or 10 executed. In this regard the Colorado Supreme Court has 11 ruled that initiated ordinances relative -- relating to 12 administrative matters are invalid. 13 I continue to quote from the letter, "It's my 14 understanding that the City may rely upon the holdings of 15 Citizens versus the City of Steamboat Springs which states 16 that the approval of a PUD is legislative act. However, 17 neither Planning and Zoning approved the preliminary PUD 18 and the initiated ordinance related to nonlegislative 19 matters. As such, no legislative act ever occurred. It 20 is therefore our opinion that approval of the 21 Mulberry/Lemay Crossing preliminary PUD is invalid and of 22 no legal effect." 23 That is a letter from Christopher Ernst from that 24 law firm that I mentioned. I'd also like to enter a copy 25 into the record of the list of the LUPP and LDGS concerns 44 1 project, and we hope that you will approve it tonight. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Hi. I'm Bridget Schmidt, a 30-year 5 resident of Larimer County. And I've been involved with 6 this issue since the ODP time. 7 I'd like to read to you sections of a letter that 8 I think you received earlier today. And I have some 9 copies if you did not. It's from the Law Firm of Martin & 10 Mehaffy. And it addresses the fact that Planning and 11 Zoning Board applies the provisions of the Land `' 12 Developments Guidance System to propose projects and thus 13 determines whether a particular development plan should be 14 approved or denied. 15 In this manner P&Z determines the rights of 16 applicants by applying existing legal standards, the LDGS, 17 to facts presented to public hearings. This type of 18 review is characterized by the laws quasi judicial, an 19 important legal concept. 20 As you know the history of this project, the 21 complaint, the applicant went and filed a legal action and 22 even in his complaint said the actions and decisions of 23 the City Council complained of herein were taken by the 24 City Council as an inferior tribunal exercising quasi 25 judicial function. 43 1 MS. ARAGON: Hi. My name is Betty Aragon. I am 2 from the Buckingham neighborhood. 3 We are not here tonight to debate whether or not 4 a Wal-Mart supercenter should be built. The decision by 5 the people through a City election was made. It is the 6 will of the people that this shopping center be built. 7 Tonight we are here to move forward to implementing that 8 decision. 9 This project has been held up long enough. As 10 long as the developer, Mark Goldberg, has met the criteria 11 that complies with the regulations by the City, then we 12 ask that this project be approved. 13 Our neighborhood is excited and anxious to break 14 ground. We look forward to having the choice and 15 convenience of affordable shopping on the north. I truly 16 believe this shopping center will add balance to the City. 17 I am confident it will not take away anything from the 18 downtown business, but, in fact, enhance the business for 19 downtown. 20 We are all entitled to our opinion and our 21 decision to support different issues. But there comes a 22 time when a decision is made and' the opposition needs to 23 respect that and lose with respect instead of putting 24 forward tactics to delay the project. 25 Our neighborhood is in very much support of this G•9n/T S 42 /0 J T A-7-1e,J 1 standards. 2 Given the opportunity to build this project, you 3 will have the finest regional shopping center that exists 4 in the country. And I hope this evening you take those 5 things into consideration. Give us your approval so we 6 can build on the promise that we've been working on for 7 five years. Thank you very much. 8 MR. COLTON: Thank you for the presentation. All 9 right. It's about quarter after now. And we agreed. to 10 take a break about 8:30 or so. I'd like to see, I guess, 11 how many people will be giving a presentation or want to 12 give us inputs tonight. If you could give me a show of 13 hands, I just want to get a rough idea. 18, 20, something 14 like that I see. So at three minutes each. Okay. 15 Why don't we go ahead and we'll hear from like 16 five or whatever until 8:30, and then we'll take about a 17 10-minute break. 18 Again, you've got three minutes. And you got the 19 green light until it turns yellow, with 30 seconds left 20 and it will turn red. So please sign in, give us your 21 name. And we do have three microphones. Back there 22 (indicating), here, and here. And you can queue up to 23 make it even quicker. Thank you very much. 24 MS. ARAGON: Ready? 25 MR. COLTON: Yes, go ahead. 41 1 those specific nodes and paths within the areas within 2 the -- the circulation patterns on the site. The 3 landscaping and amenities afford a lasting impression 4 while providing a soft transition to the building. 5 Together these form a sense of place within the project. 6 Condition of the preliminary PUD approval was to 7 enhance the architectural elevations at the west face 8 along Lemay and to incorporate additional detailing and 9 human -scale features which further reinforce the tie from 10 this development to the Buffalo Run apartments. 11 A total of seven display boxes for public 12 dedication along with additional faux windows, goose -neck 13 lighting, a stone arcade featuring the. display windows and 14 encasing those windows surrounded by additional planters, 15 and bench seating we're adding. 16 At this time Mark Goldberg will now make the 17 closing comments. 18 MR. GOLDBERG: You -- Fort Collins is a very, 19 very, unique community. The bar has been set higher here 20 than any place else in Colorado and I think the western 21 United States. 22 The big -box standards that you've adopted are now 23 appearing in every community that we go to. They start in 24 California and end up in Fort Collins. And they are 25 commonly known in our industry as the Fort Collins big -box 40 1 combination of concrete faux windows, distinctive 2 goose -net gliding, turn -of -the -century turn -buckle 3 awnings, site furnishings, display boxes for public 4 dedication, galvanized metal roofing, and other such 5 features incorporating within. 6 The building materials, as you can refer to the 7 material palette board that we have in front of us, were 8 selected to carry this concept. The background shall 9 maintain a timeless fabric utilizing a rich mixture of 10 brick masonry, cultured stone, stucco, which are all a. 7 11 classic to this style of architectural treatment. All 12 materials represent a neutral color palette and are 13 accentuated by historic colors. 14 Entryways define the access by pitched roofs, 15 overhangs, canopies, cornices, which establish a hierarchy 16 of building forms. Entries are not only located at the 17 front of the store but also at the garden center facing 18 12th Street and at the retail shops facing Lemay 19 Avenue. All elevations, in addition to the one in the 20 front, are adjacent -- or are highly articulated even 21 those adjacent to the residential neighborhood. 22 Numerous areas are located through the site where, 23 public paths are enhanced by activity nodes and community 24 space. Landscaped planners, bench seating, kiosks, dining 25 and patio opportunities have all been incorporated on 39 1 include facade articulation, detailing, and repetitive 2 patterns throughout the entire facade treatment on all 3 four sides. 4 Ground floor facades that face Lemay, Mulberry, 5 and 12th Street have arcades, colonnades, display windows, 6 entries, awnings, overhangs, and other features in over an 7 excess of 60 percent of their horizontal length. 8 In addition to these features, pedestrian 9 orientation and human scale is enhanced by a richness of 10 ornamentation. Common amenities, green space, information 11 kiosks, nodes of activity which lend to a quality of life 12 for its users, residents, and adjacent neighborhoods. 13 Roof lines are accentuated forming gables, hips 14 and peaks, distinguishing entries and towers which 15 establish points of interest for the project. Each mass 16 form is further accentuated with a variety of roof forms 17 including a complimentary mix of turn -buckle style 18 awnings, overhangs, stepped parapets, pitched roofs, 19 canopies, and additional awning features. 20 The detailing is a controlled mix of elements 21 which respond to the images of the industrial age. 22 Cornices, expressed structural elements, bays, contrasting 23 building materials are a few of the options that we used 24 to highlight these areas. 25 This treatment will be further enhanced from a 38 1 boarding neighborhoods. 2 This objective formed the direction for an 3 architectural character for the project. We chose an 4 industrial warehouse concept to form a style with 5 timeless, classic flair and turn of the century 6 style. The overall image being one which evolved over 7 time, establishing an exciting yet comfortable and 8 relaxing environment. 9 To accomplish this, the building massing played a 10 very important role. And I'd like to refer to our 11 building elevation. Since we are very short on time, 12 basically I'm going to describe what that is. The r 13 building massing scale elements and orientation enhances 14 and captures and preserves the idea of a smaller scale 15 retail center. The goal being to break down the 16 appearance of the large building into smaller, more 17 defined components which reinforce the district concept. 18 The Wal-Mart building was stripped of its familiar 19 corporate identity and broken into smaller components to 20 determine how it is -- how its form could best be enhanced 21 in meeting this goal. 22 There are no facades greater than a hundred foot 23 in length. We have incorporated recesses, projections at 24 key locations corresponding to the design elements which 25 met this criteria. Mass elements were further detailed to 37 1 In conclusion, all the work that we're doing and 2 the other connectivity is probably more access to this 3 project than anything that I have ever done or, dare say, 4 anything that has been in the way of connectivity projects 5 of its style. 6 The City has determined that the connectivities 7 and the pedestrian bikeways do meet their standards. And 8 I think in some cases, like a pedestrian bridge, certainly 9 exceed them. Thank you very much. 10 MS. WILSON: Good evening. My name is Michelle, 11 Wilson. I'm the principal architect with CLC, responsible 12 for building design, building landscape architecture, and 13 engineering for the project. Our office is at 8480 East 14 Orchard Road, Englewood, Colorado, 80111. 15 We developed this project to promote quality 16 design which reflect the local values. This objective 17 meets the intent of the design standards and guidelines 18 for large retail establishments. It is important to 19 highlight the major components. 20 The vision. The vision is to provide a building 21 architectural theme with a timeless quality that 22 recognizes Fort Collins as a unique place. Our research 23 and studies of the adjacent area determined the need to 24 create a shopping district which maintained the urban 25 fabric of the City and best strengthen the network of the 36 1 to have tools, an air for bikes, and a covered place. And 2 you'll be able to access that bike route, if you will, by 3 going to the -- just to the west a little bit, under. -- 4 under the Mulberry and back on the path that way. And 5 that will be a connection to the -- to the bike route. 6 On -site, once you're at the -- within our sites 7 with these bike routes, there's going to be several very 8 unique features. The green areas that I'm going to point 9 .to briefly, here (indicating) and up here, are routes for 10 the pedestrian to use once they're in the parking lot. gr.. 11 These will be raised landscaped islands, a place where your 12 can separate yourself from the automobile. A very unique 13 feature in terms of this kind of a project where normally 4wi 14 you would just be out there with the -- with the cars. 15 And then in front of the Wal-Mart store here 16 (indicating) is a very large -- I think it's 35 feet of 17 sidewalk, a place once you come out of the store, a place 18 to gather you and your children and groceries and that 19 sort of thing before you get out. And also a place to 20 meet neighbors and kind of have a social experience. 21 On the west side of the project, here 22 (indicating) and here, Ted talked earlier about our kiosk 23 for the cola machines, but there will also be a place to 24 have seating and umbrellas. And we're hopefully going to 25 have a nice little feature there. 35 1 lane and a wide shoulder there that will be accessed from 2 the Buckingham neighborhood that will go from the east 3 along Lincoln to Buffalo Run and again down to their new 4 sidewalk and into the project. 5 On -site we're making a lot of improvements. 6 There will be a new -- let's go to the on -site piece. 7 What you're seeing now is the new improvements that we're 8 going to make on -site in pedestrian ways and the extension 9 over to Magnolia. There will be a detached sidewalk that 10 will go all the way from Mulberry to Lemay -- up to the 11 Buffalo Run, a detached sidewalk. And, of course, there 12 will be the two bike lanes on Lemay. 13 Likewise, Magnolia from the site on Lemay over to 14 12th Street will also have bike lanes and detached 15 sidewalks. And that will continue as Magnolia goes east 16 of the site over to Link Lane. 12th Street is a new 17 street we're running along our eastern boundary all the 18 way to Mulberry up to Lincoln. Bike pass, again, and -- 19 and sidewalks. 20 One of the more interesting features of the 21 project that I talked about in earlier sessions actually 22 happens at the very southwest corner of our project. 23 We're going -- when we do Phase 2, we're going to do a 24 bike pavilion, a place where people can get on the Poudre 25 River trail, hopefully park at our project. We're going 34 1 to take you on a walk or a bike ride, if you will, from 2 around the project and kind of through the project into 3 the store that we'll have on the north side. 4 Starting on the very north side of the project at 5 Vine and even a little beyond Vine, there are 6 bike/pedestrian routes down to Lincoln and Lemay. And 7 then, of course, with Buffalo Run, they've installed a 8 detached sidewalk from their location down to where this 9 new store will be. 10 From the east side, we're going to be installing 11 Magnolia Street from basically our eastern boundary over 12 to Link Lane. Now that extension of Magnolia will have 13 bike lanes, will also have detached sidewalks on either 14 side of Magnolia for pedestrian access from all those 15 businesses that exist over in the area just east of us 16 along Magnolia and Lincoln and other places. 17 From the south there's a lot of connectivity in 18 the existing neighborhood. There are bike lanes on Lemay 19 that get to the project up to -- to the southern end of 20 our site. And to the west, of course, we've had a lot of 21 discussion this evening about the pedestrian bridge that 22 we have contributed to and with the grant, hopefully, will 23 be installed. That will go across the Poudre, connecting 24 the neighborhoods in downtown to -- to the project. 25 Also from the west along Lincoln, there's a bike 32 1 that can be expected to occur within a five-year period 2 but no City sponsored improvements on the roadway system; 3 and then a 20-year period which looks at an ultimate 4 buildout of the area for background traffic growth and 5 assumes that the City master street planned improvements 6 are in place. 7 Based on the analysis of these scenarios, we 8 identified a number of improvements that needed to be made 9 to the area. These improvements -- sort of a real quick 10 summary of them -- they consist of a dual -westbound 11 left -turn lane for Mulberry at Lemay, which is an 12 improvement that's needed right now under existing 13 conditions. It also included improvements to Lemay from 14 Mulberry to Lincoln, improvements and construction of 12th 15 Street and Magnolia Street, and relocation of the frontage 16 road at 12th Street and Lemay. 17 The total cost of these improvements is right 18 under $4.4 million. That is in off -site improvements, 19 contributions to the pedestrian bridge, and street 20 oversizing fees. So obviously a lot of work is going into 21 this area to accommodate future traffic. 22 With those developer -committed improvements, all 23 intersections in the analysis operated at acceptable 24 levels of service for both the 5-year planning period and 25 the 20-year planning period. So let me state again, 31 1 transportation issues. Thank you. 2 MS. KRAGER: Good evening, Members of the Board. 3 My name is Kathleen Krager. I'm a professional 4 transportation engineer with the firm of Krager and 5 Associates. And my address is 1390 Stewart Street, 6 Denver, Colorado. 7 It was my responsibility on this project to 8 conduct the traffic impact study. And that study was 9 required to meet the City guidelines, and -- which the 10 City has reviewed it carefully and has agreed it has met 11 those guidelines. 12 The traffic impact study analyzed 21 different 13 intersections in an area that is basically a half -mile 14 radius. In addition, it also analyzed Lemay and Vine. 15 Even though that intersection is outside of the City 16 guidelines of the study area, there were so many questions 17 on this intersection, we felt it appropriate to analyze. 18 As you're aware, a traffic study was done 19 previously on this site. However, we conducted new 20 traffic counts in 1999, to make sure that we were using 21 the most up-to-date and reasonable background information. 22 Per City guidelines, the analysis really 23 considers three different scenarios. Existing conditions, 24 being existing traffic, no improvements in the area; 25 five-year growth, which looks at the amount of development 30 1 Department concerns about environmental issues. And, in 2 fact, after the preliminary the staff came back to us and 3 said, "Would you do an orchid study? Would you do a 4 Preble's jumping mouse study within the outfall area and 5 the entire construction area?" And those were done and no 6 problems were found and the reports are in the information 7 we supplied you. 8 Water quality. I just want to emphasize that the 9 treatment techniques being proposed here, to filter the 10 water before it enters the Poudre River, were not required z 11 by the staff, were not required by the LDGS. They were 12 volunteered because they were believed to be based upon 13 the environmental consultants hired to be the best 14 technique to filter and clean water before it gets into 15 the river. And that, interestingly enough, has now been 16 endorsed and become a requirement under the new land use 17 code. 18 Stewart Environment Consultants did a 19 comprehensive report with the preliminary discussing all 20 aspects of water quality and the benefits provided by this 21 particular proposal. And we have additional copies of 22 that, if you would like to see any of that. 23 I think with those comments I'm going to turn 24 this over to Kathleen Krager, who is the project's traffic 25 engineer, to talk about the traffic study and 1 Despite the constant repetition of this as an 2 issue, I want to say one more time, Glen's already said 3 it, the floodplain is not an issue with Lot 1. There are 4 no structures in Lot 1 which are even within the 5 floodplain. There's no floodplain permit required for 6 that entire project. It's not an opinion. It's a fact 7 based on the FEMA maps which have been adopted by the City 8 of Fort Collins. 9 We hear a lot of discussion continuing about 10 fill. And I just wanted to say as we indicated at the 11 preliminary, this site is a'flat cornfield. It has been 12 tilled, irrigated, and sprayed for many, many, years. 13 There are no unique topographical features. There are no 14 natural drainage features. The only fill that will be 15 brought into this site is the minimum amount of fill 16 necessary for one of two things, either to meet FEMA 17 required standards, which we have no choice but to meet, 18 or to drain the site because it's flat and you have to 19 bring in some fill to be able to drain the site. Beyond 20 that, there will be no fill brought onto the site. 21 The Poudre River outfall, you've seen the design 22 of that. That's a final PUD issue so we did not have the 23 design at the time of preliminary. The developer has 24 worked very diligently to satisfy both the storm water 25 concerns about hydrology but also Natural Resource 26 1 And what we ultimately agreed upon, he would contribute 2 $200,000, and the remainder would be funded out of the 3 federal grant. And the construction would be this summer, 4 which would be consistent if this project is approved with 5 the construction of the project. 6 There were questions. And I think, Mr. Gavaldon, 7 you had a number of questions at the preliminary about 8 what capital monies would be available for pedestrian 9 improvements to the northeast and the Bava neighborhood 10 because we all know that there is a lack in that entire it area of sidewalk connections. And you wanted some 12 additional information from the staff about what and when 13 and how could that happen. 14 And what we now have is that at that time it 15 was -- there was no real detail about funding and when it 16 would happen and what the priorities would be. What we 17 are now advised by the Transportation Department, is that 18 that whole area has a priority in the funding and 19 particularly from the neighborhoods to a transit stop, in 20 other words, Lincoln and Lemay, where there is an existing 21 transit stop. And that those will -- funding will likely 22 commence in 2001 for those improvements. 23 There's a new fire station, Fire Station Number 24 12 at Highway 1 and Country Club Road which did not exist 25 at the time of the preliminary. That's been added. In 25 1 in the future, it didn't then exist. That TransFort route 2 now exists. We provided information to you showing Route 3 14 which is a new TransFort route which, in fact, now has 4 a stop at the Lincoln and Lemay intersection. 5 At the preliminary, it was not known and there 6 was some concern about how many of the public 7 improvements, streets, sidewalk trail connections, ped 8 crossings would be done with Lot 1, which is before you 9 tonight, and what would be done with Lot 2. We now know 10 that. 11 Lot 1 generates approximately two-thirds of the 12 total traffic. But 100 percent of all the public 13 improvements will go in with Lot 1, whether or not Lot 2 14 is ever approved. 15 The Mulberry pedestrian bridge, Kathleen Reavis 16 briefly addressed. You may remember, some of you, that 17 during the preliminary there was a lot of discussion. It 18 was never a requirement. It was never a condition. It is 19 not a condition of the approved preliminary. But Mark 20 Goldberg offered early on -- because it did provide an 21 additional and more direct connection to the west -- to 22 put a bridge on, which he had estimated would be about 23 $150,000. 24 After the election the staff said, "Are you still 25 willing to participate in that?" And Mark said, "Yes." 24 1 preliminary are changes which, in fact, enhance the 2 project. Some of those are changes within the project. 3 Some of those are simply changed conditions in the area. 4 Because we have a very limited time tonight for a 5 project of this scope, we clearly don't have the time to 6 go through every component. We don't even have time to 7 talk about the key elements in detail. So as Mark said, 8 our entire project team is here, and we'll trust you to 9 ask questions if we don't cover the things that are of 10 interest to you. 11 Before we move to the technical presentation by 12 our traffic engineer of the transportation issue, I want 13 to summarize for you what we think some of the key changes" 14 have been that we ask,you as Board members to consider as 15 you consider this project in its entirety. 16 During the preliminary discussion with .the Board, 17 there was concern about the truck bypass issue on Vine and 18 what that did to the traffic analyses and what it 19 potentially did to the intersection. Well, as we know, 20 and there are some in the audience today who are 21 responsible for that, that issue is no longer here. It's 22 been resolved, and it no longer clouds any of the traffic 23 analyses that have been done. 24 There was also concern expressed that although a 25 TransFort route was planned to come to this area sometime 23 1 preliminary PUD and includes all of the staff recommended 2 conditions in finding that the preliminary PUD meets all 3 of the LDGS requirements consistent with the staff finding 4 for you tonight that this project is consistent in the 5 opinions of all of the City reviewing and technical 6 staff. 7 So with this final PUD, we need to demonstrate to 8 you tonight that the project has met the applicable 9 conditions and that it is in substantial compliance with 10 the approved preliminary. 11 In addition to the staff report, which in some 12 detail dealt with the staff conditions, our architect a 13 little bit later in the presentation will deal with those 14 conditions talking about architectural detail. I wanted 15 to only comment on the fact that we have provided you some 16 additional information on the CDOT condition that included 17 all of the relevant material that showed the CDOT review 18 and approval, subject only to the final staff approval of 19 the actual utility plans. 20 The staff has evaluated in detail and given their 21 collective opinion that the project also substantially 22 complies with the approved preliminary PUD. We believe 23 that the documents that we have submitted and that you 24 will see tonight demonstrates that this is so. And that 25 the only changes of significance to the approved 22 1 requirement. We've worked hard at this, and that has 2 allowed us to get staff's approval. I wouldn't move a 3 project forward until we did have the staffs approval. 4 This project has been reviewed exhaustively for 5 more than these five years and more so than any other 6 center of its kind in my 26 years of producing shopping 7 centers in Colorado and communities along the Front Range 8 and in several mountain communities. 9 We believe we bring before you a project which -- 10 if judged by the standards applied consistently with other 11 LDGS projects -- meets in every respect the preliminary 12 approval and meets or exceeds every other City 13 requirement. 14 My entire team is here tonight that's been 15 working on this project for five years. Lucia Liley, who 16 has been with us from the very beginning from the start of 17 the annexation, will make the next part of the 18 presentation. Thank you very much. 19 MR. COLTON: Thank you. 20 MS. LILEY: Mr. Colton, Members of the Board, 21 Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, Fort Collins. 22 We have gotten here tonight the different route, 23 as Ted indicated. This preliminary PUD has been approved 24 not by the Board or City Council, but by a vote of the 25 citizens of this City. And that vote constitutes a full 21 1 If you have any questions, I'm here. 2 MR. SHEPARD: That concludes staff presentation. 3 MR. COLTON: Would anyone on the Board like to 4 ask questions now or wait until after? Okay. 5 Okay. Applicant's presentation, please? 30 6 minutes. 7 MR. GOLDBERG: Good evening, Chairman Colton, 8 ladies and gentlemen of the Board. My name is Mark 9 Goldberg. I am the developer of the project. The name of 10. my company is Goldberg Property Associates. 11 Everyone knows that there's been a long and 12 difficult process to get here tonight before you to 13 present our final PUD. From the annexation of this 14 property over five years ago through the overall 15 development plan that was approved in 1997, showing the 16 very same mixed -use concepts of the apartment building, 17 Buffalo Run, and the regional community shopping center 18 that includes the store that we're presenting tonight. 19 I've done everything in my power to create a 20 first-class project in the north part of Fort Collins 21 which was one of the original mandates of this property, 22 which for the first time in a major way starts to make 23 improvements in the north side of Fort Collins that have 24 long been a problem and long been overlooked. 25 We've attempted and we have met every City 0 1 whole area from the floodplain. 2 The general drainage system -- I'll try to use 3 this arrow -- the drainage as it comes out of the Buffalo 4 Run development has a detention pond in this area 5 (indicating). There's a pipe in here that picks it up, 6 brings it through a piping system down to this detention 7 pond. There's a detention pond here with a wetland bottom 8 in it to treat the water. And then that system is hooked 9 into another pipe that's coming down here to this other 10 detention pond, a bigger detention pond. 11 There's also a piping system along this side 12 (indicating), hooks into here, and brings that water also 13 down to this wetland detention pond. Then there's a -- 14 right here, there's a box with a manual shut-off gate in 15 case the river is backing up and something happens to the 16 outfall end. 17 There's a 72-inch pipe under Mulberry. Right in 18 here we have to cross the waterline. So there's twin 19 481s. Then we go back to a single pipe, and eventually it 20 comes out as an 84-inch into the river. 21 And then there is a a gate on that so that 22 if the river gets higher than it, it backs -- it shuts it 23 off. So it cannot back into the site. And there's also a 24 grate over that to keep the trash out of it. And that's 25 basically the system. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WAMHOFF: Yes, it is. MR. SHEPARD: That's what's new. MR. GAVALDON: Ted, run'that by again, please. MR. SHEPARD: Besides lane widening and bike lanes, the new feature to that intersection is on Lincoln. It's an eastbound right -turn lane to go south on Lemay, as .rl OA/AG i -A 9 Try 0AJ well as improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. MR. SCHLUETER: Technology. I'm going to briefly discuss the drainage. This is a slide showing the Poudre River floodplain. The dark blue is the floodway. The green is the 500-year floodplain. The site we're looking at is right here (indicating). It's -- it's kind of cross -hatched, but you can't probably see it back from where you're at. And the Wal-Mart building itself is in the upper part which is not in the 100-year floodplain. Now this is an overall site view. The left side is to the north. The bottom is Lemay. The right side is Mulberry. The blue and the red lines that you see there are the 100-year floodplain. From FEMA is the blue. The red one is the master plan 100-year floodplain. And actually that's existing. What we plan to do in the future is possibly build a levy which would remove the 18 1 construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across the 2 Poudre River on Mulberry. And then we've received some 3 grant funding from the North Front Range Council to 4 provide sidewalk connection on. Mulberry to connect between 5 Riverside and Lemay. So that pedestrian and bicycle 6 linkage issue to the west on Mulberry has been addressed 7 through combinations of sources. 8 So I'll just go ahead and leave it at that. I 9 think most of this information is covered in the 10 information in your packet, but I will be glad to answer 11 questions later. 12 MS. WAMHOFF: At the work session you had asked 13 to see what the improvements at Lemay and Lincoln would 14 be. And so we've provided a slide here that shows what 15 the improvements would be and what lanes would be put in 16 place. 17 Some of the colors are kind of hard to see, but 18 the blue shows the turn lanes. The purple shows the 19 through lanes. And the red shows the bike lanes that will 20 be put out. If you have any other questions on this 21 intersection or any others, I would be happy to answer 22 them. 23 MR. SHEPARD: Sheri, what you might want to 24 mention is what's new is the right -turn lane on eastbound 25 Lincoln to southbound Lemay. 17 1 north of Lincoln, also on Lincoln, west of Lemay. 2 2 did want to clarify basically some of the 3 questions that had come up. The City is working on a 4 separate project to provide sidewalks in those 5 neighborhoods. We have funding through the Building 6 Community Choices Funds to look at improving the sidewalk 7 and the connectivity in that area. So that would be a 8 separate project not specifically related to this project. 9 The other information that's in your packet, you 10 had asked about the trip distribution and the number of 11 pedestrians and the direction they would be traveling. We 12 basically look at trips for development, and we include 13 all types of trips. We don't separate out the number of 14 vehicles trips verses pedestrians trips or bicycle 15 trips. 16 Based on the traffic impact study for this 17 project, the majority of trips are traveling either south 18 on Lemay or west on Mulberry. There are existing 19 pedestrians and bicycle facilities south on Lemay from 20 this site. So that was taken care of. 21 The greater issue was the bike and pedestrian 22 facilities going west on Mulberry. And based on the 23 improvements that would be part of this project, we feel 24 that those have been addressed. For example, this project 25 would be contributing funds toward the improvement -- or RN. 1 because of the shopping opportunities in the north. The 2 process was reasonable. Whether or not that's the exact 3 number, no one really knows. But it does verify the fact 4 that much of our land use planning efforts have been to 5 place shopping opportunities near neighborhoods so people 6 don't have to drive all the way across town to do it. It 7 does substantiate that. So it's a reasonable analysis. 8 Whether those numbers are correct, I mean, none of us 9 really know that. But it does show there would be a 10 reduction. 11 I think that's all I have. 12 MS. REAVIS: I just wanted to answer some of your 13 questions that came up regarding bicycle and pedestrian 14 issues at the work session. In your packet I provided a 15 map based on your request. That's what's on the overhead 16 indicating the existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks in the 17 area of the project. 18 Easier to move around a little bit. Basically 19 there are -- as you can see on the map, there's the 20 existing bike lanes in this area (indicating) that -- the 21 greater issue seems to be the sidewalks. There will be 22 sidewalks built as part of this project along the streets 23 that is adjacent to Mulberry and Lemay and on Magnolia. 24 There will still be a sidewalk missing along the portions 25 of Lemay, north of Lincoln and, also -- well, on Lemay, 15 1 the future. 2 In the year 2004, I can still get level of 3 Service B if this project was not approved. I can get 4 level of Service D with the project approved. So even in 5 the five-year future, the intersection still meets level 6 of service. 7 With the project the intersection will fail 8 probably somewhere near the year 2010. Without the 9 project it will fail, in being level of Service E, around 10 2015. However, according to the land development guidance it system, the existing system can handle this with the 12 modified signal improvements that we are doing there next 13 week, so. 14 The new traffic study also included the year 2004 15 as the five-year outlook. Those tables, tables 4, 5, and 16 6 of the traffic study were distributed to the Board 17 members for your review and has all the levels of service 18 for those intersections for the year 1999, 2004, and 2020. 19 You also asked about the VMT analysis that was 20 conducted. I would put a disclaimer on it, that the VMT 21 analysis is not part of the old existing guidelines for 22 doing traffic impact studies nor is it part of the LUC 23 ones, but it was something volunteered by the development. 24 They estimate approximately a .6 to 1.9 percent 25 reduction in VMT in the south part in the community 14 1 It was expanded at the Board's request to include some of 2 the outlying intersections, such as Riverside and 3 Mulberry, Riverside and Lemay, also Vine -- also Vine and 4 Lemay. Sorry. Too much stuff up here. ,p�GNAL 5 The A for the Vine and Lemay intersection, the 6 City has a project. It will be done next week. I'm 7 changing the phasing on this project. The intersection 8 has nothing to do with this project. It will be done next 9 week. The intersection currently operates at level of 10 Service D. I can get it down to a level of Service B. 11 Glen, you had asked specifically, what.is the 12 difference with this particular crossing -- or this 13 project and the impact to the Vine and Lemay intersection? 14 If that project went in today and all the traffic was 15 generated, it would still remain -- it would go from 10.7 16 seconds per vehicle delay to 15. But it's still in a 17 level of Service B. 18 So for practical purposes, this development does 19 not have a substantial impact on that intersection. It's 20' the continued growth into the future, such as the 21 implementation of the Mountain Vista plan in particular 22 and continued growth in the north that will eventually 23 cause this intersection to fail. There's no room to put 24 in additional turn lanes or anything like that. But the 25 Master Street Plan does show a realignment of Lemay into 13 1 elevations which we feel is a further refinement to help 2 satisfy the -- well, better satisfy the big -box standards 3 and guidelines. There's more detail in the s court. 4 There will be 12 trees in front of the store that -- a 5 combination of ornamental and deciduous trees. 6 We've got details on the landscaping in the 7 detention ponds for water quality purpose. Wetland plants 8 have been installed in those areas. The Lemay median is 9 now designed. We're going to have landscaping and 10 irrigation in the Lemay median. 11 We've got details on the Poudre River outfall, 12 which is the main outfall for this site in terms of what 13 happens with dissipation of velocity. Erosion control and 14 aesthetic concerns. 15 Those are the highlights. And I'm available to 16 answer more questions on the site plan, the landscaped 17 plan, the architecturals, some of those other things. At 18 this point I think I'll turn it over to Eric Bracke. And 19 then we're going to go down the row for some overview as 20 you requested at the work session. And we promise not to 21 take too much time. 22 MR. BRACKE: A new traffic study was submitted in 23 October of 199, analyzing'-- I believe it was about 21 24 different intersections. The scope of the study is 25 basically the same. The results are generally the same. 11 1 in August of 1999. And that brings us to tonight's 2 consideration of the final PUD. 3 What I'd like to do is very briefly go over those 4 conditions of approval as we did at the work session. As 5 I mentioned, only five of the six apply. The first one 6 was that we get a lighting plan and water conservation 7 information on the landscaped plan. Indeed we got those. 8 As it turns out, the water will be provided by ELCO, not 9 the City of Fort Collins. The plan meets the water 10 conservation standards nonetheless. 11 . The second condition of the approval was that we 12 get more details of the west elevation. Could you go to 13 the west elevation? We ask that the west elevation be 14 drawn and detailed in such a way that we could get the 15 exact architectural intent and that we get more details 16 along there. That's the connection to Buffalo Run. We 17 wanted a pedestrian -oriented kind of elevation there along 18 that facade. We feel that that has been provided. And we 19 can go into greater detail with that, if you'd like. 20 The other condition of approval was that we 21 mitigate outdoor advertising. As you know soda pop 22 machines have 24 square feet of illuminated signage. They 23 will all now be placed within a kiosk area, that will be 24 minimized, the glare off the pop machines. That will also 25 include any outdoor merchandising such as ATM's, ice 10 1 please? 196-6r- N 2 MR. SHEPARD:. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 3 This is a request for a final PUD for a 194,456 4 square -foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres 5 located on the east side of Lemay Avenue between Lincoln 6 Avenue and Magnolia Street. This would be an extension of 7 Magnolia Street. Filing 1 is part of a larger regional 8 shopping center which consists of 42.98 acres. 9 The PUD includes the construction of two public 10 streets, the aforementioned Magnolia Street as well as 11 12th Street which will be a north/south street that 12 connects Lincoln to Mulberry. 13 The property is zoned C, Commercial. I've got 14 the ODP slide up there for you which was adopted by the 15 Planning and Zoning Board on March 24th of 1997. That 16 includes the entire 43-acre site. 17 We're expecting Filing 2 to come in sometime in 18 the near future. That would the area south of Magnolia 19 Street. 20 The..preliminary.PUD was approved on April 7th of 21 1999, on a basis of a vote that was initiated by the 22 citizens of Fort Collins. It was approved with the six 23 conditions that were contained in the staff report at that 24 time.. Five of those conditions apply to Filing 1. 25 For your information, the final PUD was submitted 0 1 of outbursts of any type. 'I don't want to use this gavel 2 up here. And of course we want to keep discussion to the 3 relevant issues related to the land use of this area, not 4 other extraneous topics. 5 So -- oh, yes. And last time we had a hearing on 6 this, we went into the wee hours of the morning. As a 7 Board we decide we are not going to continue past 11:00 8 tonight. And if we get to that point and we're still 9 continuing, we will adjourn the meeting until 6:30 on 10 Monday, same place, here. And that won't be televised, 11 but it will be recorded for a later viewing. But that 12 meeting won't be televised because of the conflict with 13 something else, I believe. 14 Let's see. Anything else I forgot? There.'s some 15 hope that we could take a brief break around -- between 16 8:00 and 8:30 to see the eclipse. Does the audience like 17 to do that? Okay. We'll see if we can do that for maybe 18 10 minutes or something. Does anybody know when it's 19 really going to be happening? 20 A CITIZEN: 8:35. 21 MR. COLTON: Okay. I've had anywhere from 8:30 22 to 9 something. So maybe we'll take about 8:30. That 23 will be about an hour anyway. Might be a good time to do 24 it, so . . . 25 Okay. Ted, would you like to take it away, 8 1 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. 2 THE CLERK: Colton? 3 MR. COLTON: Yes. 4 Thanks a lot. And I hope we don't try your 5 patience too much with this. We'll be back when we get 6 this resolved. 7 (Recess from 6:40 p.m. to 7:25 p.m.) 8 MR. COLTON: Welcome back to the Planning and 9 Zoning Hearing. Just had a few comments to start before 10 we get going. We'd like to talk a little bit about the li process we'll be following. 12 And first of all, the staff will be giving a 13 brief report on the project. And the applicant will have 14 30 minutes to give a presentation. And then if there's an 15 organized group, they would get 30 minutes as well. So I 16 guess I want to see if there's an organized group out 17 there that will take 30 minutes. Okay. 18 Not seeing any, what we would do then is proceed 19 to input from the public. And what we'll be doing tonight 20 is limiting that to 3 minutes per person. And there will 21 be a little light up there which is green until 30 seconds 22 left. And then it will turn yellow, and you have 30 23 seconds left to complete. And then it will turn red, and 24, you're done. 25 As usual, we don't want any applause or any sort G R 1 MS. CARPENTER: I have a conflict on the Lemay -- 2 Mulberry/Lemay Crossing item. 3 MR. COLTON: Okay. So she's going to excuse 4 herself. Okay. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Mr. Chairman, I move that -- 6 MR. ECKMAN: First, before a motion is made, I'd 7 like to explain the reason.for this. I think there should 8 be some background. 9 The Planning and Zoning Board, like the City 10 Council, is authorized to go into executive session when 11 it is determined that the release of information to be 12 discussed will be contrary to the best interests of the. 13 City and the matter to be discussed in executive session 14 pertains to one or more of the following subjects: One of 15 which =s, meetings with the City attorney or other 16 attorneys representing the City regarding litigation or 17 potential litigation involving the City, and/or the manner 18 in which particular policies, practices, and regulations 19 of the City may be affected by existing or proposed 20 revisions of Federal, State, or Local Law. 21 There are two topics that I'm recommending that 22 we go into executive session regarding. One of them is -- 23 pertains to legal issues as to the policies, practices, 24 and regulations of the City as they're affected by 25 Federal, State, and Local Law. And the other is that you 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Do we have a motion on Number 8? MR. GAVALDON: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Item Number 8 for the consent agenda. MR. COLTON: Okay. Do I have a second? MS. MEYER: I'll second. MR. COLTON: Okay. Any discussion on that item? Okay. Could we have roll call, please? THE CLERK: Torgerson? MR. TORGERSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Meyer. MS. MEYER: Yes. THE CLERK: Gavaldon? MR. GAVALDON: Yes. THE CLERK: Craig? MS CRAIG: Yes. THE CLERK: Bernth? MR. BERNTH: Yes. THE CLERK: Colton? MR. COLTON: Yes. Okay. So we have a consent item agenda. And so it will be time to move on to the Mulberry/Lemay Crossing item. Jennifer, did you have an announcement to make? MS. CARPENTER: I have a conflict. MR. COLTON: Okay. Why don't you say it to the audience. Say it so the audience can hear. 4 1 Jerry. 2 MR. GAVALDON: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval 3 of Items 1, with the two -- with the two deletions, and 2, 4 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. 5 MR. COLTON: Do I have a second? 6 MS. CARPENTER: I'll second. 7 MR. COLTON: Thank you. Okay. Any discussion? 8 Can we have roll call, please? 9 THE CLERK: Carpenter? 10 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 11 THE CLERK: Bernth? 12 MR. BERNTH: Yes. 13 THE CLERK: Torgerson? 14 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. 15 THE CLERK: Meyer? 16 MS. MEYER: Yes. 17 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 18 MS. GAVALDON: Yes. 19 THE CLERK: Craig? 20 MS. CRAIG: Yes. 21 THE CLERK: Colton? 22 MR. COLTON: Yes. 23 Okay. Jennifer, you have that conflict on Item 24 Number 8. So I guess maybe we could go ahead and vote on 25 that one even with you here, probably. And then -- okay. IN j 1 (Meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.) 2 MR. COLTON: Good evening. Welcome to the 3 January 20th meeting of.the Fort Collins Planning and 4 Zoning Board. Could we have roll call, please? 5 THE CLERK: Bernth? 6 MR. BERNTH: Here. 7 THE CLERK: Carpenter? 8 MS. CARPENTER: Here. 9 THE CLERK: Torgerson? 10 MR. TORGERSON: Here. 11 THE CLERK: Meyer? 12 MS. MEYER: Here. 13 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 14 MR. GAVALDON: Here. 15 THE CLERK: Craig? 16 MS. CRAIG: Here. 17 THE CLERK: Colton? 18 MR. COLTON: Here. 19 Bob, can we have the agenda review, please? 20 MR. BLANCHARD: Good evening, Chairman Colton, 21 Members of the Board. We had 11 items advertised for the 22 agenda tonight. 10 of those are consent. I do need to 23 make one change to Agenda Number 1 which is the minutes. 24 We need to continue the October 21st and the November 18th 25 sets of minutes till the next meeting. PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 20, 1999 MULBERRY/LEMAY CROSSING LOT 1, FILING 1, FINAL PUD Commission Members Present: Glen Colton Mikal Torgerson Sally Craig Dan Bernth Jennifer Carpenter Jerry Gavaldon Judy Meyer Staff Present: Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Bob Blanchard, Planning Department Ted Shepard, Planning Department Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll -free (800) 482-1506 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax. (970) 482-1230 e-mail. meadors@reporterworks.com Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Meyer, Gavaldon, Torgerson, Carpenter and Colton. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Shepard, Bracke, Schlueter, Virata, Stringer, McNair, Kreimeyer, Byrne, Wamhoff, Baker, Dodge and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Discussion: 11. #26-96D Minutes of the September 17, December 17, 1998 and November 4, 1999 Planing and Zoning Board Hearings. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Resolution PZ99-21 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ99-22 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ00-1 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ00-2 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ00-3 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ00-4 Easement Vacation Resolution PZ00-5 Easement Dedication Resolution PZ00-6 Easement Dedication Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, P.U.D. — Final A Verbatim transcript is attached for the entire meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Conclusions Development of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings will give residents of the northern part of Fort Collins shopping and dining opportunities that currently only exist in the southern part of Fort Collins. Roadways in the area of the development will be improved to the level that traffic will flow well. In some cases, traffic flow will be improved over existing conditions. The vehicle miles of travel in the city are predicted to be reduced by about 17,500,000 miles annually because residents of northern Fort Collins will not have to drive to south Fort Collins to shop at discount retail stores. This reduction in annual vehicle miles of travel includes approximately 8,500,000 less annual vehicles miles of travel on College Avenue alone. Mulberry and Lemay Crossings is being planned with pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders in mind. An integrated system of sidewalks and bike paths will connect to the Poudre River Trail and existing walking paths. With transit stops planned along Lemay Avenue and within the development, shoppers will be encouraged to use alternate methods of transportation. 49 Recommendations The roadway network will be adequate to support the traffic volumes in the vicinity of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings if the following enhancements to the infrastructure are implemented: • Construct dual left -turn lanes westbound on Mulberry Street at Lemay Avenue. • Add one northbound through lane on Lemay Avenue at Mulberry Street. • Add a northbound right -turn phase with channelized island at Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue. • Construct median pedestrian refuge areas with auxiliary pedestrian buttons on all four legs of Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue. • Construct a three-quarter access at Mulberry Street/12th Street. • Realign the frontage road on the north side of Mulberry Street at Mulberry Street/12th Street. • Widen Lemay Avenue to two lanes in each direction, with turn lanes at signalized intersections from Mulberry Street to Lincoln Avenue. • Signalize Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street • Modify the signal phasing at Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to provide protected/permitted left turns. • Construct 12th Street from Mulberry Street to Lincoln Avenue to commercial local street standards. These improvements are planned to be implemented in conjunction with the opening of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings. 48 Transit Plans have been made for transit service at Mulberry and Lemay Crossings (see Figure 14). Transfort officials indicated that future service on Lemay Avenue, north of Mulberry, is included in their Transit Development Plan. This service will provide hourly service - both northbound and southbound on Lemay. Once development in the area is built out and if demand warrants it, the service will be increased to every half hour. The Mulberry and Lemay Crossings development will be served by this route, as a northbound bus stop is planned for the northeast corner of Lemay and Magnolia Street. The location of the southbound stop has not been identified. The site plan provides direct pedestrian linkages between the Transfort stop and the pedestrian sidewalk system. In addition, Transfort has plans to provide service on Lincoln Avenue, east of Lemay Avenue. This service is scheduled to begin early fall of 1999. Hourly service will be provided for 18 hours each day - both eastbound and westbound. Proposed stops include an eastbound stop in the vicinity of the Buffalo Run Apartment development, a westbound stop close to Lemay Avenue, and eastbound and westbound stops in the vicinity of the Link Lane intersection. 46 Traffic Signal will aid Pedestrians and Cyclists in Crossing the Street Sidewalk Sidewalk I , i 1 � 5 Sidewalk Traffic Signal all aid Pedestrians and Cyclists in Crossing the Street 0 L a+ao 10 0 Sidewalk � _ a — At —Grade Pedestrian Crossing ^, t Sidewalk I 0 i e Traffic Signal all aid z Sidewalk Pedestrians and Cyclists i in Crossing the Street e f Sidewalk Figure 12 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit Pedestrians People traveling to Mulberry and Lemay Crossings will be encouraged to utilize alternate modes of transportation. Extensive infrastructure is being planned for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. The pedestrian network and its features will provide visual interest and pedestrian amenities. Sidewalks and plazas will be built throughout the development to encourage safe pedestrian traffic once people have arrived at Mulberry and Lemay Crossings (see Figure 12). The sidewalk pattern complements the grid pattern of the development, thus creating a directness between destinations within the development. Four at -grade pedestrian crossings within the development will have a. textured pavement to alert motorists of high concentrations of pedestrians. Sidewalks on the perimeter of the development will connect to existing sidewalks and the Poudre River Trail via signalized intersection crossings. Three traffic signals on Lemay Avenue at Mulberry Street, Magnolia Street, and Lincoln Avenue will aid pedestrians in safely crossing the street. The intersection at Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue will be designed with medians and supplemental pedestrian buttons. This will allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross one direction of travel, push a pedestrian button for the traffic signal, and have a shorter distance to cross the street. nq Bicycle Travel to the development by bicycle will be encouraged by providing connections to; existing trails and providing numerous locations for bicycle parking (see Figure 13). - Connections to the existing Poudre River Trail will be made at the northwest corner of Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue and at Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue. _A dedicated bike lane will be constructed on the east side of Lemay Avenue adjacent to Mulberry and Lemay Crossings. Bicycle parking will be provided at eight locations around the development. A bicycle pavilion will be located northeast of Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue with benches provided for cyclists to rest. Water fountains will be available at the pavilion for cyclists to refill their water bottles as well as a facility to add air to bicycle tires. Retailers oriented toward cyclists and pedestrians on the Poudre River Trail will occupy space near the bicycle pavilion. 43 Adjacent Roadways and Intersections that are not Part of the Development The City staff and local residents raised issues during preliminary discussions concerning traffic around Mulberry and Lemay Crossings. First, the staff was concerned that increased traffic volumes on Mulberry Street will impact the signal operation at Mulberry Street/Riverside Avenue when the signal is preempted by a train. Fred Jones, Traffic System Technician, indicated that the train schedule is unpredictable and that trains sometimes preempt the signal during the evening peak hour, causing westbound traffic on Mulberry Street to occasionally queue back to Lemay Avenue. This concern has been addressed by increasing the capacity of Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue to more adequately serve the traffic. Second, the staff wanted to know if Magnolia Street from 12th Street to Link Lane should be widened as a result of this development. Traffic volumes on this portion of Magnolia are very light and no trips associated with Mulberry and Lemay Crossings were assigned to the street. The need to improve this street will not be driven by the development. Area residents have expressed the concern that increased traffic due to this development will further exacerbate traffic problems at the Lemay/Vine intersections when a train crosses Lemay. The City has plans to relocate Lemay Avenue to the east with an overpass at the railroad crossing. Funding for this project has not been identified. Until such time that Lemay is relocated, it would be helpful to provide a split phase signal at Lemay and Vine, which would allow northbound left turns to occur without conflict from southbound through vehicles. This signal improvement is being considered by City staff. 42 Modify Signal Operation Widen Lernoy Avenue to 2 Lanes in Each Direction with a Continuous Right Turn Lone on the East Side Add Westbound Dual Left Turn Lanes. Add Northbound Through Lone, Modify Traffic Signal 3j1 1 Lu z ;. � iI Construct a Lu f" ' Traffic Ssignal i y �•, MAGNOLIA STREET (PROPOSED) l�j/�.J Construct Magnolia Street ;1 f: Construct the Intersection of 12th Street/Magnolia Street II MULBERRY STREET/ I Construct the Intersection of Lincoln Avenue/12th Street Construct 12th Street MAGNOLIA STREET (EXISTIN titt A ?� L/All If Construct 3/4 Aceess Realign Frontage Road on the North Side of Mulberry Street Figure 11 PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to Magnolia Ave. - west of 12th Avenue: • An eight -foot wide, dedicated bicycle lane will be constructed along both sides of the street. • An eight -foot wide, detached sidewalk will be constructed along both sides of the street. Onsite Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: • A network of eight -foot wide pedestrian sidewalks will be constructed from the streets to the buildings and through the parking lots. • Three private transit drop-off zones (vans from the Senior Center) will be provided. • Dedicated vehicular parking for users of the Poudre River Trail will be provided. Compressed air and water will be provided at this location. • Bike racks will be provided through -out the site, near the major retailers and in the plaza areas. Two new streets will be constructed in conjunction with the development of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings. First, 12th Street will extend from Mulberry Street to Lincoln Avenue to provide access to the development. This roadway will be classified as a commercial local street by the City of Fort Collins. There will also be intersections with the existing Magnolia Street and the new Magnolia Street. Second, Magnolia Street, a collector without parking, will be built from Lemay Avenue to 12th Street. This new roadway will also provide access to the development. 40 The roadway improvements to Lemay Avenue will include: • Lemay Avenue will be widened from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction, with turn lanes at signalized intersections. This improvement will bring the roadway up to the classification of arterial as defined by the City of Fort Collins. • The intersection of Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street will be signalized when needed. This will be the primary entrance to Mulberry Street and Lemay Crossings. The signal phasing at Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue will be modified to provide protected/permitted left -turn phasing on northbound and southbound Lemay Avenue. . The bicycle/pedestrian/ transit improvements to Lemay Avenue will include: A dedicated, eight -foot wide bicycle lane will be constructed on both sides of the street from the bridge over the Poudre River north to the Lincoln Avenue intersection. On the east side of Lemay from the northerly -most private drive the bike path becomes detached and eight -feet wide to Lincoln Street. • An eight -foot wide, detached pedestrian sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of Lemay with special crosswalks at all drive and street crossings. • A transit stop, featuring a bus pull-out lane, will be provided on the east side north of the intersection of Magnolia and Lemay. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to Twelfth Street include: • A six-foot wide, dedicated bicycle lane will be constructed on both sides of 12th Street from Mulberry to Lincoln. • An eight -foot wide, detached pedestrian sidewalk will be constructed along the west side of the street from Mulberry to Lincoln. A five-foot wide, detached sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of the street from Mulberry to Lincoln Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to Magnolia Ave. - east of 12th Avenue: • An eight -foot wide, dedicated bicycle lane will be constructed along both sides of the street. • A four and one -half -foot wide, detached sidewalk will be constructed along both sides of the street. • The frontage road on the north side of Mulberry Street will be realigned to move it away from Mulberry Street/12th Street. This new intersection will be a full movement with stop control in the frontage road. The bicycle/pedestrian improvements to Mulberry include the following: • A dedicated eight -foot wide bicycle lane will be constructed from the bridge east to the new Twelfth Street intersection An eight -foot wide, dedicated pedestrian sidewalk will be constructed on the north side from Lemay to the new Twelfth Street intersection. • Hard surface connections to the existing Poudre Trail west of Lemay and to the Frontage Road on the south side of Mulberry • Special Pedestrian Crosswalks featuring "refuge islands" and pedestrian activated signals in the medians will be constructed. 38 Traffic Signals The need for signalization at Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street and Lincoln Avenue/Link Lane was checked using the warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration, 1988). Based on the projected traffic volumes, the peak hour volume warrant will be satisfied at Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street. It is unlikely that a traffic signal will be warranted at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Link Lane until perhaps Year 2020. This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection for Year 1999 and Year 2004. It was analyzed as both an unsignalized intersection and a signalized intersection for Year 2020. Other warrants will likely be.satisfied if the data were available to check them. Roadway/Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Improvements There are a number of roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements that are being proposed in conjunction with the development of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings (see Figure 11). The two arterial roadways that are directly adjacent to the site, Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue, will have the most improvements. Two new streets will also be constructed. The roadway improvements to Mulberry Street will include: • Dual left -turn lanes will be constructed westbound on Mulberry Street at Lemay Avenue. • One northbound through lane on Lemay Avenue will be added. The laneage on this approach will be one left -turn lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane. • The addition of a northbound right -turn phase at Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue will be implemented to accommodate the large amount of vehicles making that movement. • Construct right -turn channelizing islands for northbound right turns at Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue to provide increased capacity. • Provide median refuge areas with auxiliary pedestrian buttons on all legs of Mulberry/Lemay to accommodate pedestrian traffic. • Traffic signal modifications at Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue will be performed to accommodate the new laneage. • At Mulberry Street/12th Street, a three-quarter access will be constructed. This improvement will eliminate the southbound through and left -turn movements. In addition, a traffic signal will not be required at this intersection while providing access to the development. 37 Reduction in Vehicle Miles of Travel Development of the new discount stores and other retail establishments at Mulberry and Lemay Crossings may result in a substantial reduction in vehicle miles of travel in Fort Collins. This is due to the fact that most of the discount retail and dining establishments are located in the southern part of Fort Collins near the Foothills Fashion Mall. An analysis was performed using two methodologies to estimate the number of vehicle miles of travel that may be reduced annually. For both methodologies, locations of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings and the existing Wal-Mart store on South College Avenue were plotted on a scaled map and then the City was divided equally. The existing Wal-Mart store was used because it is in the heart of the retail development in that part of the city. Assumptions used for the two analyses were: People will drive to the closest discount store. • The retail stores and restaurant that will be built at Mulberry and Lemay Crossings are currently available in some form near the existing Wal-Mart. • Distances to Mulberry and Lemay Crossings and the existing Wal-Mart store were calculated along arterial and collector roadways. • The number of trips assumed for an average weekday will also occur on weekend days and holidays. The first methodology uses sales information by zip code for the existing Wal-Mart store. Trips from zip code areas closer to Mulberry and Lemay Crossing were reassigned to that site and the distance reduction was calculated. This methodology resulted in an estimated reduction of 14,734 vehicle miles of travel daily. The second methodology used the 1990 Fort Collins census data and assumed trips to Mulberry and Lemay Crossing will be made proportionately from each census tract. This analysis technique also assumes approximately 25% of the shopping trips come from outside the City limits. Results of this methodology estimate a reduction in daily VMT of 47,945 vehicle miles of travel. The most recent VMT calculation by the City of Fort Collins indicates the daily vehicle miles of travel within the City is 2,400,000 VMT. The two methodologies indicate a reduction of between 0.6% and 1.9% may be expected with this development. The potential reduction in travel will yield benefits to the City in the form of less congestion on roadways in the southern part of the city, less roadway maintenance, and reduced auto emissions. It should be noted that the potential reduction is anticipated to be in the range of 0.6% to 1.9%. The reduction may be less than 0.6% or more than 1.9%. A VMT reduction is not guaranteed. For these reasons, all of the operational analyses did not assume any VMT reduction. Data used in the calculations of VMT are shown in Appendix E. 36 12TH STREET 640 Feet 313' Storage (259' + Bay Taper) 2 (259'+54'=313') TOTAL WB STORAGE: 259' (Lane #1) 313' (Lane #2) 572' 1 N Not to Scale MULBERRY STREET (SH 14) NR-B, 45 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT 273' Storage CDOT Left -Turn Lane Storage Requirements Mulberry/Lemay 108' Bay Taper EB left -turn volume: 466 vph Y P Required storage = 466 feet Provided storage = 572 feet (313' + 259') T Mulberry/12th WB left -turn volume: 165 vph Required storage = 165 feet Provided storage = 273 feet 259' Storage LEMAY r w to J Figure 10A RECOMMENDED LEFT -TURN LANE DESIGN STORAGE AND TAPER Mulberry Street from 12th Street to Lemay 12TH STREET MULBERRY STREET (SH 14) NR-B, 45 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT Deceleration (273' + Bay Taper 2 CDOT Design Guidelines Eastbound ' 435' (Decel + Taper) 13:5:1 Transition taper ratio 12-foot offset 108' Bay Taper 540 Feet ` Taper = 13.5 x 12 = 162' 1 435'- 162' = 273' Decel Bay taper = 162' = 54' 3 Westbound 435' (Decel + Taper) 313' Deceleration (259' + Bay Taoer) 13:5:1 Transition taper ratio 2 24-foot offset ' Taper = 13.5x24=324' ' Bay taper = 324' = 108' 3 LEMAY o: o: w in J L� ,71 N Not to Scalp Figure LEFT -TURN LANE DESIG,. DECELERATION AND TAPER Mulberry Street from 12th Street to Lemay Mulberry Street/12th Street Left -Turn Lane Requirements The requirements for the eastbound left -turn movement at the proposed Mulberry Street and 12th Street three-quarter movement access are based on the State of Colorado State Highway Access Code, effective August 31, 1998 and assuming Mulberry Street is categorized as a NR-B, a Non -Rural B Arterial, with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH. The auxiliary lanes are required to accommodate deceleration length. The required deceleration length for a left -turn deceleration lane is 435 feet. The deceleration length includes the transition taper length. The required taper ratio for a 45 MPH roadway is 13.5:1. For a twelve foot offset, the required taper length is 162 feet. For a twenty -tour foot offset (dual left -turn lanes), the required taper length is 324 feet. However, as recommended in Section 4.8 (5)(b) of the Access Code, straight transition tapers should be avoided at speeds above 40 MPH. Instead, a bay taper design (asymmetrical reverse curve) should be used. The bay taper length is one-third of the transition taper length. The westbound left -turn at the Mulberry/Lemay intersection is proposed to be a dual left turn lane. For a dual left turn lane, or a twenty-four foot offset, the required taper length is 324 feet. A bay taper design would therefore be 108 feet (324 feet / 3). Figure 10 shows the required deceleration lengths and the proposed bay taper design for the.two intersections. There is approximately 640 feet between the Lemay Street intersection and the 12th Street intersection. Because of the close proximity of the intersections, the deceleration length requirements cannot be met. The design waiver will require a variance from CDOT. Although the design requires a variance, it is an improvement over the existing full -movement intersection design with adjacent frontage roads. However, the design does accommodate storage requirements and taper design. Storage for both the single eastbound and dual westbound left -turn lanes plus the bay taper can be accommodated between Lemay Avenue and 12th Street. A sketch of the proposed left -turn lane design is shown in Figure 10A. 33 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS (for Stop -controlled) BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC 12th Street/Access.F (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 12th Street/Access G (Stop -controlled) EB L and T — A EB R — A WB L and T — A WB R — A NB L — A SI3 L — A _ Lincoln Avenue/Link Lane (4-way stop) NB L and T F F NB R A A SB L and T F F SB R B B EB L A A WB L A B _ Lincoln Avenue/Link Lane (Signalized) B (12.7/0.672) B (.13.6/0.720) Link Lane/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L and T C C EB R B B WB L and T C C WB R A A NB L A A SB L A A Signalized Intersections: LOS (delay / critical v/c) Indicates that Delay and V/C ratio cannot be determined due to excessive delays 32 TABLE 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY. PM PEAK HOUR - YEAR 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC Lemay Avenue/Mulberry Street (Signalized) F ('/') D (29.0/0.965) Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue (Signalized) F ('/') D (27.910.977) Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street (Signalized) — B (11.8/0.774) Lemay Avenue/Riverside (Signalized) C (20_6/0.752) C (21.3/0_820) Mulberry Street/Riverside (Signalized) C (16.7/0.738) C (17.3/0.738) Lemay Avenue/Vine Street (Signalized) F (-r) F (-r) Link Lane/Mulberry Street (Signalized) B (12.7/0.595) B (12.9/0.613) Mulberry Street/12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB R — B SB R — C EB L — F WB L — C Lemay Avenue/Access Drive A (Stop -controlled) WB R — _ B__ _ Lemay Avenue/Access Drive B (Stop -controlled) WB R — _ B _ Lemay Avenue/Access Drive C (Stop -controlled) WB R — B Lincoln Ave/Lincoln East PUD (Stop -controlled) SB R B — B Lincoln Avenue/Buffalo Run (Stop -controlled) NBLand R D D WBL A A Lincoln Avenue/12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB L D D NB R B B WBL A A 12th Street/Access D (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 12th Street/Access E (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 12th Street/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 31 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION __........._. LANE GROUPS (for Stop -controlled) BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC 12th Street/Access F (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 12th Street/Access G (Stop -controlled) EB L and T — A EB R — A WB Land T — A WB R — A NB L — A SB L A ------ - ------ Lincoln Avenue/Link Lane (4-way stop) NB L and T F F NB R A A SB L and T F F SB R A A EB L A A WB L A A _ Link Lane/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L and T C C EB R B B WB L and T C C WB R A A NB L A A SB L A A Signalized Intersections: LOS (delay / critical v/c) . Indicates that Delay and V/C ratio cannot be determined due to excessive delays 30 TABLE 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR - YEAR 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION _ LANE GROUPS BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC Lemay Avenue/Mulberry Street (Signalized) C (23.6/0.930) C (23.6/0.916) Lemay Avenue/Lincoln Avenue (Signalized) B (7.7/0.540) C (20.6/0.842) Lemay Avenue/Magnolia Street (Signalized) — B (10.6/0.752) Lemay Avenue/Riverside (Signalized) C (21.3/0.791) C (20.8/0.867) Mulberry Street/Riverside (Signalized) C (16.4/0.717) C (17.0/0.818) Lemay Avenue/Vine Street (Signalized) F (•/I F ('P) Link Lane/Mulberry Street (Signalized) B (14.5/0.675) B (13.5/0.707) Mulberry StreeU12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB R — B SB R — C EB L — F WBL — C Lemay Avenue/Access Drive A (Stop -controlled) WBR _ A. Lemay Avenue/Access Drive B (Stop -controlled) WBR — _ A Lemay Avenue/Access Drive C (Stop -controlled) WB R — A Lincoln Ave/Lincoln East PUD (Stop -controlled) SB R B B Lincoln Avenue/Buffalo Run (Stop -controlled) NB Land R C C WBL A _ A Lincoln Avenue/12th Street (Stop -controlled) NB L C C NB R A A WBL A A 12th Street/Access D (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NBIL — A 12th Street/Access E (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A 12th Street/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A NB L — A c LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS (for Stop -controlled) BACKGROUND TOTAL TRAFFIC 12th Street/Access F (Stop -controlled) EB L — A EB R — A _ NB_L_ —_ _ A _ 12th Street/Access G (Stop -controlled) EB L and T - A EB R — A WB L and T — A WB R — A NB L — A SB L_ _ _ — A Lincoln Avenue/Link Lane (4-way stop) NB L and T F F NB R A A SB L and T E F SB R A A EB L A A WBL A A Link Lane/Magnolia Street (Stop -controlled) EB L and T B B EB R A A WS Land T B B WB R A A NB L A A SB L A A Signalized Intersections: LOS (delay / critical v/c) ' Indicates that Delay and V/C ratio cannot be determined due to excessive delays 28 improvement of this intersection, therefore, no improvements were assumed in the analyses. The southbound and northbound left -turn movements at the intersection of Link Lane and Lincoln Avenue are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM Peak Hours. However, as indicted previously, this is not uncommon at unsignalized intersections during peak hours. It should be noted that during most of the day, these movements will operate acceptably. The eastbound left -turn movement at the intersection of Mulberry and 12th Street is projected to operate at a LOS F during the PM Peak Hour. Once again, the queue for this movement was analyzed to determine if these vehicles will obstruct the eastbound through vehicles.. Based on the HCS Analysis, the eastbound left -turn queue during the PM Peak Hour is projected to be approximately 9 vehicles or 180 feet. The recommended design for this intersection (Figure 10) can accommodate the projected queue. Year 2020 background traffic conditions indicate that some of the key intersections are projected to operate unacceptably due to increased traffic volumes. Specifically, the intersections of Lemay/Mulberry, Lemay/Lincoln, and LemayNine are projected to operate at LOS F. Year 2020 total traffic conditions indicate that the signalized intersections will operate acceptably, with the exception of the LemayNine intersection. The improved level of service at the signalized intersections can be attributed to improvements proposed with the development of this project. It is anticipated that traffic volumes at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Link Lane will warrant installation of a traffic signal. This intersection was analyzed both as an unsignalized intersection and as a signalized intersection. As a signalized intersection, Level of Service B is projected for both background and total traffic conditions. The eastbound left -turn movement at the intersection of Mulberry and 12th Street is projected to operate at a LOS F during the PM Peak Hour. The projected queue is approximately 14 vehicles. The required storage for 14 vehicles is 280 feet. The proposed design, shown on Figure 10, can accommodate the required storage for this movement. W. Intersection Operational Analysis The Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manual by the Transportation Research Board in 1994, were used to analyze all of the intersections within the study area. These techniques allow for the determination of the intersection level of service based on congestion and delay of each traffic movement. Traffic analyses were completed for background traffic and for total traffic conditions, after completion of the proposed project. The analysis was conducted for the years 1999, 2004, and 2020. The results of this analysis are. provided in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Definitions of Level of Service are provided in Appendix D. The Year 1999 traffic Level of Service (LOS) analyses show that all of the intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service - both with and without the addition of project traffic. One exception is the northbound and southbound left and through movements at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Link Lane. The northbound movements currently operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour and are projected to operate at LOS "F" with the addition of project traffic. The southbound left and through movements currently operate at LOS "E" and are projected to operate at LOS "F" with the addition of project traffic. However, this is typical of left turns at unsignalized intersections during peak hours. Acceptable - operations are considered to be LOS "D" or better. The eastbound left-tum movement at the proposed three-quarter movement intersection of Mulberry and 12th Street is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM Peak Hour. In order to determine whether or not vehicles making this movement will interfere with eastbound through vehicles, the queue length projected for the eastbound left -turn movement was analyzed. Based on the HCS Analysis output sheets, the 95% queue length projected for this movement is approximately 5 vehicles or 100 feet (assuming a vehicle length of 20 feet). This projected queue can be accommodated in the recommended left -turn lane design (Figure 10). Therefore, the left -turn vehicles will not back out of the left -turn lane and impede the eastbound through vehicles. . For the Year 2004 scenarios, the levels of service for the signalized intersections will continue to be acceptable, with the exception of the Lemay Avenue and Vine Street intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at a LOS F both with and without the traffic. This level of service can be attributed to the fact that there is only one travel lane in each direction and that traffic is projected to grow in this area in the near future. The City of Fort Collins does not have any plans for the 25 . TABLE 3 LEMAY AVENUE SIGNAL PROGRESSION RESULTS MEASURES, 1999 2004 2020 OF EFFECTIVENESS BACK GROUND PROPOSED BACK- GROUND PROPOSED BACK GROUND PROPOSED Cycle Length 110 sec 100 sec 110 sec 100 sec 110 sec 110 sec Efficiency 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.39 0.31 0.31 Attainability 0.88 0.77 0.88 0.79 0.77 0.69 Band A 42 sec 36 sec 39 sec 39 sec 40 sec 39 sec Band B 37 sec 33 sec 39 sec 39 sec 28 sec 29 sec Band A Avg Speed 37 mph 33 mph 37 mph 33 mph 37 mph 33 mph Band B Avg Speed 37 mph 33 mph 37 mph 33 mph 37 mph 33 mph . As is indicated in the tables, good signal progression will be maintained on both Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue both with and without the project traffic. The addition of project traffic does not have a negative impact on vehicle progression for either corridor. 24 IV. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Signal Progression Analysis A signal progression analysis was performed for both Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue. The study area, defined by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff, included: Mulberry Street from Link Lane to Riverside Avenue and Lemay Avenue from Vine Street south to Riverside Avenue. The signal progression analysis was conducted using Passer II-90 software. For the background traffic conditions analyses, the existing cycle length of 110 seconds was used. For subsequent analyses, the cycle length was optimized to obtain good progression on both corridors. The optimized cycle lengths were then input into the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) analyses for the signalized intersections so that a realistic comparison can be made between the progression analyses and the intersection capacity analyses. The analysis indicates that by optimizing the cycle length, good signal progression will result on both corridors. The output sheets from the analyses are contained in Appendix B. The results of the progression analyses are identified in Tables 2 and 3. TABLE MULBERRY_ STREET SIGNAL PROGRESSION RESULTS MEASURES 1999 2004 2020 OF EFFECTIVENESS BACK- GROUND PROPOSED Cycle Length 110 sec 100 sec Efficiency 0.35 0.36 Attainability 0.83 0.79 Band A 38 sec 35 sec Band B 38 sec 35 sec Band A Avg Speed 43 mph 43 mph Band B Avg Speed 43 mph 43 mph GROUND PROPOSED GROUND PROPOSED 110 sec 100 sec 110 sec 110 sec 0.3 0.34 0.23 0.3 0.75 0.75 0.68 0.74 33 sec 34 sec 24 sec 32 sec 33 sec 33 sec 26 sec 34 sec 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 43 mph 23 _Z N Not to Sc. LINCOLN AVENUE + N � �-12 ACCESS C ACCESS DZ t 4 rn t2 SITE t-- 109 1 f ACCESS B ACCESS E 4 47 e" SITE N r— 386 f r MAGNOLIA STREET g 0 30 �i m SITE W Z N m W �1 ACCESS F Q 10 W J � 1 t— 63 1W j L ter— 1 f ACCESS A ACCESS G 3 � N 0 m 'n 1 10� n' MULBERRY STREET H w Figure e 2020 TOTAL TRAFFIL co Site Access CN PM Peak Hour ' r n J v t- 258 N 1 --21s j — 48 t I Not to Scale E. VINE DRIVE 70� 220 — 97� mmo rn e LU z Q J jLINCOLN_E_AST PUB Y z_ O n m rn t— 285 m ' J LINCOLN AVENUE iL ,—� 00J 692 261 r 425 � t--23 r 89 —' 1r 575 -� IN IN J + 1. -- 369 205 85 386 -► 208 c r 27 1 15 mo Q 106 BUFFALO RUN UN APTS 359 --► I t r 150—i �^ o LU W It LUSITE D U) z LU = N 0 LU MAGNOLIA MAGNOLIA STREET i r- 22 91�t r 0- mm V 22 t�-- 349 V-L 75 1138 19 m�135 1173 466 N101 '546 9 � 1048 1 19 .NJ° ► 4 J 274 ---t '1 t r MULBERRY STREET165 ---t r 241 —J I t r 1027 — n ^ . 425 Q n 1039 -� 165 v N 1227 — n . 1024-� N o 1 N 0 t— 280 — 1091 145 290 625 — 480 ° Figure 9 2020 TOTAL TRAFFIC Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour LINCOLN AVENUE N � ..z N Not to S, L 12 j 1 t r ACCESS C ACCESS DZ I t my 4� m^' m- SITE t— 109 IN i t r ACCESS B ACCESS E 4 I t = 4% N m N r SITE mN �66 j L 386 1 t t r MAGNOLIA STREET s m0 30� m SITE W N m Z w ACCESS F It Q 3 Q 10 W L, J 63 I � �I �— 1 r� 4 t r ACCESS A ACCESS G 3 m CD m cc10 —+ � n MULBERRY STREET H Figure w 2004 TOTAL TRAFFi.: = Site Access N PM Peak Hour E. VINE DRIVE m N nm 1133 I� t— 158 r- 29 135� 59� mo n ��om N Not to Scale LINCOLN AVENUE 00 j jLINCOLN EAST PUDi t— 203 �n 103 t-- 514 +, r 268 r--203 427 r 254 - W z Q J Y z_ J IN Im L 14 1 L. 181 181 56279 133 —► n N -� 27 M 15 coo m� 205 —i m v 3 BUFFALO RUN APTS 15 t r 92oMm omn H W W D SITE z Cn w a _ C1' N om 0 22 LIJ MAGNOLIA STREET .J + L► J ---- -- 91 I t r 0 � mQ c 22- —N m < t— 307 m o t— 129 c t— 101 0mri t-- 56 -955 1087 N 1432 P-o 1086 12L .i. 6 I t r 211 --J t r MULBERRY STREET1651 �' 198 � t r 821 N rn m 261—j 954 — M O M 1467 -- 27 1281 --- 5o•-� Nan t— 128 410 r— 104 179 1 332 — 346 - .� t r mm M Figure 8 2004 TOTAL TRAFFIC Adjacent Intersections ' PM Peak Hour LINCOLN AVENUE r �12 �1 4 r ACCESS C ACCESS DZ I t 4 SITE 1N 109 ACCESS B ACCESS E 4 t 1 I 47 N � N SITE j L� 385 j t f' MAGNOLIA STREET s t 30� no m� SITE w N m Z W ACCESS F y Q 3 —? 10 I W J L, N � � 1 ACCESS A ACCESS G 3 �0 1 10 MULBERRY STREET _.z N Not to Sc MAGNOLIA STREET W Figure 1999 TOTAL TRAFF Site Access N II PM Peak Hour E. VINE DRIVE ^ L 136 114 25 37 -� t r 116� oo ^ 51—� _ r N Not to Scale LINCOLN AVENUE J ILINCOLN 174 m 88 r EAST PUD� —443 j-232 226 - r 212 - 426 42 W Z Q J Y _Z J I I J + L. 11 263 qg ---tt 114 — ^ _m m 27 —j m^ 15 -- mo 143 193 gym" v 42 � BUFFALO RUN APTS 142 1 t r F- W 73 a, m n W W z SITE ~ _ W N Q � C ' Q^ L 11 LU MAGNOLIA STREET «� i L. �0 22 2°2� mN:` L26 � q t 113 N L 101 t--46 10 ; L. � 9211 1rn I- J t L_ � Io .J 1-' 204—= 1t rMULBERRY STREET165—t (' 170—t � t r 728 < 224—y NOQm 825 c� o — m N�� 1255 — 27� ^ 1098 — m 4-i �An/O rU 9�� �Gcc BOG J L 116 f 344 89 154 252 329 —� `' Figure 7 1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour E. VINE DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE N L 310 J I 19 I, ;- L 258 �— 216 r 48 70--j 1tr 220 $ 97 —� — PUDi W LINCOLN EAST a -----------------I Uj Y W Z m g L 285cn H J J I L. 307 ( L 5 — 681 = 10D .J 692 2 N — 675 ^ mp 1 N N N L 23 85 �7 I r 589 ~ r75 -+ J 1 L 328 386 — mp mN m 27 �io ^ t5 r i— 205 85 � ^ m ^ 1°S� BUFFALO RUN' 320 -� t r i APARTMENTS' W Lu SITE L„ Q J I L. r- 22 MAGNOLIA STREET W 9-j -� t r J 0 ^ 22� ^ t- 8 8 119 J I L. ~ 1096 r— 458 9I I r 110 "1 t r 863 425 m 998 mRi 165 O1 F� s/o F �< J I L. L 280 1091 r 145 goo L19 J 1 L. I � 9546 83 1172 27 -� 0 O x W Z O w 1L N Not to SL ^g L75 J I (� 1966 19 r— 241 -J `l r 947 --► m N m N 1� MULBERRY STREET 290 625 — 480 \V�s Figure 2020 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour E. VINE DRIVE Q^ N N m L 158 �- 133 29 43 I I r 135 m N m N 59 � m LINCOLN AVENUE ry m N J 1 L. I iLINCOLN EAST PUD i -- -- -- --•i E- --'-- W Wof L 203 H �-- 223 - L 5 503 = 103 514 2 N -- 497 268 � z Y Z J 14 56 .__i 133 -+ 27� 1r217 _ ry n m _ 181 � 82 � n� m_ - 53 -J BUFFALO RUNS 110 I r i APARTMENTSi 92 � g m m - w n LU SITE L„ Q J I L. 22 MAGNOLIA STREET W 9J -�fr 22 N 113 gI' L 19 D o n L 56 268 I 1436 Io o 9432 i L I I L 12 .J . 12D4 47 1 t r 83 ---j `1 t r 198 -' `l t r 65727m m N P 913 r N N 1390 -+ m o O 12D4 O 11 v 27 5 Q MULBERRY STREET Fp O S1�O o: cc e LU FtiG� J ♦ L. z z L 128 O �- 410 LL iD4 r N Not to Scale 179 332 + 346 Itr m Figure 5 2004 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour = L 136 Q ^ Not to SL 1 L. — 114 25 .J 1 t r E. VINE DRIVE 37 116 N o n Q 51 r-•--•-----•--•---I LU LINCOLN EAST PUD! z I J _----------------- LU W � z Z 174 c J AVENUE j r 1% �I t— 5 432 LINCOLN .� 443 2 N ` 426 0 R � 1 � L11 48 -� r 227 r 215 INN + 222 r 70� Q �_ BUFFALO RUNT se i APARTMENTS i 73 � . m b N n L------•--•---- LLJ LU SITE J 1 L 22 2 MAGNOLIA STREET LU 9-J I t r 0 22 N �1 L 230 v �o L97 oc L19 _ v = " L46 _I II I tt + L. _ 374 I J + L 9211 Ia I- I _ 810 1� .J 1 L. r 10 �J r + L► 40� �tr 83'1tr 170 �I� 1tr 564 224 N S m 784 1178 -� m o 1021 Q - N Q 9-3 m 27 4� �2 MULBERRY STREET F o qL N m W a t— 116 z O 344 cr LL r - 89 154 -1 252 — 329 I t r s Figure -� 1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour Projected traffic volumes for the site were estimated and assigned to the street network, in combination with background traffic volumes, to obtain the evening peak hour volumes for the years 1999, 2004, and 2020. Figures 4, 5 and 6 contain background traffic volumes and Figures 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A contain total traffic volumes. 13 .J N Not to Scal LINCOLN AVENUE 12 1 ACCESS C ACCESS Dz 1 Q< " SITE N L 109 ACCESS B ACCESS E 4 1 47 ^= SITE " mN t__ 86 386 MAGNOLIA STREET 9 =? 30 t N n m ^_ c N � N m W D ,� l ACCESS F w a SITE 3 10 t ^ r W N 63 ACCESS A i t r ACCESS G 3 MULBERRY STREET Figure 3A w SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC N Site Access PM Peak Hour N i t Not to Scale E. VINE DRIVE 0 n --------------- iLINCOLN EAST PUDI P LINCOLN AVENUE 41 r �— 41 123 -z BUFFALO RUN APTS 39 — W Z LU SITE w Q cn w = Z >_ F N J Q Y Z W J J v L39 o R L 16 —77 0 154 Imn J i L;-- 8 L 82 - 82 164.E 164-1 t r MULBERRY STREET 82 77- 41 77 F �S 9L�c - ,yG F i t 0 N Figure 3 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour E. VINE DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE 2H> W z W ¢ w .J 0 N 2H e cj N 2F F1l`� SITE w z J Y z J MAGNOLIA STREET MULBERRY STREET 0 0 o: W c� z 0 o: LL Not Ve 1H Figure 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION III. TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Trip Distribution The overall directional distribution of the site -generated traffic was determined based on the location of the site within the City of Fort Collins and the surrounding land uses. The overall trip distribution used in the analysis of this report is shown on Figure 2. The City of Fort Collins transportation staff believes the directional distribution on Lincoln Avenue east of the site may increase from 5% to 10% and the distribution to North Lemay would increase from 20% to 25% in the next twenty years due to increased residential development to the northeast. This shift in distribution will decrease traffic projections at the intersection of Mulberry/Lemay, which is the critical intersection in this area. To provide a conservative analysis this change in traffic distribution was not assumed Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The -PM peak hour site -generated trip assignments are shown on Figures 3 and 3A. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes Recent turning movement count data was collected at the following intersections: Mulberry and Lemay Avenue, Mulberry and Link Lane, Lemay Avenue and Vine Street, Lemay Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, Lemay and Riverside, and Riverside and Mulberry. Year 2004 traffic volumes were obtained by applying a 3.1 percent annual increase to the 1999 background traffic volumes. This straight-line, short term annual growth rate is consistent with Year 2020 projections for this study area. Year 2020 traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Fort Collins staff. The traffic volumes assumed full build -out of the proposed project site. The projected daily trips generated from the proposed project were subtracted from the Year 2020 traffic projections so as to not "double count" the project generated trips. Projected volumes for the Buffalo Run Apartment development and the Lincoln East PUD were obtained from a report prepared by Matthew J. Delich, P.E. for the City of Fort Collins. Traffic count data are contained in Appendix A. 9 Trip Reductions Due to the mix of uses proposed for this site, a 10 percent internal capture rate has been applied to the trip generation numbers. This reduction reflects the probability that some drivers will visit more than one destination within the site. No reductions were taken for pass -by, diverted link, transit or bicycle/pedestrian trips in order to provide a conservative analysis. II. DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES Trip Generation Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report entitled Trip Generation, revised 1997, were applied to the proposed land uses in order to estimate the daily, AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips for the site. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination. Table 1 illustrates the projected daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed land uses. TABLE 1 ORIGINAL TRIP GENERATION ITE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE SIZE CODE ADT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Free Standing . 272 KSF 813 12,752 254 245 499. 508 528 1,036 Discount Superstore Specialty Retail Center 62 KSF 814 2534 0 0 0 175 .133 308 High -turnover (Sit- 26 KSF 832 5,338 205 205 410 228 194 422 down) Restaurant = TOTALS 20,624 459 450 909 911 855 1,766 10 PERCENT REDUCTION 18,562. 413 405 818 820 770 1,589 KSF = thousand square feet As is shown in Table 1, the PM peak hour site -generated traffic volumes are considerably higher than the AM peak hour volumes. Initial analysisof this proposed development also indicated that background traffic volumes for this study area are higher during the PM peak hour. Therefore, for purposes of this study, the PM peak hour was deemed as the critical period and, therefore, analysis was conducted for the PM peak hour only. 7 Magnolia Street is a proposed collector that will extend from Lemay Avenue to 12th Street and provide access to the development. The intersection with Lemay Avenue will be signalized when needed and the other intersections will be stop controlled. C. Existing and Future Street System Within the study area, there are two primary, existing roadways which would accommodate traffic to and from the proposed project: Lemay Avenue and Mulberry Street. A brief description of each of these facilities is provided below. Lemay Avenue is a north/south arterial road. The cross section of Lemay Avenue varies, with typically one lane of through traffic in each direction and left -turn lanes at major intersections. The intersections of Lemay Avenue with Lincoln, Mulberry, and Riverside are all signalized. Mulberry Street (State Highway 14) is a major east/west arterial roadway. The typical cross section of Mulberry Street within the study area has two lanes of through traffic in each direction, a center left turn lane, and right -turn acceleration/deceleration lanes. The intersection of Mulberry Street and Link Lane is currently signalized. Several improvements to the intersection of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue are proposed by the developer. These improvements include: • dual westbound left-tum lanes • one additional northbound through lane • protected northbound right turn phase • traffic signal modifications to accommodate the additional laneage Several improvements are being proposed on Lemay Avenue including: • widen the road to two through lanes in each direction with right turn lanes at access drives • signalize the proposed intersection of Lemay Avenue and Magnolia Street • modify the signal phasing at Lemay Avenue and Lincoln Avenue to add protected/permitted left turns for northbound and southbound traffic. 12th Street is a proposed commercial local street that will be constructed from Mulberry Street to Lincoln Avenue to provide access to Mulberry and Lemay Crossings and the light industrial and retail uses to the east. Near Lincoln Avenue, 12th Street will be built on the existing Block Drive right-of-way. As detailed in the Site Access section of this study, it is recommended that a three-quarter movement intersection be constructed at Mulberry Street and 12th Street. The frontage road on the north side of Mulberry Street will be realigned so that it intersects with 12th Street north of Mulberry Street. Site Access Access to the site is proposed via four access points on Lemay Avenue, one of which will be a full -movement, signalized intersection at Magnolia Street; six intersections on the proposed 12th Street, and also at the proposed three-quarter movement intersection of Mulberry Street and 12th Street. An in-depth access analysis was conducted for Mulberry Street, "Mulberry Street Access Analysis for the Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Project, WL Contractors, Inc., July 1997". The analysis studied the four types and configurations of an intersection at this location, analyzed the operational function of each and recommended a proposed configuration of the intersection. It was concluded that the intersection of Mulberry Street/12th Street should be constructed as a three-quarter movement intersection. The three-quarter movement will allow sufficient access to the development without impacting adjacent traffic signals. The City of Fort Collins traffic engineering staff supports this conclusion and further recommends that the existing full movement access on the south side of Mulberry also be restricted to a three-quarter movement. n n Figure 1 SITE LOCATION I. INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study has been provided for the proposed Mulberry and Lemay Crossings retail project at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. Site Location The site is located at the northeast comer of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue. The study area, established through discussions with the Fort Collins city staff, incorporates the site plus some key intersections adjacent to the site. The study area is bounded by Riverside Avenue on the west, Vine Drive on the north, Link Lane on the east, and Riverside Avenue on the south. The site location is shown in Figure 1. Existing and Proposed Land Uses The 40-acre site is currently undeveloped. The existing zoning for the site is planned business with a PUD condition. The proposed project would include construction of approximately 360,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for restaurants and retail. Types of retail will include three discount stores, including a 188,000-square-foot discount/grocery store, and six specialty retail businesses. The restaurants will include three high -turnover, sit-down type restaurants. It is anticipated that the project would be completed in Year 2000. The area in the vicinity of the site is partially developed with light industrial and commercial uses; however, there is some development planned adjacent to the site. East of the site, the types of businesses are primarily light industrial and retail. West of the site, across Lemay Avenue, is the Link-n-Greens golf course. South of the site, across Mulberry Street, some small businesses exist. North of the site and directly adjacent to it, the Buffalo Run Apartments are being constructed with 144 affordable housing units. On the north side of Lincoln Avenue across from Buffalo Run the Lincoln East PUD is planned. No other proposed development in the vicinity of the site has been identified. 2 MULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Revised October, 1999 Prepared for: CLC Associates, Inc. 8480 East Orchard Road, Suite 2000 Englewood, Colorado, 80111 Prepared by: Krager and Associates, Inc. 1390 Stuart Street Carriage House Denver, Colorado 80204 (303) 446-2626 561comb. wps No Text No Text CITVOr TOR' COLLINS ftfGULAICIRYHOOOPLAINS C11YOFTORT (OLUNS RfGLAAr(jRi*nooDPL4ms Cache 12 Pmdre River CrMs Section Nancy York's slides ;.y ~� Buffalo Run Proposed Improvements Lamy Ave and Lincoln Ave Intersection CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGULATORY FLOODPLAINS i -� ' --__ _ . .�s .. .. �_: -... � i .. �.w._ i. a$�' � w.'�W���l'Y .eyg ^i�#r � - -�� y ��R�w.i ./! 1 .) i".��J- G�iliie 4� .. LO _ `M V�..�Lli i`! �r,�r I :. 1 '.I,.' �. �. � �_ _ 'A. l _ i _ __— _ _ = �� tj i � � City o(Furt Collins ' City 'of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 20, 2000 .40 w 4 41 Consent Agenda #26-96D Mulberry Lemay Crossing, Lot One, Filing One PUD -Final I Patty SEoR7i 1_8praw- art" Page 1 From: Library Patron <patron@libsys.ci.fort-collins.co.us> To: FC1.Exec_Net(CMO) Date: 4/14/99 9:42PM Subject: "Sprawl -Mart" How discouraging it was to read the results of our recent election. If we as a city do not support the higher quality of life which has been offered here, we will certainly lose it. It seems we have already lost some of it by allowing as much "big box" retail in as we have. Why is it so difficult to stand up to retail giants who are not doing us nearly as much good as we are doing them. The rich at the top of these chains continue to grow richer while raping lands and making empty claims to communities. We need to halt the proliferation of non -community -minded retailers and start supporting local business and industry. This certainly can be achieved by sound leadership demonstrating commitment to the local level of business. Sincerely, Kay E. Williams Ted Shepard - Walmart approval Page 1 I " <chris burnsmarketin com> From: Chris Jones j@ 9• To:. 7. Shepard (E-mail)" <tshepard@ci.fort-collins.co... Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2000 4:00 PM JAN 0 6 2000 Subject _ Walmart approval Dear Planning and Zoning, L — It is my understanding that the Mulberry/Lemay Crossings project will be meeting or exceeding all city requirements for final approval. In addition, public sentiment was expressed in last Aprils overwhelming vote to approve . the project As a citizen of Ft. Collins, I ask you to follow the wishes of our citizenry and vote yes on the approval of this project Thank you for your consideration, Chris A. Jones Bums Marketing/Communications Account Executive 970-223-4060 chrisj@bumsmarkebng.com http://www.burnsmarketing.com/ Ted Shepard - Future WalMart Pagel From: <PBFND47@aol.com> To: FC8.CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Sun, Jan 9, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: Future WalMart DearSirs, My husband and are in complete agreement with Mark Goldberg in building a shopping center at the Mulberry & Lemay crossing. We do need more shopping facilities on this side of town. Plus it should relieve traffic going south on College and Lemay, , where we now have to travel to reach store, restaurants and other facilities. Yours < ,I truly, Paul & Evelyn Frank By �- -••-= = 4720 Springer Dr. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 CC: FCI.GWIA("FortNews@aol.com") ��`G�e�C� ��5� /�-// �,�060 several million in developer funds, and more from city street oversizing funds, will be used to realize needed vehicle and pedestrian improvements, and none of those funds come from our taxes. Finally, the round -about traffic proposal for Mulberry and Lemay is a separate issue and is based upon funding from city and federal coffers. It should not be a key factor in the evaluation of this PUD. Adapting to flood plain locations using fill dirt is most common and has been the case in several northeast projects in recent years. This includes the Buffalo Run apartment project on several acres of this proposed site. There was little concern regarding flood plain and drainage when this project was proposed, and the city studies have shown that the same proposals are planned to support the Mulberry Crossing PUD. Tons of fill, using many trucks, very effectively and efficiently completed that project without problems and that is the likely scenario for the remainder of that site. Reports advise that drainage is being properly addressed in the PUD. Interestingly the present drainage from the irrigated and sprayed corn fields seems not to be in question, even when caution signs are posted along Mulberry that advise all to avoid the area due to chemical applications used periodically during the growing season. So why the concerns? Are commercial warehouse, light industry or other like type businesses more suitable to this location? All will require similar infrastructure support and flood plain mitigation. Should the site be left with a stand alone apartment project left begging for a compatible neighbor? The city staff and the voters certainly have made their input. After over two years of working with the developer, and enduring dozens of public meetings and hearings, it appears that this PUD has reach a point for which makes it appropriate to gain approval based on compliance with city requirements and community desires, and to do so without a retum to day one of the initial preliminary PUD hearing. At this point, I do believe your board is ready to accomplish this hearing in a most professional and positive manner. Thank you for your work to make our city a place where quality of life is not determined primarily by location within the community but on what is best for the quality of life for all. ��ummnd'L. bert/4�iGiff 1923 Linden Ridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 �' iii j JAN 1 3 2000 January 13, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Subject: Mulberry Crossing Proposal Dear Volunteers: Let us level the playing field on Mulberry Crossing! The final PUD hearing is at hand and once again you will dedicate some of your valuable time to assure that development proposals are designed and developed to meet our city regulations and guidelines. While I certainly appreciate your time and effort, as volunteers, to help guide city plans in a direction of compliance, I would like to have you consider the following: Voters in the city have again determined that the city review of a proposal was in their best interest and, in this case, voted to urge approval of the proposed Mulberry and Lemay Crossing PUD to provide residents of the north and northeast a shopping area designed to support many of their needs. One side of the community reflects concern over what they view as a project that can have few benefits and many negatives on that part of the community. They strive to address their concerns based on incomplete planning, not needed, given the shopping available in old town and in the south side of the city, a generator of traffic congestion in the northeast, and a location that is in a flood plain that, when filled with soil as a site foundation, will create damage from construction trucks. and improper drainage. Many others recognize these as efforts as those primarily designed to control growth in that part of the city. Another side of the community reflects concern over what they view is along overdue commercial project that will support the needs of the northeast, providing readily available shopping and other services that, until this is realized, required long vehicle trips to the south side of the city. They also view this as a provider of needed jobs, a catalyst for area infrastructure improvements and a potential source of additional tax revenue. What we need to know are the realities of the situation and most of your board has been aware of these for over a year. What are you really facing with your decision? I'd like to "level the playing field" with realities once more. Since Cheyenne, Greeley, and soon Loveland, have WalmardKmart superstores, few shoppers from outside of our city will be crowding our streets to use this location. Larimie shoppers that do not choose to shop at the Walmart and Kmart Centers in Cheyenne, will use the highway 287 route to this new development and not Lemay and E. Mulberry. Potential customers from north of the proposed site will continue to use Lemay, just as they do today to reach shopping destinations in the south side of the city. Therefore, increased traffic will not adversely impact the areas north of the proposed site. Today's traffic congestion along the north Lemay-Vine corridors remains a separate issue that needs more timely master street planning improvements, regardless of the proposed Mulberry Crossing PUD. The lack of connectivity of area sidewalks is not unique to this area. It is a fact of live in many city neighborhoods in older areas of the city. Without this PUD, it is likely to remain a problem in this area of the city. However, one should not den}' the opportunity to have a developer provide many of the sidewalks and bike trails that are planned just because the city has yet to realize such. And, the realization is also largely dependent upon proposals from other developers that may enter this part of the city. At least ��C����� �'as� � --/l --�o � o January 11, 2000 City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board Re:' WalMart / Mulberry-LeMay Crossing Shopping Center The public (read tax paying citizens) have spoken through a legal vote that we want the WalMart built at the corner of Mulberry and Lemay Avenues. It is time that this project is started. This WalMart has been through years now of direction, review, and approval processes. Enough is enough! Please pass this project at your meeting on January 20 and let's proceed with construction! Janice McMahon Resident DATE: January 11, 2000 TO: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 SUBJECT: Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Project We are unable to attend the public hearing on the Mulberry- Lemay Crossings project on January 20, but would like you to know that we are v= much in support of the 375,000 square foot shopping complex including the Wal-Mart Supercenter. The north side of Fort Collins is significantly lacking in all the goods and services the complex (especially the Wal-Mart) will provide to the residents on this side of the city. The concentration of businesses on the south side (along College, south of Drake to Harmony) is extensive and beneficial to those in that area; however, it creates a great deal of traffic congestion. The Mulberry-Lemay Crossings project is an excellent means of distributing shopping and services, as well as providing a way to alleviate south side traffic problems. We sWort this project 100%. 6� ­­ c � aV-t_� &61�/ Carol and Bill Steidle Fort Collins, CO (970) 377-2998 JAN 1 3 2000 i 5 Ted Shepard - Mulberry and Lemay Cros ' -q i Page 1 From: "hans blenkers" <blenkers@quixnet.net> To: FCB.CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2000 9:45 PM Subject: Mulberry and Lemay Crossing My husband and myself support the Mulberry and Lemay crossing's project and look forward to shopping at the Wal-Mart Super Center. The residents of Fort Collins have made it very clear that this is what we want. I hope that nothing more interferes with it being built Darlene and Hans Blenkers _ is CC: FCI.GWIA("fortnews@aol.com") JAN 1 E. 2000 Ted Shepard - Walmart.doc Page 1 JAN 1 7 2000 Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Members of P & Z: The City Planning Department has scheduled a P.U.D. hearing for P & Z on January 20 regarding the Lemay/Mulberry corridor. The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce would like to endorse the recommendations of City staff. The staff and developers have spent an incredible amount of time and energy negotiating so that the proposed development will meet the written and unwritten standards for major new developments in the Fort Collins area. Our endorsement of the staff recommendation is also fostered in the belief that if any development proposal conforms to the rules set by the city then it should be allowed to be developed by the city, and not be delayed or denied based on the strongest political winds of the moment. We appreciated the dedicated efforts of the city staff and the willingness of the developer to invest huge amounts of time and money to bring the project to council. We do hope that council will appreciate that most smaller locally owned businesses or developers do not have the money, the opportunity to understand the complexities of our political climate, or the ability to tie up capital for lengthy periods of time in order to have their project approved. We hope that we can move to an environment where the rules are easily understood and that when you prove that you will play bay those rules your project is expeditiously approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike Hauser Chamber President Jan.16. 2000 5:32PM FT COLLINS CHAMBER No•8130 P. 1/1 Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 P & Z Board: The City Planning Department has scheduled a P.U.D. hearing for P & Z on January 20 regarding the Lemay/Mulberry corridor. The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce would like to endorse the recommendations of City staff. The staff and developers have spent an incredible amount of time and energy negotiating so that the proposed development will meet the written and unwritten standards for major new developments in the Fort Collins area. Our endorsement of the staff recommendation is also fostered in the belief that if any development proposal conforms to the rules set by the city then it should be allowed to be developed by the city, and not be delayed or denied based on the strongest political winds of the moment We appreciated the dedicated efforts of the city staff and the willingness of the developer to invest huge amounts of time and money to bring the project to council. We do hope that council will appreciate that most smaller locally owned businesses or developers do not have the money, the opportunity to understand the complexities of our political climate, or the ability to tie up capital for lengthy periods of time in order to have their project approved. We hope that we can move to an environment where the rules are easily understood and that when you prove that you will play bay those rules your project is expeditiously approved, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4tw Mike Hauser Chamber President FROM : COOPERSMITH FAX NO. : 970 221 0645 Jan. 15 2000 05:08PM P2 The farce vote did not give this development approval. It merely overturned the City Council denial of preliminary approval. This project comes before the planning & Zoning Board again this month. I know because I have already had mailings and phone caUs from Goldberg and Wal Mart seeking my support. Thanks for the push — it helped me write this soapbox! Support your elected and appointed City officials. They are seeking to protect your quality of life from rogue out of town developers and corporate criminals who think that they can have whatever they want. Support your City in helping to defeat this out of place development. Please write letters and speak at the meetings. Howard G. Coopersmith 1205 Steeplechase Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-0645 "Howard Coopersmith, a 29 year Fort Collins resident, both lives and operates a business within 1'/z miles from this proposed development." FROM COOPERSMITH FAX NO. : 970 221 0645 Jan. 15 2000 05:07PM P1 r.�Y:k January 11, 2000 Soapbox to the Coloradoan: So it is time to let Wal Mart developer Mark Goldberg do with Fort Collins as he wishes. Goldberg and Wal Mart are not operating within city guidelines, they are bullying their way to approval. Goldberg and the Coloradoan tout voter approval for the Mulberry Lemay Crossings Super Wal. Mart. Wal Mart and Goldberg amassed a huge public relations campaign and bought the election. They spent approximately $80,0001 Opponents struggled with about three thousand dollars. Check my numbers if you do not believe them. And why does the Coloradoan enthusiastically support Wal Mart? Just imagine the advertising revenues they stand to reap from this immense retail development! And who spearheaded the "citizen's" organization behind the vote — none other than the owner of the neighboring liquor store. Surely they had no personal gain in sight! But perhaps the issue is not that they bought votes. Perhaps the issue is that Goldberg and Wal Mart could not accept the decisions of both City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board, both of which voted against their development. Perhaps the issue is that Goldberg and Wal Mart threatened the city council by suing individual members personally who did not vote their way. Apparently they feel that they can do whatever they wish, despite the efforts of our elected and appointed officials with whom we, the citizens, entrust such important decisions. Perhaps this project was voted down twice because serious flaws exist in the development. A huge cornfield within the city's 100 year flood plain will be filled in with dirt Traffic will more than doubl along already plagued Lemay and its troubled intersection at Mulberry. Technical problems with this project are well known. The city is actively looking at both these issues. Shouldn't they be resolved before the city is bullied into approval? Does a Big Box development really belong here? We will have to live with this for a long time. If City Council and Planning & Zoning had serious enough doubts as to the fit of this project, serious enough to bring Wal Mart's wrath upon themselves, shouldn't we support them in their decision to kill this project? l � jAN 1 & 2000 J'• January 18, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 Since its conception, the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings plan has been too huge for the site. The Flood Plain and the Traffic on all the surrounding streets are problems that have not been addressed fully. Any SuperStore is not appropriate for this site, especially when Wal-Mart is building one in the Loveland Outlets area!!! I don't see how the Board can even consider final passage of something they and the Council have not approved in any preliminary action. Hoping this reaches Someone!! Since ly, J ail 715 E. County Road 66E Fort Collins CO 80524 Il JAN i 8 2000 Ted Shepard - Walmart reveiw_ _ Page 1 From: Adams Ragan <radams@vth.colostate.edu> To: Bob Blanchard <bblanchard@ci.fort-collins.co.us> Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2000 11:14 AM Subject: Walmart reveiw Dear Mr Blanchard, I would like to send my support to the Planning and Zoning Board for their previous votes denying the Walmart development at LeMay and Mulberry. Publically it is difficult to acknowledge them because of an apparent bias of our local paper to support the project. I am pleased to read that others feel that a citizen's initiative was not a proper manner to decide the merits of the project. A group of the general citizenry has no complete knowledge of the regulations or perspective of the associated problems; therefore, their opinion is only that and can not be seen as an ultimatum. Had the vote been on putting a nuclear reactor in Old Town and the concerned developer was able to convince the locals of the merits of cheaper electricity perhaps the inappropriate vehicle of this type of decision making would be more obvious. Regretfully my schedule prevents me from attending the Jan 20 meeting to personally support the Board on their previous votes. Please distribute this e-mail to the members in my absence. Sincerely, Ragan Adams Ragan Adams, MA, DVM Integrated Livestock Management Colorado State University Department of Clinical Sciences Fort Collins, Co 80521 970-491-0371 (0) 970-491-1275 (fax) j JAN 1 8 2000 1301 Green St Ft Collins, CO 30524 January 15, 2000 Dlannin,; and Lonjr.7 Board !:. 0 . = cr. 580 1?t Collins, CC. ` 522 Re: Mulbe=-Lema-7 Crossings e n tu n: I am stron7ly on--csed to a _regional �v.per Center- at t'._e above loca.uien. It lo�rically belon-;s near 1-25. _eavy traffic already is a LI:rotty pro.Dlem it Fort Collins. nporo FT l of t'_ e ':e. ona :in �-; l c,Io :,p,. "en�eT at Lemay and :ulberry for any reason :aou.Id be _,ror =, wrc Sincerely, ..eor-e ". {/Du----i ,r lor- -tire resident of Ft Celi.i.n _, JAN 1 9 2000 J U li JAN 9 2000 '05 JAN i 9 2000 'J i .22 January 18, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Dear Members of the Board: This is to record my opposition to the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings project. As has been noted on many prior occasions, the development of a super center such as Wal-Mart proposes would have very serious negative impacts on traffic and the neighborhood. Sincer yours, narvin i...nnox 2505 North County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524-4603 I1 �i JAN 1 9 2000 �U L' January 18, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 Since its conception, the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings plan has been too huge for the site. The Flood Plain and the Traffic on all the surrounding streets are problems that have not been addressed fully. Any SuperStore is not appropriate for this site, especially when Wal-Mart is building one in the Loveland Outlets area!!! I don't see how the Board can even consider final passage of something they and the Council have not approved in any preliminary action. Hoping this reaches Someone!! Sincerely, 5 E. County Road 66E Fort Collins CO 80524 5 _ L JAN i 4 2000 IBV Jan. 17, 2000 City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Re: Wal-Mart development at Mulberry-Lemay Crossing Planning and Zoning Board: Although I realize the issues now being considered about the proposed Wal-Mart at Mulberry and Lemay are of legal matters, I would still like to voice my opinion about the project. I live just outside the city limits in a residential area south of Country Club Road and east of Lemay. I was one of many county residents who could not vote on the issue, although it will directly affect us in terms of traffic. The primary route into my residential area and others nearby is Lemay. I am strongly opposed to the project for the following reasons: 1. Traffic on Lemay is already highly congested during peak hours. When a train crosses at Lemay and Vine, traffic backs up to south of Lincoln. It can only worsen with a superstore enticing more people to drive down Lemay. 2. My family and I chose to five in the northern part of town to escape the superstores and shopping centers that dominate the southern part of Ft. Collins. Such stores dominate landscapes and fill acres with parking lots. Keep them down south. I really wish the city could just leave that comer as a farmer's field, or at least turn it into some type of open space. 3. I am opposed to such a development on the principal of gross over -consumerism alone. There is already more shopping available in Ft. Collins than its residents need. After living several years in a struggling third -world country, it is painfully evident that one of our country's most embarrassing traits is glutinous consumerism. We'd probably all be happier with much less «off» Thank you for your time. Carol Jones 1808 Kalmar Ct. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 482-6295 �_'� JAN 1 9 2000 Ted Shepard - P & Z hearing Page 1 From: lee comwell <leslees@peakpeak.com> To: FCB.CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2000 6:41 AM Subject: P & Z hearing Yes, we are definitely in favor of the project at Mulberry and Lemay. We still haven't figured out why, if the voters approved this measure, there is still all the hassle and debate about the venture. It should benefit people who live in the downtown area plus all who live North. Because the stores in the downtown area are mostly specialty type shops, there should be no competition for them. Thank you, Leslie R. Cornwell, Jr. S. Lee Cornwell JAN 2000 Ted Shepard - Vote No on Wal-Mart Page From: Bill Spencer <espencer@fhi.com> To: FC8.CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2000 9:24 AM Subject: Vote No on Wal-Mart To the members of the Planning and Zoning Board Please vote NO! on the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings PUD. I am concerned about the impacts on the traffic, on the environment from run-off, the potential for disaster because it is in the flood plain, the further expanding urban sprawl, and the negative effects on the existing downtown businesses. This PUD has not been "mandated" by the voters because most of the voters who are directly affected by this development COULD NOT VOTE ON IT! (sorry to "scream", but that point needs to be made). We who live in the county were effectively disenfranchised by the legal tactics of Mark Goldberg and the Wal-Mart crew. A super Wal-Mart needs to be in a different location than at the Mulberry and Lemay intersection. Thank you, Elaine Spencer 1117 Williams St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 January 20, 2000 Fort Collins Planning and Zoneing Board We wish to express our desire for the Wal-Mart project BE APPROVED. We are Senior Citizens, live nearby, and would benefit by the convenience of a nearby shopping area. Sincerely, Keith W. Holcomb Erma E. Holcomb Ted Shepard - UNTITLED Page 1 From: "Fred W. Kachura" <fkach@psd.kl2.co.us> To: FC8,CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2000 10:57 AM - -- Regarding the Wal Mart Super Center; When an inordinately large segment i of a population rises in protest against a particular law or entity, JAN 2 0 2000 it's necessary that our leaders take notice and act in good faith for j'- all concerned. Is the greater good of Ft. Collins served with this development? Debatable. Is this development a negative precedent for what we perhaps can agree on is a balanced quality of life for the citizenry and environment of the area? YES! Sincerely, Fred Kachura jr Fred W. Kachura fkach@psd.kl2.co.us Poudre School District, Ft Collins, CO Ted Shepard - support Page 1 From: <BRNIGRL664@aol.com> To: FC8.CPES(TSHEPARD) Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2000 12:03 PM JAN 2 0 2000 Subject: support I am in full support of the Lemay/Mullberry Crossing project. I believe the developer has gone through this cities many distorted hoops to meet and exceed the standards set before them. Swallow your pride and realize this is a good project and not just a personal agenda.. Let Golberg go forth with his work.. This peice of property is going to be developed eventually anyway, why not let this developer who can afford to make the approvements necessary to make this corner a desirable venture. Sincerely, Cheryl White CHALLENGE TO THE LEGALITY OF THE JANUARY 20, P & Z HEARING ON MULBERR Y-LEMA Y CROSSINGS FINAL PUD Submitted and Presented by Gary Carnes Project denied by P&Z and Council one year ago Having been a member of the Board, I can appreciate how conflicted you must be. You denied the Preliminary PUD in November 1998, and the correctness of your decision was affirmed by City Council on appeal. The basis for denial was failure to comply with LDGS Criteria A-1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.6. Council concluded that: "the Project cannot be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without causing safety problems." This is a most serious conclusion which cannot be ignored. These safety problems have motivated the City in the past year to search for radical interrim solutions such as a roundabout at Mulberry/Lemay, which would become the busiest intersection in the City with this Project. Nothing different has been proposed since the Preliminary PUD was denied as far as planned improvements in areas not adjacent to the site which are now congested without the project. With this Project, real problems would materialize quickly such as a projected Level of Service 7" at the Vme/Lemay intersection by the Year 2004. "The Planning and Zoning Board are the final authority on the following... " We are here tonight because, as it says on the Agenda, you are "the final authority". When we began our term of service on the Board, Paul Eckman explained that this Board performs quasi- judicial functions: interpreting and applying the Code and Charter; making findings of fact and conclusions; following strict rules of conduct and procedure. You have had the benefit of expert advice, and been have protected from undue influence and conflict of interest. Voters had none of the above. As the only appointed Board in the City with quasi-judicial authority, you have very special powers and duties to uphold the City Code and Charter. Please Stop. Vacate this Hearing. Some would say that this Hearing must proceed for reasons of due process. Due process is what happened one year ago before this Board and Council. The Code states: "application for final plan may be made only after approval by the P&Z Board of a preliminary plan... " The Board did not approve the Preliminary PUD. The Code and Charter make no provision for voter approval. Protect the integrity of the Board from those who would show ignorance or contempt for your fmal authority. Uphold the Code and Charter. Vacate this Hearing. JAN 2 12000 January 18, 2000 Bob Blanchard City Staff Fort Collins, Co Dear Mr Blanchard, I would like to send my support to the Planning and Zoning Board for their previous votes denying the Walmart development at LeMay and Mulberry. Publically it is difficult to acknowledge them because of an apparent bias of our local paper to support the project. I am pleased to read that others feel that a citizen's initiative was not a proper manner to decide the merits of the project. A group of the general citizenry has no complete knowledge of the regulations or perspective of the associated problems; therefore, their opinion is only that and can not be seen as an •ultimatum. Had the vote been on putting a nuclear reactor in Old Town and the concerned developer was able to convince the locals of the merits of cheaper electricity perhaps the inappropriate vehicle of this type of decision making would be more obvious. Regretfully my schedule prevents me from attending the Jan 20 meeting to personally support the Board on their previous votes. Please distribute this e-mail to the members in my absence. Sincerely, ' _ `L Gum Ragan Adams, MA, DVM 1500 West Mountain Ave Fort Collins, Co 80521 Curtis H. Halvorson 1824 Cannes CI Fon Collins, CO 80524 j sl !i I JAN 2 6 2000 uu _ 20 Jar . 2000. Planning and Zoning Board, Fort Collins, CO Subject: Opinion given at 1 /20/2000 hearing of Mulberry/Lemay Crossing project. My name is Curtis H. Halvorson. I live in NE Ft. Collins. Last year our Greenbelt Homeowners Association members went on record as being overwhelmingly against this Mulberry-Lemay Crossing project due to traffic, railroads, and floodplain problems. That opinion is unchanged. However, we were disenfranchised by being county, rather than city residents and could not vote in the very questionable referendum initiated by Mr. Goldberg and Walmart's money. None -the -less, residents of this area have an important impact on the city's economy, as well as on the serious developing problems of Lemay Ave. Traffic. In The Coloradoan yesterday the big banner editorial headline read: Wal-Mart Project Must Be Approved. While I expect nothing less from The Coloradoan they acknowledged that a land -use question is not to be decided by public vote. The results of the public vote last year, again minus us NE residents, shows Walmart got 57% support versus 43% against. But it cost Walmart $4.96/vote versus 29 cents/vote for those opposed. This meant that grass- roots opposition was 17 time more effective in getting support than Walmart, who spent 23 times more money. Translated, this suggests Walmart couldn't win in a legitimate referendum that includes all people - city and county - affected by Mr. Goldberg's proposal. The P&Z commission has been courageous in its past decision on this project, despite Mr. Goldberg's threats of personal litigation against its members, and other bullying tactics. Tonight I ask you to be even more courageous, particularly against the arguments eternally championed by The Coloradoan and Walmart supporters -which is; if the city- planning staff says all the "T's" are crossed and all the "i's" dotted, per city regulations,„ then approval is required. This is false. Let me clearly state: Approval is not required. You, the Planning Board exist as a non- elected group of interested citizens who prevent developers from overrunning planning - and who act as ombudsman to filter outmoded, narrowly defined, legalistic, or inadequate regulations that do not take into account factors other than immediate site - I emphasize - immediate - site requirements. Both Goldberg and city planners are doing just that. There is no accommodation in Goldberg's plan for the bad traffic problems he creates for Lemay Ave. north, the Vine Street RR crossing, and flood plain considerations. And cosmetic fixes like walkways and pop kiosks ignore real problems. We are talking about a huge project that is proposed for a city already too retail -heavy which, according to The Coloradoan again (5 June 1999) has twice the average retail store space in the nation. Who needs this? - only Walmart and Goldberg greed -at the expense of permanent problems for Ft. Collins. Unless Walmart will mitigate to move out to Interstate 25 please vote to refuse this proposal once and for all or else accommodate the above flaws in his proposal. w February 3, 2000 For your information. In addition, thought I would share that I heard over NPR that the State of New Jersey has said that truckers must stay on the Interstate highways if they do not have local deliveries in towns/cities. The first fine is $400 and the second is $11000. Therefore, if I recall correctly, about 1,100 vehicles per day do not have to travel on Mulberry, Riverside, and North College Avenue. Please let me know what you, City Council, along with the City Traffic people plan to do about this. Sincerely Dolores Williams 1520 Hillside Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 P.S. regarding the attached Nuisance Ordinance. I attended an information meeting and was impressed with the problem City staff face trying to mitigate problem people and yards. Most important is that owners are not now being informed of noise violations of their tenants, yet as an owner I have been efficiently informed about nonworking cars, snow not cleaned off a sidewalk, trash put out on the street too early for trash day (tenants moving and not knowing), and weeds outside a fence needing to be under six inches (along back alley outside the fence). In the case of the autos and moving trash, I had just gone by and notified the tenant to remove the cars in the street that he was working on and regarding the trash, I had just called for a special pickup from the garbage company they use. The City notices reinforced my requests of the renters. However, I believe that owners and renters do not have a right to make life miserable for neighbors or to have a yard that lowers property values for those around them. I require my renters to maintain the lawns and provide'lawn mowers so they can keep the grass cut. I wonder how you can make the people around CSU keep grass up when now the yards are a mass of weeds. Neighborhoods change and when renters outnumber owners, the fact is that renters are not as committed as a rule to the condition of the yards. Right now homes around old town are too expensive to buy for rentals, so young families are moving in and taking over previous rental streets. I personally water the lawns of my duplexes because I don't want the grass to die. Absent landlords can have their property managers spend money on yard maintenance. ` Lr FEB 0 7 2000 January 24, 2000 r3L. _- J Fort Collins Coloradoan 1212 Riverside Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Editor: The editorial on Wednesday, January 19, the day before the Fort Collins Planning & Zoning meeting stating that Wal-Mart project must be approved ignored the fact that that body previously as well as the City Council studied, debated, and voted against situating Wal-Mart at the Lemay-Mulberry site. The extreme traffic problems still have not been solved. The proposed "Round -About" would be dangerous for pedestrian or bike traffic. The Poudre River would receive oil -dirt run-off from the acres of pavement. Air pollution from increased traffic directed into the lowest point in the city (the Poudre River basin) was not addressed. Zoning against building in a flood plain was dismissed. CARS questions re -votes by the City Council and Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board which previously had ,oted "no" to the regional "big -box Wal-Mart" at the Lemay-Mulberry intersection. If citizens can negate these official bodies' decisions by a ballot vote, our City government is useless. Citizens should have been concerned when the City Council voted down the Lemay Truck Route, and then because some didn't like the outcome decided to vote again. Confidence in our local government's ability to stick to a decision is zero. At every public meeting Wal-Mart's developer, Goldberg, and his attorney Liley threatened to sue if they didn't get their way. Why did the majority of the Planning & Zoning Board criticize CARS but not Wal-Mart? The chairman courageously and judiciously stated that the location of an enormous regional "big box" Wal-Mart was the wrong scale for the site. A more reasonably scaled Wal-Mart could be located there, on North College (Evergreen Shopping Center), near Timberline/MountainVista, or closer to I-25 (like the Loveland Outlet Stores). We in the north go south for many reasons other than to shop Wal-Mart. The argument that locating there would decrease traffic at that site by keeping all shoppers in the north is ridiculous when actually a regional "big bog" Wal-Mart including groceries would entice shoppers from the entire region to that traffic - challenged site. Sincerely, Dolores Williams 1520 Hillside Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 484-2792 491-5102 Ted Shepard - Re: Mulberry/Lemay and F "�lo Run I Page 1 From: Eric Bracke To:. "JandRHail@aol.com"@FC1.GWIA, Bob Blanchard Date: Mon, Nov 1, 1999 2:36 PM Subject: Re: Mulberry/Lemay and Buffalo Run Dear Ms. Hail: I have been asked to respond to your concerns regarding the Lemay/Mulberry Crossing project. Over the past several years, during the review process of the project, three complete traffic impact studies have been conducted. The Traffic Engineering staff has just recently given it's "blessing" for the last study completed. Granted, there are numerous traffic impacts with a project of this scope, but there are also major roadway improvements that will be constructed. For example, the intersection of Mulberry/Lemay will have westbound double left turns, right turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks. The intersection of Lemay/Lincoln will also be widened, and Lemay will be widened to four lanes from Mulberry to Lincoln. Recirculating roads such as 12th St and Magnolia will also be constructed to assist in managing traffic. The problem with the railroad is difficult to deal with in the development review process. The tracks across Mulberry and Lemay only have minimal usage with an average of two trains per day. The City or the developer have no control over the railroad operations. The city has no mechanism to limit develop based on railroad activity. For example, the BNNR tracks (Mason St) cause 8-10 disruptions per day and has a major impact on College Avenue. There have been numerous commercial developments along College Avenue and the railroad issue has not been brought into play. It is not something that we cannot hold WalMart to in a fair process. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 224-6062. Kind Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of Fort Collins email:ebracke@ci.fort-collins.co.us >>> <JandRHail@aol.com> 11/01 10:38 AM >>> Soon, the"Super Store" review will be the Public's eye again. I still do not believe the impact on the traffic throughout the whole area has been looked at realistically. The construction of the Buffalo Run Apartments, which are very attactive, shows the number of units (how many??) and how many cars per unit???. The size of the Super Store and numbers of cars in the whole development will be overwhelming!!!. No attention has been given to the 3 streets impacted by this huge influx of cars: Lemay north and south has river and train tracks in both directions; Mulberry has the same; and so does Lincoln !! These problems have not been addressed at any time during this process!! A Center of this size should not be allowed at this location!!!. Sincerely Jane Hail Square Stralgl Reel Poles ' SSP/SSC Series For use with floodlight luminaires as well as post top and Magnu-Series architectural luminaires. • Square straight steel shaft • One piece construction, steel tubing • 2-3/8" OD tenons, or machined side mount • Ground lug standard (3/8" 16 thread) • Bolt template included • Optional removable tenon • Steel base • Two-piece base cover • Four L shaped galvanized anchor bolts with two nuts and two washers • Standard finish Lektrocote® primer • CSA Certified option (SSC Series) ORDERING INFORMATION: SSP Series GROUP I-3X4"HANDHOLE SSP-41OX-XX 10 3.0 29.4 735 18.4 460 12.0 300 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x30x3" 8.0" 3.87" 88 39.9 SSP-412X-XX 12 3.7 23.6 590 14.6 365 9.2 230 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x30x3' 8.0' 3.87' 98 44.5 SSP-414X-XX 14 4.3 19.2 480 11.4 285 7.0 175 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x30x3' 8.0" 3.87" 110 49.9 SSP-416X-XX 16 4.9 12.6 315 7.2 180 4.0 100 4.0' 9.0" 3/4x30x3' 8.0" 3.87" 122 55.3 SSP-41SX-XX 18 5.5 10.2 255 5.4 135 2.7 67 4.0" 9.0' 3/4x30x3' 8.0' 3.87" 135 61.2 SSP-420X-XX 20 6.1 8.4 210 4.0 100 1.5 37 4.0' 9.0" 3/4x3Ox3" 8.0" 3.87" 147 66.7 SSP-425X-XX 25 7.6 4.5 112 .1.0 25 4.0" 9.0' 3/4x3Ox3' 8.0" 3.87" 176 80.1 SSP-427X-XX 27 8.1 9.4 135 4.2 100 12 30 4.0" 1I V 1x36x4' 10-12" 4.12" 360 162.0. SSP-430X-XX 30 9.1 5.2 130 1.3 32 4.0' 11.0' WSW 1D-12' 4.12" 310 139.5 GROUP 11-3X4"HANDHOLE SSP-518X-XX 18 5.5 30.0 750 18.2 455 11.4 285 5.0' 11.0- tx36x4• 11.0' 4.12' 239 108.4 SSP-520X-XX 20 6.1 26.4 660 15.2 380 9.0 225 5.0' 11.0' 1x36x4' 11.0" 4.12' 263 119.3 SSP-525X-XX 25 7.6 18.0 450 9.4 235 4.6 115 5.0" 11.0' tx360" 11.0' 4.12" 222 146.1 SSP-530X-XX 30 9.1 11.0 275 4.6 115 5.0" 11.0' 1x36x4" 11.0" 4.12' 381 171.4 GROUP Ill - 4X6" HANDHOLE SSP-630X-XX 30 9.1 16.4 410 7.4 185 2.4 60 6.0' 13.0" 1x36x4' 12.0" 4.12' 458 207:7 SSP-635X-XX 35 10.7 10.8 270 3.0 75 6.0" 13.0' 1x360" 12.0' 4.12' 530 240.4 SSP-64OX-XX 40 12.2 6.2 155 6.0' 13.0- tx36x4" 12.0• 4.12- 602 273.1 ORDERING INFORMATION: CSA Certified - SSC Series GROUP I-3X4"HANDHOLE SSC-41OX-XX 10 3.0 29.4 735 18.4 460 12.0 300 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x3Ox3' 8.0" 3.87' 88 39.9 SSC-412X-XX 12 3.7 23.6 590 14.6 365 92 230 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x3Ox3' 8.0' 3.87" 98 44.5 SSC-414X-XX /4 4.3 19.2 480 11.4 285 7.0 175 4.0' 9.0" 3/4x3Ox3" 8.0' 3.87' 110 49.9 SSC-416X-XX 16 4.9 12.6 315 7.2 180 4.0 100 4.0" 9.0' 3/4x30x3' 8.0' 3.87" 122 55.3 SSC-418X-XX 18 5.5 10.2 255 5.4 135 2.7 67 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x30x3' 8.0" 3.87" 135 61.2 SSC-420X-XX 20 6.1 8.4 210 4.0 100 1.5 37 4.0' 9.0' 3/4x3Ox3" 8.0" 3.87" f47 66.7 SSC-425X-XX 25 7.6 11.2 280 5.6 140 2.2 55 4.0' 9.0" 3/4x300" 8.0' 3.87" 315 142 SSC-430X-XX 30 9.1 6.2 130 1.3 32 - 4.0' 11.0' 1x36x4' 10-12" 4.12" 381 171.4 GROUP 11- 3X4" HANDHOLE SSC1518X-XX 18 5.5 30.0 760 18.2 455 11.4 285 5.0" 11.0' 1060' 11.0" 4.12" 239 108.4 SSC-520X-XX 20 6.1 26.4 660 15.2 380 9.0 225 5.0" 11.0' 1x36x4" 11.0' 4.12' 263 119.3 SSC-525X-XX 25 7.6 18.0 450 9.4 235 4.6 115 5.0' 11.0- 1x36x4" 11.0" 4.12" 222 146.1 SSC-530X-XX 30 9.1 11.0 275 4.6 115 - 5.0' 11.0' WSW 11.0' 4.12" 381 171.4 GROUP III -4X6"' HANDHOLE SSC-630X-XX 30 9.1 16.4 410 7.4 185 2.4 60 6.0' 13.0" tx36x4' 12.0" 4.12' 458 207.7 SSC-635X-X0( 35 10.7 18.6 465 8.2 205 2.4 60 6.0" 13.0' tx36x4' 12.0' 4.12' 696 315.6 SSC-640X-XX 40 12.2 12.8 320 3.8 95 6.0' 13.0' lx36x4' 12.0" 4.12" 788 357.4 1. Catalog Number, as listed, does not include tenons or machining for side mounting. Flmrrs mounting must be specified by substituWg for at X's. 2. Maximum allowable EPA Is based an steady winds of 60 and 100 MPH with gusts to 104 and 130 MPH respectively, 120 MPH steady winds with 156 MPH gusts. All calculations are based on a mWnanm yield of 55.000 Psi calculations par AASHTO 85. 3. Factory supplied template must be used when setting anchor bolts. Hubbell Lighting will deny any claim for incorrect anchorage placement resulting from failure to use factory supplied template. 4. Anchor bah weighs not Included. Note: SSC series handhole covers have tamper resistant screws and gasket Rater to Pole Selection Guide on page 379 prior to sdactlng equipment, Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 380 Magnusquare® If , MSM Series _ ) ORDERING INFORMATION ARM MOUNT MSM-A250S-3X8-1 250W HPS P T D2 W 2.1 .21 47 21.3 MSM-A400S-3X8-1 40OW HPS P T D2 W 2.1 .21 52 23.6 MSM-A250H-3X8-1 250W MH P T OP W 2.1 .21 42 19.1 MSM-A400H-3X8-1 40OW MH P T DP W 2.1 .21 47 21.3 CEILING MOUNT MSM-C250S-3X8-1 250W HPS P T D2 W 2.1 .21 47 21.3 MSM-C400S-3X8.1 400W HPS P T D2 W 2.1 .21 52 23.6 MSM-C250H-3X8-1 250W MH P T DP W 2.1 .21 42 19.1 MSM-C400H-3X8-1 40OW MH P T DP W 2.1 .21 47 21.3 YOKE MOUNT MSM-Y250S-3X8-1 250W HPS P T D2 W 3.0 .3 65 29.5 MSM-Y400S-3X8-1 40OW HPS P T D2 W 3.0 .3 70 31.8 MSM-Y250H-3X8-1 250W MH P T DP W 3.0 .3 60 27.2 MSM-Y400H-3X8-1 40OW MH P T DP W 3.0 .3 65 29.5 1. A5 units are Quad -Tv S 12020624110n volt. For 480V dvangs 8 to 5. For Td-Tap 120277/d47V use 6. AA units are bmnze Lekuocote® -for optional colors change 1 to 2-blacK, 3-pray, 4-white. Sockets are porcelain mogul base - use universal boring position metal halide lamps. Replace X with deemed dlstdbution 2 Acrylic slandani; for poycarbonate adtl -P i.e.; MSM-A250S-3D8-1-P. ACCESSORY - Must be ordered separately MSG-SPC Polycarbonate shield 4 1.8 OPTIONS - Factory Installed DescriptionSuffix I F(X) Fusing PC(X) Button type photocontrol (120-277 volt); Twist -Lock® (120-480 volt) 1. Forcon f L*Q and phowcontmi, replace'X- w8h 1.120V, 2.208V, 3-240V. 4.277V, 5.460V. 6.347V. Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 415 Magnusquare,11— MSM Series Horizontal Lamp - MSM Series The Magnusquare II MSM family is an architectural cutoff luminaire for arm, yoke or ceiling applications. The luminaire is available with JES Type II, III, IV, and Type V square distribution from a horizontal lamp. This combination allows maximum design flexibility with excellen: uniformity. Arm mount allows the use of multiple luminaires for greater lighting intensity. Yoke mount provides stylish single post -top configuration for maximum coverage. Its square shape is perfect for use on Hubbell SSP and SAP square poles. Ceiling units designed for applications on canopies, parking garages, and as a complement to matching pole units. Housing • Rugged, one piece aluminum, formed and welded for . long term weatherability Ballast • 180°C insulation, -20°F starting (-40°F HPS) 60 Hz HPF designs. For 50 Hz ballastry consult factory Lens/Door Assembly • Tempered, impact resistant flat glass lens, drop acrylic lens or drop polycarbonate lens mounted within an aluminum mitered frame • Assembly features spring loaded, die cast, tool free latches for quick access to lamp or luminaire Optical Distributions • Flat glass doors offer Type IL III, IV and V square IRS distributions • Reflector assemblies are rotatable at 90° . • Type H distributions are field adjustable from Type III luminaires giving on the job fine tuning capability • Drop acrylic or polycarbonate lens produces a Type V distribution and provides lamp shielding beneath the luminAim. Metal halide drop lens units require polycarbonate lens Arm/Ceiling Mount 101/4• 2-27/80sq. 260 min 1 579 min rwi MSM MSM (Arts Mount, Flat Lens) (Gelling Mount with Drop Lens) Drop Lens adds 3" height 41. CA" NRTUC' For use in damp or wet locations Mounting • Arm mount allows the use of the wide array of MAL arms and adapters, see page 420. • Ceiling mount comes complete with template for surface attachment over recessed junction boxes. Also comes machined for surface mount over recessed junction boxes. Complete instructions supplied. Lag hardware by others. • Yoke mount features 2" square aluminum tubing for strength and beauty. Fitter slipfrts 2 3/8" OD tenons' Lektrocote® Finish • Specification grade polyester powder coating, minimum two mils thick and baked on at 400OF for lasting hard finish Listing • Silicone gasketing, UL 1572 listing for wet locations - CSA-NRTUC certified for outdoor use • Tool free access to lamp and reflector • IP Suitability - IP55 t C --� r B A t`--� --I ,,\ ID Yoke Mount 5 1/8" 27" 1 26 7/8" 1 16 3/4" 131 min 1 686 min 1 683 min 1 426 min Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 414 ALUMINUM ALR PHOTOMETRICS Lamp type Lumens Conversion factors 50 w HPS, clear 4000 .69 70 w HPS, clear 5800 1.00 100 w HPS, clear 9500 1.64 50 w MH, clear 3300 .57 70 w MH, clear 5200 .90 100 w MH, clear 8500 1.47 Horizontal footcandles 70 w HPS 5800 lumens 42" mounting height .5 2 0 3 6 9 12 longitudinal distance in feet 9 12 15 SPECIFY VOLTAGE CATALOG NUMBERS 120 OR 277 DESCRIPTION ;Y ALR 8 - 50MH 50 w MH ALR 8 - 70MH 70 w MH ALR 8 - 100MH 100 w MH ALR 8 - 50HPS 50 w HPS ALR 8 - 70HPS 70 w HPS ALR 8 - 100HPS 100 w HPS EXAMPLES ALR 8 - 70 MH 120 WHT • ALR 8 - 50 HPS 277 BLK FS1(FUSE) CAT. NO. LAMP VOLTAGE COLOR OPTION WARNING: Fixture must be grounded in accordance with local codes or the National Electric Code. Failure to do so may result in serious personal injury. SPECIFICATIONS • HOUSING 42" HIGH The housing shall be extruded 6063 T-6 aluminum. The top cap shall be cast #356 aluminum, sealed with a silicone gasket. The louver assembly shall be #356 cast aluminum with four integral tie rods. The inner lens shall be one piece formed acrylic, sealed to the housing. An upper aluminum reflector shall have a specular Alzak® finish. • ELECTRICAL All electrical components and materials shall be U.L. recognized. Ballasts are high power factor rated for -200 starting. Medium base porcelain sockets are 4KV rated. The electrical assembly shall be prewired on an aluminum strap mounted to the base casting. • MOUNTING The internal mounting base shall be cast #356 aluminum with a mini- mum wall thickness of .250 inches. The shaft shall be secured to the base with four stainless steel bolts. Bolt circle shall be 5.50 inches. The four mounting bolts shall be hot dipped galvanized steel, 1/2" x 10" x 2". • FINISH Fixture finish shall consist of cleaning, degreasing and rinsing, followed by a protective chromate primer, deionized water rinse, oven dry off and top coated with a TGIC free, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum thickness of 2.5 mils. • RELAMPING The lamp is accessed by loosening three set screws and removing the top cap. • CERTIFICATION Fixtures shall be listed with U.L. Laboratories for wet location use. • WARRANTY Fixture shall be warranted to be free of defects for two years. Ballast components shall carry the ballast manufacturer's limited warranty. P2 I I k.- HITECTURAL SPECIFICATION TYPE PR4 • • REA , BASE POLE OPTIONS I G Ei T, ING EXAMPLE: PR4 4R10-125 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EPA OPTIONS CATALOG NUMBER STEADY WIND--1 r GUST FACTOR (1.3) GFI GFCI duplex receptacle with cast 70/91 80/104 90/117 100/130 base to and gasket- BASE POLE -WALL OAH* SHAFT if cld sd'Ing cove PR4 4R8-125 8' 4" ROUND x .125" 14.3 12.0 • 9.6 7.4 FS1 Single weatherproof fuseholder. DRB Duplex receptacle with cast base PR4 4R10-125 10' 4" ROUND x .125" 11.8 8.6 6.5 52 welded to pole and gasketed cover. PR4 .4R12-125 12' 4" ROUND X .125" 9.8 8.2 .6.6 5.0 Consult factory for banner arms. 004 4R14-125 14' 4" ROUND x .125" 7.9 6.6 5.2 3.9 PR4 4R16-125 16' 4" ROUND x .125" 6.4 5.3 4.1 3.0 PR4 4R10-226 10' 4" ROUND x .226" 22.2 18.5 15.0 12.0 PR4 4R12-226 12' 4" ROUND x .226" 18.2 15.4 12.7 9.9 PR4 4R14-226 14' 4" ROUND X .226" 14.7 12.4 10.2 8.0 PR4 4R16-226 16' 4" ROUND x .226" 12.5 10.4 8.3 6.3 Cast aluminum pole cap or post fop adapter provided per application. `overan height is measured to post top adapter, or top of pole cap. SPECIFICATIONS Base shall be cast aluminum. Aluminum shall be certified as pure #356 alloy, free of any porosity, foreign materials, or cosmetic fillers. Base cast- ing shall be heat treated to a T-6 condition, and of uniform wall thickness, with no warping or mold shifting. Minimum wall thickness shall be .375". The base shall have cast in place gussets and an internal sleeve to accept the pole shaft. Pole shaft shall be seated into the base sleeve and circumferentially welded around the outside of the base and intemally where the pole is seated into the base casting. The anchor bolt locations in the base shall be cast in place, as part of the base casting, for maxi- mum strength. Pole shaft shall be seamless extruded 6063 T-6 alu- minum. Hand hole opening shall be flush with the outside of the pole and have a cast aluminum reinforcing ring welded internally to the shaft. The aluminum hand hole cover shall be gasketed and secured with two tam- per proof, stainless steel screws. Ground lug located same side as cover. The base cover shall be one piece heavy spun aluminum. *FINISH Fixture finish shall consist of cleaning, degreasing, and rinsing, followed by a protective chromate primer, deionized water rinse, oven dry off, and top coated with a thermoset polyester powder coat finish with a minimum thickness of 2.5 mils. *ANCHOR BOLTS Anchor bolts shall be hot dip galvanized steel. Eight galvanized hex nuts and flat washers, and a bolt circle template shall be provided. Anchor bolts for poles 14 feet high or less are 518" x 21 x 3". Anchor bolt for poles more than 14 feet high are 3/4" x 24" x 3". WARNING: Fixture must be grounded in accordance with local codes or the National Electric Code. Failure to do so may result in serious personal injury. 4" o.d. pole. OAH i s� anchor bolt projection 1 3.5" 1 L grout under concrete footing entire base by others bolt circle: 7" dia. 900 apart _ street .side'I I' 9" dia �� I 170 SL SR24 DIMENSIONS: 248 DIAMETER SL SR30 DIMENSIONS: 30* DIAMETER B OPTIONS SSA Straight side arm for pole mounting WIVIP Wall mounting plate for straight side arm option LXN Polycarbonate lens for SL SR24 or SL SR30 series. Not recom- mended for use with metal halide lamps. PMS Pendant mounting kit with 48 inch stem and swivel joint at the canopy COP Polished copper with clear powder top coal Pendant mount only. 24" DIAMETER USE VVITX ARMS OR PENDA;:'S ;0A1. r:._ 70 100 _E 175 70 H:.g 100 150 WEIGHT EPA SL SR24 OPAL ACRYLIC LENS, MAXIMUM 100 WATTS HID 32 1.14 SL SR24GR3 TYPE 3 GLASS REFRACTOR LENS 32 1.14 SL SR24GR5 TYPE 5 GLASS REFRACTOR LENS 32 1.14 SL SR24H2 TYPE 2 HORIZONTAL CUTOFF REFLECTOR, SAG GLASS LENS 36 1.10 SL SR24H3 TYPE 3 HORIZONTAL CUTOFF RSLECTOR, SAG GLASS LENS 36 1.10 SL SR241114 TYPE 4 HORIZONTAL CUTOFF R-:7 ECTOR, SAG GLASS LENS • • • • 36 1.10 SL SR24H5 TYPE HORIZONTAL CUTOFF REFLECTOR, SAG GLASS LENS 36 1.10 30" DIAMETER USE WITH DECORATIVE ARMS OR PENDANTS 100 175 250 100 150 250 WEIGHT EPA SL SR30 OPAL ACRYLIC LENS • • 33 3.00 16,, DIAMET ER WALL BRACKETS WITH INTEGnAL BALLAST 26 Dr 50 1 70 50 70 WEIGHT EPA SL SR16-CA ............. GLASS LENS, CURVED ARM r, Arr , EkIV eT Alr_u Aou • • • • • 16 16 .62 .62 EXAMPLES SL SR30 25OMH-208 SLA20C DB6-01116-226 BLK ' p QI oenA imuli077 SI A7-9 PR44R12-226 DGN BC24 SL SR24H3 150HPS-277 SLA4 PR441114-125 wH1 Uni-4 SL SR16-CA 7OMH-120 • • WHT • 12 -meet IES stan dards for i hil I.Cut- -off luminaires and colt hm to loml.ofdinance These:6061.systems are" available on Shp SLBH20,-ALLO -:502, and SL.-SR24*,fixture series. .1 rtz TYPE 2-- - _TVPE3 __—TYPE- -TYPES' *:pathways - - • streets parking.areas -.w.parldn.n •streets • parking areas lostreets: -.-.Parks pathways • stnictures: x)penq ,eas- .e � MCNIM O T N n� • n n • u u � 12TH STREET f• n e• 1�, I ��'�• ��• : L:b�J��� � I �II'I II � B m A \0� Hit AIM-2 WAL-4MI STORE 02729 roRI COLLINS. CO — ISEO LIGHRNG DESIGN — DWNNO 00 �- �•Y •W�.T MYN.Pr. ViRv1 .Py.eP.r..Fv •ePnY Pa nwp.w�. ww. wMp�e w•a.Ew.v emlAw.•�4Tm MONUMENT SIGN /11 Mi f0 EC.LLE .Y I S1TE BENCH i1 .1 T. .cu TRASH RECEPTACLE C N 10 EO e BIKE RACK D WALL W/ RAILMG G 1bt t0 ECILE Iq IO.CYE PLANTER W/ RAISED CURB E . TOa^•,. taeunreP•...r .......E I�w." w•YraueMO1� re� PLANTER W/ SEAT WALL F I 10lC.LLE M1 ICE RNtP DETAIL (TYPE •A•) �nrtrr ti� rrnw.leu HANDICAP R.u1P DETAIL !TYPE WP eeawLL nonE c.saP..Ys.... PE •V wYHER�.r�OIWY Y O4.sa a.YYIw N YMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP �A1 N01 to ECY[ SEASONAL SALES AREA PERIMETER FENCING %1 I 10l E 4 PCd,.b1 IW.II�YCaYW.M r ty -.. DIRECTIONAL 91GNAGE , X l to WA-E H.C. PARKING SPACE LAYOUT/,.,, I , to xxE WALL -MOUNTED LIGHT FIXNREO t 10 WALK LIGHTED EIOLLARD �1 xm ro.cu •e.�".w.oWwra� ura sYia�t� �w�r...nY •,Y PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTMG �1 .e ro Yni ' /Qif.Z�lTt EEGE@IbG PAPoCMG LOT LIGHTMG V NT t0 K4. .00 .r,.oaT TO WLK11M oua. NYawW.[IN YmwiVOlw AO.N w...V w.Pil b..Ym�V OYwPn.b EDGE TREATMENTA .t tO l a �ew.a �wiw�Pdnb• Yam. .w K MY. SHRUB PLANTNO B M 10 C4. Ze GO iec.d �N�iY.wK.unw� r°�, w..... w d DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING �1 .pt 10 K4E d P,�' ll Y•..w nr...ww.� q �wb Pe wli1W EVERGREEN TREE PLAITING D 1 10 YLL[ MOUNDED ISLAND - S MJBS E w lo.cu. MOUNDED ISLAND - TUW F MT 10K E LANDSCAPE NOTES µ uO.taNroM.i� WCs.s.b YK�.C.YI...AM wr.P- w.KYw..w'v.wenW �1�w.W\..YWY��i..�ie.wb u�.WwsK�ww wl. TREE GRATE Un- • YwNNIN...T4 W...N LL .11..PpnYfpnWM we�on.a.a..n.T_tean.c.n.Tn. Y • w'w3 �C •Ys.. q.Ipi�._..w� _Y.OfO..N. .y 0«.ON�.. 1N�n��wO�IM.s..r�. •NM��NwY ��q�M Q O m 0 mV m BERM SECTION TABLE WwY PM�PfP.�OwN .PN YN.a�iPYwtl ��� 7r4'1,:T� a FiSS�l!�� •.rw n.r� nw �h .O aad� r wi rsr� Ceram• V116 rou L•ou arLi rrc�wv..e w �Ynaa ien rar xiwaLL. w� •onz x.u�on r���r�� Y•rL FAUX WINDOW DETAIL r wx nerrr COOfI.4rt6 LWIY LI.1 Y Ybl Y TI•i m Ywbnwa�i w.' YGMILCD P �•YL 1110LILL. Im fMd ' 0!S LTl' OV Y rOi1 x�x �A LLL FAUX WINDOW DETAIL NORTH ELEVATION RETAIL A AND B i�i�s �i�c•u •u.m owc w. V WL u�eLnaa w mLaw M1R m� a�eaae• w�.�ew�r.�r'� w�.m rwa�wr um M1M111L4 w. <0.P IL iT fpq 4M V wW'1 Lt .�' p I• uy m•ew1. MLLm •Lvw Yero .LN EAST ELEVATION RETAIL A AND B L ALV V YYOrI M ll •W W W n Ua1 �• pxp M l\, Y� p ll Ai]L YILLLTY OYL ItlN101M11 ilg,� nueLx wn M I4MY w. fYYL M b• fiA9 LLIx r neY v �p �• w Lawa. W®MI Il�Y.mY WLOfI x LL •W JLl . LtlxOMY Al GLLr V•Ox• R,LL •MYp MILM pLL. r'[ Id A m11• ML'r L6l[OY]}YLIM Wl N}Mq LCl/1 ALIIL!• • • Y p M rill.•Y'� YOIIOW•GiO M<rIL ML..W 1�1•L1YpL •nYp MLr. Yt•O LI.• 'R Im • 011• �: L[ ArpM MyrCW/m lMll �gR•.rIX�ONwrlLrl Wt TYPICAL EYEBROW CANOPY •rra rr. r� ro..m mvn war. •... Mw YU. QAPr lrra TOYN Y IYYY M•YWI. MLLm mlr MCLO wb LN • •D•1WO•rM IrL1irO1L�rLLY i _ rLL �C•O•q a•. rW .•rLcw.•.� Il. TV I I—L o�wwirearnwrarry SOUTH ELEVATION RETAIL A AND B ��.wd LI w••rrlw�l �TY�� tN •.•wrrwYr � � rf sLr � ew••p . f Mtl M •I[f COA11 MYMr uLl• . �� �� wb lY taAfIM ••Lr1YrIL�•r •I•r' mn sM WLJr VLL ♦I111Vr\ 1\L 1I11L I"r I"n\V V 1 • • • rr r L.V! r . •v N M.NNIL •IY� C0.fw I..i 61N• YM I MYl'. Md�'.r0.' yY1 MM1MYL� MPID W... NORTH ELEVATION RETAIL A AND 5 1i 0 CYlNW T4 MO111W01. M1../W bO1 �O Nl. AGill MOB. fMl.l11.NL1Or.V .. ttll VR#n T4.Y9. rlW NL..wM Ye ltwat •. 1—.Gill. KCY M[R AECA.M1N YlL nNll-,M Nam. so�..a'os kSeO.�.doiooc:avaoa�i' o g- - - aa.uv.Ta ws - r.wrwu i..,_� EAST ELEVATION RETAIL A AND B wasn. �.III�IIII ■■ ■I■� .sIJ.1A .�►,..�1�\ /w\\ 1 go. 1II ■iii �� ,I ,..�\r■■■r■`■■■fir, iil�, ®T� 1 ►' .111� Smilli .-]•u L�IIII \ �C ii41�5i�liiilI � millimilli �.•[gigolo milli milli Nu n No Text n PLANT LIST LWI.M WZaMVIMVJIKtI YII IOI.WI H .! Y•RM MlOitlw.' )' fY. tSGld CY41n CM KWw.F .LLL CIWLO.G. •tI® v to nLa•alw cow\w wsMo.•t uL 0..4. «.ytl.�+' •rlc.oL ouLm tlu caw a•a •.rw • to LDKtlM G.t e�....F. 'ybnr >c.L. rlc.eLauLm tlu c.o..L e•v. Lv.Yo bwd 4 CJ CMOM.CY�[. }•R1. •OK. VKW Y-OC ��N•M.F tl'.].•V�O. H GI 111.40 Mbtt •Oµ. VKW 4.00 A•pr Ybw. twr.W tl'.].' V.O f\ W Wytl•ANF"!IL IGIL VKW Y-OC. I�LwwIL• tL n 0. r VKW WOG wM'MW 0.Pe' !..•R�ytD WRs LroOIW/II.t• NRO M WCpLI pp.tlt GgtlLaR VM M1M.W RO PIRW MOIt�.ilt. J2O P. ..I M1M b.4L 00•tM _ LOur lEoux r •man """ UOF STREET MEDIA PLANTMG ELM LM m No Text C'"I.IC . _�_-�--SOT 6 � .•I .�-��—._ - -_---= � � 1..�• I l �_- �..[�... maw wa.� Ii iJ nJ KEY-MM Wom ... v.• I � D •[Il.n wvlut [s-. f• r `':'• 1 • • ` I « n u I / 0 n,•e, 11 • q• r - � � I I - C r 141 r P 11 iii Gk ! I 1 1 //mil / � I/ / ::,• r¢°mim • ,/�.` 5 � �iee fill ' WAL* MART C-1080R-OR ••ama'" r r r ' WW / ���� � I [.e[.M1w �dtdi O / •• r, wxon RETAIL A - aw "n°. - •• ��r 'i i��� NAMtu . ` I LL11L1111U �[[ •[M w. y W y4 Q /� I� <�. fW Rmrluf r I • r �j I 'e°'r[.�., w.O .... ti Y JQ� / / " Qw�i.I• �. I• 1 I j� l...rh w / \.col I _ .u: ' • �� ' • r • � w~wn e..e[a : 5:.�:P9.$ / ,/ • — /) -� LOT 1 !• • � T • • T I ' • aunszoan I � ,� • ©"r I � I I 0 p I � I � S2 � � .I ...... �.[ N saoar M•n �A I �. •- •• V� • I �w.y,,,,pom.v.e, O QO COiK MQIr.W[ •, • • O;�y '° - .xo/ m..nfa+ r•e rwu•[[a.ar.rrt°wa. srrt• ' _ . . ,/,/jy'/ y-/.^/r.. ^ •/; j11 OI�]IiI[fi D -I� ■I1 I xaF-///D( ��. Odrr�iu+ O J ..� / // J'/ / i/y 11•Tf �. I . Wp9W A. T. fat M R..= •, // (l/{/�/_nI � ,: /i I • f - �— wuron aloes w, u ewr nlw Q � Z r �// /1J�y�///]�/%•..., - ii i i �, Vie, •• t wwa.r .[muru wo[.n. ZZ I ylp, �j�jyl/// ",/Ur• .� � �.,ii• nww� ��//JJ% y�M1+I • - I .. _. - S lei avn-S - � pLOTI .. .. - _ "• _ �60TH. LEMAY AVE.._E -- nwwll, - - - - _ _ FUTURE LAND USE PLAN - ADJACENT PROPERTIES M1 ]N.Y 4}tN SITE DATA LOT I PA ft Fin fmfr ]e.v re. w KL A A WTAIL , ]ace p 03 . >AR ]D PA.C.]p�.p " '"> ' -31 FA3. LA.OKAPE PAW[ FPYEF PA.CN' gfiplNilp] F]AIQAip PAf1CW FPACFF >N m�u�A AR RHNi 6 [UM1DYS PF1ANeG a1Ea Y> T •Y'\ >03\ LFMAi ]i1 ueeo¢ep Pepc>n ePAeeF n o]u en�Fl evsLLo iF>. us >. TM) WP ES "3 10tLL qF> PUK wra AF FP!cFFneco er. SKC1 %PAWL WP S ]F FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SHEET INDEX w.i P.a.. r.w w.... LEGAL DESCRIPTION ...w�«.� II I 1 II I 1 1 1 VICINITY GENERAL NOTES Y.w•.. tlfOR...sY.WN.tl•.O YOn P..I M.N.V�fm • �.tl�..a we w w...nn.a tl ^ mM�..O '� . �_ N..eY�.Au..q..ee.O w Y fnAn ro...er wTwN Y m�.�W�.fAMr WIM.. W M P.ne..p R•.O/Nn VrJ. •r�uc—ua Yw Niw�n� �M��i..�'iui.Y war.laa �..r ma s w~b u e.w.aa e...v..eaa .•if Pwef �-•�a.A �i��vwgyON��• rr\ ..m.m wA.fnr...n. w.�... a..... llll"Z EHGMEMPLANNERBURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SOILS ENGINEER TRAFFIC ENGINEERS OINEIRJOEVELOPER �'.7.'C�.«�m..... �• r: tee' ....... 'bR�'.X"N eatl PLANNING AND ZONMG APPROVAL OUNER'S CERTIFICATION Y �WNO�•w Ntlplr O�.�e s•N.tl.q.n 11 I INI N Table 4.1 Mode Split — All Person Trips Weekly Total , Oo Single- Multiple. Weekdays Onl e Occupant Occupant Public Single- Multiple - Vehicle Vehicle Occupant o0 Transit Bic cle Walk P Occupant Public $ n Fort Collins Other Vehicle Vehicle Transit Bic cle 47% 42% ° Walk Greeley 47% ° 1 /' 6% 6% <1°/, Other tA Loveland 42/0 1% 2% 48% 37% ° Other Areas 56% 39% <1% 1% 4% 1% 48% <I/° 7% 6% 1% � a 50% 39% 2% ° 37% 1 2% All Areas 2/°. 7% 1% 59% 37% <1% 1"/° 6�O IY° 49% 40% 1% ° 1 /° 51% 39% 1% ° 3% 1% 3/° 64° 1% SIY° 38% 1% 3Y° 7%<IY° 6/. 1% A 5 on" mm" S� , 19 itn ,; u, T ;o Figure 8 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Cop project site, and this entire area does not serve pedestrians (similar to north Lemay) so trying to fix. these gaps would be an extensive effort which doesn't seem warranted by the relatively few trips assigned to this route. Should this proposed development receive preliminary approval, it is my hope that through the on -going development review process for this project, the City and the applicant can work together to achieve the necessary connections to the City's established bike/ped network in order to link this site with other areas of the community. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, we can discuss them at your upcoming worksession on October 30th. Thank you. C(0 pc:) mode split of 12% for bikes/peds for these types of trips (for home -based work trips, the mode split is 4% for walking and 10% for bicycling - or 14% total for bikes/peds) See Figure 1. Figure 1: Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Project, Estimated Bicycle/Pedestrian Trips by Corridor Travel Corridor Trip Trips by All Estimated Distribution Modes Bike/Ped M (Trips per Trips Da) (12%) Lemay, south 25% 4,641 557 Lemay, north 20% 3,712 445 Mulberry, west 25% 4,641 557 Mulberry, east 10% 1,856 223 Lincoln, west 15% 2,784 334 Lincoln, east 5% 928 ill Total 100% 18.562 2.227 The TIS indicates that 25% of the trips to/from the site will use Lemay, south of the project site. This roadway currently includes adequate bikelanes and sidewalks and with the proposed intersection improvements at Lemay/Mulberry, the pedestrian and bicycle connections to the south can be accomplished to serve the proposed project. Of particular concern is the pedestrian access from the west along Mulberry to the project site. The TIS indicates that 25% of the trips to/from the site will use this corridor to access the site. There are not any sidewalks along Mulberry, from Lemay west to Riverside - nor is there a walkway nor bikelanes along the bridge over the Poudre River. Staff is working with the applicant to explore possible bridge improvements and new sidewalks to provide bike/pedestrian connections to the west along this route in order for the walkway system to tie into the City's `existing bicycle and pedestrian network. The length of the new walkway/bridge improvements would be required for approximately 'h mile. City staff, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation and the applicant, would complete a study to determine the technical and financial feasibility for this connection as this project moves forward in the development review process. This issue must be resolved prior to a First Filing Final P.U.D. coming before the Planning & Zoning Board in order to assure continued compliance with applicable LDGS All Development Criteria. The TIS indicates that 20% of the trips will use Lemay, north of the project site. There are currently bikelanes along this segment of Lemay, however there are not any sidewalks north of the site, with the exception of the City Streets Facility frontage which does provide a sidewalk along the west side of the roadway. The remainder of north Lemay only has a wide shoulder. i area on the east side of the roadway which could be used for pedestrian travel. The difficulty with this area is that there are not any existing pedestrian facilities to tie into throughout a large area surrounding the project to the northeast. This lack of public facilities is not just related to sidewalks, but is reflective of other infrastructure deficiencies in the northeast portion of our community. This overall system deficiency seems too much burden to place on one project - it needs to be addressed through continued new development/redevelopment as well as publicly funded major capital projects. The TIS reports that only 15% of the trips will use Lincoln to the west of the site. This segment of Lincoln does have existing bikelanes, but only wide shoulders on the northside of the roadway which, while not ideal, could be used by pedestrians. Sidewalks would need to be provided for approximately 1A mile to conned into the existing City sidewalk system at the park site at First Street. Only 5% of the site generated trips are anticipated to use Lincoln to the east of the o MEMORANDUM DATE: Revised -October 28, 1998 TO: Planning & Zoning Boardmembers Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Ted Shepard, City Planner FROM: Kathleen Reavis,.Transportation Program Planner CC: Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager Susanne Edminster, Transportation Planning & Parking Manager RE: Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Project —Pedestrian & Bicycle Issues. - Based upon recent staff discussions regarding my on -going concern for the bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Mulberry/Lemay Crossing project, I would like to document the need for the project to specifically address these issues as it proceeds through the development review process. Fortunately, the project applicant has identified means by which to address bicycle/pedestrian safety and accessibility at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue. However, the proposed project may need to provide for additional bicycle/pedestrian access to and from their site along Mulberry Street to the west (between Lemay Avenue and Riverside Drive) in order to connect into the'City's existing bicycle/pedestrian network. Based upon recent information received by City staff and the applicant concerning a potential solution which would allow for improved ped/bike access along the Poudre River bridge, staff will be conducting a study to evaluate the technical and financial feasibility of this connection. To help clarify the need for the bicycle/pedestrian connections, I examined the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by the applicant and used additional resources to estimate the potential number of pedestrians and bicyclists who could be traveling to/from the proposed project along the primary. corridors. The TIS indicates that this project will generate 18,562 new trips per day. Though the TIS does not distinguish the mode split of the projected trips, it is fair to assume that these could represent any type of travel including motor vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian trips. Based upon the most recent data available on mode -splits for Fort Collins', it has been determined that 6% of home - based non -work trips are made by walking and another 6% by bicycling. Resulting in a total ' North Front Range Transportation Demand Management Project - Travel Data Inventory Summary Report (April 1996). No Text Transportation Services Transportation Planning of Fort Collins DATE: January 20, 2000 TO: Planning & Zoning Boardmembers FROM: -Kathleen Reavis, Senior Transportation Planner. RE: Pedestrian & Bicycle Information for Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Project Per your request, enclosed is a map of the existing and proposed bicycle lane and sidewalk facilities in the vicinity of the proposed Mulberry/Lemay Crossing Project (Walmart). A slide of this map is available for your review as part of presentation package this evening. Some of the "proposed" bikelanes and sidewalks will be completed by this development (for example. along Lemay, Mulberry, and Magnolia) however there are some areas where the sidew•alks/bikelanes will need to be constructed by the City or future redevelopment- particularly north and west of the project site. The City currently has limited funding available for community -wide pedestrian improvements from Building Community Choices. The sidewalks for the neighborhoods north and west of the project site have been identified for this local funding source ove: the next couple of years. In addition, grant applications have been submitted to the Forth Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council in order to provide supplemental funding for these sidewalks. I have also enclosed a prior memo that I had sent to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding the projected bicycle and pedestrian traffic generated by this project. I hope this helps clarify the issue of "how many" pedestrians and bicyclists may be generated by this development as well as the projected distribution of these trips. I will be available during vour meeting to answer additional questions. Thank you. 210 E. Olive • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 222'1-6608 • Fax (970) 221-6239 Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 13 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Final P.U.D., #36-96D. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-961) January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 12 E. Improvements to Existing Magnolia Existing Magnolia Street, between 12'h Street and Link Lane, will be improved. These improvements include adding a six foot wide attached sidewalk, roll-over curb and gutter within the existing right-of-way. F. Improvements to LemayNine Intersection The signal phasing at LemayNine intersection will be split allowing north and southbound traffic to make protected left turns. This new signal phasing is needed now, independent of the P.U.D., and will be installed by the City this month, January of 2000. As stated at the Preliminary, the fact that the Burlington Northern/Sante Fe railroad has a switching yard just east of this intersection causing delays during switching operations does not, by itself, render the Final P.U.D. infeasible from a traffic operations standpoint. It is not within the purview of the City to require a shopping center developer to mitigate roadway delays caused by a railroad. The long-term solution has been identified as a grade -separated crossing so Lemay does not conflict with the railroad. This is considered a city-wide capital improvement and remains unfunded at this time. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary P.U.D. B. Of the six conditions of Preliminary approval, five are applicable with Lot One. These five conditions of approval have been satisfied. C. The cash -in -lieu contribution of $200,000 to the City for the design and construction of the bike/pedestrian bridge over the Poudre River is an acceptable form of meeting the requirement to provide an alternative mode connection to the East Side/Old Town Neighborhood. D. The Final P.U.D. continues to satisfy the All Development Criteria and the variable and absolute criteria of the Community/Regional Shopping Center point chart of the Land Development Guidance System. E. The Final P.U.D. continues to satisfy the design criteria of the Stormwater Department of the Fort Collins Utilities. F. The extent of the offsite public improvements to the roadway system render the project feasible from a traffic operations standpoint. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., 436-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 11 B. Improvements to Lemay Avenue Presently, Lemay between Mulberry and Lincoln is a two lane road but is classified as a standard arterial. Improvements to Lemay will bring the roadway up to the standard arterial level. These improvements include: • Widening of the roadway from two lanes to four lanes with turn lanes at the signalized intersections. • Construction of a raised, landscaped median, tapered at the intersections. • Signalization of the new Lemay/Magnolia intersection. • Provision of a northbound bus turn out lane just north of Magnolia. • Add right -turn lanes into the center at all access points. • Widening of the Lemay/Lincoln intersection. • Modification of the signal phasing at Lemay/Lincoln to provide protected/permitted left turns for north and southbound Lemay. C. Construction of Two New Public Streets Two new public streets will be constructed. Magnolia, classified as a collector, will be built from Lemay to 12`h Street. This will provide an east -west connection from Link Lane to Lemay Avenue. 12`s Street, classified as a commercial -local, will be constructed from Lincoln to Mulberry providing a north -south connection. These two streets will act as re -circulator streets designed to provide access to the shopping center and relieve traffic on the adjacent arterials. D. Re -alignment of the Existing Highway 14 Frontage Road The east -west frontage road on the north side of Mulberry will be re -aligned so that it is pulled away from the Mulberry/12t' Street intersection. Instead of intersecting 12a' Street in its present alignment, it will swing north approximately 260 feet. The frontage road will be restricted to one-way westbound traffic only for a limited distance and then resume to two-way traffic. However, access from 12t' Street will still be allowed to Supermarket Liquors. Access to Link Lane is still available by two-way traffic on Magnolia. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 10 The purpose is to connect the shopping center to the East Side/Old Town Neighborhood. This cash -in -lieu contribution has been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found acceptable. The City's goal is to have this bridge and sidewalk constructed by the time the store opens for business. In addition to the new Poudre River bike/ped bridge, all public streets will feature on - street bike lanes, sidewalks, cross -walks, and pedestrian buttons at signalized intersections. 7. Transportation — Traffic: A. Improvements to Mulberry Street There will be significant improvements to East Mulberry Street, also referred to as State Highway 14. These improvements include: • Dual left -turn lanes for westbound Mulberry at the Lemay intersection. • Add one northbound through -lane on Lemay at Mulberry. Add one northbound right -turn lane on Lemay at Mulberry. • Add one westbound right-tum lane at Lemay. • Add right -turn channelizing islands for northbound right -turns at Mulberry/Lemay intersection. • Add median refuge areas with auxiliary pedestrian buttons on all legs of the Mulberry/Lemay intersection to accommodate pedestrian traffic. • Construction of new "3/4 movement" intersection at Mulberry/ 12`' Street. Such an intersection will prohibit southbound through and southbound left -turn movements. Also, northbound through and northbound left -turn movements will be prohibited. This intersection will not be signalized. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 9 5. Lincoln — Lemay Intersection Improvements: Considerable work will be done to improve the Lincoln/Lemay intersection. Th%(,C roadway will be widened to include through lanes, turn lanes and bike lanes. T-v6b storm sewers will be constructed to prevent ponding. This will require that existing borrow ditches be placed in pipes. The existing high -voltage electrical transmission tower will remain in place. 6. Transportation — Bicycles, Pedestrians and Transit: A. Onsite Improvements The Final P.U.D. continues to provide the same level of onsite bike and pedestrian facilities as on the Preliminary. Eight -foot wide sidewalks are provided on the perimeter of the site along the three sides with public streets. An eight -foot wide walk connects Buffalo Run to the entrance of the store along the building's west elevation. There continues to be two eight -foot wide sidewalks that connect the front of the store to Magnolia Street. An eight -foot wide walk connects the front of the store to Lemay Avenue. An eight -foot wide walk connects out to 12t' Street but not directly in front of the store due to the vertical differential in grade between 12`h Street (high) and the site (low). Also, a retaining wall runs along 12'hStreet to convey storm flows to the pond which prevents a direct connection. Two sets of bicycle racks are provided, one per south -facing entry. Each rack can accommodate 14 bikes for a total capacity of 28 bikes. . Transit stops are provided along Lemay in accordance with the specifications of Transfort. A bus turnout lane will allow buses to stop without blocking traffic. A bus turnout lane is also provided in the parking lot drive aisle in front of the information kiosk. B. Offsite Improvements: The primary offsite bicycle and pedestrian improvement consists of a cash -in -lieu contribution to the City in the amount of $200,000 for the purpose of designing and constructing a bridge over the Poudre River and a connecting sidewalk. It is anticipated that this bridge and additional sidewalk will be on the north side of Mulberry Street. The walk will be constructed along the Link `N Greens golf course, over the Poudre River and continue west along City -owned property, to the intersection of Mulberry and Riverside. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 8 E. Lemay Median Landscaping There will be a raised concrete median in Lemay between Mulberry and Lincoln. This median will be 15 feet wide except where it narrows at the intersections to make room for separate left turn lanes. Where the median is 15 feet wide, there will be a mix of shade and ornamental trees and a mix of deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Where the median tapers to seven feet, there will be no landscaping. The median will also contain the public street lighting so proper separations between light fixtures and trees are maintained. After establishment of the plant material, the median will be maintained by the City Forester who has reviewed and approved the landscape plan. F. Architectural Elevation Upgrades In addition to the aforementioned west elevation, the other three elevations have been slightly upgraded as well. For example, on the south elevation, eyebrow canopies have been added over the three emergency exit doors (see detail on sheet 7 of 12). On both the north and east elevations, four additional faux windows have been added (for a total of eight), each highlighted by a wall -mounted gooseneck light fixture. 4. Poudre River Outfall: The primary stormwater outfall for the P.U.D. is the Poudre River. Storm flows will be routed to a detention pond at the southwest comer of the shopping center, located on Lot Two but constructed with Lot One. This pond will feature wetland plantings to help filter out heavy solids and runoff from the parking lot. A new 72 inch diameter culvert under Mulberry will carry flows to the south side of Mulberry. At the outlet, the culvert is enlarged to 84 inches in diameter and angled at about 45 degrees so that storm flows are heading in roughly the same direction as the river current rather than in a perpendicular fashion. The culvert will be equipped with a two backflow prevention devices to prevent damage in case of flooding. At the pond outlet on the north side of Mulberry, there will be a sluice gate which will be operated and maintained by the City. At the river, there. will be a one -directional flap valve that will allow flows to travel in only one direction so its open for downstream flows but will close in case there are upstream flows. Storm flows will be dissipated to prevent erosion by a cluster of washed granite boulders buried 1/3 to '/z depth. Randomly placed cobbles will be placed to fill the voids. Native plant material will be installed to help screen the outfall. All disturbed areas will be re- seeded. The design of the outfall has been reviewed and approved by both the Department of Natural Resources and the Stormwater Department. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., 436-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 7 A. Outdoor Seasonal Sales The P.U.D. restricts outdoor seasonal sales to a specific area so that inventory does not spill haphazardly onto the walkways, parking lot or other public space areas. Such an area will obviate the need to carve temporary "garden centers," Christmas tree lots, pumpkin patches and the like out of the parking lot. The designated outdoor seasonal sales area is located just south of the garden shop along 12'' Street. The area measures 216 feet by 50 feet for a total of 10,800 feet. The area is uncovered, has a concrete surface and is surrounded by a four foot high steel tube fence, painted green, that matches the garden center attached to the store. The fence is accented by cultured stone columns spaced every 40 feet. The area is flanked by 12 shade trees, six per side. B. Forecourt Details The plaza area in front of the store will feature raised planters with seat walls, benches and bike racks. There will be pedestrian -scaled bollard lighting as well as the pole - mounted gooseneck light fixtures. Four shade trees and eight ornamental trees will be placed between the two southern entrances to enhance the space and help mitigate the mass of the building. C. Buffalo Run Buffering The north parking lot will be buffered from Buffalo Run by a six foot high berm featuring 38 evergreen trees planted in a dense pattern. In addition, the truck area will be screened by an eight -foot high masonry fence that also features clusters of ornamental trees along its length. West of the truck area, a three-foot high berm will shield parked cars facing north along the private east -west service drive. D. Stormwater Detention Pond/Water Quality The stormwater detention pond at the southeast corner of the site (at the corner of Magnolia and 12'' Street) will feature wetland plant material. This pond is fed by storm flows coming from the north. A split -face concrete block retaining wall will be constructed along 12'h Street for a length of 255 feet. This wall allows for separation between 12'h Street (high) and the site (low) and allows for onsite storm flows to be conveyed without impacting 12'h Street. In addition, an offsite pond will be constructed at the southwest corner of the shopping center on Lot Two near the comer of Mulberry and Lemay. This pond will also feature wetland plant material. (See additional description of water quality features under "Poudre River Outfall" in Section Four of this memo.) Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Two signs are specified to convey this message. The sign copy states: "The idling of trucks during loading, unloading, and/or waiting is not allowed. " These signs are located in the truck dock area on the north side of the store, one on each side of the central projecting wall. Each sign will be four feet by five feet for a total of 20 square feet. The detail for these signs is specified on Sheet 10 of 12. Staff, therefore, finds that this condition has been satisfied. F. CDOT Approval "By the time of the First Filing Final P.U.D. is before the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration, the applicant shall have obtained all necessary approvals from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the design, access, signalization, lane configuration, or any other aspect of design review for all impacts to the state highway system in relation to development of any portion of this P.U.D." Design of the improvements to the state highway system -is contained within the Utility Plans. These public improvements consist of: • Re -alignment of the existing north frontage road. • New intersection of Mulberry and 120' Street. • New right and left -turn lanes for the Mulberry/12'hStreet intersection. • New left and right turn lanes at the Mulberry/Lemay intersection. • Lane widening, re -striping and new raised median. CDOT has been involved in the review of the Utility Plans since August of 1999, when the Final P.U.D. was first submitted for review. All aspects of the public improvements to State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street) have been reviewed by CDOT and found acceptable. CDOT is prepared to issue the necessary State Highway Access Permits for construction of public improvements within the state highway right-of-way but only after the Final P.U.D. is approved and recorded. (Such permits contain a specific time period by which public improvements must be completed.) Staff, therefore, finds that this condition has been satisfied. 3. Desi : Since Preliminary, there have been several specific refinements added to the P.U.D. that are now in detail form. These refinements are as follows: Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., 436-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 5 C. Plaza Details for Retail Buildings C,D,E, and F These buildings are south of Magnolia Street and are not contained within the Lot One, Filing One Final P.U.D. This condition will be addressed at consideration of the Final P.U.D. for Lot Two. D. Mitigation of Outdoor Merchandising "At the time of submittal for First Filing Final P.U.D., and all subsequent Final P.U.D.'s, the applicant shall demonstrate how the visual impact of outdoor retailing, outdoor self-service machines or devices, or the use of such exterior machines such as food and beverage vending machines, automatic teller machines, reverse vending machines, recycle facilities (bins, dumpsters, containers), charitable depositories and the like is minimized so that the features called for in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments are in no way diluted, marginalized, or negatively impacted in any way." The original purpose of the information kiosk was to house any potential outdoor vending . equipment. Thus large, illuminated beverage machines will be accessible but screened. In order to enforce this restriction on the placement of outdoor merchandising, Note Number 20 on the Cover/Data Sheet (Sheet 1 of 12) states: "The placement of all outdoor vending machines is restricted to the inside, of the kiosk There shall be no outdoor display offood or beverage machines or other self-service devices including but not limited to automatic teller machines, reverse vending machines, recycle facilities (bins, dumpsters, containers) charitable depositories and the like. " The Building Inspection and Zoning Division is empowered to enforce this restriction. Staff, therefore, finds that this condition of approval has been satisfied. E. Signs Prohibiting Truck Idling "At the time of submittal for Final P.U.D. for either Retail A,B, the plans shall include a detailed specification for two signs to be posted in the truck loading area. (For Retail A,B, one sign shall be posted on the north and south ends of the loading area.) Each sign shall be no less than 20 square feet and posted in an area clearly visible to all drivers. Signs shall be worded to the effect that idling engines are not allowed at any time of the day, and that drivers must turn off their engines while loading or unloading or waiting to do the same. Signs shall not be visible from Buffalo Run Apartments or the public right-of-way." Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 4 B. West Elevation — Architectural Details "Architectural details for the west fagade of Retail A,B meet the requirements of the Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments. At the time of submittal of any Final P.U.D., the applicant shall be required to meet the submittal requirement for a Final P.U.D. that states that final architectural elevations shall be provided to convey the exact architectural intent of the proposed improvements. In order to mitigate the remaining mass and length of the west fagade and to promote a human scale for pedestrians using the adjacent walkway, features such as, but not limited to, small retail stores, display windows, (merchandise, bakery goods, apparel, etc.), faux windows, picnic tables, moveable furniture, informational boards (for example the history of the area), murals, children's play equipment, art sculpture, and the like shall be provided." The architectural details for the west elevation are conveyed on Sheets 5 and 7 of 12. The west elevation has been upgraded since Preliminary. For example: There are now three additional faux windows which are of a different shape than the original six shown at Preliminary. There will now be a total of nine. There are now seven display windows located under the canopy. These windows measure five feet by eight feet. These windows will be dedicated for public, non- commercial display of information, exhibits and the like. The windows will not be used to display in-store merchandise. The Fort Collins Library has expressed an interest in acting as curator. There are now three wall -mounted gooseneck light fixtures added to highlight the three new aforementioned faux windows. There are now benches in addition to the seat walls. There are now bike racks and a raised planter/seat wall added to the information kiosk. Staff finds that the architectural elevations are sufficient in detail to convey the exact architectural intent of the west fagade. The additional elements are found to upgrade the west elevation so that it is more detailed than the Preliminary P.U.D. The display windows, benches, seat walls and bike racks contribute to creating a pedestrian -friendly space, especially along the walkway that connects to Buffalo Run Apartments. Staff, therefore, finds that this condition of approval has been satisfied. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 3 "At the time of submittal for Final P.U.D., the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan that includes a foot-candle analysis that measures lighting levels throughout the site, and include on the Landscape Plan the required documentation to demonstrate compliance with water conservation standards." A Lighting Plan was received with submittal of a Final P.U.D. In addition, manufacturer's specification sheets for each fixture were also included as supporting documentation and are attached to this memo. Lighting details are specified on Sheet 10 of 12. There are three kinds of exterior light fixtures: pole -mounted, building -mounted and bollard. All fixtures feature high pressure sodium as the light source. (High pressure sodium is more energy efficient and creates a softer color than metal halide.) This will match adjacent public street lighting thereby reducing contrast. The pole and building mounted fixtures are down -directional featuring sharp cut-off luminaries so illumination does not spill offsite. This is particularly important on the north side in order to protect Buffalo Run. The maximum pole height is 30 feet which is acceptable given the size of the parking lot. The maximum wattage is 250-watt which is not excessive. (For example, some parking lots are illuminated with 400-watt fixtures.) The average foot-candle is 2.3 with a low of: 0.0 and a high of 10.0. The key is that along the shared property line with Buffalo Run, foot-candle measurements are reduced so light does not spill onto residential property. The lighting design is enhanced by the use of a decorative light fixture intended to complement the "warehouse" design. This fixture is informally known as a "gooseneck" and is similar to the lighting in front of the new downtown parking garage and the north side transit center, both located on North Mason Street, with one significant exception. The fixtures on North Mason Street feature the bulb extending downward below the fixture housing whereas on the subject fixtures, the bulb is contained within the fixture housing which is more effective in controlling light spillage. These goosenecks are provided in both pole -mount (12 feet) and wall -mount. With regard to providing data to demonstrate compliance with the water conservation standards, this information has been shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheet 3 of 12). The data indicate that there will be three distinct landscape categories: high water use (72.4%), low to moderate water use (22.5%) and low water use (4.9%). This breakdown complies with the Water Conservation Standards. Based on the information provided on the Lighting Plan and Landscape Plan, Staff finds this condition to be satisfied. Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., #36-96D January 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 2 five conditions of approval have been satisfied. The Final P.U.D. continues to satisfy the All Development Criteria and the absolute and variable criteria of the Community/Regional Shopping Center point chart of the L.D.G.S. Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the East Side Neighborhood is satisfied by a cash -in -lieu contribution to the City for design and construction of a bridge over the Poudre River. The Final P.U.D. satisfies the requirements of the Stormwater Department of the Fort Collins Utilities. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic operations standpoint. COMMENTS: 1. Backeround: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: C; Buffalo Run Apartments S: C; Vacant E: I; (County — Industrial) Retail, Auto Salvage, Welding Shop, Light Industrial W: CCR; Link `N Greens Golf Course Historically, the site has been part of a 51 acre irrigated agricultural field. The First Filing was annexed in 1995 as part of a larger 39 acre annexation that also included Buffalo Run Apartments.. The Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Overall Development Plan was approved on March 24, 1997. Buffalo Run Apartments Final P.U.D. was approved on October 2. 1997. The Preliminary P.U.D. for the 42.98 acre community/regional shopping center was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on November 5, 1998. The Preliminary P.U.D. was considered on appeal to City Council which upheld the denial on December 15, 1998. The project was then initiated to a vote by the general electorate. On April 7, 1999, the electorate voted to overturn the City Council denial and approve the Preliminary P.U.D., as conditioned by Staff. 2. Conditions of Preliminary Approval: There were six conditions of approval attached to the Preliminary P.U.D. These conditions, and their resolution, are summarized below: A. Lighting Plan and Water Conservation Standards I ITEM NO. 11 MEETING DATE 1 2/ 0/2000 STAFF Ted Shepard ICitv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D., 436-96D APPLICANT: Mr. Mark Goldberg Goldberg Property Associates 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1101 Denver, CO 80203 C/o Mr. Steve Wilson CLC Associates, Inc. 8480 East Orchard Road, Suite 2000 Englewood, CO 80111 OWNER: Springer -Fisher Trust C/o Mr. David Hill 3500 J.F.K. Parkway Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Final P.U.D. for a 194,456 square foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres located on the east side of Lemay Avenue, between Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street (extended). Filing One is part of a larger community/regional shopping center which consists of a total of 42.98 acres. The P.U.D. includes the construction of two new public streets; Magnolia Street (extended) and 12'hStreet. The property is zoned "C" Commercial. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Final P.U.D. is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary P.U.D. Of the six conditions of Preliminary approval, five are applicable to Filing One, Lot One. These COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. RO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT of the Mulbe?rv-Lemay development -review proceedings thus far. Accordingly; this office is instructed to continue with its investigation and if necessary, to challenge the propriety of final review where preliminary approval of the Project was never properly obtained. Unfortunately, please be advised that if the Board grants approval to the Mulberry-Lemay Final PUD on January 20`h, this office will have no recourse but to initiate litigation to resolve these issues. In that event, a civil action would necessarily name as defendants the City of Fort Collins and individual Board Members who vote for final PUD approval. Very truly yours, TIN & FY, LLC Christopher M. rnst Mulberry -Leman Crossings PUD January 19, 2000 Page 3 In addition, an Initiated Ordinance was submitted to Council, which purported to overturn both the P&Z denial and Council's decision upholding the denial. The Initiated Ordinance was ultimately submitted to a vote, notwithstanding the fact that the actions underlying the initiative were admittedly quasi-judicial in nature. It is our position that the Initiated Ordinance was and is invalid as a matter of law because it related to non -legislative matters. The Fort Collins Charter, Article H, Section 6, provides that "Council shall act by ordinance, resolution, or motion," and that "[a]II legislative enactments ... shall be by ordinance." The Charter further provides that "[t]he registered electors of the city shall have the power at their option to propose ordinances or resolutions to the Council, and, if the Council fails to adopt a measure so proposed, to adopt or reject such ordinance or resolution at the polls." Article X, Section 1(a). It is my understanding that the City intends to rely upon this Charter provision, which relates to the power of initiative. The Colorado Constitution provides that the initiative power is reserved to the voters of every city, town and municipality as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character. See, City of Fort Collins v. Doonev, 496 P.2d 316 (Colo. 1972), (emphasis in original). However, the power of initiative is not unlimited, and does not extend to non - legislative matters. Rather, initiative extends to the people's right to legislate; it is not applicable to determine how previously enacted public policies (such as Fort Collins' LDGS) will be administered or executed. In this regard, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that initiated ordinances relating to administrative matters are invalid. City of Idaho Springs v. Blackwell, 731 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1987) (power of initiative restricted to legislative matters). Colorado Courts have consistently held that the power of initiative extends only to legislative matters, and Courts will not read into a Charter language that would extend the initiative power further, absent clear and specific provision by the Charter itself. See, e.g., Fort Collins at 318; Witcher v. Canon City, 716 P.2d 445 (Colo. 1986); City of Aurora v. Zwerdlinser, 571 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1977). As far as I can tell, Fort Collins has enacted no such Charter provisions to extend or expand the initiative power to non -legislative matters. It is also my understanding that the City may rely upon the holding of Citizens v. City of Steamboat Springs, 807 P.2d 1197 (Colo.App. 1990), which states that "[a]pproval of a PUD is a legislative act." However, neither P&Z nor Council approved the Preliminary PUD, and the Initiated Ordinance related to non -legislative matters. As such, no legislative act ever occurred. It is therefore our opinion that "approval" of the Mulberry-Lemay Crossing Preliminary PUD is invalid and of no legal effect. As you can see, substantial questions and concerns exist as to the validity and legal effect Mulbem,-Lemay Crossings PUD January 19. 1000 Page 2 John R. Mehaffy Lawrence C. Rider r' .1d J. Humphrey Maguire n_...iew S. Humphrey Jonathan L Miller Laura 5. Moore Christopher M. Ernst MARTIN & MEHAFFY, LLC Via Hand Delivery Planning & Zoning Board Members City of Fort Collins, Colorado James G. Martin (retired) Margaret R. Brubaker, LLC Special Counsel Brighton Attorneys and Counselors at Law Ir' it r r` I - u 11 5 U , January 19, 2000 { JAN 2 0 2000 lu Re: Mulberry-Lemay Crossing, Preliminary and Final PUD Review Dear Board Members: This office represents Citizens Against Regional Super -center ("CARS"), a group of concerned citizens and registered electors in the City of Fort Collins. Our firm has been retained to investigate the City's review of the Mulberry-Lemay Crossing development project, and this letter is respectfully submitted to advise the Board of our position. As you know, the Planning & Zoning Board ("P&Z") is charged with reviewing applications for development in Fort Collins. As part of the review process, P&Z applies provisions of the Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS") to proposed projects, and thus determines whether a particular development plan should be approved or denied. In this manner, P&Z determines the rights of applicants by applying existing legal standards (the LDGS) to facts presented at public hearings.. This type of review is characterized by the law as "quasi-judicial," an important legal concept. As you also know, P&Z reviewed the Mulberrv-Lemay Crossing Preliminary PUD on November 5, 1998. The application was denied because P&Z determined that the PUD failed to satisfy several applicable criteria of the LDGS. Thereafter, the applicant appealed the denial to City Council. Accordingly, Council reviewed the action taken by P&Z, and affirmed and upheld the P&Z denial in Resolution No. 99-6, issued January 5, 1999. The applicant then filed a civil action in Larimer County District Court, seeking judicial review of Council's actions in upholding the P&Z denial. The Complaint on its face states that "[t)he actions and decisions of City Council complained of herein were taken by the City Council as an inferior tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions." Complaint, ¶ 24. Nlulbem-Lemay Crossings PUD January 19, 2000 Page I 1655 Walnut Street Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303 442r3375 Fax 303 444 8398 e-mail mmllc@aol.com Brighton Professional Building 105 Bridge Street Brighton, CO 80601 Phone 303 659-0731 Fax 303 659-0752 The Board. therefore. did not consider evidence, pro or con, regarding the round -about. The Board, however, did properl} consider the proposed transportation improvements to required mitigate the impacts associated with the Final P.U.D. The Board, therefore, did not consider evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. B. Allegation The traffic impact analysis presented by Staff was substantially false or grossly misleading regarding the projected traffic counts and attendant negative impact on the safety and efficiency of the area transportation system. The Staff conclusion that "The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic operations standpoint" is both substantially false and grossly misleading in light of unresolved issues regarding the safe modification of the Mulberry-Lemay intersection into a round -about. There are no safe and effective solutions to allow pedestrians and bicycle traffic to negotiate the proposed round -about. B. Staff Response: With regard to Land Use Policy Number 70, the Board found that the location of the P.U.D., within a larger community/regional shopping center and served by three arterial streets, provides adequate access and is appropriate. In addition, the P.U.D. included a significant number of both on -site and off -site street and intersection improvements that effectively increased the capacity of the existing and future transportation network. With regard to L.D.G.S. All Development Criterion A-2.1, the Board found the combination of on -site and off -site transportation improvements allowed the Final P.U.D. to be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems. Further, the Board found that the traffic impacts on the affected intersections associated with the P.U.D. are -Mthin the acceptable range of the city's traffic flow delay policies as measured by Levels of Service. Also, the Board found that pedestrian and bicycle needs are integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system. With regard to L.D.G.S. All Development Criterion A-2.6, the Board found with the proposed improvements, including funding for a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over the Poudre River, that the Final P.U.D. accommodates pedestrian movement from the East Side and Do«ntown neighborhoods to the site and throughout the development safely and conveniently. Further, these improvements contribute to the attractiveness of the development. With regard to the proposed round -about at the Mulberry-Lemay intersection, at the time of application for Final P.U.D., and at the time of P & Z consideration of the Final on January 20, 2000, the round -about had not been funded nor authorized to proceed by either the City Council or the Colorado Department of Transportation. Consequently, it was never a requirement of the applicant to design for a round -about as a condition of the Final P.U.D. Rather, the applicant was required to mitigate the associated transportation impacts of the P.U.D. by designing an appropriate level of both on -site and off -site improvements to the existing transportation system. At the Mulberry-Lemay intersection, this consisted of double left turn lanes for westbound Mulberry, separate right turn lanes on three legs of the intersection, and new signalization, medians, cross -walks, ramps and pedestrian actuated crossing signals. development applications. The Board erred when it proceeded with Final review of the application. C. Staff Response: The issue of the legal validity of the approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. by voter initiative is a legal issue not related to the Land Use Policies Plan or the Land Development Guidance System. This issue is addressed by the City Attorneys Office under separate confidential memorandum. 3. Traffic Impacts Related to the Mulberrv-Lemav Intersection Not Addressed A. Code Sections: The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Land Use Policy Number 70: Regional/community shopping centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City. L.D. G.S. All Development CriterionA-2.1: Can the additional traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic) generated b'y the land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and communtyh• transportation network without creating safetyproblems? Can impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet city traf c jlow delay policies? Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system? L.D.G.S. All Development Criterion A-2.6: Does the pedestrian circulation system (a) accommodate pedestrian movement from the neighborhood to the site and throughout the proposed development safely and conveniently and (b) contribute to the attractiveness of the development? The Appeal is based on Sections 2-48 (1), 2-48 (2)(a), 2-48 (2)(b), and 2-48 (2)(c): Three specific allegations are made. The pertinent Code section is stated in italics. The allegations are briefly summarized below in bold followed by a staff response. Invalid Acceptance by the Board of the Approved Preliminary P.U.D. A. Code Section: The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter. B. Allesation: The approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. by voter initiative was not allowed by the Code and Charter. The Board erred in accepting Preliminary P.U.D. approval by Initiated Ordinance as a proper basis for proceeding with Final P.U.D. consideration. By proceeding with Final in the absence of a Preliminary approval, the Board acted without jurisdiction and exceeded its authority. C. Staff Response: The issue of the legal validity of the approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. by voter initiative is a legal issue not related to the Land Use Policies Plan or the Land Development Guidance System. This issue is addressed by the City Attorneys Office under separate confidential memorandum. 2. Invalid Acceptance by the Board of the Approved Preliminary P.U.D. A. Code Section: The Board failed to conduct o fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. B. Allesation: The procedural requirements of the Code specifically reserve decision making power to the Planning and Zoning Board. Nowhere in the Code or charter are there provisions authorizing the electorate to act as decision maker for purposes of City of Fort Collins TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: RE: Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning MEMORANDUM Mayor and Members of City Council Ted Shepard, Senior Planner q. John Fischbach, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Bob Blanchard, Current Planni g Director March 15, 2000 Mulberry — Lemay Crossing Final P.U.D. — Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memo is to respond to an appeal regarding the January 20, 2000 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve Mulberry — Lemay Crossing Final P.U.D. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter: (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or conunission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Boa 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 The Staff Report presented to the concludes that. "The PUD is feasible from a traffic operations standpoint." This is both substantially false and grossly misleading in light of substantial unresolved concerns about safe modification of the existing Mulberrv-Lemay intersection. The feasibility of the proposed roundabout has not been established by realistic simulations and remains uncertain as a safe and effective solution to the increased traffic flows certain to occur near the site. There was conflicting testimony at the January 20`' hearing regarding traffic analyses at the Mulberry-Lemay intersection, which indicated not only the likelihood of increased traffic congestion, but also that no safe and effective solution has been adopted to allow pedestrian and bicycle traffic to safely negotiate the proposed roundabout. Therefore, the safety and feasibility of bicycle and pedestrian traffic has not been established. 5. On behalf of all appellants, the law Finn of Martin & Mehaffy, LLC, is hereby authorized to receive any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants. Please direct all correspondence or communication regarding this appeal to: Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. Martin & Mehaffy, LLC 1655 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Boulder. Colorado 80302 Tel. 303-442-3375 Fax. 303-444-8398 Respectfully submitted this 3`d day of February, 2000. Very truly yours. MARTIN c- MEH.A.FFY, LLC Lawrence C. Rider CITIZENS AGAINST REGIONAL SUPERCENTER: 111 Gary Lames 1000 Driftwood Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Tel. 970-223-0404 Notice of Appeal February 2. 2000 Pase 5 jyze►� 'oi�'k= c,�wt�56�r� +&Z- - 4'?. b Z-- The Land Use Code further provides that "all development applications ... must be processed and approved through the following development applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), then through a final plan (Division 2.5).... Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the previoush approved development application...." Article 2. Division 2.1.3(A) (emphasis supplied). The procedural requirements of Divisions 2.1 and 2.2 specifically reserve decision making power to the Planning and Zoning Board. Nowhere in the Code or Charier are there provisions authorizing the electorate to act as decision maker for purposes of development applications. Again, the Board erred when it proceeded with final review of the application. The procedures followed for the Mulberry-Lemay development applications were undertaken in complete disregard of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Code. C. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. The traffic impact analysis presented by Staff at the January 201h hearing was substantially false or grossly misleading regarding projected traffic counts and attendant negative impact on the safety and efficiency of the area transportation system. Police No. 70 of the Land Use Policies Plan provides that "[rlegional or community shopping centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City." There was testimony at the January 20`h hearing indicating that the Mulberry-Lemay project will create traffic impacts which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City. In addition, Land Development Guidance System Criteria A-2.1 and A-2.6 are also implicated in this regard. In upholding the Board's denial of the preliminary PUD, City Council concluded that the Project could not be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without causing safety problems. City Council further found and determined that adverse traffic impacts would violate several Land Use Police Plan elements and Land Development Guidance System Criteria. including those set forth above. Notice of Appeal February 2, 2000 Page 4 be made only after approval b>> the appropriate decision maker —of a project development plan." Article 2. 2.1.3.(D)(2) (emphasis supplied). Inasmuch as the Plat General Requirements of the Transitional Land Use Regulations may apply or be relevant. Article V, Sections 29-625. 29-642 and 29-643 contain similar provisions; i.e. that review and action upon development applications are performed by the Board. and that approval by the Board of preliminary applications is required prior to submission of final applications, which are also reviewed by the Board. Where the appropriate decision maker for reviewing and considering Mulberry-Lemay development applications is the Board, and there is no Code provision vesting such authority elsewhere, then no authority exists for preliminary approval other than by the Board. There was testimony at the January 20' hearing that the Board did not have authority or jurisdiction to process, review or consider the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Final PUD application where the preliminary PUD was never approved by the Board. In fact, the Board denied the application for Preliminary PUD., which denial was upheld by City Council. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to overrule denials by City Council, or to proceed except as authorized by the Code. Although the record of the .January 20`h hearing contains references to "the approved preliminary PUD." the Board erred in, taking final approval action where the Board was well aware that preliminary approval had been denied pursuant to the Code. That an Initiated Ordinance purporting to approve the Preliminary P.U.D. was approved by the electorate does not operate as an approval of the application under the Code. The electorate is not designated as a "decision maker" in either the Code, Charter or by state law. Nor did approval of the Initiated Ordinance operate to confer jurisdiction or vest authority in the Board for purposes of proceeding with final review. B. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The Land Use Code provides that "[a) Planning and Zoning Board review process is hereby established wherein certain development applications shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved. approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to the general procedural requirements contained in Division 2.1. and the common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2. For those development applications that are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review, the Planning and Zoning Board shall be the designated decision maker." Article 2, Division 2.2.7 (emphasis supplied). Notice of Appeal February 2, 2000 Page 3 3. The appellant. Citizens Against Regional Supercenter ("CARS") is a group of registered electors and residents within the City of Fort Collins who have actively participated in the City's revie\y of the proposed Mulberry-Lemay project throughout the development review. process. CARS and its members have obtained standing as parties -in -interest to this proceeding by their attendance, participation, and testimony at neighborhood meetings, Planning & Zoning Board hearings. City Council hearings and special proceedings, and by undertaking an active role as a registered political issue committee in City-wide elections related to the project, which is deemed to have community -wide and regional impacts. 4. The grounds for the appeal are that, in approving the Mullberry-Lemay Final PUD #36-96-D at the January 20`h hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and failed to conduct a fair hearing as follows: A. The Board exceeded its jurisdiction and authority as contained in the Code and Charter. The Fort Collins Municipal Code provides that the Planning and Zoning Board shall exercise the authority vested in it by state planning and zoning laws and the City Code and Charter, including the authority to take final action to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions all planning items in accordance with the Code and Charter. Code Chapter 2, Article III, Section 2-353. The Land Use Code provides that "[e]ither the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board will consider, review and decide all development applications ... according to the provisions of this Land Use Code .... For those development applications subject to P&Z review ... the Planning and Zoning Board is the designated decision maker." Article 2. Division 2.1.1 (emphasis supplied). For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Mulberry-Lemay development applications are subject to P&Z review. Thus, pursuant to the Code, the Board is the designated decision maker. There are no provisions in the state planning and zoning laws, Code or Charter which vest decision making authority for these types of applications other than in the Board. There was testimony on this issue at the January 20`h hearing, and the Board erred in accepting preliminary PUD approval by Initiated Ordinance as a proper basis for proceeding with final review. By proceeding with final review in the absence of preliminary approval, the Board acted without jurisdiction and exceeded its authority. The Land Use Code further provides that "application for a final plan may Notice of Appeal February 2, 2000 Page 2 John R. Mehaffv 1 -- -ence C. Rider i J. Humphrey Magma Matthew S. Humphrey Jonathan L. Miller Laura S. Moore Christopher M. Ernst VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Ray Martinez. Mayor City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado VIA HAND DELIVERY City Council Members: Mr. Chuck Wanner Mr. Bill Bertschy Ms. Karen Weitkunat Mr. Scott Mason Mr. Kurt Kastein Mr. Mike Bvme City of Fort Collins. 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins. Colorado MARTIN & MEHAFFY, LLC Attornevs and Counselors at Lar. February 3, 2000 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL Planning & Zoning Board Approval. January 20, 2000 Mulberry-Lemai• Crossings Final P. U.D. #36-96D Dear Mayor Martinez and Members of City Council: James G. Martin (retired) Margaret R. Brubaker, LLC Special Counsel Brighton I I CITY CL71*1K j Please take notice that, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Sections 2-47, 2-48 and 2-51 of the Municipal Code, the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board regarding the Mulberry- Lemay Crossings Final PUD is hereby appealed to the City Council as follows: l . The action which is the subject of this appeal is the decision by the Planning & Zoning Board approving the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Final PUD #36-96D. 2. The Board's action occurred on January 20. 2000. 1655 Walnut Street Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303 442-3375 Fax 303 444-8398 e-mail mmllc@aol.com Brighton Professional Building 105 Bridge Street Brighton, CO 80601 Phone 303 659-0731 Fax 303 659-0752 ee:((Q�A City Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue. will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on January 20, 2000 regarding the proposed Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Final PUD (r36-96D), filed by Lawrence C. Rider, Esq., Martin & Mehaffy, LLC. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. - If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by March 21, 2000. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, March 23, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: March 17, 2000 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) ZI-1-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295 Ted Shepard CPES Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Consideration of the Appeal of the January 20. 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve Mulberry — Lemay Crossings. Lot One. Final P.U.D. On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Final P.U.D. This was a request for a 194,456 square foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres located on the east side of Lemay Avenue, between Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street (extended). The building is considered to be a "big box retail" establishment. Filing One is part of a larger community/regional shopping center which consists of 42.98 acres. The P.U.D. includes the construction of two new public streets; Magnolia Street (extended) and 12th Street. On February 3, 2000, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provision of the Code and Charter and that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 4. Other Business. 5. Adiournment. City of Fort Collins � printed on recycled paper AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: March 28, 2000 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the January 20, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Final P.U.D. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and, after consideration, (1) remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board, or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Mulberry-Lemay Crossings. Lot One, Final P.U.D. This was a request for a 194,456 square foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres located on the east side of Lemay Avenue, between Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street (extended). The building is considered to be a "big box retail" establishment. Filing One is part of a larger community/regional shopping center which consists of 42.98 acres. The P.U.D. includes the construction of two new public streets: Magnolia Street (extended) and 121h Street. On February 3, 2000, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provision of the Code and Charter and that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Attachments include: • Notice of Appeal • Staff Report to P & Z Board • Letters to P & Z Board • Staff Response to the Appeal • Minutes to the P & Z Meeting 55 1 members and other bullying tactics. 2 Tonight I ask you to be even more courageous 3 particularly the (inaudible) of the champion by the 4 Coloradoan and Wal-Mart supporters, which is, if the City 5 Planning Staff says all the T's are crossed and all the 6 I's dotted per City regulations, approval is required. 7 This is false. Let me clearly state, the approval is not 8 required. 9 You, the Planning Board, exist as a nonelected 10 group of interested citizens to prevent developers from 11 overrunning planning and act as ombudsmen to filter out 12 outmoded, narrowly defined legalistic or inadequate 13 regulations that do not take into account factors other 14 than the immediate site. I emphasize immediate site 15 requirements. 16 Both Goldberg and City planners are doing just 17 that. There's no planning for Lemay Avenue north, the 18 Vine Street railroad crossing, and floodplain 19 considerations which unrealistically are being ignored. 20 Cosmetic fixes do not solve world problems. We are 21 talking about a huge project that is proposed for a City 22 already too retail heavy, which according to the 23 Coloradoan, again, by June 199, has twice the average 24 retail store space in the nation. Who needs this? Only 25 Wal-Mart and Goldberg agreed at the expense of permanent 28 1 in the planning process and were not when we came before 2 you. 3 The question might be, where are the commercial 4 services? Where is the discount shopping available to all 5 of this residential growth? If you have been out in this 6 pa'rticular area, you will note a significant lack of 7 any -- of any large-scale commercial services and a 8 complete lack of any discount services. And that's 9 particularly important when you're talking about a north 10 area with a disproportionately high level of lower income 11 folks. 12 It's largely because of that clear need for the 13 services that are afforded by this project that it has 14 had -- although it clearly has had its detractors, it has 15 also had a tremendous amount of public support, including 16 support from all of the Bava neighborhoods, including 17 support from every individual and business owner 18 immediately surrounding the site, and many, many others 19 included in the information we provided from the 20 preliminary hearing. 21 With those comments, I want to only echo and 22 reinforce a couple of points about storm water and then 23 we'll move on to our traffic engineer. The staff has 24 given you a lot of information on that. Again, we just 25 want to emphasize a couple of things.