Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE ONE - FINAL - 49-95B - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL00 M LO o 00 C7 0 L0 o a � C 0 0 o U � Z LL n W 'o J • �p W 0 2: N o z W p a � = m z w W z J N Q- n N N W a z W, W W z U Z z J W W o o a Z a Cr W as U U. LL Q Q H, MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Vansant Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer Fort Collins Planning Department FROM: Matt Delich DATE: July 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Harmony Ridge traffic study update (File: 9585MEM1) This memorandum provides an update to the "Harmony Ridge Site Access Study," September 1995. When Harmony Ridge was approved by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, an issue was raised regarding the operation of the Harmony/ Shields intersection. Analysis of this intersection was not requested as part of the scope of the site access study. However, it was agreed that when Harmony Ridge came back for further approvals, this intersection would be analyzed.FPer City staff direction, this memorandum only covers the ion of this intersec ion. elopment, the Overlook at Arapahoe Farms generated s a o�ua in this analysis.( Figure 1 shows recent peak hour counts at the Harmony/ Shields intersection. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the approach geometry at this signalized intersection. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the peak hour volumes shown in Figure 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. For analysis purposes, a 90 second cycle was assumed with left -turn phases on all legs. Acceptable operation can be achieved overall, however, as noted on the calculation forms, selected movements operate at levels of service E and F. This is caused primarily by deficient geometry on the west leg. Observation indicates that it is a "20 minute" problem that occurs during the morning peak hour. This can be remedied by adding an eastbound right -turn lane. and adjusting the signal phasing to account for this peaking condition within the peak hour. Figure 3 shows the short range (1998+) peak hour traffic at the Harmony/Shields intersection. As stated earlier, this traffic includes traffic from Harmony Ridge and the Overlook at Arapahoe Farms, as well as, a factored increase in background traffic (3.5%/year). Table 2 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the volumes shown in Figure 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. Using the existing geometry and phasing in the Table 1 analysis, the morning peak hour operation is unacceptable and the afternoon peak hour analysis indicates that the westbound a R- ` a MA i i i i i i i .e In A M P M MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. ¢ g4 - 4 tr000 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO 80538 To : `'1ta �P lain 1 mT.ABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Observer �0 a 'I'_"I C � Date 9 `2 Q5^ Day-y&SDI `/ City �� � r `0 R = Right turn �F t i C 1_ �A RM OjU f" S = Straight INTERSECTION OF AND L = Left turn TIME BEGINS %AF7 N/cC- from NORTH T F - /�rc.r: TOTAL North South Nit �eAA TOTAL East Mast TOTAL ALL tram SOLrfH from EAST from WEST R S L Total R 1114 S L Total R I S I L I Total I R S L I Total 730 111 12s Z40 97 .111 11 3s1 4-7 I s 1 sZ I sZ II 403 74- 1 I145132 Z7-7 IZ3 79 1 1 16Z II 3-7 9 11&01 $ 16S 1 1I 3 1 44-7 o it 1 93 9311q&lz1 s �1 3 17 715I I $4 4- ll I5 6-25 1 1 73 II 24 1 IIZ51 11Z 1 37 II 37 11 2 7 I I 11 1 1 II 11 1 1 1 11 730- 301 131 3 'R7 1 17 3 2-96r1 1314r 111939 111691 I31 120(011 1 1 1 1 14-4 s I I I I II II I I d 11 1 I I I I I I II I i i I II I I II I I I I II II I I I` I I I I I I II I I I II f 43o I 184 s9 14� Izl ll(,7 I 1w(57 II 2�so 11641. , I s-1 lol II I 1 109 11341 44 s 2 -7 17 Z 1 1 s°1 Jeol q3 I 1 1.1 3 II Z 7 z -t it l I Cp 1 ;?4- 11 1 1 14 13 sip soo Iq 1 161 11 s 2 110 1 7(p I 1 9(0 1 Z42, IgG-1 1131 10� I 1 10 II 35Cn $1s 110s-I6S 11-73 117 )1Z I I z9 113oZ 1161�1 1 (01 7 f 11 I. I 1 74 11 37& �30 1 I10ir 16011&2r 11 9 1641 1 G3 11Z3( 114TI I (p I s-4- 11 1 I 1 Zss I�1 I I I T I I 1 11 11 11 1 1 11 I 1 1 I1 11 4-74 -s3o 1 I3(0? 40 1027 (�T4o?I I4-'1S 111L �3oJI I30 I735�1 1 1 335—I ►437 APPENDIX A section. Auxiliary turn lanes are not required on Old Harmony Road at either access street to Harmony Ridge. V. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the traffic impacts of the development of Harmony Ridge on the short range (1997 and 2000) and long range (2015) street system in the vicinity'of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - Harmony Ridge is a residential development, comprised of 272 dwelling units. This facility is expected to generate approximately 1680 daily vehicle trip ends, 125 morning peak hour trip ends,.and 159 afternoon peak hour trip ends: Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometry/ control, the. Taft Hill/Harmony intersection operates acceptably, except for minor street left turns. These movements operate .at levels of service E and F during the analyzed hours.— This type of operation is typical at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. The Old Harmony/New Harmony intersection operates acceptably. - By 1997, given development and occupancy of 40 dwelling units of Harmony, Ridge and an increase in background.traffic, the Taft Hill/Harmony intersection will continue to operate similarly as today. The other key intersections will operate acceptably. With New Harmony Road connected to Taft Hill Road at CR38E by the year 2000, all of the key intersections will operate acceptably with completion of Phase 1 of Harmony Ridge. Signals are not expected to be warranted at any of the key;ntersections. By 2015, with full development of Harmony Ridge, the site access intersections will operate acceptably. The Taft Hill/Old Harmony and the New Harmony/Old Harmony/Seneca intersections will operate acceptably, except for delays that are typical for minor street left turns into arterial streets. - Details concerning the connection of Old Harmony Road to Taft Hill Road at a new intersection and the New Harmony/Old Harmony/Seneca intersection should be addressed in more detail through the planning/approval process. R, TABLE 5 2015 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Taft Hill/Old Harmony (stop sign) WB LT D (C) E (C) WB RT A (A) B (A) SB LT A (A) B (A) New Harmony/Old Harmony/Seneca (stop sign) NB LT/T D E NB RT B A SB LT/T F- ., F SB RT A A EB LT A B WB LT B .. :. A Old Harmony/Main Access to Harmony Ridge (stop sign) NB LT/RT A `'" A WB LT A A Old Harmony/West Access to Harmony Ridge (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A WB LT A A ( ) Level of service with Taft Hill --Road as a four lane. TABLE 3 1997 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Taft Hill/Old Harmony (stop sign) WB LT F F WB RT B B SB LT B B Old Harmony/New Harmony (stop sign) SB LT D C SB RT A _. A EB LT _ A A Old Harmony/Main Access to Harmony Ridge (stop sign) NB LT/RT B B WB LT A A TABLE 4 2000 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Taft Hill/Old Harmony (stop sign) WB LT C C WB RT A A SB LT A A New Harmony/Old Harmony/Seneca (stop sign) NB LT/T C C NB RT A A SB LT/T C C SB RT A A EB.LT A A WB LT A A Old Harmony/Main Access to Harmony Ridge (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A WB LT A A IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Based upon the forecasted traffic volumes, it appears that the key intersections will not meet peak hour signal warrants. Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed on the key intersections in the vicinity of Harmony Ridge for both the short range (1997 and 2000) and long range (2015) traffic conditions. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the short range future, with Harmony Ridge, as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. With existing stop sign 'control, the left -turn exits from Old Harmony Road to Taft Hill Road during the peak hours operate at level of service F, similar to the way they do today. Operation at the other intersections will be acceptable. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the key intersections operate in the short range future (2000) as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. With New Harmony Road connected to Taft Hill Road at CR36E, the traffic volumes at the Taft Hill/Old Harmony intersection are reduced significantly. Operation at all of the key intersections will be acceptable. New Harmony Road will be a four lane street plus appropriate turn lanes. The technique for --the level of" -service calculation was modified to account for two lane approaches on the major street (New Harmony Road). The modification entailed factoring the through volume by 0.6 to account for uneven distribution in the approach lanes. This technique was field verified and discussed with the chairman of the Transportation Research Board Committee of Highway Capacity. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key intersections operate in the long range future (2015) as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix F. Operation will be acceptable, except for a few minor street left turns at intersections along arterial streets. Taft Hill Road, west of Harmony Ridge, is on the threshold volume of requiring a four lane facility. As a four lane, the minor street left turns from Old Harmony Road are at level of service C, due to the modification to the analysis technique. The site access intersections operate acceptably. Old Harmony Road, between Taft HiIl.Road and New Harmony Road should have a two lane cross 5 ri ti Q yp��ly o �vU. LO r' Q /g0 80 5980 ' rn n(0 coo 'l— 75/80 -�--12140 OLD r 95/165 75 /75 10%5 15/55 y\ 1 /� HARMONY % 4 185/185 - 220/175 10/30 - 4 10/35 - 4 ) r 00 to N 00 CD D \\ \\ OC11 — ` N r'I d ZW �// r'y LO 3U �V a a !015 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. Figure 11 G J L H 0 n "' 'n 40/50 OLD f 75/85 r-60/50 HARMONY 10/35 135/120 —� 0 0 5/25 —� Ln o O� v+ N� M Z Cl) � V Q 0 ti �S 2p 8p6S�� i?p ` 6p/19 tip\^h\� ,off AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. I, 2000 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 o � ti9 ti� N 4. n OLD 2' % 4 2 HARMONY s 3a ti 4/21 r N M _ Z V , a W �U AM / PM SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC, PHASE -1 _. Figure 7 � ti9.�tiF N U. �o �S C M ^ 33/17 OLD � % 7/4 % 1/45 HARMONY I 6/28 —� r 3/12 —� n \ Ln t1l N II^^ coZ co UJW0 <� 3a �Q AM/PM SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC, PHASE 2 Figure 8 m 0 N TRIP DISTRIBUTIQN _ Figure 5 1997 SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC (40 D.U.) Figure 6 Trip Distribution Directional distributions were determined for the land uses considered in this study. This distribution considered trip attractions in the Fort Collins area, and existing travel patterns in the area. The trip distribution used in subsequent analyses is shown in Figure 5. Background Traffic Background traffic is defined as the traffic that is and/or will be on the area streets that is not related to:_the"proposed development. Future analysis years were 1997 and,-...2000 (short range) and 2015�(long range). This is a developing -area of Fort Collins and, as such, the traffic increases are largely dependent upon land development. Background. traffic was increased incrementally by 2.5 percent per year at the Harmony/Taft Hill intersection for the short range futures. Traffic on .the .north leg of New Harmony Road was increasfed based upon continued development of the Arapahoe Farm. By.or before the year 2000, it is expected that the New Harmony Road connection to Taft Hill Road would be made. To account for this, 90 percent of the southbound.__l-eft turns and the westbound right turns at the Old Harmony/Taft Hill - intersection were reassigned to New Harmony Road_ with appropriate increases in the background traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figures..6, 7, and 8 show the assignment of -the generated trips from'i:'the uses considered in this study. The Figure 6 assignment assumes the existing street system with a portion of Phase 1 of Harmony Ridge. The Figure 7 and 8 assignments are for Phases 1 and 2, respectively, of Harmony Ridge after the New Harmony Road is connected to Taft Hill Road. Figure 9 shows the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic using 40 dwelling units of Phase 1 (Figure 6) of Harmony Ridge plus background traffic in the short range future (1997). Figure 9 reflects a street system as it exists today. Figure 10 shows the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic in the year 2000 short range future with development and occupancy of Phase 1 of Harmony Ridge. Figure 11 shows the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic in the long range future (2015). 4 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out Phase 1 Single Family - 21 DU 200 4 12 14 7 Zero Lot Line - 28 DU 170 2 10 10 5 Townhome - 85 DU 500 6 31 31 16 Subtotal 870 12 53 55--- 28 Phase 2 Townhome - 138 DU 810 10 50 50. 26 TOTAL 1680 22 103 105. 54 4z NO SCALE j Phase One ,� Main Access - cc' Access: Phase T-w,o p� ' SOUTH TAFT HILL ROAD L-= --� �_�- =— SITE PLAN Figure 4 TABLE 1 1995 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Taft Hill/Old Harmony (stop -sign) WB LT F E WB RT A. B SB LT B B Old Harmony/New Harmony (stop sign) SB LT C C SB RT _. A A EB L-T A.. .-A ci IL Coto / /Lo m l—169/05 OLD Coco 32/55 \ 1 /� 37/30 HARMONY 1142/294` 65 48 —� I r- c 442/280 SYNTHESIZED.` AM / PM 1995 PEAK HOUR- TRAFFIC Figure 3 A& N NO SCALE ml Roads The primary streets near Harmony Ridge are Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the street system in this area. Harmony Road is adjacent to Harmony Ridge on the north. It is an east -west street designated as an arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Its existing cross section, in this area, has one 12 foot lane in each direction. Just east of the proposed main access to Harmony Ridge, "New" Harmony Road turns to the north. New Harmony Road will connect to Taft Hill Road at the CR38E intersection. This connection will be made as a function of the. continuing development of Arapahoe Farms- (also known as Woodridge PUD). The status of the existing 1800+ feet of Harmony Road, east of Taft Hill Road, is unknown. Conversations -,with City staff indicated that it would be vacated -and Seneca --Street would -,.be extended to connect to Taft Hill Road, some distance south of the existing Harmony/Taft .Hi:.1,_1, intersection. The -.proposed Harmony Ridge site layout would preclude extension of Seneca Street south of Harmony Road. The Fort Collins Natural Resources Department has indicated to Positive Environments, Inc. that they would not like a- road to _cross the Cathy ,Fromme Prairie. ',However, City engineering and planning staff have indicated that some type of connection to Taft Hill Road is positive. :-.If extension of Seneca Street is precluded by Harmony Ridge and the Cathy Fromme Prairie, then the existing 1800+ feet of Harmony Road; east of Taft Hill Road, will be part of that connection. This short segment of Harmony Road (referred to as "Old Harmony Road" in this study) will not be an arterial street. It would likely have a -two lane cross section. It would also be positive if the Taft Hill/Old Harmony intersection. could be moved south of the existing' intersection, which is on a grader Details on the connection -to 'Taft Hill Road and to New Harmony Road should be explored further: in the planning review process. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that Old Harmony Road would connect to New Harmony Road across from Seneca Street, :and that Old Harmony Road would connect to Taft Hill Road at a T intersection at a yet unknown location. It was further assumed that the two proposed accesses to Harmony Ridge would be stop sign controlled T intersections with Old Harmony Road. Taft Hill Road is a north -south street designated as an arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. West of Harmony Ridge, it has a two lane cross section. It provides for inter -city travel between Fort Collins and Loveland. 2 N 1 u n i Par Golf tours n, `Nt=17 " of Spa I,II �.• ©UNIVER I+ , I a ` 5657 1 1 I :� 1`k1h'3-�J _• II l� • ] ]i� ' 1 , � ,..i' Cl..,l � � '!iI>r� ,, �•�n�n, n I Hugh .� .. — ues +�JjwwAn s L 7 eai 5 :Stadium t Drive i , I [L& _ I -Ttiealr Dixon i _� _ 'C 1 � t ',! ' 'rr x -F Z � "�_ \ . i�' o Dam II, I� ��' ,, � ' rakes - I LJ JU . ' m tl .n 7L171 II 1,.1. I .r q uy5��'. - Grave Marc P. i U I Y Pits t .I ' Omeg.h59 1765 ` P i¢s I 1 1 \;\\I\ i I,9 ���t lll:.l�,lill1; _� I I qp�� �L } Ifq11. 9L , 5082 1549\_- �`11 �lO�l�l. �I II'url, Dry ul I, Lake S ail. '1,'} i �I: I Sll 11 ,I ` Lit <99l 5 i 1 .I Spring Canyon II,.'"• `ravel �jIlt "Dam ,', ( •. 1 - Pit f McClellands < i qJ A H�RMONY _ ROAQ, II 1p HARMONY RIDGE )�II„ N' 4 II ... J.� /5215000 ". t I ; I ,<`F se 1 i I -�3,3i3ti� ;I ! 1 s t�)'t 4916 ,. , ,, N . ,498 uti; .� 77 I At I�-'. -. I )��v. _`�__ I I0 •�___ lu✓ H u 71� 'l �{ yr. ?. q Trilby Ii I 11�[\ , •. j 1 j •.,!(1 I I) dill'- � \ �F� =M=_�_•=-s- -'= ; I • o._ �.�- I �� _ , I n Cul• el �—�_—�- NO SCALE SITE LOCATION Figure 1 Prepared for: Positive Environments Inc. P.O. Box 98 'Fort Collins, CO 80522 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 iu - o - r_S � I _i � I ;`�5�-� r�-Y�wrrr�r♦rrr+r 1 I r..r wrrrrrr_ VWIMOCI _� �__-� - -- Y 1 _' _ _ 1-� �1 Egli ��• 1 ��-.1 �l �.. �� � � � I �w r""�:r_�� _ n1` V ¢ {aWiiC?f�ONEi �, ` // �� + � n . 1 _- �RRxr.�.rwx•.-rr.wr..• _ PHASE Two....._rr.r— _ w _-___pppG � f'y�'��'1 __ F''• — __ �.__ lE �6h `'` - a Y a �r< • k �� rrr�rrn..rgrrr.rr •_-�__._��.: ».__. ... xxrn.u..�wr—aa.n i--moo�, ��r; i,• \,. _ \� `' ,r���� _ rr.wr_rw near � ,e • ` - �„ . '. J ,I _. '. - �Cwrr.:w.4rw.r.�w. wwn r... mlwvnrvro i Inrrur_sr...- " . Hoer a� 9 �•.Te� � f � 1 r___ r.wwsrr�-. J •� �I nlw�axK.§ S� 6 �3 t s, '3 R ,, \.a. �;� ` ! ..`\P` , �_.. Rr-ryrur,... ;� __ Tn1Y.LVCmrvcuslnwn''r`I`•• �` a .+`- Y - \ msrwraminmr pp�i ggC nrausn.nn�v. emu. \ `�.L��O \\; __ '�. � � ti. oru lnunl��l `�.- i I \Y r _�-__ a.wrxrovr���er_irr- � :gay � \1`1 I i r.vm.c.xwmmrwvom o �kefiE \ na'�+Vae '��J°r� P ! _ fJ• � � ) � A� A� '_ I un� �i•T.� � [�.1 (TRACTS THREE &FOUR] •_terc $ 3 ;�I �l� `), :s.rn Toru PROPOSED CATHYMOMME.PRAIRIE :E� r �j�� ' \ +r--r'w••"'r^"•""a 0 rxoea4ncnnr�yttroxr� xxnlxih \ _ 3 c � � vvniw mnme nv 5 L R rrw.r.ra.r.r�.r� _1 s i ronora.rr_tir�ir O SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I \ � 1.� �-yrmalr r- • I ��r.w�..'� 4 HARMONY RIDGE _e�(.. um ; minreq r®ro r.lanir..w.nw'rs N" -OVERALL SITE rA ua �. PvsmvE ENvixoNMENTS INC. ARCHtTECTUIE • PLANNING 970J12d312 • P.O. Box 96 - Fort CWn9. CdoreOo 80522 7 •rmee..ru P6PrtNTN. IWlISfIY 1Y IINIR/MPt I C _ 9 t �•. J� it i l r�1� r % ,� F ♦ e pq ..r•-rw��—TM.�o.�. rw�r�w.xn—Y u�� � ]�SyYnrY. r'.�•1•Ywr,iYn � $/ A � I. 1 I ' I �w•r•YrrrY.w. rrptir.YY Y _ I\ �i TM.r.o.v,rmu �.. .r. b..r.s•Mr.w.wrrrr � �' 1•rrrlr.�«rrrr7Yr.•rwr,� , 1WWY1 1 Lam- Yrrrrr Y,..•�.wr.r.�w � i••—+.+�' .�..a� • 1 rf'p�1- r. r.W Y•'—•ri�llM.ti4i�rw - 1 ` \\ .:1 _ i«.urwr.rr.P. urramrlucrn..mwlmuaxr PROPOSED Ca,rYFRHARMONY RIDGE Y rP�r I�0_—lnrrr�Yw I xrll,ljr• DIY" Tom.•` MmmntW PHASE ONE PRELIMINARY PLAN � - yd�rw.r.rrgrnwor- w..rY •no�wr...rcwwr..orrrr P u uuuw, rlr 1® I'. •�' es ui•y....r,itiwr.,-�rrr roa..n.nul..norirax u.myLgp r ur. rraly f �arrr�.rrrrl.r,rY CRlfil\'I. I[INIYCW IWq]t1Y ppPIX.:O.O,NLQ,WhY, IPEA3TAPK iAFY. fMilFml]FS.IMC. P� rN�.P.•�.Yrygrr OrrYY /8. �� Y�,Y�urrw! 1!®PORnIO/,PflF].I I,IgYOAMD.NIgPAl1p .��: �. A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS INC. ARCHITECTURE •PLANNING' 2, r6:"—a7:: ,;,•r,, Y 970482-6312 P.O. Box 98 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 .rgw�rrr�� WE i ._ :... ............ F — -.^. ',; _-x'r - �ni6' .ui nnrmrmr v.n HARMONY RIDGE PUD PHASE ONE PRELIMINARY .11 r tip' AU 71 r. , , �,e� •��� �a- pp v, POND I * MOUNTAIN & WATER FEATURE LOOKING S.W. FROM SENECA CONNECTION irk., �fA. 4.4 MA. S, 7 # ; LATHY FROMME PRAIRIE VIEW a SMET.IDLEVATION ® IIW-l'-(r nKarKea .n. 70- ..mv � •gym .: •W/.. . .P <' M.'I it n , Wftl1 a,P - , uFlY�ViD SR4u l � _ av^ I END ELEVATION 1/9'-1'-0' w _ , r ZIP, INTERIOR STREET PERSPECTIVE VIEW HARMONY RIDGE* PUD VPOSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 303-482-6312 • PO Box 98 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 w a z� Y-� BPi . .. — _ _ — — — 1 ANDSCAPING PLAN �m m� Tnm q n .w�'"'.'..01... MAY �N •.�Y, + � A .0 u°rY' ow 1. 4.vYYlm. IYR{ykuY uWmO LANDSCAPING NOTIES, q. wciss a PIPc O L N n P •u . n.�aa. .. a°xnm..:' .:.`n..�....r.......>..., Yi.... SCAU • 3a - r I lV6 EIYV//WVMSNTA /1MC. A t6 • M NNINC pw�taatx 99 • Fort Cairn. Coloraw 90644 Y��... ..Y. ...Y..,,,..,..aw,... .n HARMONY RIDGE * PUD PHACF oNE LANDscAPE P wN xr No Text No Text pin I off►". ,'yJ�. `��w.rr.�r wr,+gxwreYw lr I M4x TwnYyxxy4YrW.YYY IwYrr•x�.FrrrwtirWweexFr.FwYrw. 1m1�r..Y.rrX+rrrxrw,..rer•+r.+nw.r.Y �r4� .�,. �h (/� ~�ij._.'Zej� , \ / ��t �� \ .+'i I I.�(�; X'} ti� eYlerrrlxexr r.Xw FIOMM9 F`rr.rrrw+rMr ram.. ^ c: — » 'XXXr-_.... w�wrxnrq.�rnr r.JFrxr..e�YrXn�rnw. Mrrl.rRrNwrYrYXrJYrM.YN•Yru `MrrxFMe�IFMYYwt eiX.rer�_rrrrewXxwnXr X�a.w. �..w rFxrw. F N•r u., r.,qr Mer wr.,r.xn fY.YrJY �Fwrwrprwrw • ex.wr..• Nx XI2 ILEYI � O .w w _ .. / �� /��4 .�= YFnrx�YYrx. J,rwx,YulxrMneP... fsrwrw �x�Jwn�l.wnxw..r. Wry rrnux+n M+.IW.rn�.r w.r nl.�. xrl..�.. n_. Xrr�rrnwxn e......r «.....�n u.w Ir Ilr v ILY.R l6Dl `,XiX[m«'� IXCw iowm-L�XMrtIInL'RL IDYi0410Y �.u'y�[]°n{ �� n MltiJrwa� L,�Ir.l+yyJ.XuxuV yeYwlrwlrwrw.+n �.pxN•xnwu...r... In�I,wx•+e,n ull-wlwx,... .x, u.0 wu I.w wr,.v. i...: r-,u x.X.x nnr x.xnxr.X,lgr riMln Wrr,r.Xxw:.an..M.M, .l weyerniw.nruV mtne- � cea� IEm �F VX+19, ntM[I . � HARMONY 1 ,1f8I� q , if�Yal� ve r- t .I us i M 0 J �yM JXXr Vr.n.gnVx.xu +n..,.Jw...�..xr.rrrJF urm�c.rrrc r Rov. a. ayr rtr NmeMYr'r"'ranJMVirrIX wcMJrwc Wr�rXw AYE s�rxerwJMYJrrryrxYYYirrr ryreJFw 1.U.Ce�MNxcLL rXx�ly `r sr swan roxw'xgnugnM _ uXOnweneln. rveu[ e _ _ IXPeP Jrx+calxrxr=wrFYerWrrrYxewYFNr� IA VrIW °IYUYOLu14YYx . JpxwrrrrrXrr uX�Xwirrwr rX�.rr rFMFYYrr�,.61 y` r,MyreXw�MNert, •X[Yf Xrz:..Y¢IXc ,Ne Xpw or Rrt.trewcR _ � � �r rXww.WrrerwwYrnr.. mRDwiw r�weWy` .�XMx.rr,MXgX Wlrener, w___� �_ r•�J Y.w� M� xw r yrv�i•�r. _.xX rr.wX.lxw.rX .rJ ...wnnu ___ _ _ ___ I � l 1903 NORTH GARFIFT D I OVET AND COO AM VPOSITf VE ENVIRONMENTS Il ARCBITECTURE•PLANNIM 970-482-8112 • P.Q Box 98 • Fort COkU, CobradO 8052 I' \i111L��►��_�{ �l�i�i 11 1 �I �I T� I la y FOe.IIq y W! 4. � 1 yr(' m xlM 1. mwnxals_ � .L I' • Y xu Xuraa''XrwroMivcawmXx wme+mmmw .rrrw.Mn.r r.J �w XrxXr rXXJ r r M r... r. n wM rw .xn "" � nunrX,r.,XFar.w owXrn� MUN.0 ocXmineerue .. mgn.uM --,w -- -------- ------- ---------- Pi INK Vill, 7"' v, - --------- - . .......... ... . . ..... ..... .... .. ... . . ...... ... . A ... .......... . A. .. ..... ..... .... p-P.- �pp ....... ............... . . ......... ....... HARMONY RIDGE 1. .,a 1 Ow . ............. . .... . —1 ..... .... . PROPFRTY OWNERq I.F.F. A- STARK , G D. MCCABYLY 1803 NORTH GARFMT D LOVELAND COLORADO POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS INC. ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING 970482-e312 - P.O. Box 98 - Fort CoMns, Colorado 80522 I i M Z4104 L 9 J C §'M Z4 I U�'7Ji! O 1� J: VICINITY MAP 07/15/97 #49-9513 HARMONY RIDGE P.U.D. PHASE 1 FINAL (LDGS) 1"=600' a mi ulm I s terrain which allows for a smooth and direct connection to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area trail, thus helping to minimize the establishment of informal trail connections by local residents. Staff is recommending a condition of approval on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final that states: Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this development, the developer shall provide a public, handicapped accessible bicycle/pedestrian trail, with easement, from the east side of Morning Dove Lane to the south property line at a location near the west end of the proposed dam for Pond 6, as shown on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final Site Plan. The exact alignment and design of the trail must be finalized prior to filing the PUD documents. Sufficient signage and markings to identify the trail as a public access must be provided. City of Fort Collins Commu.__ry Planning and Environmental __rvices Current Planning MEMORANDUM To: Gwen Bell, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Board members From: Steve Olt, Project Planner Re: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final - #49-95B Date: May 7, 1998 The Harmony Ridge Overall Development Plan (ODP) and Phase One, Preliminary Plan were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996. On the ODP the applicant presented a "bicycle path connection" to the south, presumably to cross the Trilby Lateral and a portion of the proposed Cathy Fromme Prairie and connect to the City's future bicycle/pedestrian trail in the natural area. The location of the path on the Harmony Ridge site was in (future) Phase Two of the ODP. This location was shown schematically and somewhat arbitrarily. The Phase One, Preliminary Plan does not show a physical trail location but contains a statement that says: "Future bicycle path provisions shall be made to connect to the City trail system at one point each on the East, West and South. These connections will be made when 50% of the residences are occupied." The City has since acquired the property to the south of the Harmony Ridge developable area and is in the process of constructing the bicycle/pedestrian trail in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. City staff has determined that the appropriate location for a public trail access from the Harmony Ridge development to the City trail is from the east side of Morning Dove Lane (across from the four-plex building on Lot 21) down to the west end of the proposed dam for Pond 6 on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final plan, which currently shows a trail for Trilby Lateral Ditch Company Access only in this location. This location is most desirable in that it will provide trail access at a point nearest to an intermediate point approximately '/2 mile from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road trailheads, and will provide a direct linkage for persons living in the square mile to the north of the project site. The chosen desired location also assures that a connection is made in association with the development of Phase One of the Harmony Ridge project and utilizes 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 City of Fort Collins Commu.._ry Planning and Environmental _ _rvices Current Planning MEMORANDUM To: Gwen Bell, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Board members From: Steve Olt, Project Planner Re: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final - #49-95B Date: May 7, 1998 The developers of the Harmony Ridge PUD and the Overlook Convenience Center @ Arapahoe Farm PUD are continuing to work towards an equitable solution for both parties regarding the necessary right-of-way for the Seneca Street extension through the convenience center property south of "new" West Harmony Road. The details are being worked out and it would appear that an agreement to enable the right-of-way dedication is forthcoming in the near future. This is one remaining issue for the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final. Staff has determined that the item may be brought before the Planning and Zoning Board at this time and is recommending that the following condition be placed on a final approval: Street right-of-way at a width of 58 feet for the Seneca Street extension from "new" West Harmony Road south across the Overlook Convenience Center property into the Harmony Ridge PUD must be dedicated to and accepted by the City prior to the filing/recording of the plat, utility plans, and other PUD documents and/or the issuance of any building permits for this development. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 9 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary, staff makes the following findings of fact: It is in conformance with the approved Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary. The six conditions of preliminary PUD approval have been addressed and have been met. The property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. All signage for this development is subject to the strict interpretation and requirements of the City Sign Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final - #49- 95B. Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 8 The necessary easements were recorded in Larimer County and provided to the City with the final PUD documentation. The easements are identified on the utility plans and the reception number in the County Clerk and Recorder's office for the easements is referenced on those plans. Staff considers this condition of preliminary PUD approval to have been addressed and met. 6. Resource Protection: The southerly 141.4 acres of the property making up the approved Harmony Ridge Overall Development Plan were purchased by the City's Natural Resources Department in 1997 and added to the existing Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Natural Resources Division had concerns regarding the appearance of the proposed residential uses on the views from and user experience within the adjacent Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, which would also encompass views from motorists driving along South Taft Hill Road. They were concerned that this project should be designed with consideration given to color, architectural design, building mass and height, site layout, transition zones, and landscaping to assure that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and in conformance with All Development Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A-2.3 Natural Features and A-2.7 Architecture of the LDGS. The materials submitted to the City for review with the preliminary PUD provided sufficient information to determine that the proposed project meets these criteria. A condition placed on the preliminary PUD approval, regarding the review documentation and conformance to the All Development Criteria, stated that: The layout and density of this development may have to change based on evaluation of a street width variance request, the configuration and design of the street intersections both on -site and off -site at "old" and "new" Harmony Roads (All Development Criterion A-3.2), and the information regarding views, building mass, transition zones, and site layout (All Development Criteria A-2.3 and A-2.7). The ultimate layout and density for the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One will be determined at time of final PUD review and approval. The final PUD plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary PUD. The proposed townhome buildings are consistent with the information that was submitted during the preliminary PUD review. The street layout has not changed to any extent that will modify the building placement or density of the project. Staff considers the condition of preliminary PUD approval to have been addressed and met. Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 7 At time of submittal of final PUD documents the developer must provide design for the stormwater conveyance channels and structures from the Harmony Ridge PUD to the Burns Tributary to the south. Upon review it will be determined if the design adequately addresses the Stormwater Utility's requirements and meets the requirements as set forth in All Development Criterion A-1.9 in the LDGS. The runoff generated by the development shall be routed through water quality (treatment) sedimentation ponds prior to being released into the potential natural area acquisition property. Such ponds shall be designed in accordance with Volume 3 of the UDFC District's "Drainage Criteria Manual" or other industry "Best Management Practices" standard and shall comply with the City of Fort Collins design criteria and standards. Any downstream discharge from these ponds into the potential natural area shall be designed to minimize potential channel instability and shall take into account the bicycle trail crossings of the drainage channels. The stabilizing measures could include both structural and non-structural (vegetative and bio-technical) measures. All of these measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Division, from a technical and aesthetic standpoint, and by the Stormwater Utility, for conformance with drainage design criteria, prior to Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final PUD. The required information was submitted to the City for review with the final PUD documentation. The storm drainage facilities, as proposed, are workable and they are currently being reviewed for final design "fine tuning". The final PUD plans will not be filed until the utility plans and development agreement are approved and signed by the Stormwater Utility and Natural Resources Department. Staff considers this condition of preliminary PUD approval to have been addressed and met. Off -site drainage easements into and through the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area are necessary to allow the stormwater from the Harmony Ridge PUD to pass across the natural area into the Burns Tributary. A condition was placed on the preliminary PUD approval that stated: Letters of intent for necessary off -site drainage easements, to allow the stormwater from Harmony Ridge PUD to pass across the natural area (including the Cathy Fromme Prairie) into the Burns Tributary, must be provided at time of submittal of the final PUD documents. The actual easement agreements must be provided to the City by the plan revision due date for the final PUD review. The easement agreements must be accepted by the Stormwater Utility prior to Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final PUD. Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 6 A new traffic study be submitted that includes the impact of Registry Ridge, the impact of the expansion of the Front Range College and shows possible improvements and time line for the Harmony and Shields intersection and the level of service given nothing is done for 5 and 10 years. Mr. Matt Delich, the applicant's traffic engineer, has submitted a supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for the Harmony Ridge Development located at the intersection of West Harmony Road and Seneca Street. The supplemental study was in direct response to the Planning and Zoning Board's condition of preliminary PUD approval that directed the applicant to analyze the intersection of Harmony Road and South Shields Street in 5 and 10 year horizons, without any improvements to the intersection. The supplemental traffic study assumed a continued 3.5% annual increase in average daily traffic (adt), which is a conservative estimate. The actual P&Z Board condition specifically asked that the Front Range Community College expansion and the Registry Ridge PUD development traffic be included. However, the conservative growth estimate of 3.5% more than addresses the background traffic generated by the aforementioned development projects. The results of the analysis were not surprising. The City has known for some time that the intersection of South Shields Street and Harmony Road experiences occasional unacceptable levels of service. These levels of service deficiencies are due to incomplete geometry rather than the volume of traffic that enters the intersection. Eric Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, has reviewed the previous and supplemental traffic studies prepared for this project and finds that the amount of additional traffic added to this intersection as a result of the Harmony Ridge PUD development is insignificant. From a traffic engineering perspective, Mr. Bracke does not have any issues with allowing the project to continue to final PUD approval. 5. Storm Drainage: The existing Trilby Ditch Lateral assumes the south boundary of this phase of development. Harmony Ridge PUD is not allowed to release any of its surface stormwater into this ditch. The stormwater will have to be conveyed under the ditch and the conveyance channels will contain very steep drops from the development down to the Burns Tributary. Erosion control devices will be built into these channels. At the time of preliminary PUD review it was not demonstrated that All Development Criterion A-1.9 Water Quality of the LDGS could be adequately addressed with the information provided to the City for review. A condition was placed on the preliminary PUD approval that stated: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 5 - At the time of final PUD submittal the developer must provide designs for the intersection of "old" Harmony Road with the Harmony Ridge PUD entry and the intersection of "old" Harmony Road with "new" Harmony Road. The designs must meet All Development Criterion A-3.2 of the LDGS and the criteria in the City's Street Design Standards prior to recording the PUD plans. Several aspects of the proposed internal street network do not meet City Design Criteria and Standards for Streets, including required tangent length at intersections and required approach grades at intersections. A letter requesting variances from these design standards was submitted to the Engineering department. Upon reviewing the variance requests, it was determined that several of the proposed street intersections not meeting City standards would not operate at safety levels acceptable to the City, therefore the variance requests at these intersections were denied by the Director of Engineering. Rather than substantially redesigning the site layout, the developer has opted to designate the streets not meeting City standards as private drives. The utility plans are being revised to reflect the most recent changes and will be resubmitted to the City for further review. Because the streets designated as private drives in the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One do not meet City design criteria, they shall be privately owned and maintained by the developer or a Homeowner's Association. The designated private drives will not be dedicated to and accepted by the City as public streets with approval of the final PUD. The design for the off -site intersection of a Seneca Street extension with "new" Harmony Road and the intersection of "old" Harmony Road with the entry street into the Harmony Ridge PUD (Seneca Street) was to be submitted with the final PUD. The intersection designs have been submitted to the City and reviewed by the Engineering and Transportation Departments. The intersections, as proposed, are workable and they are currently being reviewed for final design "fine tuning". The final PUD plans will not be filed until the utility plans and development agreement are approved and signed by the appropriate City departments. Staff considers that the two aforementioned conditions of preliminary PUD approval have been addressed and met. In addition, a condition relating to the need for a new traffic study was placed on the approval of the preliminary PUD by the Board at the public hearing. This condition stated that: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Parking: The overall parking provisions in the development are considered to be adequate for the proposed residential uses. All 15 single family homes will provide for off-street parking in garages and driveways. Each dwelling unit in the townhome (multi -family) area will have a two -car garage (230 covered parking spaces) and there will be 80 uncovered off-street, common parking spaces distributed throughout this area. Total parking for the townhomes will be 310 spaces. This is a ratio of 2.70 spaces per dwelling unit. There will be a mix of 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom dwelling units in this portion of the development, requiring between 1.75 and 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Signage: The property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and all proposed signage is subject to the requirements of the City Sign Code that is administered by the Zoning Department. This District is more restrictive than other more commercially oriented Districts. 4. Transportation/Engineering: Phase One of the Harmony Ridge PUD will be accessed from the proposed extension of Seneca Street (a collector street) south of "new" West Harmony Road and a private drive connecting with West Harmony Road near the northeast corner of the property, both of which would connect to an internal local street network within the development. A future third point of access would be from the vacant property to the west when it develops. Some streets within the development will be dedicated public streets and some will be private streets. No streets will be continued south from the development through the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. At the time of review and approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary, All Development Criterion A-3.2 Design Standards of the LDGS had not been adequately addressed with the information provided to the City for review. Since both the designs of the intersections and the ultimate internal street widths could affect the final layout and density of this project, two conditions were placed on the preliminary PUD approval. The conditions stated that: - At the time of final PUD submittal the developer must provide a request for a variance to the City's Street Design Standards to allow some of the internal local streets to be narrower than the minimum 36' width. The request must be approved by the Director of Engineering prior to recording the PUD plans. Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 3 3. Design: Architecture: The building massing in the townhome (multi -family) area will be comprised of 4-plexes, 5-plexes, and 6-plexes, with a maximum of 36' in height (excluding chimneys). The average horizontal length of a building will range from 90' to 130', dependent on the number of dwelling units contained. A minimum of 50' horizontal distance will be maintained between any two townhome buildings along the ridgeline above the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (units 69 - 72 and 90 - 115), on the south and west sides of Dusty Sage Drive and Dusty Sage Loop. Building materials will be wood siding with stone facing/brick facing on the chimneys and as accent materials on the facades. The roofing material will be lightweight concrete roof tile. Building exterior colors will be medium to dark natural earth tones. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping on the final PUD plan provides for a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Consideration is being given for use of native plant materials in areas where they are deemed to be appropriate. All landscaping in common green space areas and in the street rights -of -way will be maintained by the Harmony Ridge Homeowners Association. Solar Orientation Ordinance: There are 7 out of the total of 15 single family lots on the final PUD that are subject to the City's adopted Solar Orientation Ordinance that requires a minimum of 65% of all single family and two-family lots comply with the ordinance, and 6 of them meet the intent of the ordinance (6 of 7 = 86%). With the preliminary PUD there were 15 out of a total of 23 single family and zero lot line (patio -style homes) lots that were subject to the Solar Orientation Ordinance. A total of 2 of the lots met the intent of the ordinance (2 of 15 = 13%). With the approval of the preliminary PUD, the Planning and Zoning Board granted a variance to the 65% requirement based on the configuration and topography of the single family portion of the development. I Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final, #49-95B June 4, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RL, LMN; existing single family and townhome residential (Overlook @ Woodridge, Arapahoe Farm Townhomes); future neighborhood convenience shopping center (Arapahoe Farm ODP) S: POL; existing public natural area (Cathy Fromme Prairie) E: UE; existing single family residential (the Ridge PUD) W: LMN, POL; vacant, existing public natural area (Cathy Fromme Prairie) The property was annexed into the City with the Harmony - Taft Hill Annexation in January, 1989. The Harmony Ridge ODP was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996 for 252 residential dwelling units on 45.47 acres and a potential public natural/open space area on the southerly 141.40 acres. The property is a total of 186.87 acres in size. - The City Natural Resources Department has since purchased the aforementioned southerly 141 A acres of the Harmony Ridge ODP and has added it to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996 for 129 residential dwelling units (23 single family lots and 106 townhome units) on 31.37 acres. 2. Land Use: This is a request for final PUD approval for 130 residential dwelling units on 29.00 acres. The various residential areas will consist of 15 single family residential lots and 115 townhome dwelling units. The gross residential density is 4.48 dwelling units per acre. The final PUD is in conformance with the approved Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary. ITEM NO. MEETING DATE STAFF Steve Olt 7 l `8 iiii Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final - #49-95B APPLICANT: Joe Vansant Positive Environments Inc. P.O. Box 98 Fort Collins, CO. 80522 OWNER: G. D. McGarvey Lee A. Stark 1803 North Garfield Loveland, CO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for final planned unit development (PUD) approval for 130 residential dwelling units on 29.00 acres. The property is located south of the existing 'old" West Harmony Road, south of the Overlook at Woodridge (Filing One) and the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, west of the Ridge PUD, and north and east of the Cathy Fromme Natural Area. It is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for final PUD approval: is in conformance with the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary; addresses the six conditions of preliminary PUD approval; is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. All signage for this development is subject to the strict interpretation and requirements of the City Sign Code. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AUG-31-98 MON 02:49 PM FAX NO. P. 10 LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Lee A. Stark, of the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, reposing special trust and confidence in G. D. McGarvey of the County of Lari mer, State of Colorado, have made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said G. D. McGarvey my true and lawful Attorney for me and in my name, place and stead, for my sole use and benefit, to execute for me and on my behalf an Amended Appeal which is to be filed with the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado appealing a decision made by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on July 16, 1999 to deny the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final - #49-95B, which real property I am a co-owner of with G. D. McGarvey. This Amended Appeal is being filed in order to amend the Appeal that was filed on July 30, 1998 with the City of Fort Collins. The power and authority granted in this Power of Attorney are limited solely to my Attorney's execution of the aforementioned Amended Appeal on my behalf. This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by disability of the Principal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal this 24th day of August, 1998. ee A. Stark, Princip STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LAWMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of August, 1998, by Lee A. Stark. ,I Witness my hand and official seal. '� �• • - �, My commission expires: I , i ac�A .6412; F:\UPC\LAL\NAANONY\LTOPOA 8/24/98 AUG-31-98 MON 02:49 PM FAX NO. W Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31,199& Page 8 a full recommendation of approval from the staff on the final plan. They have spent over three years and $200,000 in the process to get to the final plan stage. And yet, when issues were identified by the Board, no opportunity was given to find solutions to those problems. There are solutions to each identified issue and, if the City Council desires, Appellants are willing to implement those solutions. For all of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request that you overturn and/or modify the decision of the Board. Sincerely, MARCH & LILEY, P.C. L is A. Lil Lee A. NOW Applicant AUG-31-98 MON 02:48 PM FAX NO. P. 08 Mayor Atari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 7 %G Extenuating Circumstances y In considering this appeal, the Appellants ask the Council, as a matter of overall fairness, to consider two extenuating circumstances related to this project. Not only is Harmony Ridge a fuial planned unit development, it is caught in the City's transition between land use schemes. A denial of a final planned unit development always has serious impacts. In this case, those impacts are greatly magnified because of the transition rules. Were it not for the transition, the Appellants would not lose their preliminary plan approval and could re -file a final plan to address the Board's concerns. Instead, the Appellants have been advised that the denial of the final plan terminates their approved preliminary plan as well, meaning that they must completely start over after three years in the planning process at a cost of $200,000 to date. What makes this situation even more difficult is the sale by the Appellants to the City of approximately 180 acres adjacent to Harmony Ridge as part of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Appellants had not offered this property for sale. The City, however, very much wanted the 180-acre parcel but believed the Harmony Ridge property better suited for development. Although the Appellants are not developers by profession —Mr. Stark is a prominent local sculptor and Mr. McGarvey is the owner of the local Charcoal Broiler —they decided that they would sell the desired property to the City with the specific condition that they first receive preliminary Platt Rooval of the harmony Ridfe P LTD so they could be certain that +,hzy would have a developable parcel of ground to offset the investment loss on the adjacent 180-acre parcel to be sold to the City. Particularly, since the Appellants were not experienced developers, they never imagined that their project could be at total risk after receiving preliminary approval. Now they find themselves in the position of having sold the 180-acre parcel to the City, relying in good faith on the preliminary plan approval, but having lost all development approval of the project as a result of the denial of the final plan and being caught in the transition between land use systems. Summary The Appellants have worked hard with adjacent neighbors to satisfy all concerns; no neighbors or other parties appeared at the hearing on the final plan to oppose the project. The Appellants worked hard to satisfy Natural Resource Department concerns, creating a project with good buffers and natural topography while maintaining a higher -than -usual density under the LDGS (4.5+ dwelling units per acre). Boardmembers acknowledged the design is a, "class act". The Appellants worked hard to satisfy all six conditions of preliminary approval, receiving service. This fact prompted the City staff to advise Appellants of the opportunity to ask the Board to rescind its denial, which was requested on August 20, 1998, The Board, however, refused to even permit discussion and comment on the merits of the request for a rehearing. AUG-31-98 MON 02:48 PM FAX NO. P. 07 Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 6 "We are follow up -following up on that study currently and doing some valued engineering, looking at potential improvements. And we may have some answers to that questions, but we sure 't have IhQse answers this evenine on when and what time frames that those improvements will be implemented." (Page 33, Transcript, emphasis added). Although there was no further discussion with City staff on this issue, Mr. Colton, in making the motion to deny the final plan,' cited the intersection issue and conclusively stated that there were no funds or good options to deal with the issue anytime in the foreseeable future -despite the staff clearly stating that they were looking at the issue but didn't have answers that evening (presumably because of Matt Baker's absence). Mr. Gavaldon concurred, stating, "...I want to get back to, is our funding and not having the money for ibis." Even if the Board were correct in ignoring the recommendation of the City's Traffic Engineer, its conclusion that the intersection would fail in the five-year future range was predicated on the fact that there would be no changes to the intersection within that period, a statement not factually supported by staff comments' Z Mr. Colton's conunents from pages 40 and 41, Transcript: "However, I do know we have a huge funding problem within the city to fix problems like this. And by not addressing these issues as they come up and saying, we just can't improve a development with these sort of conditions, we have no way of addressing those issues. And I want someone to address those issues, and this is an issue right here that needs to be addressed. There is nothing iu community choices that is going to fix any of those problems. I don't think of those areas will be addressed in street oversizing. As far as I know -and I was on the, again, transportation funding community that studies this in some detail, and since those arc areas that were developed in the county, my understanding is that, well, those are things that are going to have to be fixed through other mechanisms, and we can't even charge for those things through the street oversizing fund. So I think the community is stuck in a hard place here. The development itself is not bad, but we have got deficiencies that need to be corrected, and we have no money. In fact, we probably have a hundred and some million dollars worth of capital improvements needs over the next 15, 20 years that we don't have a clue how we're going to pay for it. That is why I'm recommending denial:' 3 The entire issue has become a moot point with the recently -completed restriping of the intersection, adding another through lane and resulting in a current and future acceptable level of AUG-31-98 MON 02:47 PM FAX NO. P. 05 Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1999 Page 4 Bicycle/pedestrian connections are also planned on Prairie Ridge Drive that connects to the trail system that runs through The Ridge and West Berry and on Chokecherry Trail to the aligned section of new Harmony Road_ A future connection is also planned that will connect to a City trailhead from Prairie Ridge Drive in Phase 11 of the project. The preliminary site plan which showed proposed bicycle/pedestrian path connections was approved by the Board. There were six specific conditions identified by the Board which had to be addressed before final plan approval. None of these conditions touched on any concerns related to the adequacy of bicycle/pedestrian paths. The only change from the preliminary to the final plan is the addition of another such connection. Nonetheless, the Board cited the lack of a continuous path to the Harmony/Shields intersection, located more than % mile from the project, as a basis for denial of the final plan. What language in the LDGS mandates such a conclusion? Section A-2.lasks, "Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed so that opR2rtunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall City pedestrian and bicycle system?" (Emphasis added.) Appellants, working with City staff, addressed just that in identifying the many connections proposed by this project --which was also approved by the Board as part of the preliminary plan. Past practice and policy of the City with LDGS projects supports the position that this plan does a better than normal job of dealing with pedestrian/bicycle connections. This assertion is supported by the fact that this project scored bonus points on the Residential Uses DensityPoint Chart for, "providing bicycle/pedestrian connections to existing City sidewalks and providing bicyclelpedestrian connections to a City bicycle trail." These are points which are t= required in order to develop a residential project but awarded because they go beyond City requirements. How then could a plan with such connections be denied because it has failed to provide adequate bicycle/pcdcstrian connections? Even if this project were to be evaluated under the City's new Land Use Code, which has a much more defined emphasis on provision of alternative modes of transporration, this project would not be required to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path to the Harmony/Shields intersection. Seepages 9, 16 and 19 of the Multi -Modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Under those standards, the project would need to connect to all destination points (schools, recreational areas, adjacent residential uses, etc.) within 1,320 feet or'h mile of the outside boundaries of the project. This project does that. Just as with the private drive issue, generally there are solutions to newly -identified Board concerns if the staff and the applicant can work cooperatively on them. Here the Board did not give the staff or Appellants an opportunity to try to address this new concern. Whether it can be required under the LDGS or not, there is a feasible option for the provision of a continuous path to the intersection which the Appellants are willing and able to provide. Presently, the north side of Harmony Road has an existing bicyclelpedestrian trail from Seneca Street to Shields Street with the exception of 900 feet adjacent to The Villages at Harmony West, The Owners have already AUG-31-98 MON 02:46 PM FAX NO. P. 04 Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31.199% Page 3 The following is a brief summary of each of the Board's concerns and the Appellants' responses to the same. 1. Chokecherry Drive. The Board stated that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe and cited Section A-2.4 as a basis for denial of the project. The Board's denial must be based on evidence supporting that statement and not just on opinion of Board members as to safety. Here, no one gave testimony to the Board that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe at the grade proposed. It was stated that it did not meet City requirements for a public street. There was testimony from the Appellants' engineer, supported by City staff statements that, given the particular circumstances of this private drive (length of the drive; right in and out only; and low posted speed), safety issues had been addressed.' Moreover, the City staff, as a whole, had reviewed the final plan with the proposed private drive and made a finding that it met LAGS criteria, which includes A-2.4 addressing safe streets. Curiously, no Board member queried Fred Jones from the City's Traffic Engineering Department, who would be the City's expert regarding traffic safety, as to whether he concurred with the Board's conclusion. The facts are that the Board had a written staff finding that the final plan, as proposed, met all applicable LDGS criteria and testimony from Appellants' engineer as to factors which alleviated safety concerns. In addition, the proposed grade meets Federal ASTHE standards. Notwithstanding that, the Appellants do not object to a condition requiring Chokecherry Drive to be a public street, meeting all City requirements, if that is truly the desire of the City. The grade problem was largely caused by the City's design of the new Harmony sweep, which drops to three feet at the project property line, and they had proposed Chokecherry Drive with a steeper grade in order to minimize disruption to the natural topography, a concern of the Natural Resources Department given the project's proximity to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. They had no idea that this would put their project at risk, since the staff concurred with this approach. \ 2. Harmony Bicvcle/Pedestrian Path to the HarmontiJShields Intersection. The project jL )' ` provides a number of important bicycle/pedestrian connections, including to area schools and the V' Cathy Fromme Prairie. A bicycle trail connection is planned for the southwest comer of the project r / that will connect to the City's bicycle/pedestrian system through the Cathy Fromme Prairie that will cross the Trilby Lateral. Since the project received preliminary approval, an additional bicycle/ pedestrian trail connection has been added on the east side of Moming Dove Lane and traveling down to the west end of the proposed dam that will provide access from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road trailhcads. When old Harmony Road is vacated, it will act as a lane that will also serve as a bike trail. Harmony Ridge PUD will have a connection to this lane from Seneca Street and with foot path connections at Dusty Sage Drive and Morning Dove Court. I Information was also presented to the Board that certain City streets had the same (or worse) grade as that proposed for Chokecherry. If that grade is, in fact, per se unsafe, would the City permit streets to remain. at that grade, given potential liability? AUG-31-98 MON 02:46 PM FAX NO. P. 03 Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 2 APPELLANTS The appellants are the applicant, Joe Vansant, and the two owners of the subject property, G. D. McGarvey and Lee A. Stark, whose addresses and telephone numbers are as follows: G. D. McGarvey Lee A. Stark Joe Vansant 931 Poudre Canyon Hwy. 1803 N. Garfield P. O. Box 98 Bellvue, CO 80512 Loveland, CO 80528 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970)484-0541 (970)667-5491 (970)482-6312 APPELLANT AUTHORWED TO RECEIVE NOTICE G. D. McGarvey is the appellant authorized to receive any notice required to be mailed by the City. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL The grounds for this appeal is Section 48(b)(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. We request that the allegations of error and summary of facts stated in the original appeal be incorporated by reference in this amended appeal. In addition, the Appellants offer the following: Failure to Property lnterpret and Apply the Code The Board citedtbree sections of the Land Development Guidance System (" LDGS-): A-2.1, ,l A-2.4 and A-3.2. The three specific Board concerns were the safety of the private Chokecherry Drive which did not meet approach grade standards for a public street; the adequacy of the Harmony/Shields intersection to handle traffic generated by this development; and the need for a continuous bicycle/ pedestrian path to the Harmony/Shields intersection. Sections A-2.1 and A-2.4 are clearly relevant, but we question the inclusion of A-3.2 which has been cited because Chokecherry Drive did not meet City design standards for a public infrastructure. Chokecherry Drive was presented as a private street to be owned and maintained by the homeowners and was not required to meet City standards for public streets. The issue surrounding the grades proposed for this private street is evaluated under A-2.4 which specifically addresses the question of safety, without regard to whether the street is public or private. AUG-31-98 MON 02:45 PM FAX NO. P. 02 ARTHUR E. MARCH. JR. LUCIA A. LMEY J.9RAOFQRO MARCH SUZAN D. FRITCHEL Honorable Ann Azari Mayor City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Council Members: Bill Bertschy Mike Byrne Chris Kneeland Scott Mason Will Smith Charles Wanner c/o City of Fort Collins City Clerk's Office 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado MARCH & LMEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 E. OAR STREET FORT COLLNS. COLORA00 W524-2090 t97M 492-4322 Fez t970!492.3719 August 31, 1998 VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA LAND DELIVERY Re, Amended Appeal of the planning & zoning Board's Denial of Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final 449-95 B Dear Mayor Azari and Council Members: ARTHUR E. MARCH 190&1991 This amended appeal is filed in response to the earlier City notice of deficiencies in the original appeal filed July 30, 1998. SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL The denial by the Planning and Zoning Board of Harmony Ridge P.U.D., Phase One, Final #4995 B. DATE OF BOARD ACTION July 16, 1998 LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Lee A. Stark, of the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, reposing special trust and confidence in G. D. McGarvey of the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, have made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said G. D. McGarvey my true and lawful Attorney for me and in my name, place and stead, for my sole use and benefit, to execute for me and on my behalf an Amended Appeal which is to be filed with the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado appealing a decision made by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on July 16, 1998 to deny the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final - #49-95B, which real property I am a co-owner of with G. D. McGarvey. This Amended Appeal is being filed in order to amend the Appeal that was filed on July 30, 1998 with the City of Fort Collins. The power and authority granted in this Power of Attorney are limited solely to my Attorney's execution of the aforementioned Amended Appeal on my behalf. This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by disability of the Principal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal this 24th day of August, 1998. ee A. Stark, Princip STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of August, 1998, by Lee A. Stark. F 3 h Lail Witness my hand and official seal.All F.: a My commission expires: l F:\WPC\LAL\HARMONY\LTDPOA 8/24/98 Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 8 a full recommendation of approval from the staff on the final plan. They have spent over three years and $200,000 in the process to get to the final plan stage. And yet, when issues were identified by the Board, no opportunity was given to find solutions to those problems. There are solutions to each identified issue and, if the City Council desires, Appellants are willing to implement those solutions. For all of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request that you overturn and/or modify the decision of the Board. Sincerely, MARCH &J ILEY, P.C. '—�'Lu is A. Liley Lee A. r ,hitG -Mc fve.s ato n rD. McG e Applicant Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 7 Extenuating Circumstances In considering this appeal, the Appellants ask the Council, as a matter of overall fairness, to consider two extenuating circumstances related to this project. Not only is Harmony Ridge a final planned unit development, it is caught in the City's transition between land use schemes. A denial of a final planned unit development always has serious impacts. In this case, those impacts are greatly magnified because of the transition rules. Were it not for the transition, the Appellants would not lose their preliminary plan approval and could re -file a final plan to address the Board's concerns. Instead, the Appellants have been advised that the denial of the final plan terminates their approved preliminary plan as well, meaning that they must completely start over after three years in the planning process at a cost of $200,000 to date. What makes this situation even more difficult is the sale by the Appellants to the City of approximately 180 acres adjacent to Harmony Ridge as part of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Appellants had not offered this property for sale. The City, however, very much wanted the 180-acre parcel but believed the Harmony Ridge property better suited for development. Although the Appellants are not developers by profession —Mr. Stark is a prominent local sculptor and Mr. McGarvey is the owner of the local Charcoal Broiler —they decided that they would sell the desired property to the City with the specific condition that they first receive preliminary plan approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD so they could be certain that they would have a developable parcel of ground to offset the investment loss on the adjacent 180-acre parcel to be sold to the City. Particularly, since the Appellants were not experienced developers, they never imagined that their project could be at total risk after receiving preliminary approval. Now they find themselves in the position of having sold the 180-acre parcel to the City, relying in good faith on the preliminary plan approval, but having lost all development approval of the project as a result of the denial of the final plan and being caught in the transition between land use systems. Summary The Appellants have worked hard with adjacent neighbors to satisfy all concerns; no neighbors or other parties appeared at the hearing on the final plan to oppose the project. The Appellants worked hard to satisfy Natural Resource Department concerns, creating a project with good buffers and natural topography while maintaining a higher -than -usual density under the LDGS (4.5+ dwelling units per acre). Boardmembers acknowledged the design is a, "class act". The Appellants worked hard to satisfy all six conditions of preliminary approval, receiving service. This fact prompted the City staff to advise Appellants of the opportunity to ask the Board to rescind its denial, which was requested on August 20, 1998. The Board, however, refused to even permit discussion and comment on the merits of the request for a rehearing. Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 5 committed to acquiring right-of-way for and improving Seneca Street to its intersection with the realigned Harmony Road, including bicycle/pedestrian trails. They would be willing to improve the missing 800-foot connection on the north side of Harmony Road to provide a continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians from the project along Harmony Road to Shields Street. 3. Harmony/Shields Intersection. One of the six conditions of preliminary approval was that Appellants submit a new traffic study, analyzing the Harmony/Shields intersection and including traffic from Registry Ridge and Front Range Community College. This traffic study was completed showing that, at present, the intersection achieves an overall acceptable level of service (D), but in the five-year future range, without any changes to the existing intersection geometry and adding overall traffic from other developments, the morning and afternoon peak hour operation would be unacceptable. The City's traffic engineer recommended approval of the project due to the minimum number of trips this development would add (six right turns during the morning peak and three right turns during the afternoon peak) to an intersection over % mile away with existing geometric design problems. Mr. Colton, in rejecting that recommendation, focused on the issue of what plans and options were available for possible improvements to the intersection in order to be able to determine if an unacceptable level of service would, in fact, occur in the five-year future range, justifying a denial of the project. Matt Baker, the staff member who could best answer questions regarding street construction projects, was not in attendance nor was Eric Bracke, the Traffic Engineer for the City. A City staff member answered Mr. Colton's inquiry by saying: "It would probably fall back into the overall sizing category for a capital project, and I'm not sure if oversizing has funds addressed towards this location at this time." (Page 32 of the Transcript, emphasis added). Mr. Colton then surprisingly concludes: "Okay, so we have an intersection that isn't —won't be at acceptable level of service within three to four years. And there is no money available...." (Page 32, Transcript). City staff then responds that they are in the process of looking at existing deficient intersections, and this one is third on the list for new geometry. A staff member then goes on to say: Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 4 Bicycle/pedestrian connections are also planned on Prairie Ridge Drive that connects to the trail system that runs through The Ridge and West Berry and on Chokecherry Trail to the aligned section of new Harmony Road. A future connection is also planned that will connect to a City trailhead from Prairie Ridge Drive in Phase II of the project. The preliminary site plan which showed proposed bicycle/pedestrian path connections was approved by the Board. There were six specific conditions identified by the Board which had to be addressed before final plan approval. None of these conditions touched on any concerns related to the adequacy of bicycle/pedestrian paths. The only change from the preliminary to the final plan is the addition of another such connection. Nonetheless, the Board cited the lack of a continuous path to the Harmony/Shields intersection, located more than ''/z mile from the project, as a basis for denial of the final plan. What language in the LDGS mandates such a conclusion? Section A-2.1 asks, "Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall City pedestrian and bicycle system?" (Emphasis added.) Appellants, working with City staff, addressed just that in identifying the many connections proposed by this project --which was also approved by the Board as part of the preliminary plan. Past practice and policy of the City with LDGS projects supports the position that this plan does a better than normal job of dealing with pedestrian/bicycle connections. This assertion is supported by the fact that this project scored bonus points on the Residential Uses Density Point Chart for, "providing bicycle/pedestrian connections to existing City sidewalks and providing bicycle/pedestrian connections to a City bicycle trail." These are points which are not required in order to develop a residential project but awarded because they go beyond City requirements. How then could a plan with such connections be denied because it has failed to provide adequate bicycle/pedestrian connections? Even if this project were to be evaluated under the City's new Land Use Code, which has a much more defined emphasis on provision of alternative modes of transportation, this project would not be required to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path to the Harmony/Shields intersection. See pages 9, 16 and 19 of the Multi -Modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Under those standards, the project would need to connect to all destination points (schools, recreational areas, adjacent residential uses, etc.) within 1,320 feet or 'A mile of the outside boundaries of the project. This project does that. Just as with the private drive issue, generally there are solutions to newly -identified Board concerns if the staff and the applicant can work cooperatively on them. Here the Board did not give the staff or Appellants an opportunity to try to address this new concern. Whether it can be required under the LDGS or not, there is a feasible option for the provision of a continuous path to the intersection which the Appellants are willing and able to provide. Presently, the north side of Harmony Road has an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail from Seneca Street to Shields Street with the exception of 800 feet adjacent to The Villages at Harmony West. The Owners have already Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 3 The following is a brief summary of each of the Board's concerns and the Appellants' responses to the same. 1. Chokecherry Drive. The Board stated that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe and cited Section A-2.4 as a basis for denial of the project. The Board's denial must be based on evidence supporting that statement and not just on opinion of Board members as to safety. Here, no one gave testimony to the Board that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe at the grade proposed. It was stated that it did not meet City requirements for a public street. There was testimony from the Appellants' engineer, supported by City staff statements that, given the particular circumstances of this private drive (length of the drive; right in and out only; and low posted speed), safety issues had been addressed.' Moreover, the City staff, as a whole, had reviewed the final plan with the proposed private drive and made a finding that it met LDGS criteria, which includes A-2.4 addressing safe streets. Curiously, no Board member queried Fred Jones from the City's Traffic Engineering Department, who would be the City's expert regarding traffic safety, as to whether he concurred with the Board's conclusion. The facts are that the Board had a written staff finding that the final plan, as proposed, met all applicable LDGS criteria and testimony from Appellants' engineer as to factors which alleviated safety concerns. In addition, the proposed grade meets Federal ASTHE standards. Notwithstanding that, the Appellants do not object to a condition requiring Chokecherry Drive to be a public street, meeting all City requirements, if that is truly the desire of the City. The grade problem was largely caused by the City's design of the new Harmony sweep, which drops to three feet at the project property line, and they had proposed Chokecherry Drive with a steeper grade in order to minimize disruption to the natural topography, a concern of the Natural Resources Department given the project's proximity to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. They had no idea that this would put their project at risk, since the staff concurred with this approach. 2. Harmony Bicycle/Pedestrian Path to the Harmony/Shields Intersection. The project provides a number of important bicycle/pedestrian connections, including to area schools and the Cathy Fromme Prairie. A bicycle trail connection is planned for the southwest corner of the project that will connect to the City's bicycle/pedestrian system through the Cathy Fromme Prairie that will cross the Trilby Lateral. Since the project received preliminary approval, an additional bicycle/ pedestrian trail connection has been added on the east side of Morning Dove Lane and traveling down to the west end of the proposed dam that will provide access from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road trailheads. When old Harmony Road is vacated, it will act as a lane that will also serve as a bike trail. Harmony Ridge PUD will have a connection to this lane from Seneca Street and with foot path connections at Dusty Sage Drive and Morning Dove Court. ' Information was also presented to the Board that certain City streets had the same (or worse) grade as that proposed for Chokecherry. If that grade is, in fact, per se unsafe, would the City permit streets to remain at that grade, given potential liability? Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 2 APPELLANTS The appellants are the applicant, Joe Vansant, and the two owners of the subject property, G. D. McGarvey and Lee A. Stark, whose addresses and telephone numbers are as follows: G. D. McGarvey Lee A. Stark Joe Vansant 931 Poudre Canyon Hwy. 1803 N. Garfield P. O. Box 98 Bellvue, CO 80512 Loveland, CO 80528 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970)484-0541 (970)667-5491 (970)482-6312 APPELLANT AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE NOTICE G. D. McGarvey is the appellant authorized to receive any notice required to be mailed by the City. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL The grounds for this appeal is Section 48(b)(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. ALLEGATIONS OF ERROR AND SUMMARY OF FACTS We request that the allegations of error and summary of facts stated in the original appeal be incorporated by reference in this amended appeal. In addition, the Appellants offer the following: Failure to Property Interpret and Apply the Code The Board cited three sections ofthe Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS"): A-2.1, A-2.4 and A-3.2. The three specific Board concerns were the safety of the private Chokecherry Drive which did not meet approach grade standards for a public street; the adequacy of the Harmony/Shields intersection to handle traffic generated by this development; and the need for a continuous bicycle/ pedestrian path to the Harmony/Shields intersection. Sections A-2.1 and A-2.4 are clearly relevant, but we question the inclusion of A-3.2 which has been cited because Chokecherry Drive did not meet City design standards for a public infrastructure. Chokecherry Drive was presented as a private street to be owned and maintained by the homeowners and was not required to meet City standards for public streets. The issue surrounding the grades proposed for this private street is evaluated under A-2.4 which specifically addresses the question of safety, without regard to whether the street is public or private. City Cleric City of Fort Collins August 3, 1998 Joe Vansant Positive Environments, Inc. P. O. Box 98 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Vansant: This letter is in reference to your Notice of Appeal dated July 30, 1998, appealing the July 16, 1998, Planning and Zoning Board denial of the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal document and his findings are set out in the attached memorandum dated July 31, 1998. You will want to pay particular attention to the recommendations suggested in his memorandum. Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by the City Clerk of the notice of the appeal to parties -in -interest. The City Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, at 6:00 p.m., and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed no later than September 1, 1998. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO LATER THAN NOON ON MONDAY, August 31,1998 to allow sufficient time for legal review and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed on September 1, 1998. Sincerely, Wanda Krajicek City Clerk cc: G.D. McGarvey Lee A. Stark City of Fort Collins DATE: TO: FROM: RE: City Attu. ney MEMORANDUM July 31, 1998 Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Notice of Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board's Denial of Harmony Ridge P.U.D., Phase One, Final #49-95B On July 30, 1998, a notice of appeal of the above -referenced decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was filed by Joe Vansant (Positive Environments, Inc.) and Lee A. Stark and G.D. McGarvey. Section 2-50 of the Code of the City requires the City Attorney to, within five working days of the date of filing of a notice of appeal, review the same for obvious defects in form or substance. I have examined the aforementioned notice of appeal and have concluded that it was timely filed and that it complies with the requirements of Section 2-49 of the Code of the, City except as described below. Section 2-49(3) of the Code requires the notice of appeal to include not only the name and relationship (as this notice of appeal does) but also the address and telephone number of each appellant. There is an address for Mr. Vansant, but no telephone number. Messrs. Stark and McGarvey have signed the notice of appeal as owners but have given no indication of their address or telephone number. Also, Section 2-49(5) requires, in the case of an appeal by more than one appellant (here there are three appellants) that the name, address and telephone number of one such appellant shall be given as the person authorized to receive, on behalf of the appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants under the provisions of Section 2-50. The notice of appeal does not contain this information. I believe that the appellants should be given the opportunity to file an amended notice of appeal to correct the aforesaid deficiencies. WPE:med 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327 the Planning & Zoning Board but the project was denied without allowing us any opportunity to do so. Sincerely, V connect to the City's bicycle/pedestrian system through the Cathy Fromme Prairie that will cross the Trilby Lateral. Since the project received preliminary approval, an additional bicycle/ pedestrian trail connection has been added that will be on the east side of Morning Dove Lane and will go down to the west end of the proposed dam that will provide access from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road trail heads. When Old Harmony Road is vacated it will act as a lane that will also serve as a bike trail. Harmony Ridge PUD will have a connection to this lane from Seneca Street and with foot path connections at Dusty Sage Drive and Morning Dove Court. Bicycle/pedestrian connections are also planned on Prairie Ridge Drive that connects to the trail system that runs through The Ridge and West Berry and on Chokecherry Trail to the by aligned section of new Harmony Road. A future connection is also planned that will connect to a City trail head from Prairie Ridge Drive in Phase II of the project. A-2.4 addresses the question, "Is the street and parking system designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system,(including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles)?" and A-3.2 asks, "Does the project comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services (water supply, sanitary sewer, mass transit, etc.) or have variances been granted?" The board had concerns regarding the safety of Chokecherry Trail which is a secondary access to the project. At the time of the Planning & Zoning Board meeting Chokecherry Trail was shown as a private street because it did not meet the City standards for grading. The City staff did not feel that the grading on this street was unsafe, but due to the developer trying to retain the natural topography in the area and the length of the street, the grading did not meet the set standards. The board questioned whether this street was declared private to save the developer the loss of additional home sites when in reality it was designed to be the quickest route in and out of the project for safety vehicle access while maintaining the natural topography of the area. The board also suggested that a deceleration/acceleration lane be added. The city staff did not feel that an additional lane was necessary since a stop light will be placed at the intersection of new Harmony Road and Seneca, it will be a right turn in and right turn out only intersection, and a median will be placed in the middle of the new section of Harmony Road at this location. Although the city staff did not feel that safety was a problem with the design of Chokecherry Trail 'nor was there any testimony indicating that safety is an issue, we are willing to work with the City to adjust the grading in such a way that it will meet City standards. When Harmony Ridge PUD received preliminary approval from the Board, there were six conditions attached. All of the six conditions have been addressed. Harmony Ridge PUD received preliminary approval on September 23, 1996. The only changes to the project are the removal of an internal street and the addition of a bike trail connection requested by the City staff. The City staff recommended to the Planning & Zoning Board that Harmony Ridge PUD receive final approval. No one spoke at the meeting opposing the project. The reasons the board stated for denying the project are not valid and even if they were, they should have been raised by the board during review of the preliminary plan. We are willing to address any concerns of July 30, 1998 To: City of Fort. Collins City Council City Clerk JUL 0 ! CITY CLERK Re: Appeal of the Planning & Zoning Board's denial of Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final #49-9513 Dear Council Members: The applicant is Joe Vansant of Positive Environments, Inc., and the owners are Lee A. Stark and G.D. McGarvey. We file this appeal to City Council of the Planning & Zoning Board's decision made on July 16, 1998 regarding Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final - #49-95B. The Harmony Ridge Overall Development Plan (ODP) and Phase One, Preliminary Plan were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996 so the project is under the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). The Planning & Zoning Board denied Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase 1 Final citing that the project did not meet the criteria A-2.1, A-2.4, and A-3.2 of the LDGS. We believe the project meets the criteria mentioned in these sections. The grounds for this appeal is Section 2-48 (b)(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code & Charter. A-2.1 asks three questions. The first question is, "Can the additional traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic) generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems?". The second question under A-2.1 is, "Can impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet city traffic flow delay policies?". Several Transportation Impact Analysis studies were conducted and concluded that this project will not make a significant impact on the traffic in the area. The intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street was mentioned. The initial Transportation Impact Analysis study indicated that this project would not make a measurable impact on this intersection. Additional studies were conducted at the request of the city staff that reassured the staff that it was not of concern. This intersection is more than % mile away from the project. By way of comparison, the Land Use Code says that a project is responsible for traffic impacts on intersections that are within ''/z mile. The last question under A-2.1 is, "Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system?". Harmony Ridge PUD is designed to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle needs in the area. A bicycle trail connection is planned for the southwest corner of the project that will City CIE --- City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, September 15,1998 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the 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 July 16, 1998 regarding Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final (#49-95B) filed by Joe Vansant, Lee Stark and G.D. McGarvey. 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 September 4. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including additional issues identified by City Council members, will be available to the public on Thursday, September 10, 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. ova LS�4;kta Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: September 1, 1998 cc: City Attorney Planning Department GSkue (31+) Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ITE. NUMBER: 25 DATE: September 15. 1998 Steve Olt/ STAFF: Bob Blanchard SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the July 16, 1998 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final. CIw+S / (6" 1 CCh�j�i �� Mom 'fro 1ar-V-wr-J i�t.i�Lt,-0.wytJJ dQS14W RECOMMENDATION: S.r" (,DIG_% Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Co and Charter, and after consideration, either uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decisiop. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 16, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final for 130 residential dwelling units (15 single family lots and 115 townhomes) on 29.00 acres. The property is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The site is located south of the existing "old" West Harmony Road, south of the Overlook at Woodridge (Filing One) and the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, west of the Ridge PUD, and north and east of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. On Jul- 30, 1998, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. An Amended Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office on August 31, 1998. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellants G. D. McGarvey, Lee A. Stark, and Joe Vansant, it is alleged that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The attached documents include: • the Notice of Appeal (dated and received July 30, 1998) • the Amended Appeal (dated and received August 31, 1998) • Staff report, with recommendation. to the Planning and Zoning Board for its July 16, 1998 Public hearing • the City Staff response to the appeal • Minutes of the Meeting Before the Planning and Zoning Board. held Thursday. July 16, 1998 The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2. Article II. Division 3 of the City Code. Mayor Azari and Council Members August 31, 1998 Page 6 "We are follow up —following up on that study currently and doing some valued engineering, looking at potential improvements. And we may have some answers to that questions. but we sure don't have those answers this evening on when and what time frames that those improvements will be implemented." (Page 33, Transcript, emphasis added). Although there was no further discussion with City staff on this issue, Mr. Colton, in making the motion to deny the final plan,' cited the intersection issue and conclusively stated that there were no funds or good options to deal with the issue anytime in the foreseeable future —despite the staff clearly stating that they were looking at the issue but didn't have answers that evening (presumably because of Matt Baker's absence). Mr. Gavaldon concurred, stating, "...I want to get back to, is our funding and not having the money for this." Even if the Board were correct in ignoring the recommendation of the City's Traffic Engineer, its conclusion that the intersection would fail in the five-year future range was predicated on the fact that there would be no changes to the intersection within that period, a statement not factually supported by staff comments.' Mr. Colton's comments from pages 40 and 41, Transcript: "However, I do know we have a huge funding problem within the city to fix problems like this. And by not addressing these issues as they come up and saying, we just can't improve a development with these sort of conditions, we have no way of addressing those issues. And I want someone to address those issues, and this is an issue right here that needs to be addressed. There is nothing in community choices that is going to fix any of those problems. I don't think of those areas will be addressed in street oversizing. As far as I know —and I was on the, again, transportation funding community that studies this in some detail, and since those are areas that were developed in the county, my understanding is that, well, those are things that are going to have to be fixed through other mechanisms, and we can't even charge for those things through the street oversizing fund. So I think the community is stuck in a hard place here. The development itself is not bad, but we have got deficiencies that need to be corrected, and we have no money. In fact, we probably have a hundred and some million dollars worth of capital improvements needs over the next 15, 20 years that we don't have a clue how we're going to pay for it. That is why I'm recommending denial." s The entire issue has become a moot point with the recently -completed restriping of the intersection, adding another through lane and resulting in a current and future acceptable level of Existing Traffic Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic data was obtained on September 12, 1995 at the Harmony/Taft Hill intersection. The peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure 3. Raw traffic data is presented in Appendix A. Peak hour data collected in 1993 was used to synthesize 1995 counts at the New Harmony/Old Harmony intersection. These are also shown in Figure 3. Existing Operation Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 and the existing control, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 1. Calculation 'forms for these analyses are provided -'`in Appendix B. Appendix C describes level -of service.. for.- :-unsignaIized. intersections as provided. -in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Minor street left turns operate at level of service E-and F during the analyzed hours at the Taft Hill/Old Harmony.,.,, intersection. Acceptable level of service is defined as level of"vs'ervice D or better. There is little that can be done to improve this operation short of signalization, which is not warranted. This type of operation is normal for minor street left turns 'along arterial. streets. The movements at the Old Harmony/New Harmony intersection operate acceptably.. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Harmony Ridge is a residential development Harmony Road.and east of Taft Hill Road in Fort 4 shows a schematic of the site plan of Harmony Trip Generation .... proposed south of Collins. Figure Ridge. Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information was prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and is presented in Trip Generation, 5th Edition. This document was used to estimate the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by Harmony Ridge. The land use codes from Trip Generation, 5th Edition were Single - Family Detached Housing (210) and Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230). Table 2 shows the daily and peak hour traffic from the various land use types with Harmony Ridge. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination. 3 right -turn movement operates at level of service E. This operation is shown on line 1 of Table 2. Provision of an eastbound right -turn lane will achieve acceptable intersection operation overall, but some movements will continue to operate at level of service E. This is shown on line 2 of Table 2. Provision of the eastbound right -turn lane and adjustments in the signal phasing will achieve acceptable operation on all movements during the peak hours. This is shown on line 3 of Table 2. It is concluded that the current operation at the Harmony/Shields intersection is a short duration concern that can be remedied by providing an eastbound right -turn lane on Harmony Road. This geometric improvement and adjustments in the signal phasing will achieve acceptable operation during the peak hours in the short range future. These improvements will achieve acceptable operation with the increased traffic from both Harmony Ridge and the Overlook at Arapahoe Farms. m J_ H LL Q F oLo CO N co v c 205/343 /(— 46/42 �I \rn o r� ti y�41 0 o�_ Ul OLD -- 243/381 65/170 HARMONY /� 2/7-155/318 563/1/8 y 95 80 475 319 — \ZZ 00 t, N ZW �U U Q 1997 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 AUG-31-98 MON 02:47 PM FAX NO. P. 06 Mayor Azad and Council Members August 31, 1999 Page 5 committed to acquiring right-of-way for and improving Seneca Street to its intersection with the realigned Harmony Road, including bicycle/pedestrian trails. They would be willing to improve the missing 800-foot connection on the north side of Harmony Road to provide a continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians from the project along Harmony Road to Shields Street. 3. Harmony/Shields Intersection. One of the six conditions of preliminary approval was that Appellants submit a new traffic study, analyzing the Harmony/Shields intersection and including traffic from Registry Ridge and Front Range Community College. This traffic study was completed showing that, at present, the intersection achieves an overall acceptable level of service (D), but in \� ep the five-year future range, without any changes to the existing intersection geometry and adding ('f ► �8T'� overall traffic from other developments, the morning and afternoon peak hour operation would be unacceptable. The City's traffic engineer recommended approval of the project due to the minimum number of trips this development would add (six right turns during the morning peak and three right turns during the afternoon peak) to an intersection over '/: mile away with existing geometric design problems. Mr. Colton, in rejecting thatrecommendation, focused on the issue ofwhatplans and options were available for possible improvements to the intersection in order to be able to determine if an unacceptable level of service would, in fact, occur in the five-year future range, justifying a denial of the project. Matt Baker, the staff member who could best answer questions regarding street construction projects, was not in attendance nor was Eric Bracke, the Traffic Engineer for the City. A City staff member answered Mr. Colton's inquiry by saying: "It would probably fall back into the overall sizing category for a capital project, and I'm not sure if oversizing has funds addressed towards this locafion at this time." (Page 32 of the Transcript, emphasis added). Mr. Colton then surprisingly concludes: "Okay, so we have an intersection that isn't —won't be at acceptable level of service within three to four years. And there is no money available...." (Page 32, Transcript). City staff then responds that they are in the process of looking at existing deficient intersections, and this one is third on the list for new geometry. A staff member then goes on to say: ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. LUCIA A. LILEY J. RRADFORD MARCH SUZAN D. FRITCHEL Honorable Ann Azari Mayor City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Council Members: Bill Bertschy Mike Byrne Chris Kneeland Scott Mason Will Smith Charles Wanner c/o City of Fort Collins City Clerk's Office 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado MARCH & LILEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 E. OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 19701 482-4322 Fax (970) 482-5719 1 August 31, 1998 ARTHUR E. MARCH 3 r:i',ra D 1 I: ,l CITY CLERK VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Amended Appeal of the Planning & Zoning Board's Denial of Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final #49-95 B Dear Mayor Azari and Council Members: This amended appeal is filed in response to the earlier City notice of deficiencies in the original appeal filed July 30, 1998. SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL The denial by the Planning and Zoning Board of Harmony Ridge P.U.D., Phase One, Final #4995 B. DATE OF BOARD ACTION July 16, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Board questioned the appropriateness of adding any traffic to an intersection with failing movements, especially when that traffic would contribute (even in a small way) to one of the failing turning movements (eastbound right turn onto South Shields Street). The concern was also expressed that there were no scheduled intersection improvements to correct the short term deficiencies. 7 The Planning and Zoning Board felt that, while other connections were to be provided, there was sufficient impact from the proposed Harmony Ridge development to warrant off - site improvements to Harmony Road (i.e., bicycle and pedestrian connections) that would extend east to the West Harmony Road/South Shields Street intersection. 3. Harmony/Shields Intersection. One of the six conditions of preliminary approval was that Appellants submit a new traffic study, analyzing the Harmony/Shields intersection and including traffic from Registry Ridge and Front Range Community College. This traffic study was completed showing that, at present, the intersection achieves an overall acceptable level of service (D), but in the five-year future range, without any changes to the existing intersection geometry and adding overall traffic from other development, the morning and afternoon peak hour operation would be unacceptable. The City's traffic engineer recommended approval of the project due to the minimum number of trips this development would add (six right turns during the morning peak and three right turns during the afternoon peak) to an intersection over % mile away with existing geometric design problems. Staff Response: The applicant's revised traffic study indicated an acceptable overall Level of Service (LOS) of 'D' for the West Harmony Road/South Shields Street intersection. However, it was generally recognized that two movements do currently fail: the eastbound right turns onto South Shields Street at the a.m. and p.m peak times, and the eastbound left turns onto South Shields Street at the a.m. and p.m. peak times. An analysis of the projected increased traffic at this intersection over the next 5 years (considered to be "short range") indicated that, without improvements, it would reach a failing LOS standard. A response by a City staff person to a Board member's question about future improvements to this intersection was stated as such: We are in the process again of looking back at our deficiency index on existing intersections. This intersection did, as we ranked the intersections last year looking at deficiencies in level of service and volumes of traffic, rank third (3rd) on our list for a right turn lane, being the eastbound right turn lane. We are following up on that study currently and doing some valuable engineering, looking at potential improvements. We may have some answers to this question, but we do not know the answers this evening regarding when these improvements will be implemented. 11 to the City's bicycle/pedestrian system through the Cathy Fromme Prairie that will cross the Trilby Lateral. Since the project received preliminary approval, an additional bicycle/pedestrian trail connection has been added on the east side of Morning Dove Lane and traveling down to the west end of the proposed dam that will provide access from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road trailheads. When old harmony Road is vacated, it will act as a lane that will also serve as a bike trail. Harmony Ridge PUD will have a connection to this lane from Seneca Street and with foot path connections at Dusty Sage Drive and Morning Dove Court. Bicycle/pedestrian connections are also planned on Prairie Ridge Drive that connects to the trail system that runs through The Ridge and West Berry and on Chokecherry Trail to the aligned section of new Harmony Road. A future connection is also planned that will connect to a City trailhead from Prairie Ridge Drive in Phase II of the project. The preliminary site plan which showed proposed bicycle/pedestrian path connections was approved by the Board. There were six specific conditions identified by the Board which had to be addressed before final plan approval. None of these conditions touched on any concerns related to the adequacy of bicycle/pedestrian paths. The only change from the preliminary to the final plan is the addition of another such connection. Staff Response: The existing bicycle and pedestrian paths between this development and the West Harmony Road/South Shields Street intersection are as follows: * along the north side of the Harmony roadway - a pedestrian path exists only from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints site (at Regency Drive) to the intersection of West Harmony Road and South Shields Street. No bicycle/pedestrian facilities exist from the east edge of the Harmony Ridge development to the church. * along the south side of the Harmony roadway - pedestrian facilities exist only in front of the Ridge development (behind fences). The Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One development plan proposes bicycle/pedestrian connections to other existing elements of the bicycle/pedestrian system, including the new City trail in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to the south, the trailhead at the west end of "old" Harmony Road, the Ridge development to the east, and any future system on Harmony Road. The development plan did not propose to provide a walkway or bicycle path on West Harmony Road. 5 standards. However, the Planning and Zoning Board felt that the design issues still existed whether the street was public or private. The following is a brief summary of each of the Board's concerns and the Appellants responses to the same. 1. Chokecherry Drive. The Board stated that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe and cited Section A-2.4 as a basis fordenial of the project. The Board's denial must be based on evidence supporting that statement and not just an opinion of Board members as to safety. Here, no one gave testimony to the Board that Chokecherry Drive was unsafe at the grade proposed. It was stated that it did not meet City requirements for a public street. There was testimony from the Appellants' engineer, supported by city staff statements that, given the particular circumstances of this private drive (length of the drive; right in and right out only; and low posted speed) safety issues had been addressed. Moreover, the City staff, as a whole, had reviewed the final plan with the proposed private drive and made a finding that it met LDGS criteria, which includes A-2.4 addressing safe streets. Curiously, no Board member queried Fred Jones from the City's Traffic Engineering Department, who would be the City's expert regarding traffic safety, as to whether he concurred with the Board's conclusion. The facts are that the Board had a written staff finding that the final plan, as proposed, met all applicable LDGS criteria and testimony from Appellant's engineers as to factors which alleviated safety concerns. In addition, the proposed grade meets Federal ASTHO standards. Staff Response: As stated by Michael Dean, City Engineering Department, at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on July 16, 1998, the first 85' of Chokecherry Drive, leaving Harmony Road, is designed to be under 2% and then the vertical curve would increase to 6% over the last 40' to the intersection with Prairie Ridge Drive. The applicants had requested a variance to the City's street design standards, regarding the approach grades into intersections, for Chokecherry Drive to enable it to be a publicly dedicated street. This request was not granted by the City Engineer because it was thought that there were potential safety concerns associated with the approach grades to the intersections. The Board considered that the grade for Chokecherry Drive exceeded City standards and that this resulted in a potentially dangerous condition, especially at the intersection of Chokecherry Drive and West Harmony Road. 2. Harmony Bicycle/Pedestrian Path to the Harmony/Shields Intersection. The project provides a number of important bicycle/pedestrian connections, including to area schools and the Cathy Fromme Prairie. A bicycle trail connection is planned for the southwest corner of the project that will connect 4 proposal met the All Development Criteria in the Land Development Guidance System LDGS included the evaluation of the project based on the criteria cited in this appeal. Criterion A-2.1 states: Can the additional traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic) generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems? Can impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet city traffic flow delay policies? Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system? The Planning and Zoning Board cited this criterion in their response to the adequacy of the bicycle/pedestrian connections as discussed later in this memorandum. Criterion A-2.4 states: Is the street and parking system designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles)? The Planning and Zoning Board cited this criterion in their response to the design of Chokecherry Drive as discussed later in this memorandum. Criterion A-3.2 states: Does the project comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services or have variances been granted? * Water supply * Irrigations companies * Sanitary sewer * Electricity * Mass transit * Natural gas * Fire protection * Storm drainage * Flood hazard areas * Cable television * Telephone * Street/pedestrians * Walks/bikeways This criterion requires compliance with all technical design criteria adopted by the City. Early in the development review process, the applicant requested a variance to the street standards since the design of Chokecherry Drive did not meet the required approach grades at intersections. The City Engineer did not grant the request based on potential safety concerns at the affected intersections. The applicant then turned Chokecherry Drive into a private street, which historically has not been required to comply with the City 3 The Appeal: Appellants G. D. McGarvey 931 Poudre Canyon Highway Bellvue, CO. 80512 Lee A. Stark 1803 North Garfield Loveland, CO. 80528 Joe Vansant P.O. Box 98 Fort Collins, CO. 80522 Grounds for Appeal: (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document) The grounds for this appeal is Section 2-48(b)(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply the Code The Board cited three sections of the Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS"): A-2.1, A-2.4 and A-3.2. The three specific Board concerns were the safety of the private Chokecherry Drive which did not meet approach grade standards for a public street; the adequacy of the Harmony/Shields intersection to handle traffic generated by this development; and the need for a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path to the Harmony/Shields intersection. Sections A-2.1 and A-2.4 are clearly relevant, but we question the inclusion of A-3.2 which has been cited because Chokecherry Drive did not meet City design standards for a public infrastructure. Chokecherry Drive was presented as a private street to be owned and maintained by the homeowners and was not required to meet City standards for public streets. The issue surrounding the grades proposed for this private street is evaluated under A-2.4 which specifically addresses the question of safety, without regard to whether the street is public or private. Staff Response: The Appellants' are asserting that All Development Criteria A-2.1 and A-2.4 are relevant to the Planning and Zoning Board's decision (to deny) regarding the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final development request. They are, however, questioning the inclusion of Criterion 3.2 as a reason for the decision (of denial). Staffs findings that the development OA Comma 'ty Planning and Environmental rvices Current Pianning of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Directo;y" DATE: September 15, 1998 RE: HARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE ONE, FINAL - Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the July 16, 1998 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final. 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 commission 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." 1 281 North College avenue • 1'0. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 50522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 N d- Md-N o �— 137/403 CD M-154/393 HARMONY 455/309 to c" p 73/48 -- � c) cl) � AM / PM p N 1997 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _ Figure 1 N HARMONY N Legend: — — - Lane EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 Table 4 Short Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Harmony/Seneca (stop sign) NB LT C C NB T/RT A B SB LT C C SB T/RT A B EB LT A A WB LT A A Overall A A Harmony/Right-in; Right -out (stop sign) WB RT A A Table 5 Long Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Harmony/Seneca (signal) B B Harmony/Right-in, Right -out (stop sign) WB RT A A N 2� AM/PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. sz 11o/ss 2¢s ao sue? � ti Right -in / Right -out SHORT RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 , N Right -in / Right -out LONG RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AM', PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. Figure 4 Table 1 1997 Peak Hour Operation Intersection Harmony/Shields (signal) EB WB NB SB Overall Level of Service AM PM F C B D C C C C D C Table 2 -Five Year Future Short -:Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Harmony/Shields (signal) EB * C WB B NB C C SB D C Overall * * Calculation of level of service not feasible. Table 3 Ten Year Future Short Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Harmony/Shields (signal) EB * D WB B NB E E SB * E Overall * Calculation of level of service not feasible. CD c, M to N Lo \r-- N M t+7 to JC V slh M 101 57 1 540 367 -a- 87/57 N �— 163/479 183/467 . /r— 78/169 HARMONY I r Lo Co co \`Lo AM / PM 0 4* N FIVE YEAR FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1 N cn� cn U-) n'\' CD� 193/568 `" "' a -- 217/554 r + /r- 93/200 HARMONY 12Y68 } D 642 436 — 103/68 ^ (� ;o °° AM / PM S TEN YEAR FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 B. Using the existing geometry and same basic phasing, the morning and afternoon peak hour operation is unacceptable. Figure 2 shows the ten year future short range peak hour traffic at the Harmony/Shields intersection. This traffic includes a factored increase in background traffic (3.5%/year), as directed by City staff. Table 3 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the volumes shown in Figure 2. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Using the existing geometry and same basic phasing, the morning and afternoon peak hour operation is unacceptable. It is concluded that the current operation at the Harmony %Shivel-ds intersection is a short duration concern that can be remedied by providing additional geometry at the intersection. City staff is and has been aware of this concern. The, remedies will likely take.the form of..a capital improvement project unless the properties west. of Shields Street and on both sides of Harmony Road develop. In the case of adjacent' developments,: -=some improvements can occur with those developments. The site p.lan for Phase 1 of Harmony Ridge shows a right- in/right-out -access located east of the Harmony/Seneca intersection. Figures 3 and 4 show the respective short range and long range peak hour traffic forecasts with'this access. Tables 4 and 5 show the respective short range and long range peak hour operation at the key intersections.. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively. All of the key intersections will operate acceptably. W M MEMORANDUM L O W V cr) • ,LO TO: Joe Vansant o (0 Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer o co Fort Collins Planning Department 0 O U °) FROM: Matt Delich • X Q z u_ DATE: February 23, 1998 a J o SUBJECT: Harmony Ridge traffic study addendum -� (File: 9585MEM2) w > cn 0 N This memorandum provides an addendum to the "Harmony Z CO Ridge Site Access Study," September 1995. When Harmony Ridge ro was approved by the Fort Collins Planning and "Zoning Board, rn.. an issue was raised regarding the operation.`of the Harmony/ w Z Shields intersection. Analysis of this intersection was not 0 ° requested as part of the scope of the site access study. However, it was agreed that when Harmony Ridge came back for N further approvals, this intersection would be analyzed. This memorandum covers the operation of this intersection. In addition to that analysis, staff requested that an evaluation of the proposed right-in/right-out access located east of the Harmony/Seneca intersection also be conducted. This evaluation includes traffic generated at the Overlook at Arapahoe Farms proposal (November 1996). Appendix A, Figure 1 shows recent peak hour counts at the Harmony/Shields intersection. Appendix A,' -Figure 2 shows a schematic of the approach geometry- at. _this signalized W intersection. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the peak hour volumes shown in Appendix A, d i Figure 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. For analysis purposes, a 90 second cycle was assumed with left- n = w z turn phases on all legs. Acceptable operation can be achieved V overall, however, as noted on the calculation forms, selected �j movements operate at levels of service E and F. This is U= W Z caused primarily by deficient geometry on the west leg. 0 ° Observation indicates that it is a "20-30 minute" problem that ¢ primarily occurs during the morning peak hour. This can be o remedied by adding an eastbound right -turn lane and adjusting ithe signal phasing to account for this peaking characteristic ` ¢ within the peak hour. F- UJ di Figure 1 shows the five year future short range peak hour _ traffic at the Harmony/Shields intersection. This traffic LL includes a factored increase in background traffic Q (3.5%/year), as directed by City staff. Table 2 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the volumes S _ shown in Figure 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix Table 1 1997 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Harmony/Shields (signal) EB F C WB B D NB C C SB C C Overall D C Table 2 Short Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM 1. Harmony/Shields (signal) (Existing geometry and signal phasing) EB * D WB C E NB C C SB C C Overall * D 2. Harmony/Shields (signal) (Add EB RT lane/existing signal phasing) EB E C WB C E NB C C SB C C Overall D D 3. Harmony/Shields (signal) .(Add EB RT lane/change signal phasing) EB C C WB B C NB C C SB D C Overall C C * Calculation of level of service not feasible. 9 T C'l `4- U rn 00 o J� nPO �- 137/403 154/393 fir-- 66/142 HARMONY 85/48 --/ 455/309 73/48 } co r7 rn cv r^ AM / PM N W1 1997 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _ Figure 1 N /�- HARMONY (� Legend:. 0 W - Lane Cn EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 LOo A o�� N ,f o 145/420 "'-180/455 �— 70/150 HARMONY 135/80 - / ) f I 515/350 --- to ,n Ln 90/60 —,,� o�,! ' Ln L`' AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest W 5 Vehicles. SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure 3