HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST FOSSIL CREEK PUD, FIRST FILING, PACE WAREHOUSE - PRELIMINARY - 61-88, D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS»
Message.
Subject: PACS E PUD
Sender: Mike DAVIS / CFC52/01
CC: Linda RIPLEY / CFC52/01
Part 1.
FROM: Mike DAVIS / CFC52/01
TO: DISTRIBUTION
Part 2.
Dated: 01/17/ at 1920.
Contents: 4.
The attached outlines concerns and sentiments of the neighborhoods
affected by the Pace and carpet projects proposed for the Fossil Creek -
College Avenue intersection. This is provided for your information.
Staff is continuing to work with the affected neighborhoods to reach a
level of informed concent prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing
the applications.
There was a second neighborhood meeting 1/16 that, according to staff, went
fairly well. A third meeting is scheduled for 1/18 to discuss the realignment
of Fossil Creek Parkway, stormdrainage, air quality and associated
environmental and planning issues. The staff of the planning department will
be supported by the staff from the natural resources and transportation
divisions of development services and the storm drainage division of utility
services.
We will keep you informed of the progress in this regard.
TO: Mike DAVIS / CFC52/01
CC: Ruth CLEAR / CFC52/01
Part 4.
MIKE, A SUMMARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THE FOSSIL
CREEK MEADOWS GROUP FOLLOWS. JOE FRANK,RUTH CLEAR,MIKE HERZIG
AND MYSELF ATTENDED THIS MEETING ALONG WITH EIGHT RESIDENTS.
THE OVERIDING ISSUES EXPRESSED BY THIS GROUP OF CITIZENS ARE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA- THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH THE
GROWTH OF COMMERCIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT,ESPECIALLY THE WAREHOUSE
TYPE OF RETAIL SUCH AS PACE, WAL-MART ECT. THEY BELIEVE THAT THE
PROCESS HAS PASSED THEM BY. ALL THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN
MADE. THEY ONLY WILL DEAL WITH THE MINOR DETAILS. THEY, AS ALMOST
ALL NEIGHBORHOODS, DO NOT WANT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE.
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN- THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FOSSIL CREEK
IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR AN ARTIERIAL. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY
WERE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS BACK IN 1981 WHEN THE MASTER
PLAN WAS APPROVED. IN BOTH OF THE ABOVE I WOULD ANSWER YES.
TRAFFIC OPERATION- THEY RAISED CONCERNS THAT IF AN ARTERIAL DOES GO
IN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE PARK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
STREET, IT WOULD BE UNSAFE. SCHOOL CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAFELY
CROSS THE ROAD. WE INDICATED THAT WE WOULD MANAGE THE SAFETY QUESTION
AS WE DO NOW WITH T
THE QUESTION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS DISCUSSED.
WE INDICATED
THAT THE
SIGNAA WOULD BE EVALUATED NST SIGNAL
WARRANTS.
WE HAVE NOT
COMPLETED
TRAT`ANAYSIS YET' I KNOW PAN WOULD LIKE
TO SEE A
SIGN RIGHT
AWAY
BUT WE NEED TO SEE WHERE THE INTERSECTION
WOULD BE
IN ���ARD TO
THE
WARRANTS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BELIEVES THAT
IF A SIGNAL
CAN BE STOPPED
THEN PACE WOULD GO AWAY.
WE BROUGHT UP THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE ARTERIAL DESIGN WOULD BE A PLACE
THAT THE CITY COULD WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME UP WITH A
DESIGN THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MEETS THE FUNCTIONAL
NEEDS NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE.
End of Item 3.
Intray >
Intray >