Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 34-88B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (2)III 111,111111110,111,11, Ma- ITEM NO. 16 MEETING DATE 1 12 219 6_ STAFF_Boh Blanchard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members FROM: Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director DATE: January 16, 1996 SUBJECT: Motion to rescind the Board's January 8, 1996 action regarding the Interstate Lands PUD - Preliminary, # 34-88B and reschedule a new hearing on February 26, 1996 At the January 8, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, a motion to approve the Interstate Lands Preliminary PUD, # 34-88B failed to pass with a 3 - 3 vote of the members present. Due to inaccurate information presented in the staff report, it is recommended that the Board consider rescinding the previous action and reschedule a new hearing to be held at the regularly scheduled Board meeting of February 26, 1996. As you recall, the staff report indicated that an Overall Development Plan (ODP) had been approved by the Board for an area including the subject property but never recorded. This information was presented as background indicating previous actions on the subject property. It had been the Planning staffs interpretation that the lack of recording resulted in a nonbinding ODP since the Land Development Guidance System, in Section 29-526F(3)(a), requires an approved ODP to be recorded in the Office of the County Clerk and filed with the City Clerk. Later review of this issue by the City Attorney's Office resulted in their opinion that the lack of recording did not affect the validity of an ODP. Based on this, staff determined that the preliminary PUD application was consistent with ODP. Upon further review of the ODP file and discussion with the applicant after the P&Z meeting, it was determined that the ODP had never been acted on by the Board. While it had been submitted for review, it was never taken to the Board for a vote. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT F_I L It is recommended that the Board consider rescinding your action on this item based on the presence of inaccurate information in the record. If the information regarding the ODP influenced the vote in any way, it is likely that a meritorious appeal could be filed based on Section 2-48(2)c of the Code which states: ".....the permissible grounds for appeal shall abe limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one (1) or more of the following errors: (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: c. The board or commissio considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading,....." it is also recommended that the Board direct staff to place the Interstate Lands PUD - Preliminary, #34-88B on the February 26, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda for rehearing. City of Fort Collins CommIlty Planning and Environmenta&rvices Current Planning MEMORANDUM To: Gary Carnes, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Steve Olt, Project Planner Ref: Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary - #33-84B Date: January 8, 1996 Staff is recommending a condition of approval on the Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary that now states: The layout of the development is subject to change with the final PUD due to the need for a continuous right -turn lane along the west/south side of I-25 Frontage Road (adjacent to Lots 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13), possible deletion of the access point straddling the lot line between Lots 9 and 10 due to a potential left turn conflict with the access into Lot 7, and a determination by the Colorado Department of Transportation about whether the cross-section of the frontage road should be designed and constructed to urban or rural street standards, potentially requiring additional street right-of-way. The sentence highlighted in bold type above represents a change to the original recommended condition in the Staff Report dated December 18, 1995. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002 VICINITY MAP 08/25/95 34-80B INTERSTATE LAND PUD Preliminary 1"= 2000' VICINITY MAP 08/25/95 34-BOB INTERSTATE LAND PUD Preliminary 1"= 300' M CD m MEMORANDUM O o W :z � TO; Eldon Ward, Cityscape O o Stan Whitaker, G. T. Land Colorado Steve Olt, Fort Collins Project Planner • M Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer 0 z � FROM: Matt Delich da:) DATE: January 19, 1996 z SUBJECT: Interstate Land PUD traffic study addendum > (File: 9536MEM1) Q z zThis memorandum is prepared to respond to specific questions raised at the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board m Meeting on January 8, 1996. I will address: M M 1. Statements regarding the Timberline Road Extension; 2. Offsite street improvements. Timberline Road Extension In the public comment portion of the P & Z Board Meeting, a person said that the traffic study for Interstate Land PUD stated that the Timberline Road Extension was needed for this development. This is not true. Acceptable operation can be achieved at all of the key intersections, regardless of whether the Timberline Road Extension is completed. This development is not dependent upon the completion of the Timberline Road Extension. c� z Q w z Offsite Street Improvements w Cz z u' There are a number of offsite street improvements that 0- > are recommended in the traffic study. There are recommended improvements for the short range future (Phases I and II of Interstate Land PUD) and the long range future (full vdevelopment of Interstate Land PUD). � W a o In the short range future, signals will be warranted at c n the Prospect/Northbound Ramps intersection, the Prospect/ . a Frontage Road intersection, and the Prospect/Summit View intersection. A signal warrant study conducted by the City • indicated that the Prospect/Summit View signal is warranted U- now. Figure 1 shows the short range geometry. Specifically, = a auxiliary lanes are recommended on Prospect Road at the f- cc Southbound Ramps, the Frontage Road, and Summit View Drive. H The auxiliary lanes at the Prospect/Summit View intersection Q rE are required with the existing traffic volumes. In the long range future, signals will be warranted at the Prospect/Southbound Ramps intersection. Figure 2 shows the long range geometry. It is expected that Prospect Road will have an arterial cross section in the long range future. 4- N O --------- - Denotes Lane r i i © D �• �w i A. w i PROSPECT SHORT RANGE GEOMETRY w N f to Ill z / 4f.f -Iv Figure 1 4- N - Denotes Lane o=oTc Q © o•� T LONG RANGE GEOMETRY Figure 2 • 0 City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board Regarding: Interstate Land PUD On January 12, the Planning and Zoning Board made the decision to deny the preliminary PUD for the above -referenced project. I presented my concerns for the project at that meeting and was gratified that the Board carefully considered these concerns in their evaluation of the PUD. I left the meeting with a renewed confidence in both the public involvement process and in the wisdom of the Board. You have now been asked to rescind your decision or risk having the preliminary PUD appealed to the City Council. I suggest that you do not rescind. Your denial of the PUD was soundly -based; the impacts of the project have not been adequately addressed. Your decision to deny approval was in consideration of these impacts and from my perspective in the audience, had nothing to do with the confusion regarding recording of the legal status of the ODP. Let me summarize the concerns that I presented in the January 12 meeting: Impacts to groundwater have not been addressed. The Cumulative impacts of the entire ODP have not been addressed. If you approve the preliminary PUD without considering these impacts, then the future mitigation of those impacts may not be possible. Traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed for east Prospect and adjoining roadways. Traffic volume on east Prospect is currently at levels that make it unsafe and access off of Summitview is very difficult during peak hours. I have carefully examined the traffic study for the project and found that the PUD will increase traffic volume from 104% (west bound PM) to 120% (east bound AM) during peal: hours. That is over double the current traffic volume! The mitigation recommended in the PUD falls miserably short of addressing this kind of an increase. Even Eric Bracke, City, traffic engineer, told me in a January 11 phone call that he had considerable concern for traffic volume on east Prospect as a result of the project. Additionally, I have observed two problems with the traffic study. — in my opinion a substantial amount of the volume on east Prospect is CSU related. In the five years that I have traveled east Prospect, I have observed that when college is out of session, traffic volume decreases. Data for the traffic study was collected on May the 8th. However, classes ended at CSU on May the 5th. How could this study have accurately reflected traffic volume when data was collected three days after CSU's spring session had ended? I submit that it doesn't and therefore presents the baseline condition too favorably. — The traffic increase until the year 2000 was estimated at 2.5% per year, which according to the transportation department is consistent with the increase seen City-wide. As far as east Prospect is concerned, this assumption is very wrong. Using the baseline data presented in the traffic study, a 2.5% increase per year would be about 15 cars per hour each direction during peak flow. This simply can not be true. Twelve cars per hour represents • E an increase per year of one extra car every 4 minutes, each way. I have observed an increase the last five years that seems to greatly exceeds this number. I submit that the traffic study underestimates future volume on east Prospect, which means that the future impact of site generated traffic is presented too favorably. I have no objection to the PUD, or the ODP, provided all significant impacts are understood and adequately mitigated by the applicant. There is substantial reason to believe that this is not the case for the preliminary PUD as presented. If the PUD is approved as presented, then the applicant will not bear the cost of impact identification and mitigation. This will force city and county citizens to do so after the PUD is built -out, and that would be irresponsible. If the desired economic benefits of the PUD do not exceed its true costs (which must include all mitigation expenses), then the applicant should not proceed. You have already made a good decision. I thank you for seeing straight to the heart of the matter. Please stand firm and if the applicant desires, let your decision be appealed to the City Council. I hope that they too will see the rationale for your decision and vote as you have. ctfiilly Yours, (:Z v (). Q.c'� n- David W. Main 1025 Greenfield