Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILVER OAKS - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 14-88E - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGCity of Fort Collins CommuW Planning and Environmental &vices Planning Department SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Silver Oaks O.D.P. and Phase One Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: August 18, 1992 APPLICANT: Rick Armitstead, Tri-Trend Homes OWNER: Ken Scavo REPRESENTATIVES: Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. Where will the kids from this project go to school? RESPONSE: According to Dave Benson, Principal of Olander School, the kids from Silver Oaks will attend Olander on a walk-in basis. It is estimated that the 149 single family homes in Silver Oaks will generate approximately 75 elementary school children based on the ratio of .5 student per home. Admittedly, this will put the school slightly over (600) the planned capacity (568) and may require a temporary modular structure. Modular classrooms are utilized to accommodate short term spikes in enrollments at any particular location. They are a flexible, cost-effective approach and there is plenty of room on the ten acre school site to locate a temporary facility. Keep in mind that there presently are kids who are attending Olander who live out of the boundary area but are "grandfathered" in and allowed to attend through sixth grade. These kids will be matriculated by 1995 which will free up capacity. It is not anticipated that Olander will have to go to a four track system like Bauder. Also, no boundary changes are expected as a result of Silver Oaks. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 0 • 2. Primrose and Moffat are two minor streets serving County subdivisions north of Silver Oaks. Presently, we are delayed turning left to go north on Taft Hill. Silver Oaks will just add more traffic and make things worse, especially in the afternoon. Traffic gets all jammed up at the Drake and Taft Hill intersection and backs up at least one-half mile. Why should the City keep approving development if things just get worse? RESPONSE: The immediate problem is that the Drake/Taft Hill intersection does not have the standard amount of turn lanes usually found at the intersection of two arterial streets. Traffic Engineers call this a problem with the "geometrics" of the intersection. If northbound Taft Hill had a separate left turn lane, a separate right turn lane, and two through lanes, then traffic would not back up like it does. In the short range, there is no immediate solution. Silver Oaks, by itself, does not cause the problem and should not bear the burden of improving the intersection. If Auntie Stone street were extended north to Moffat, then there would be an alternate egress for the County subdivisions. The improvements will come in the long term when the intersection of Drake/Taft Hill adds turn lanes. 3. Why doesn't the intersection get improved with Silver Oaks? RESPONSE: Silver Oaks is not the sole source of the problem with the intersection. The project is about .75 mile from the intersection. Much of the traffic generated by Silver Oaks will go east on Horsetooth or south on Taft Hill and may not impact the Drake/Taft Hill intersection. 4. When will the intersection get improved? RESPONSE: This is difficult to predict. The intersection is not part of the current Choices 195 capital improvement plan funded by sales tax revenue. It may make the next round of capital improvements but there is no current project being planned or designed. There are issues at this intersection with steep slopes, Spring Creek, and existing single family homes. 5. Where will Auntie Stone Street go and when would it be extended? RESPONSE: It is likely that it would go to Moffat, or possibly curve over to Moore. Its alignment is not predetermined but would depend on any development or redevelopment in the affected area. The extension would not precede any such development. 6. My name is Jim Gabel and any extension would have to go across my property and I have no plans to redevelop. RESPONSE: There are no plans to extend Auntie Stone Street without the need to serve some level of redevelopment. 0 7. There is too much traffic on Auntie Stone Street as it stands now. The proposed development will only increase this traffic. Directing traffic onto Auntie Stone Street is not wise since it is right in front of a school. RESPONSE: Auntie Stone Street is classified as a collector street. It is designed to be wider than a local street and it collects traffic from the single family area and directs it to the arterial system. The traffic volume on Auntie Stone Street is very low for a collector (2,600 trips per 24-hour period). Many schools in Fort Collins are located on streets with far more traffic volume. 8. There needs to more traffic safety devices at the school crossing at Horsetooth and Auntie Stone Street. With Silver Oaks, there will be more traffic and increased risk for kids walking to school. RESPONSE: The City of Fort Collins Transportation Department, along with Larimer County and Poudre R-1 have looked at the pedestrian safety issue in this area for each of the three years the school has been open. As it is now, there is not the traffic volume to warrant the blinking yellow caution signal at the Horsetooth crossing to Auntie Stone Street. The volumes are not at the point of justifying the expenditure. The striped crosswalk with standard signage is sufficient. The City is continuing to work with the Mr. Dave Benson, Principal of Olander and with the Olander P.T.A. on this pedestrian safety issue. Meetings will continue this Fall. As conditions change, and with development of Silver Oaks, the situation will be re-evaluated. Please feel free to participate in this ongoing process. 9. Don't forget that Overland Trail will eventually go south and intersect with Horsetooth. This will certainly raise traffic volumes on Horsetooth. RESPONSE: Correct. When Overland Trail adds volume on Horsetooth, then the situation may justify more traffic control devices to ensure pedestrian safety. 10. What 'are the criteria for justifying the yellow blinking caution lights? RESPONSE: The criteria are a function of pedestrian volume, traffic volume, "geometrics", etc. For example, a crossing guard is warranted when the intersection exceeds 350 vehicles per hour. 11. What are the lot sizes? RESPONSE: In the northwest corner, adjacent to the County subdivisions, the lots will be approximately 8,000 square feet. Moving east, lot sizes will taper down to around 7,000 square feet. Most lots will then be around 6,000 to 6,500 square feet. The patio home lots will be around 3,500 square feet. • • 12. The project should have lower density. The County subdivision to the north has larger lots. Silver Oaks should be compatible. RESPONSE: It is difficult, under the Land Development Guidance System, to create a single family subdivision that is less than three dwelling units per acre. A variance would have to be requested based on certain criteria. Basically, however, single family homes next to single family homes is not that great a conflict. Compatibility does not necessarily mean that projects have to be similar. There will be 8,000 square foot lots in the northwest area which are the larger lots in the project. 13. We don't want multi -family next to the school. The multi- family should be eliminated. RESPONSE: The O.D.P. needs to retain a multi -family component to meet City policies regarding mixed housing opportunities in all areas of the City. It would be in violation of City policies to take all remaining land in Silver Oaks and plat single family homes. If single family homes were located on this Tract, then the lots would be double frontage lots since driveway cuts are not allowed onto an arterial street. There may be a possibility that the multi -family component could be moved closer to the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping tract and that this tract be designated for child care/church site. However, multi -family housing cannot be deleted from the O.D.P. 14. The multi -family area on Tract G should be a greenbelt or dedicated to the school. RESPONSE: A greenbelt would require maintenance by an association. A homeowners association is not anticipated for Silver Oaks. The school already owns 10 acres and placing a playground along an arterial street may not be desirable. Regardless of who owns Tract G, the owner would be obligated to construct the sidewalk, curb, and gutter required for the arterial street standard. Plus, there is a tax obligation on the Tract. For these reasons, the Tract will not become a greenbelt. 15. We are concerned about construction traffic on Auntie Stone Street during the school year. Could the developer try to keep construction traffic off Auntie Stone Street? RESPONSE: Yes, Tri-Trend will look at restricting construction traffic to Bronson or other local streets during the school year. We will work with the P.T.A. and the City's Transportation Department to make sure there is pedestrian safety for school kids during construction. 16. Will there be a traffic signal at Taft Hill Road and Bronson? RESPONSE: No, it is too close to the intersection with Horsetooth Road and the traffic volume on Bronson (local street) does not warrant a signal. E • 17. Why is the daycare at the intersection of two arterials? RESPONSE: Our market research indicates that this location would allow parents to have easy access as part of the trip to work in the morning or the trip home in the afternoon. This easy access is preferred over a site more internal to the site. 18. There is presently a daycare next to Bauder School that is very popular because it allows families to make one trip for the pre-school child and the school -aged child. RESPONSE: This is a good comment and will be considered. 19. We think there should be a buffer or greenbelt along the north property line. There should be some fencing or trees or something to provide a transition for our rural residential lifestyle. RESPONSE: The developer will look at these ideas during the review of the single family P.U.D. PROJECT: S/1-116R Of}KS TYPE OF MEETING:• NJJo DATE: NAME ADDRESS DID You HEcEIVE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION o• ARC Yov AN You YES/NO ? OWNER RENT I / r N. A- 2/S/�i'L CCI��S/di►e L/ /��ur�rNr+c /x / x1' 3 N1 -rt J7cc. i cis `1',egr-Fi e G ,e Co.�svLx IV A 4Vf104,c-- e L- warn powrt e, r I i es S jl)B �,e.e t r r y 1m Qod Mar e r+ Q LAcLd Robes y CS (ivy RV(,). 02Q24 i /"[ r 6 6 Q- eS y c c( 39zz m m! pq i are / /. t 0 / .It•. J. f.�� I • . '_ s � fig = I 9 SAff r � IF, s yes 0A A-)D _lel-e �0 ,lo lye S 1 b ,� e s y� s �� NO y� mo rp� ,/Pg yes N1A CIA y-� s c�e.a� r1 c7 ~es h pa, y� ,tea ci 16 oAKs o. D.P. t / sr TYPE OF MEETING: tE16IU306 Noao -Tn! Po,� DATE: ffU6Vs -r l S . 1 cl ` C� - NAME 341 �a�o 11 A) ADDRESS DID Yov REGEIVf W R I T T E N NOTIFICATION YES/NO ? qpr Youq'r OWNER oe You RENT �05/lDar2 �rl. as [ 2S yes