Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRAIL HEAD TRACTS F & G TOWNHOMES - PDP - PDP170035 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO CITIZENClark Mapes To: Clark Mapes Subject: FW: PDP 170035 Trail Head Tracts F&G Townhouse From: Clark Mapes Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:04 PM To: 'vendorl7@sigridco.com' <vendorl7@sigridco.com> Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com> Subject: PDP 170035 Trail Head Tracts F&G Townhouse Mr. Marang, I'm Clark Mapes, the planner bringing this project to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision on Thursday. This item is actually proposed to be on their consent agenda. That is for non-controversial projects that don't need discussion or further review at the hearing, with no known issues. The consent agenda is always revisited by the Board chair as part of ineeting preparation and so this item could be moved to their discussion agenda that way. They will receive this letter as part of their meeting prep. Also, if anyone appears at the hearing and would like to speak to the Board about the project, they will be invited to pull the item from the consent agenda for discussion. As staff working on review of this plan, we are aware that there are neighbors in the existing houses who would like to see less dwelling units than the 89 proposed. But I can offer some observations relevant to your comments on why the planning staff doesn't see any issues: - The 249 houses in Trail Head are part of the Trail Head Development that also includes these two tracts with the designation of `Future Multi Family'. So the houses happened to be built first, as is common, but this proposal is simply completing the plan as envisioned and approved. - The vehicle situation associated with these dwellings is no different than with any other dwellings; and the development plan provides parking well in excess of the required two spaces per unit with parking bays along the rear drives, and street parking. - The traffic capacity of the roadways was analyzed for full buildout of the development. As you note, Greenfields is a wider street and classified as a collector. It is designed to "collect" traffic from throughout Trailhead and future developments to the north and provide access to Vine. Wagonwheel and Campfire are narrower streets, and classified as local streets. They are intended to provide access to the adjacent land use, including Tract F and G. The buildout of Tract F and G will impact the first 300 ft or so of the three roads. That was anticipated with the Trail Head plan, and re-reviewed with the recent traffic impact study for Tract F and G. There is an increase of about 10-20 trips at the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on the three streets, which is well within their capacity. Upon full buildout, Wagonwheel and Campfire will still have less than 500 vehicles per day, which is acceptable for local streets. - The plan includes ample green spaces, and the general pattern of dwellings facing onto streets and walkway spines demonstrates the land use code requirements for neighborhood streetscapes. Keeping garages and driveways off of the streets with rear access allows front yards and the faces of the homes to give an interesting look and feel. - Additional access/egress points onto Vine Drive would not be permitted between the three streets due to street spacing requirements and various utility and drainage requirements. I hope these observations lend useful perspective on your concerns. We'll see how it goes on Thursday. Thanks again, and you are always welcome to contact us. Clark Mapes, AICP City Planner cmapes@fcqov.com 970-221-6225 From: vendorl7@sigridco.com [mailto:vendorl7@si�ridco.com] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2017 5:06 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fc�ov.com> Cc: Candy Marang <candyiean@si�ridco.com>; Kara Marang <kara.marang@�mail.com>; Jonathan Luginbill <jonathan.lu�inbill@�mail.com> Subject: PDP 170035 Trail Head Tracts F&G Townhouse Ms Tatman-Burruss, Thank you for your notice of public meeting regarding the proposed development of tracts F& G in the Trail Head development. I represent the Marang Trust, owner of the property at 3303 Wagon Trail, and will not be able to attend the scheduled December 14 meeting. I offer my comments via email in leu of attendance. The Marang Trust is opposed to the development detailed in the "Concept Plan", (sign number 369), found at: https://www.fc�ov.com/developmentreview/pdf/neiQhborhood- mt�s/trail head townhomes site plan.pdf?1502481045 1. The proposed development appears to be 'low density' in name only. A reasonable person viewing the "Concept Plan", packing 89 town home apartments into tracts F& G, would not conclude this is low density. Looking at the attached Figl.png image, you will note that proposed building group C1 is very nearly the size of Lot 8 across the street, evincing a four to one dwelling ratio. 2. Potential excessive vehicle density. Each town home apartment is said to have a two car garage. Each resident of driving age is likely to have a vehicle. Not all of these potential vehicles will be of such size as to be able to be garaged and therefore parked on the street. 3. Potential excessive traffic on ancillary roads. The current "Concept Plan" indicates egress/ingress to tract F& G is to be from an extended Green Lake Drive. As currently proposed, Green Lake Drive would connect to Wagon Trail Road, Greenfields Drive, and Campfire Drive. Wagon Trail and Campfire are narrow streets and will not adequately accommodate the additional vehicle traffic especially during peak times. The Marang Trust recommends the following revisions to the "Concept Plan" for development of tracts F& G: 1. Reduce the dwelling density by a third to half. This will allow for additional parking, more green space and generally a better quality of life for the town home apartment residents and well as the existing Trail Head residents. 2. Configure engress/ingress to tracts F& G such that town home apartment residents have direct access to East Vine Drive as well as Greenfields Drive. Wagon Trail and Campfire are too narrow to safely accommodate the additional traffic. Tract F& G 5hould not connect with either Wagon Trail or Campfire. Greenfield Drive is substantially wider and can easily accommodate additional traffic. The Marang Trust is opposed to the development of tracts F& G as detailed in the "Concept Plan". Sincerely, Eric J. Marang Trustee Marang Trust