Proposed traffic light on Ziegler Road in Fort Collins goes back to planning board

A decision to place a stoplight at Ziegler Road and Hidden Pond Drive, rather than Paddington Road, will have to be reconsidered by the Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Commission after two appeals to City Council on Tuesday night.

The appeals center on the Union Park development a few blocks north of Harmony Road. The development would include up to 640 homes plus commercial, retail and day care space.

As part of the development, a traffic light is proposed at Hidden Pond Drive. Some nearby residents instead want the light to be placed on Paddington Road to the north because it would allow them to more easily get out of their neighborhoods and onto busy Ziegler Road.

But currently there is no street connection from the proposed Union Park development to Paddington Road.

That's because in 2010, residents of English Ranch opposed having a connection from their neighborhood to Front Range Village due to the potential for increased traffic in their neighborhood. So, City Council removed the Corbett connection on the master street plan. Still, it was noted a street connection might be needed and should be addressed when the vacant land between the shopping center and neighborhood to the north was developed.

When Landmark Homes first proposed its Union Park development in 2022, it included a connection to English Ranch, but residents asked for the vehicular connection be replaced with a bike/pedestrian-only connection, which Landmark did.

With Union Park not connected to English Ranch, the traffic counts aren't high enough for a traffic light at Paddington because it's fully developed.

When Union Park developer Landmark Homes obtained an additional 3 acres for their project later that year, they submitted an amended plan that included a traffic light at Hidden Pond.

What are the arguments in the appeals?

The appeals center on whether the planning and zoning commission properly interpreted codes when it allowed the bike/pedestrian-only connection to stand after Landmark obtained 3 more acres for its project and filed an amended plan.

While speaking to council Tuesday, Woodland Park resident Craig Latzke, who appealed the decision along with Woodland Park resident Lacey Joyle and Tamara Burnside, withdrew one basis for his appeal: that a fair hearing was not conducted.

Latzke said he doesn't view the developer as an adversary and believes the overall project is a good one.

"We like the houses they build, and we like the jobs they create," Latzke said.

But he said the project fails to meet code because it doesn't have access to at least three arterial streets unless it connects to English Ranch. And it doesn't provide multiple routes to neighborhood centers, parks and schools without the use of arterial streets.

Latzke said neighbors opposed the connection before they understood the impact on the traffic light. He collected signatures of people in support of the light at Paddington: 88 signatures from 43 households. He believes the effort would have resulted in more signatures if more time would have been spent gathering them, saying the sentiment is "pretty unanimous."

The appeals allege the "alternative compliance" that the commission allowed — the bike-pedestrian access instead of street access — shouldn't have been allowed to remain because the addition of the 3 acres had impacts on traffic considerations.

They argued the plan does not follow "a rational or commonsense pattern of development," saying a signal would normally be at a collector intersection like Paddington and Grand Teton, which is the name of the street on the other side of Ziegler.

The appeals also said the plan does not follow the codes that say development should continue established block patterns and streets to improve access to services. For example, Joyle argued that a connection into English Ranch makes sense so future residents of Union Park can get to Linton Elementary without having to route back to Ziegler.

Paddington/Grand Teton Place currently intersects three neighborhoods and provides access to about 680 homes, according to information provided by Joyle. If the neighborhoods were connected, the light could serve about 1,300 homes.

"We just want to get the light right," Joyle said.

Why does the developer oppose the appeals?

Jason Sherrill with Landmark Homes said when the plan was first approved in 2022, neighbors said they did not want a connection. Also, the Master Street Plan does not show a connection to English Ranch.

When the additional 3 acres were obtained and led to the amended plan, a light at Hidden Pond became warranted, Sherrill said. Even though a light at Paddington was also deemed feasible, the problem is that Landmark doesn't control the land there.

It also doesn't own the land at the site of the proposed connection to English Ranch, Edmonds Road.

"Is a light at Paddington better? Yes," Sherrill said. "But we don't control that. Without a connection to Paddington, a light there doesn't make sense."

The delay frustrated Sherrill.

"It's these kinds of delays — we're now at a year and a half — that dramatically increase our costs to start these projects," Sherrill said. "That's painful for us because we're committed to deliver great projects that attack the missing middle (housing), that provide new opportunities and new homeownership for residents in Fort Collins."

"We're back in limbo and it does put our project at risk," Sherrill told City Council.

Sherrill said Landmark would support a light at Paddington as long as it can have a "full movement" intersection at Hidden Pond into the heart of the project. He also said Landmark is willing to make a connection to the north edge of the property so a connection can be made at Edmonds, but it can't make the connection because it doesn't own the parcel where it would connect.

What happens now?

Council voted 7-0 to remand the decision back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a rehearing. Council directed the board to consider whether the bike-pedestrian connection is compliant with the city's standards for connectivity of streets.

"I do think connections between neighborhoods is important, but I don't think we can make decisions about where the light should go. But they do need to comply with our connectivity standards," said Emily Francis, council member and mayor pro-tem.

Council member Kelly Ohlson and Mayor Jeni Arndt both expressed a desire for a proper review to take place, but with expediency.

One issue that will have to be resolved: Between the Union Park development and Paddington Road, there's a privately owned parcel, which means there's currently no public right of way to complete the connection to Paddington. So, the connection might be delayed, and in the meantime, the city will have to determine what level of access to allow for the new development, city planner Ryan Mounce told council.

Editor's note: This story has a correction. Craig Latzke is a resident of the Woodland Park subdivision.

Coloradoan reporter Pat Ferrier contributed to this report.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins development's traffic light plans go back to P&Z board