Laserfiche WebLink
Walsh replied that it is thirty-six feet, flow line to flow line, and has a sixty-foot right-of- <br />way. <br /> <br />Mayer expressed concern that patrons would use the street for overflow parking. He <br />recommended that Arthur Avenue be signed as a 'no parking' zone. He stated that the <br />ten-foot landscaping easement would prevent the adjoining property owner from using <br />the area for setbacks, etc. He asked for clarification that adjoining property owner has <br />agreed to and is aware of the potential impacts to their property. <br /> <br />Wood replied that it was his understanding from his staff that the City has received a <br />letter from the property owner. <br /> <br />Mark Stutzman, RNL Design, replied that they have an agreement with George Tepakis, <br />the owner of the adjacent property, to create a ten-foot landscape easement on his <br />property. <br /> <br />Mayer asked whether the agreement has been recorded. <br /> <br />Stutzman replied that the agreement would be recorded, concurrent with the recording of <br />the PUD. <br /> <br />Mayer stressed the importance of recording the agreement in order to prevent any future <br />misunderstandings. He stated that the project is a significant improvement over the initial <br />proposal. He questioned how Highway 42 could be considered a limited access highway. <br /> <br />Wood replied that they are referring to the connection of 96th Street and Highway 42. He <br />explained that staff is not making any determinations, as Council would be determining <br />whether it is a limited access highway and whether the project has been officially <br />proposed at this time. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that no matter how Highway 42 is realigned, it would contain at-grade <br />intersections and no interchanges. He explained that the Northwest Parkway Agreement, <br />which is binding, identifies the connection at 96th Street to the Northwest Parkway as an <br />at-grade intersection. He was unsure how Highway 42 could be considered a limited <br />access highway. <br /> <br />Wood replied that staff is attempting to frame the issue as best they can under the existing <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayer asked for clarification that a limited access highway is usually one without an at- <br />grade intersection. <br /> <br />Light replied that that is not the statutory definition, but it depends on how the Colorado <br />Department of Transportation classifies highways. He stated that HB 1041 says that an <br />arterial highway is a limited access highway, but there is no corresponding definition in <br />the statutes. He explained that there is a definition of a controlled access highway, which <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />