Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-09-26CELESTICA . April I, 2001 Mr. Cam McNair - City Engineer Mr Dave Stringer - Development Review Supervisor City of Port Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Dear Sirs Fed Shepard has directed us to contact you regarding the extension of the deadline for improvements required by the Amendment Agreement N'o- L dated May 17, 1999, to Celesticis Development Agreement dated I clquary 5, 1998. '1'Itat a,eement states "Aa Harmony Road improvements, including the Technology Park ,,.uv conneciion. shall he completed and accepted by the City and the Colorado Department of Tr:n ,pollation prior to Match C:. 10');- or prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupanci for any building addition sj that map occur after the irntial Fhasc, whichever shall occair first" As you know, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) has postponed their building construction planned for 1 (annonv l'cchnok; ry Park (H'fP? At the time this dceelopment agreement was executed we anticipated that I IP's mlta truc'ure impN<wements would he completed by the deadline and our prescribed work would be complctetl in cooperation with HP's n o_tect improvements Currently we do not require these improvements for our operations. In recognition of this situation we respectfully request an extension of the deadline for these improvements for one year. with the expectation that we would review the situation (including HP's plans for I ITP and planned execution of this work) a yeti fiom :his date to determine if an additional extension is needed by C'elestica. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and seek your understanding of our situation. Sincerely, Trudy Trimbath Facilities Manager- Celestica Corporation 4701'fechnology Parkway Fort Collins- Colorado 80528 970-207-5245 CC: 'fed Shepard - Chief Planner Michael Bello - Hewlett-Packard Company RameslSll 68 Access Control Plan Amendment December 10, 1997 Page 3 In summary, the Passer 11 W analysis included the following intersections: HP East/Cambridge, the proposed I IP West sip'1a1. County Road 9, Conccn, and Timberline. The purpose of the study was to analyze future signal op� noiuus on Harmony Road both with and without the proposed HP West signal. 'I'his analysis %Na, per formed previoushunder an assumed speed limit of 55 mph. However, based up( n criteria set lbrth in the .Access Code, this analysis was re-ev aluated at 45 mph. It should be noted that although it is understood that the .Access Code requires an analysis at 45 mph, it might he necessary to also e-� aluate Il:amony Road at 50 mph. Rased upon knowledge of local conditions, it is anticipated that the ,ic1_11,11 speeds in the future on Harmony Road, with proposed developments, w ill most likely be closer to `0 mph (similar to College Avenue, south of Harmony Road),. The signal analysis ,cas also performed with the goal of achieving an average bandwidth of 40 percent. ]his is represented by the "Efficiency" output of 0.40 or gcater. This approach allows for the predominant traffic flow to receive a higherhaud'.vidth, by decreasing the bandwidth of traffic in the opposite direction if necessary. The Passer 1I-90 anal,>is was initially performed with minimum green times of 10 seconds, and with a cycle length of 100 to 120 seconds. The results of this analysis are shown in Table I (attached) under the "Original Run" column. The results indicate the following: • The AM peal: hour anal} sis with 4 signals would result in an efficiency of 0.38, and with 5 signals 0.37. 1lie intersection delays under either scenario would be similar. • The PM peak hour analysis with 4 signals would result in an efficiency of 0.41 which satisfies CDOT goals. The 5 signal scenario resulted in an efficiency of 0.35. The average ntersection relans i:ndcr the 5 signal sccnario \�ere slightly low-cr than the 4 signal scenario. The minimum signal timing for the AM and PM peak hour under both the 4 and 5 signal scenarios wrre modified to achieve a 0.40 efficiency. The results of this analysis are also shown in Table 1, under the "Modified" column. The results indicate the following: For the AM peak hour, an efficiency of 0.40 can be achieved tinder both the 4 and 5 signal scenario. Hew ever, under the 5 signal scenario the average intersection delay is substantially higher than with the 4 signals (80.9 versus 2_9.9 seconds vehicle respectively). This is due to an increased green time for Harmony Road at County Road 9. This intersection represented the constraining point in the 5 signal scenario. • For the PM peak hour, the minimurn signal timing tinder the 5 signal scenario was modified to determine if an efficiency of 0.40 could be achieved. As indicated, this could be accomplished with similar intersection delays with the exception of 1IP West/Cambridge signal which would experience longer delays under the 5 signal scenario. Rames:-Sll 69 Access Control Plan Amendment December 10, 1997 Page 4 'file results of the Passer 11-90 analysis indicate that the 4 signal and 5 signal scenarios are annparahle %N ith slight differences in efficiencies and average vehicle delays tinder the original run; where the Passel 11-90 program attempts to achieve good progression and minimize overall vehicle delays. if a 40 perc cat a% erage bandwidth is forced onto the system, the 4 and 5 signal scenarios perform sinril:uly with the exception of Hai n m ( R 9 during the AM peak hour and HarmonyAlp Past during the PM peak hour. It should be noted drat the S.HA.C. requires that pedestrian clearance time for the cross street be included in the analysis. The new analysis did not include the time required for a pedestrian to cross Harmon, Road. Oil most state high%Nays and on urban arterials, pedestrian recall is only provided ill doxcntown or otherhigh pedestrian areas_ When the pedestrians push the ped button, enough time is allocated on the cycle to give sufficient time to cross the street. To constrain a progression patlem hascd on pedestrian clearance internals in an at ca of low pedestrian volumes is not a reasonable approach. whst is important to realize is that following the activation of the ped clearance, progression retuors n':ithill several cycles. The temporary loss of mobility due to pedestrian cIcarlurce is a fail trade ell for the saicty of the crossing. In the fifth paragraph of page four, concern is expressed regarding the median design of the "back to back' left turn lanes on H:rrnlony Road hctween HP -west and CR9. Based on the S.H.A.C. requiremeuts the storage and taper widths were calculated correctly for a 55 mph facility. in reviewing the site plan, we have found that the two left turn lanes can work effectively in the 1270 Ibot median N ithout n+idening the median. hwthennore, with signzlization at 1!4 mile spacing, it is likely that CDOT gill reduce the spccd limit in the future from the current 55 mph to 45 mph. The standards required by code for a 45 mph :r:e well within the proposed design. The second paragraph of page 5ve discusses diminished performance along Harmony Road and needlessly increasing the accident rote. obviously, the addition of a traffic signal will slightly decrease the performance of the overall roadway and provide a conflict point for accidents. However, the performance ofthe roadway with the addition ofa signal is well within the City of Fort Collins standards. What w':+s not mentioned in the memorandum is the realization that the intersection of CR 9 and Harmony Road has the potential to become extremely congested in the long term due to munerons large developments in the area, which will also increase the accident rate of the facility. 'fire provision of a signal at Technology Parknnay and Cambridge Drive will relieve congestion at CR 9 and keep the accident rate within acceptable standards. Rarnc ,'Sll 68 Access Control Plan Amendment December 10, 1997 Page 5 We appreciate the opportunit} you have given the City of Fort Collins to comment on the November 21 n;cmorandum. The Cele,�tica project is of great economic importance to the City of Fort Collins and your prompt attention to our concerns is welcomed. Sincerely, Rondall V. Phillips Transportation Services Director xc: J. Fischbach, City Manager E. Bracke, Traffic Engineer D, Stringer, 1)c%clopmcnt Review Manager G. Diede, TOP's Group Leader F. Bruno, Assistant City Manager K. Reads, Transportation Planner South Fort Collins Sanitation District July 6- 1998 Mr. Dave Stringer Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.o_ Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80525 RE: I-lannom Tcchnolog� Park Flarmonc Road Improvements Dear Mr. Stringer. The Fort Collins - l.mcland Water District has re=✓icv�cd th�� above mentioned project and submits the follow ing comments. The District is currenth corking mth Mr. D: a Kelm on the above mentioned project. Most of the Districts vcater facilities alone the south A-, cf llarmcnv Road have been abandoned in the project area I rwuld suggest that Sca, Bro,cn call for locates and identif% the facilities on the draN%ings- The draN%ings submitted -c too (onocstcd to actualk locate existing District facilities. The Districts facilities s'rould be poinoled and '.ctif'lcd kith respect to size and the horizontal and vertical locations. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104.: r 14. if y,on have an} questions or require additional information. Rcspectfill\, Mr. Tcrry )ki Farrill Svstcros,E � inccr xc. Mr. Michael D_ DiTullio. District Manager t`. �. tAY .`9t ile y CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Stringer, Chief Construction Inspector FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney DATE: February 6, 1998 RE: Development Agreements This afternoon when Tom Peterson appeared at my office to obtain my approval of the Celestica Development Agreement, Steve Roy asked me if the Development Agreement violated Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code regarding the provision of adequate public facilities. Section 3.7.3 requires that certain improvements be in place and available to serve the new development prior to the issuance of a building permit unless funding has deposited with the City in the form of cash, non - expiring letter of credit, or escrow. Steve indicated that he had raised this question with Ron Phillips at a meeting earlier this week and that Ron had indicated that he believed the Code allowed for the Harmony Road delayed improvement provisions contained in the Development Agreement. However, when Steve and I looked at the Code today it appeared that the Code may have been violated with regard to the Celestica Agreement. Steve has asked Ron to contact him to discuss the specific details of the Celestica matter with him to see if Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code, has or has not been violated by the Celestica Agreement. Steve has asked me to, in the future, check the language of the development agreements that you Present to me not only for legal form but also for compliance with the Land Use Code. I anticipate that this type of compliance check will result in somewhat lengthened turnaround time and I am hopeful that you and your staff will be able to assist me in shorting that time by identifying for me issues that you believe are peculiar enough from our standard language to warrant further investigation as to Code compliance. Also, I would appreciate it if you would identify for me provisions that you think might be in violation of the Land Use Code, or might simply be worthy of further investigation. I am hopeful that if you, and your staff, and I take the time to watch for Code discrepancies more diligently, we will be able to more safely report that our development agreements do not violate our Code. While I recognize that this may mean that you will have to go back to other departments (i.e., Stormwater, Natural Resources, Water and Wastewater, etc.) I think that in the end it will be worth the extra effort, and the extra time. WPE:med Transpor' 'ion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins August 5, 1998 RE: Harmony Road Design The intent of this letter is to address the possible improvements to Harmony and Timberline Roads, and the intersection of these streets, related to the timing of processing development proposals impacting these roads. At a meeting on July 14, 1998, among the City Engineering Department and consultants associated with the proposed development sites along Harmony road, ;t v.-az, .'eteimined than the City would take the Iead on determining the location of centerline alcng ham -way Road. Since that meeting, City staff has been attempting to gather the information from various consultants. Our statfis still in the process of piecing this information together to determine the datum line. However, due to various constraints, it has been dill cult to collect the data and the cenic::ine has not been precisely defined at present.' Because the review of development proposals includes the determination of the associated roadway improvements, the point must be clear that all proposals in the process at this time, or anticipating submittal; are proceeding with some: risk- The determination of the centerline of Harmony Road could impact the ultimate location of buildings, setbacks, and landscaping. Development proposals already in the process will continue to be reviewed, but, again once the datum line is determined, additional comments affecting the site layout may be forthcoming. Please feel free to contact me if you have -any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Best regards, We---V I u V- Cam McNair City Engineer '41 \,,rth k �II, y nue • I':) 9,)\ 7F0 • Fort CnIIin,, CO 8052-2-O g0 • (9 0) 221 DEC- 9-97 TUE 9:01 P. 02 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1420 end Stmat O� Gmefiq, Coluradv 6o631 � (970)35$-1232 o� December 4, 1997 Mr. Ron Phillips City of Fort Collins P.0_ Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 bear Ron.: RE. Revising SH 68 Access Control Plan for Celestica Corporation, at HP -West Tn response to your request to consider amending the Harmony Road Access Control Plan interagency agreement, the Region office requested a review by our Staff Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch. Their November 21, 1997, report is attached. The conclusions of the report are that the proposed traffic signal does not meet current state standards, will unnecessarily impact Harmony Road, will not_ provide the desired level of pedestrian crossing safety, and that reasonable alternatives- exist that lessen the need for the proposed traffic signal. It states that a phased highway improvemant plan would be more reasonable and a commitment to a traffic signal at this early state is premature. Please review the attached memo and respond to each of the issues raised. COOT will not take any further action on this request until after we have received and reviewed your response. Tn the event COOT still does not agree with your proposal, you will be invited to make a personal appearance to add further justification. Please contact me when you are ready to discuss this further. Very truly yours, D��� es Regional Transportation Director CC: Siebels Reay/Demosthenes Jones MEMORANDUM DATE: July 18, 1997 TO: John Fischbach, City Manager FROM: Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation Services RE: Harmony Technology Park The Transportation development review team has provided the following brief on the status of the Transportation Services review of the Harmony Technology Park (HTP) project: Traffic Operations, Engineering, and Transportation Planning are continuing to review the submitted Transportation Impact Study, with collective comments due back to Current Planning on Wednesday, July 23. Based upon preliminary evaluation of the project with the City s recently adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards for pedestrians, Transportation and Current Planning staff are concerned about provisions for direct pedestrian access between the Harmony Technology Park site and Hewlett-Packard (HP). Comments from HP staff indicate there will be frequent employee trips between the two sites for meetings, project coordination, training, etc. thus creating a significant need to provide safe and direct pedestrian walkways and street crossings. Based upon Harmony Road being a major arterial with high traffic volumes and travel speeds, staffs initial recommendation was for the HTP project to build a pedestrian overpass across Harmony Road in the vicinity of HP's west entrance, connecting the two properties. The overpass cannot be required, but is suggested to improve safety for pedestrians and minimize vehicular delay on Harmony Road. This recommendation has been met with opposition from Tom Peterson as a representative of the HTP project, and perhaps he may have misunderstood that this is only a recommendation, not a requirement. Another option being discussed is to enhance the proposed signalized intersection of Harmony Road and Technology Parkway to provide a safer pedestrian at -grade street crossing. Transportation staff is continuing to work with Matt Delich, HTP's Traffic Consultant, to determine how a pedestrian crossing at this point could be accommodated. At this point, staff and the HTP consultant team are still evaluating alternatives to meet the pedestrian LOS standards. It is important to note that Transportation staff has already allowed the HTP project to deduct 30% from the estimated vehicle trip generation rate for the overall project due to HTP's proposed plan to design each phase to incorporate features and business practices similar to those of Hewlett Packard to promote the use of alternative modes. Given that the City has already allowed HTP to factor in this aggressive trip reduction rate, staff is concerned that if direct pedestrian connections are not provided between HTP and HP, then employees will be more inclined to drive between the sites for meetings, as well as toffrom work since they will need their cars for mid -day trips, thus leading to an increase in vehicle trips. That situation would invalidate the 30% reduction in trip generation rate. Transportation staff has also requested that the HTP project look into expanding Transfort's Southside Shuttle into their site and we will continue to work the HTP consultant team to determine the feasibility of this service. In addition, Engineering staff is working with HTP's consultant team and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to help facilitate the project's request for an access permit for the proposed signalized intersection at Harmony Road and Technology Parkway. This process can be lengthy and cumbersome, so staff is working to help expedite this requirement. If a signalized intersection can be constructed at this point, it may significantly improve the vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the site. Transportation staff has requested more detailed information from the HTP consultant team to further evaluate the overall transportation impacts. Our complete list of recommendations will be prepared by July 23. CC: Darin Atteberry, Assistant City Manager Frank Bruno, Assistant City Manager Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations Mike Herzig, Engineering Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning Dave Stringer, Engineering STATE OF COLOKADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 4 9 1420 2nd street Latimer Co.. SH 68 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Harmon Technology Park.(Celestica) (970) 351 12 Q January 22, 1998 Rondall V. Phillips Transportation Services Director City of Ft. Collins P.O_ Box 580 Ft. Collins. CO 80522-0580 Dear Ron: Between LCR 9 and Cambridge, S. Side, MP 3 tee/ Ft. Collins %'Il The Department supports the City of Ft. Collins' request for a new public street at Harmony Technology Park. We made that decision in our meeting with City StafTon January 16, 1998. This letter documents the City's commitments along State Highway 68 (Harmony Corridor) and provides direction for your pursuit of that new access. The attached sheet identifies the City's commitments to the Department in conjunction with the proposed access. Although State Highway 68 is not a part of the National Highway System, we still strive to maintain sate and acceptable operations for traffic traveling from 1-25 to the Ft. Collins area. We discussed the steps which are required to gain approval of the full -movement intersection and possible future signal. Those steps are: Amendment to the Harmony Road Access Control Plan interagency agreement -'rhe current allrecment does not allow a full -movement Intersection or traffic signal at this location. The plan must be amended. Changes in the deeded access control line - The Department currently owns the access rights along the frontage of the property, except at designated locations. The 24' opening at Station 17s - 00 is currently used as a farm access and should be closed. The proposal to add a new, street will require a new opening be established near the center of the property frontage. As part of the right-of-way deed change process, a categorical exclusion determination will be required by federal regulation 23 CFR 620.203. Changing the access deeds will follow- a property disposal procedure including standard appraisal and new deeds. In addition, 23 CFR 620.203 (relinquishing) requires the State to determine that the right-of-way being retained is adequate under present-day standards, and that the release will not adversely affect the federal -aid highway facility or the traffic thereon. Rondall V. Phillips Page 2 January 22, 1998 Authorization for public opening onto a freeway - SH 68 is designated a freeway by the Commission in accordance with 43-3-101 CRS. As such, the public street connection requires special approval from CDOT's Chief Engineer and Executive Director. 4. Issuance of access permits - Access permits must be issued to authorize changes at any existing accesses to State Highway 68 and to add the new access along the property frontage. The City of Ft. Collins is an issuing authority and, therefore, is authorized to issue the permit to Harmony "Technology Park and to the north leg (existing Hewlett Packard west access). CDOT must issue access permits to any existing public facilities. 5. Approval for new traffic signal - The signal inay be approved if and when the location meets a proper combination of MUTCD signal warrants. That signal must be identified in the appropriate access permits. CDOT will not participate in any costs related to signal design or installation. Each of these approvals requires justification to document the necessity for the new access. No changes are allowed within the state highway right-of-way until all steps are complete. Please work through Tess Jones, Access Coordinator, to proceed with your request. Please call her at (970)350-2163. Sincerely, --Doug Ra es'�GG�� Regional Transportation Director DR:vks cc: Eric Bracke. City of Ft. Collins Traffic Engineer .I. Siebels M. Reay/P. Demosthenes J. Springer J. Kullman/T. Jones/G. Hice-Idler file !Hr Sri A..BROVAi'%)i FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS 209 SOU'111 MHLDRUM P'OI"r CDLLINS.(01012ADO 80521-2603 970-482-5922 FAX: 970-482-6368 March 19, 1999 Mr. Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Planning 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Harmony Road and Technology Parkway Dear Dave, Please find attached a copy of the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost of construction posts for Harmony Road and Technology Parkway. The costs are as follows: . _ -)ny Road improvements $590,735 Tec logy Parkway $132 345 Total $723,080 Please note that this excludes the pavement required for the left turn lane from Harmony road to south bound County Road 9, as this will be constructed this year. Yours Sincerely The Sear -Brown Group Allen- Morley, P.E. roject Manager Cc: John Hankey Vidya Welling Robert MacPherson Tom Peterson Kevin Oliver Hewlett Packard Celestica Young and Wright Blackfox Realty Celestica DIPARIMENT OF IRANSPORIATION r, i;ion 4 1420 2nd SInr4 r rr1 cy, Colorado M, Q ( c_',0 i9?O) 1`,1 1, 32 D;A IF: October 6, 1997 EMORANDUM Farinur County, Sli 63 Harmonv Technological Park (Celestica) BetwTcn I_arimer County Road 9 to Cambridge Avenue, South side MP 3, Fast of Ft Collins 1 O: Doue Raines, Region 1V Transportation Director I R(Al: Tess Jones, Region Development/Access Coordinalor SliliHt T: Amendment to harmony Road Access Control P 1 have rep icw cd the Citr of Pt. Collins' request to amend the Harmony Road Access Control Pl.m to provide an additional public intersection along the south side of Harmony Road. I support the request. The new public street will align «ith the NN est private access for Hewlett-Packard, and enter into the center of the dei eloping property. I arimcr Counts Road 9 borders the property on the west side; Cambridge Accnue borders on the east sicle. I -he proposed direct access will connect to c1isting and new streets for the Cih of Pt. Collins and I_arimer County. The 160 acre agricultural property is to be developed for industrial and office uses. and is p1I jectcd to add 13,000 %chicle trips per day. The I lannony Road Access Control Plan states that the existing full-movemcut Hewlett-Packard access should cony crt to a right-in,!right-out access in the future with additional development in the area. There is no provision in that current plan for a street aligning to the south. In older to :)mend the Access Control Plan, we should loot: at three issues, as follows: • l lcwlctt-Packard west entrance - north side - maintain existing full- nxn emcnt access rather than converting to right-in/right-out access. • Proposed Celestica access - south side - aligns with Hewlett-Packard's wcst access - add public inicrscction as full -movement. • Additional potential signalized intersection - consider this west access for Hewlett-Packard/new proposed Celestica access for signalization in the future, in accordance with Access Control Plan's requirements for signalization. Doug Panics Page 2 October 6, 1997 Harmony Technological Park (Celestica) the icmf fic ❑nah sis for lone -route development of the Harmony Technological Park took into considci;oion other developmcnt in the area and indicated that the propo<cd access should be hill-nutvcmcnt and sitnali7cd. 'file stud% also analyzed a three-quarter condition for that new accc-s. The study repotted improvement 1`01' the Harmony Road State Iliph%xay 68 corridor with a 11i11-movcmCnt dL`inn and rignafi/r ltion. due to the high traffic %ohnnes projected. To force The It ouibw1lid tt,Jiic to use County Road 9 rind Cambridge Avenue �rould produce a lower lc%el of se N ice for the cot idor t}tnn would he experienced with a full-mopemcnt signalized interjection at the midpoint (Celestica). Existing Cambridge A%emic is not signalized, but is listed in the Access Control Plan as ptncntiolh sirnalizc.]. Roth that existin�a public street and The proposed midpoint access r,ppear to meet the rcquircn cuts for signali7ation in the future as described in the Access Control Plan: Signal volume warrants :ne met. Both public intersections are projected to meet three w aunts. Warrant -49 - four hour. Warrant 4'10 - peak hour delay. Warrant =1 l - peak hour. #11 is clearly shown in the traffic study to he met in the short-range ; car for Celestica and the long range year for Cambridge Aycmue. Cross -street provides a link in the street system plan for City of Pt. Collins and I arimer County. Pull turning movements at the intersection will provide cast -west tmcel or serve as circulation for the Harmony Road corridor. The addition of the signalized intersection improves the operations of traffic on Harmony Road. The intersection design meets the full turning movement intersection design requirements and standards of the Colorado Department of highways and the local ..uthority_ (Quarter mile access spacing will allow for safe access design) Signalization of the proposed Celestica access vtiill not only serve the south side development, but also benefit tall is mm ing in and out ofHewlett-Packard's private access on the north. Projected level of scn ice analyses for Iadmer County Road 9, the proposed access, and Cambridge Avenue indicate an improved corridor operation with the additional signal at Tile Celestica access. Douo Raines Paec 3 October 6, 1997 I larmony Technological Park (Celestica) 4cction 3.6. S of the Access Code addresses sipnal spacing and progression. 40 percent is the dc,ired band %\ it! th tier through traffic in recognition of existing conditions. 30 percent is the minimum hand ��irlth. The traffic study annl}zed progression �sith mo conditions. One included f7ac signals o\ cr a distance of 1 I '2 miles, inchrdinc si -nalization at Cambridge and the proposed Celc>tica access fur a band range of 31 to 41 percent The study analyzed the four -signal cunditinn kith the lxoposed Celc�r,ca acc ss as a 3'4 mo% e unsipnalized, and Cambridge Avenue eipn.dircd_ Im a range of 33 to 4� percent. That reduction of 2 percent is a minor negative impact, and the corridor meets the minimum of30 percent as suggested by the Code. 1 support the request for amendment of the Access Control plan to keep full -movement for the wrst Ilcvt;cit-Packard accc-s, to add a full-mocemcnt access aligned to the south, and to consider that intersection as a potentially signalized intersection in the future. 'I he Citv's request is attached. They are pursuing a change in the deeded access control line to pm% idc this new public intcrscction. I have reviewed this change with Jeff Kullman and he agrees with my analysis. I can re%icwv it NNith you upon request. 1 N1J/vks Enclosure copy: Eric Bracket, Traffic Fnpineer, City of Ft. Collins Marc Lngemoen, Larimer County Fngineer J. Kullman G.Ilice-idler file Transpo. Lion Services Administration City of Fort Collins December 10, 1997 Mr. Doug Raines, Regional Director Colorado Department of Transportation, Region IV 1420 2n' Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE SH 68 Access Control Plan Amendment - Response to Phil Demosthenes' memo dated 11/21, 97 Dear Mr. Raines: hhank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Demosthenes in his nx'nuuandwn dated '�oscml-er 21, 1997. We yill uy to respond to each of the questions raised in an orderly name, that fi 110%% s the format of Mr. Demosthenes' letter. Prior to responding to the issues, we do realize that Harmony Road is regulated by the State Highaal. 4rccss Code (S1iAC) and the 1989 Intergovernmental Agreement (I_G.A.) implementing the Hurnu�m R�urd A� < e°ss Cor;trol Plat (BRAG). Wicn the I.G.A. was si tned by both the Colorado Department of Trinr.pnrtation (then C.D.O.ii.) and the City of Fort Collins, staff from both agencies attempted to estimate the number of trips that would be generated Within and through this particular cxrnidor. We could not have guessed that the City of Fort Collins would be one of the fastest growing conunw;itics in the country. The trip generation estimates used to develop the HRAC were underestimmcd. Poi cv>unple, from the Celc=tica _<ite in question, N'c had estimated approximately thirteen thousand a%crage daily trips (adt). We rovN are assuming that the trip generation will be in the neighborhood of t�rentN thousand adt. The point that we are making is that the HRAC cannot be a static document and needs to be flexible and adapt to a growing community. Page two, the last paragraph and continuing into page three, makes reference to the phasing of the project, lack of a reasonable prediction as to build out of the project, and the lack of east -west circulation. The Cc! estica site is part of a I55 acre Overall Development Plan (0.D.P.) known as Harmony Technolot Pnrk which is included as an attachment. fhis O.D.P. was approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on August 7, 1997. The land uses identified on the O.D.P. include office, manufacturing, light industrial, and a small area devoted to retail services. Hewlett Packard (HP) cuncntly owns the entire site and the eastern portion of the property is intended for future expansions of the HP facility. The determination of the phasing is unknown at this time, however, for the traffic study p:nposes, build out was assumed to be by the year 2015. This assumption is rellccted in the Harmony Technology Park'Fraffic Impact study dated May, 1997. 210 E. Oh%c • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6608 • Fax (970) 221-6239 Rames"SPI 68 Access Control Plan Amendment December 10, 1997 Page 2 In terms of the east -west connections, the attached O.D.P. clearly shows that a connection from the site to Carnbr idge is intended. The trip distribution in both traffic studies did assume that Cambridge would take sonic ofthe uaffc from the site E;nd distribute it to Harmony Road. However, the main attraction in the disnibution is the population density of Port Collins and most of the trips are distributed to the west. Additionally, one of the key findings was that the future design of Cambridge Drive must be w ❑sitive to the sin -le family homes that front on Cambridge. At this time, Cambridge lies both in the city and unincorporaied I-arimer County and its ultimate improvcment and terminus are not known at this time. Technology Parkway, however, will play an important role in providing collector circulation to both this immediate square mile section and the adjoining section to the south. This area to the south is known as the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and is subject to ajoint citycounty plan known as the Land Use Frunework Plan, which is included as an attachment. It is our belief that Technology Park\kay will play a more crucial role in seeing the general area than would Cambridge Drive. As you can see, the 35 acre Celestica site is a piece of a larger pur.yle on the southeast side of our urban area. The public improvements associated with the Celestica project will contribute to the necessary infiastrrrcturc required to serve the southeast area as it gradually (or rapidly) transitions from a rural character to an urban environment. On page three, paraggaph four, there is a statement relating to the traffic signal warrants not being met at the Technology ParkwayiHarnx,m Road intersection due to inadequate internal circulation on the site plan. "File attached site plan clearly shows reasonable access to CR 9, so we are concerned about this statement. The analysis of the intersection indicates that Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume, Warruit =. Inteiluption of Continuous Traffiic and Warrant 10, Peak Hour Delay would he mct with the lirst ph:+sc of the Celestica drvclohmcnt. We also expect that there will be pedestiians/bicyclists naveling between the IIP and Celestica sites. Technology Parkway is the most direct route between the two sites and is the route that most folks will travel. Although there will not be enough pedestrians to meet ped sigma] it is still imperative that they have a safe and protected place to cross Harmony Road. On page three, paragraph five, we do understand that the S.H.A.C. requires a 1/2 mile spacing bethveen signals on a category 3 highway and that a variance would be requested to allow for a signal at the IA mile spacing. Ilo�Nevcr, good signal progression can be achieved on a 114 mile spacing with approximately a 409/o bandwidth. Ms. Ruth Rollins, PE and Matt Dellich, PE have revised and worked through the additional analysis (attached) to showthat the 40% bandwidth can be achieved.