HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH COLLEGE SQUARE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2012-01-19A STUDY OF ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
FOR SOUTH MESA SQUARE
Prepared For
NORDIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
By
Alan M.. Voorhees and Associates, Inc.
Denver, Colorado, August 16, 1974
Introduction
Nordic Construction Company plans to construct a small commer-
cial facility of approximately 14, 500 square feet gross leasable area on
about one and one-half acres of land. The development is to be known
as South Mesa Square and is to be located on South College Road (U. S.
287) in the southern part of the City of Fort Collins. The site has
approximately 360 feet of highway frontage on the west side of College
Road; it is located about 160 feet north of the Horsetooth Road intersection
and about 140 feet south of the Monroe Street intersection.
Present Access Conditions and Constraints
In order to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of
College Road, the City of Fort Collins has pursued a policy of limiting
access to and from the highway to designated cross -street intersections
with very few or no curb -cut access points between intersections.
Accordingly, College Road has been constructed with a raised -curb
median extending the full length of the street between intersections.
There has been a policy of no mid -block median crossing in the vicinity
of this project.
P
n
Mountain States Properties
Page 2
city boundaries). The City then manditorily annexed the property into the
City Limits. To develop the property in the City of Fort Collins, a variance
was needed and applied for, to allow it to develop inside the Highway Bus-
iness Zone which requires 2.0 acres for a P.U.D., and the variance was ap-
proved by the Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicants then
submitted a preliminary plan for a P.U.D. to the Fort Collins Planning Depart
went, and worked with the Planning Staff to satisfy all requirements of the
City, except for one; the City's demand that there be no direct access onto
South College Avenue (evidenced by the 3-3 vote of the City Planning and
Zoning Board). Since the 1974 Traffic Engineering Report by Alan Voorhees
and Associates, Inc., there has been no major changes in the frontage road
system or in the property itself, except that the Planning Staff has recom-
mended the limitation of the Horsetooth Road curb cut to a right turn only.
The current plan still encompasses the extension of the existing frontage
road system to the North property boundary and the construction of a $40,000
bridge structure over the Larimer County Canal #2 to give access to the site.
The South College Square Partnership and myself are asking that you approve
the preliminary plan as submitted and ammended, including the one two-way
curb cut, or two one-way curb cuts onto College Avenue for the following
reasons:
1) The above information documents that the subject property has
several unique problems which necessitates the application of
special considerations in relation to traffic access. The
property is the 'end' property and special design characteristics
apply to the 'end' properties on frontage roads.
2) The problem of traffic access was specifically designed, studied,
and recommended by a highly respected professional - engineering
firm, and conditions have remained relatively unchanged for a
period of four years, suggesting a still valid design.
3) The installation of a traffic signal at Monroe Drive and South
College Avenue should support the function of the curb cut(s)
and provide breaks in traffic for ingress and egress via the
curb cut(s).
4) The frontage road system in general is designed to give access
to the interior parcels and channel traffic onto College Avenue
at the end properties and other special intersections, and it
leaves the design of the end properties as a special consideration.
3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 226-4366
M
Mountain States Properties
Page 3
5) The City's policy has always been to grant special consideration
concerning real estate parcels that are affected by City projects
that are not currently completed, which the current city -owned
frontage road system is not. It is currently planned to be com-
pleted in the future, and has a position of approximately 4 to 5
on the City's priority list at this time (It is interupted in front
of Reynolds' Oldsmobile -Cadillac, Vickers Gas Station, and Campus
Imports and Everitt Home Center). Due to the incompleteness of
the frontage road system, the conclusion by the City Planning Staff
that the total access of the site be through the frontage road
system extended from Monroe Drive, is in our opinion not valid or
appropriate at this time, and would constitute inadequate access
to the subject property.
6) The property has stood vacant and a menace to public health now
for seven years since the fire. It is a public eyesore which
we are working diligently to improve and develop into a tax
generating facility and an asset to the City of Fort Collins.
With so much retail attention and focus on the general mall
area and the new Foothills Square shopping center directly
across College Avenue from the subject property, it would seem
appropriate to work together toward the development of this property
at this time.
Very Sincerely,
Jerry M. Nix
Real Estate Broker and
Representative for the Appli
3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 226- 366
Sri
. no
#�-� t s trfro
a i
r' to e. road f4.
�, frontage road is a • $'l•
frontage roads- of the access and should ^ fBUT3 COUNCILMEN
g unless it's receive special con- concluded that' unless the
h at eitrer end of Horsetooth sideration.
and Harmony roads on Mesa site was included wiiha
South College Avenue. Community Developmentthe end property, they would
That's the Fort Collins Director Roy A. Bingman not allow parking „on the ..'
City Council's stand on the agreed that frontage roads frontage road.
ends deserve special con- , If, however, the father_
Caccess roads which was sideration, but disagreed and son would anne -their_
arrived at after more than the property in question was g P o
an hour's debate Thursda lands together, the r pe�y
Y at; the end of the access - Would be on the end of the
over the city's tentative road, frontage and parking could
frontage road policy. . ,
- be permitted. '
The issue was raised — - Between the South Mesa In effect, the e n d
prematurely in the site and Horsetooth Road is properties on College bet -
estimation of City Manager another parcel of land which ween arterial streets have
Robert L. Bruntonover Nix said is owned by his . their frontage 'streets
the South Mesa Fourth client's father, Earl Harris. _designed so no through
Annexation. The father, who leases his, traffic can cross their land.
f , land to an, automobile parts Following the lengthy.
THE 1.9-ACRE tract is on store, isn't very happy with discussion, the Council
y South College at the site of the city and said he didn't agreed to table the -issue
the old Matterhorn Want to annex into the city, until the father and son
Restaurant, which was Nix said. decide on a mutual an -
razed by fire several years vexation.
ago., ne reason given. for the Meanwhile, the coup-
s+
discontent is that he gave ycilmen discussed ways to
Jerry Nix„ who the city an easement for correct the problem on the
represented the who
utilities to cross his property. site where the pavement
owner, Luther Harris, asked and then he had to pay $250 had been torn u
the Council to allow parking to have the asphalt on his requested the city manager
the
the frontage road since land repaired because it was report back to them on his
the property was at the end dug up and not replaced. findings on the matter. %
s
A
0
•
C I T Y .0 F F 0 R T
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 1978
TO: Les Kaplan, Planning Director
C 0 L L I N S
FROM: Roy A. Bingman, Engineering Services Director Paz
RE: South College Square P.U.D.
The Planning and Zoning Board has asked for traffic engineering background
material in connection with the developers request for direct driveway access
to College Avenue from the proposed South College Square P.U.D.
The unit development plan as submitted by the developer calls for access
to the property via the frontage road to the south which ties to Monroe Drive.
The plan also indicates access to Horsetooth Road through a curb cut.
The intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue is presently signal-
ized. During 1978 the intersection of Monroe Drive and College Avenue will be
signalized because of increasing traffic.
The developer has requested the direct driveway access to College Avenue
on the basis that:
I. There will be difficulties with cars backing up on Monroe Drive
at the College Avenue traffic signal and blocking the frontage
road.
2. The driveway access to Horsetooth Road will eventually be limited
to right -turn only, when traffic volumes increase in the future
on Horsetooth Road.
Our recommendation is that the City not allow direct driveway access onto
College -neither entrance only or exit only, based upon the following
considerations:
I. That the signalized intersection of Monroe and College will
provide satisfactory access to the South College Square development
along the frontage road. There have been minor delays at some of
of the frontage road intersections but we do not anticipate
serious problems.
2. The Horsetooth Road driveway will initially provide good access
to the site from College Avenue, or from east and west along
Horsetooth Road.
w r Page two _
South, College Square P.005..�
February 3, 1978
3. Both access points to the site, i.e. Horsetooth Road and the
frontage road - Monroe Drive access, will allow a driver to
turn north on College Avenue upon leaving the site.
4. Direct driveway access to College Avenue would lead to increased
conflicts between vehicles on College Avenue between Monroe Drive
and Horsetooth Road.
5. A direct driveway exit from the site onto College Avenue would not
allow for north bound direction of travel on College Avenue - one
would have to turn left at Horsetooth, then left again to get back
to Monroe Drive, then north on College.
6. As full development occurs in the future in this area, if access
problems develop, the property owner could request additional
driveway access, or some other solution, at that time. We do not
anticipate these kinds of problems, but the owner has the right
to request such consideration at any time from the City Council.
As we have said in the past, we are very concerned about the traffic
problems we face on College Avenue. The limitation of individual driveway
access to College Avenue is an important factor in minimizing the problem.
PIahN;H� %wo'FooixH Ale.e1;H:9 f rel 1Hary 12,1-21 /Z7
j SOUTH CO UCZC7 E SQ Uh RE
— no c1r; Ye cd ay e o bra K ce onn Cole pe Avek ae
I - 6r;dye woh esed across d,'kk will be bkil�
fo -'c iK {rokXaee road a%1k Aa kor�-t1
i
P/`a,per y a 71 14e= exfc*,cc df S,ok Iti <of/. 5,�.
defa;I de�&„ydtt I°/ahs ; di -Irk 5AO(A.Id Jcdt be
ctscd as a C-kaOge 1 4rf s & f m ru'm-afF'
Rbv@ me f4 rNGty be- to fKieed L°s�pechq�/y
-- c A eck. ;*i p no ve*4 eK f opt bpi d9' a off HarseYveA Itad.
Plnnning & "Zoning Board
April 7, 1975
. Page three
#32-75. South College Square P,U.D.: Preliminary Plan.
This is a proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on the northwest corner of south
College Ave, and Horsetooth Road. The P.U.D. would unify an existing building
(formerly Harris Marine) and a new building to be constructed on the foundation
of the former Matterhorn Restaurant, The 1.8 acre site has not yet been _annexed
to the City_ or zoned. This site plan is based on a preliminary plan which was
discussed favorably at the February Board meeting.
The City Council ruled several months ago that there would be no curbcuts
onto South,College on this site and that access would be by frontage road. This
proposal would seem to be a reasonable response to that decision. Access to
the site is provided by a bridge accross the irrigation canal to the frontage road
at the north end of the site and by a curbcut onto Horsetooth Road at the south
end. Provision of 50' of right of way and 30' of paving for Horsetooth Road would
not affect the site plan or existing building. .
Considerations to be resolved prior to approval of final plans for the
proposal are as follows:
1. The site contains less than the 2 acre minimum for P.U.D.'s. This is
due however, to the physical constraint of the irrigation ditch. This
factor provides a clear justification for a variance of the two acre
minimum. The Board should recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals
that a variance of the two acre requirement for P.U.D.'s be granted.
2. The area should be satisfactorily annexed to the City and zoned H-B
before the P.U.D. is approved.
3'. The Larimer County No. 2 Canal "strenuously objects" to approval of the
project until they have met with the developer to.make sure the project
does not.cnnstitute an encroachment on the canal.
4. The landscape plan should include additional screening along S. College
Avenue (e.g..hedge or bermed slopes) to hide the parking lot, (not the
bui.l.dings.)
5. As traffic volumes increase on Horsetooth Road, it will probably
become necessary in the future to limit traffic exiting the site onto
Horsetooth to right turns only.
#33-75. Last Wil.l.ox Lane First Annexation.
This is a proposal for annexation of a 1/4 acre parcel of ground that is
surrounded by City incorporated area. The annexation is initiated by the City
according to standard procedure for unincorporated areas that have been surrounded
by the City limits for over three years.
The parcel is contiguous to the H-B, highway Business District Zone and M-M,
Medium Density Mobile Home District Zones. Extension of the 11-B zone to the parcel
would seem the most appropriate zone because of the parcel's small size and frontage
on Willox Lane in proximity to N. College Avenue.
Y'Page 10 - April 7, 1975
Paul Deibel: Revise the original site
plan before it goes on to City Council.
Bonnie Titley: Motion to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the
limitations that Paul has said and request that perhaps consid-
eration be given for the pullout possibility, but certainly that
it is not a requirement.
Lynn Anduss: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Unanimous.
Item #7: South College Square P.U.D.: Final Plat and Plans
#32-75:
Paul Deibel:
'
Constructed on the existing foundation of the former Matterhorn
Restaurant. City Council considered the site at a meeting several
months ago and determined
that the area would take its access from
a frontage road without any direct curbcuts
onto S. College Avenue
despite its isolation to the north by the irrigation ditch. Access
from Monroe Drive over the bridge over the Larimer County No. 2
Canal., and
at the south end with a driveway entrance onto Horse -
tooth road. Final site
plan with a plat based on the preliminary
plan that was discussed favorably at the February P
& Z Meeting.
Lynn Anduss:
At the exit onto Horsetooth would there be a curve
side? on the west
Paul Deibel:
Yes there would be. Problem to some extent, pretty narrow bridge
accross
the canal at Horsetooth Road. Possibility of securing
aid in improving various bridges in various spots in the City.
Chuck Mabry:
How far does the edge of that road , Horsetooth Road from the
canal... Dimension from the edge of the street where it comes out
to the ditch?
Paul Deibel:
A ten feot easement on the plat. A ten foot easement along the
canal.
Lynn Anduss:
What would be the actual shape of the building for the large site?
Paul Deibel:
Former Matterhorn shape. Architectural rendering of the motif.
Sidewalk perimeter. Pretty tight situation and difficult site
to plan for due to isolation by the irrigation canal.
Ron Garretson:
Poudre Valley
No comments, but would be glad to answer any questions.
Realty:
Paul Deibel:
Comments, first of all, variance on the two acre requirement
needs to be acquired from the Zoning Board of Appeals ( P & Z
Board recommend approval due to the fact that the site is cut off
by the
surrouding streets and the canal); secndly the area needs
to be
satisfactorily annexed and zoned prior to approval (con-
dition
of approval); thirdly, the Larimer County No. 2 Canal
has had
some concerns to the effect that the proposal might
encroach on their canal easement. Concerned about the design of
the bridge over
the canal(opportunity to review the bridge design
and coordinate with them), fourthly, additional screening along
Page 11 - April 7, 1975 i
S. College Avenue with some berms or hedges to shield the parking
lot to hide the cars rather than the building. Additional land-
scaping to the interior o f the site as to the City Arborists rec-
ommendations. Fifth comment for the developer to be aware of.
At this southern entrance, on Horsetooth Road, there may be a
necessity at some point in the future restricting exits to simply
a right turn out onto Horsetooth, but that is_not a planning item
but for traffic to determine.
The Board should indicate approval of a plat and landscape plan.
We discussed this with Art March. The developer has paid their
$50 and submitted the plan even though the area hasn't been annexed
and zoned. I think we can make annexation and zoning a condition
of approval. That was Art's feeling. Recommend approval on the
granting a variance by the ZBA, annexation and zoning of the pro-
perty (H-B) and that the landscape plan be provided.
Lynn Anduss: Motion made to move all of the above. Subject to all the conditions.
Bonnie Titley: Second the motion.
Vote: Unanimous.
Item #8: East Willox Lane First Annexation.
#33-75:
Paul Deibel:
Annexation initiated by the City of Fort Collins in conformance
with the standard procedure for areas of unincorporated property
that have been
surrounded by the City limits for over three years.
The only question that needs to be
resolved is one of zoning
contiguous to the Highway Business and the medium density
mobile
home zones. Recommend that it be annexed and zoned with H-B, to
be
more appropriate for this area to be combined with a P.U.D.
Chuck Mabry:
Motion for approval
Lynn Anduss:
Seconded the motion.
Vote:
Unanimous.
Item #9:
#20-75:
Petition to vacate Bikepath Easement on Lots 14 and 15 of
Lexington Green Subdivision, Fifth Filing.
Paul Deibel:
Presented two slides showing the easement between the houses.
The easement was to provide for direct access for the area of
Lexington Green
and Village East to the Spring Creek Recreational
Trail. The trail will
come from the -park south underneath Drake
probably, and the recreation trail continues
south along Spring
Creek. The request was tabled at last month's meeting to
give us
time to investigate the possibility of alternative routes in the
area. We looked at two additional routes. One is a ten foot
access for the ditch company for the area along the canal and
another possibility is an
area at the end of Scarborough Court
which is a 41 foot drainage and utility easement
which also
ends at the irrigation ditch.
Jerry Bagley:
Reside at 2512 Newport Drive. I have a couple of
p p pictures here
The presence of the raised median means that vehicles coming to this
site from the south or departing to the north must either make "U"-turns
at the intersections (which are also prohibited), or travel around one of
the adjacent blocks and make turns at the Horsetooth Road and Monroe
Street intersections.
Recognizing the problems of access to commercial properties
fronting on College Road because of the median, the City of Fort Collins
has asked property owners to construct frontage roads parallel to College
Road and extending the full length of the blocks between intersections.
At this time, partial frontage roads exist on some blocks but there is
no complete system.
On the block between Horsetooth Road and Monroe Street (the South
Mesa Square block), there is no frontage road at this time. However,
as part of the access system for South Mesa Square, the City has request-
ed that a frontage road be constructed. (It is understood that a right-of-
way for a frontage road has been reserved on the Big "O" Tire site on
the northeast corner of the block. This right-of-way extends from
Monroe Street south to the Larimer County No. 2 irrigation canal).
A frontage road along College Road between Monroe and Horsetooth
presents a number of serious problems in terms of traffic operation and
safety. First, Horsetooth Road is projected to be an important east -
west arterial roadway and a frontage road intersecting it 20 feet or so
west of College would be a very serious mistake. Secondly, there is
only one property fronting on College Road (South Mesa Square) which
has no direct access possibilities to the east -west side streets; so the
frontage road would, in reality, be an access road serving it alone. (This
✓A
would not be the case, however, if there were no other access possibilities
to the southern -most property on the block). Finally, the presence of the
Larimer County No. 2 Canal creates irregular land parcels, requires
relatively expensive structures to cross it, and, in general, further
complicates the problem of access.
The primary purpose of this brief report is to determine the access
requirements of South Mesa Square and develop an acceptable plan for that
access. Because no design details for a frontage road on the'subject block
have been worked out by the City, this appears to be the proper thing to do.
Access Requirements of South Mesa Square
The preliminary site plan for the South Mesa Square Development
indicates 77 parking spaces. , The estimated traffic generation, in terms
of vehicle trips per peak week -day, and the suggested range of parking
spaces for this facility based upon its intended uses are shown in Table 1.
On the peak week -day (Friday), as many as 640 trips per day (320 cars
in and out) would be generated. During the evening peak hour, the critical
traffic period on the highway, as many as 102 vehicles per hour could be
expected to both enter and leave the parking area. These volumes are
relatively small, and were it not for the no -access median, they could be
accommodated easily.
Initially, most of the traffic generated by South Mesa Square will be
coming from and going to points to the north. Later, more and more of
the traffic will be to and from the south, but the predominate direction
will remain the north. Access to South Mesa Square from the north, as
3
a
H
w
a
Cy
En
U)
w
� o '
H A
o a
0
z a
O OU
H
� z
z a
w a
0 0
u H
w w
w 0
a
E-{
w _
H
H
w
H
O
c
wow
No z
M
c�
LO
wx
u O
N
cq
xw�
ww
> Z
to
M�
w �
u
R,
wHw
LO
-
to
to
a
^
z 1H y�
H0
w
w H 0
O
O
%En
`n
M
U w
w w 'CL
�o
zw b
co
a �.
W
M
M
co
w^
< r3i
O
O
O
O
w
O
CDm
O
m
co
O
Qi
w
�
�
Cd
W
cd
-a
- J
H
P4
9
H
n
well as egress to the south, present no problems. However, entering
traffic coming from the south and exiting traffic ,going to the north
cannot enter or exit directly. Without a median crossing, this traffic
has only two options: (1) circulate around the adjacent blocks making
turns at Horsetooth •and Monroe; (2) turn into and out of a frontage road
intersecting at Monroe Street. (A thrid option requiring rear -block
access from Monroe Street was rejected. as being impractical).
Access Plan
The principal access problems related to South Mesa Square
development are: (1) how to accommodate incoming vehicles which are
coming from the south on College Road and; (2) how to accommodate
departing vehicles which desire to go,north on College Road.
A simple frontage road extending south from Monroe Street,
across. the Larimer County No. 2 irrigation ditch, into the South Mesa
Square development would appear to be the easiest solution were it not
for the question of access to property on the south corner of the block.
As it is now proposed, this property would not have any direct access
to either College Road or Horsetooth Road.
The recommended access plan for South Mesa Square is shown in Figure
1. It indicates a dual access system in which there is both direct access to
(and egress from) South Mesa Square, from College Road and access by way
of a frontage road from Monroe extending south across the canal.. The
underlying principal of this access plan is that the Harris property -(on
the block's southeast corner) and the South Mesa Square development
can be treated as only one unit insofar as access is concerned. In other words,
5
Mm
MOMROC S T.
b
Q
0.
11,11
W
0
Lw
hURSETQOTH RD. 1
s \
traffic volumes to and from the Harris property are insufficient to
warrant the construction of a separate frontage road all the way south
to that property, and access by means of a parking aisle will be.very
adequate. (Traffic volumes in a typical parking aisle of a shopping
center parking lot could be 8 or 10 times as great as the volume of
traffic expected on the aisle shown). The direct access -egress system
involving right -turn -in, right -turn -out curb cuts on College Road would
allow southbound vehicles to enter directly into the parking area without
making a rather difficult "S" curve manuver into the frontage road from
Monroe Street. Likewise, a right -turn -out exit point directly on to
College would allow southbound exiting vehicles to avoid a difficult "U"
turn from the frontage road to College Road. (If there were to be con-
structed a mandatory right turn lane on College Road for southbound
vehicles at Horsetooth Road, this exit point should be constructed far
enough away from the intersection to avoid interference with the right -
turn lane).
�
3
a
�
n
�
�
Q
r
�
i
1
i
t
1
I
Mountain States Properties
Fort Collins Planning Department
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Fort Collins City Council
Fort Collins Municipal Building
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521
Ladies and Gentlemen:
March 27, 1978
Re: South College Square
Preliminary Plan and
Planned Unit Development
As you records indicate, I represent the South College Square Partnership,
the applicant for a preliminary plan for the South College Square Planned
Unit Development, currently scheduled for hearing on the April 18th meeting
of the Fort Collins City Council.
In 1974, the property owners, Luther Harris, Earl Harris, and Cma Harris,
applied for voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins, along with
a preliminary P.U.D. plan. At that time, the plan was approved by the
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, and was submitted to the City
Council for approval. The City Council at that time asked for a dedication
of the east 50 feet of the Matterhorn Restaurant Property, which was to
become part of the City -owned frontage road system. The City Council ruled
that the Matterhorn property was not the 'end' property, that the Major
Motors property was the 'end' property, and that dedication of the 50 foot
strip of land was manditory. Subsequently, the application for annexation
and the preliminary plan were withdrawn by the applicants. At that time,
the property was to have been developed by the Nordic Construction Company
and leased by Foothills Discount Liquors, Inc., and Happy Joe's Ice Cream
and Pizza Parlor, now located just around the corner to the Northwest,
and leasing from a different leasor._ The Harris' filed a partnership agree-
ment bringing the two properties under one legal ownership, thereby making
the partnership's property the 'end' property and eliminating the necessity
of dedicating the 50 foot frontage road system, and thus requiring individua
design for access. This access design was completed at the time the City
Council required the dedication of the frontage road system, and a copy
of the professional traffic engineer's report was submitted to the Council
at that time (copy attached).
In 1977, the South College Square Partnership applied for a City of Fort
Collins sewer tap .(as required by the State Health Department) to develop
the property in the County (which could have been legally done by applica-
tion of the legal precedent of Robinson vs. The City of Boulder, which
dictates that a public utility is a public service and is exclusive of
3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 226- 366