Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY TO HARMONY ROAD PUD - PRELIMINARY - 1-88B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCILM I i 07 i N! D U ? I i DATE: February 15, 1989 TO: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager FROM: James M. Davis, Development Services Director RE: South College Access Plan As the attached letter indicates, the District Engineer for the Division of Highways has found the South College Avenue Access Plan, adopted by City Council, to be unacceptable. Specifically, the District Engineer found statements regarding the raised median in the implementation section, at the end of the plan, would restrict the states responsibility to install raised median on State Highway 287 even if required by safety and operational considerations. Details of the rejection of the plan are presented in the third paragraph of the referenced letter. In the absence of an acceptable Plan, the State Division of Highways will continue to rely on the Access Code to respond to specfic development applications. The original objective of the access plan was to reach agreement between the State and City on how to handle future development projects seeking to access State Highway9-87 as well a future public improvements. Absent of an agreed upon plan, the State will continue to use the Access Code as the governing law. The District Engineer is hopeful that there remains an opportunity to resolve the issue and achieve a mutually acceptable plan. In related communication, the chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board is requesting council direction relative to the Gateway P.U.D. which is pending before that body. Apparently, the median issue is preventing the Board from affirmatively deciding the pending development. In addition, a number of major development applications totally in excess of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area have been filed that will involve the South College Access Plan. We would recommend that the Council be apprised of the status of the plan and the desire of the State to seek a mutually acceptable solution. If the Council leadership committee is interested in pursuing this, perhaps a worksession could be scheduled for March, 28 or April, 11. Please advise. cc: Skip Noe Tom Peterson Erik Bracke Douglas D. Rames. State Qf ColQradQ file/2 Deveeinenl ice,; Plann' Department City of�Fort Collins NIENIn'ZAN:P17�1 TO: Mayor and Members of City FROM: Laurie O'Dell, Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board DATE: February 1,5, 1989 RE: South College Access Plan On January 23, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board was asked to consider a request i or preliminary approvci of a planned unit development known as the Gateway P.U.D. The proiect is located on t::e northwest corner of the intersec- tion of Harmony Road and College Avenue. The request was for approval of a mired use commercial development. The Board tabled consideration of the proposed P.U.D. until February 27th. During our discussions of the project with City staff, two major traffic issues were discussed. First, the development of this site will require the redesign of the existin; striped median in Collc,c Avenue to accommodate left -turning movements to Kensington Street and to provide for double left -turning move- ments to Harmony Road. The staff further indicated that it was the belief of the State Highway Department that these left -turn movements could not safely be accommodated without a raised median in College Avenue. Secondly, the applicant is proposing a right turn -in -only access on College Avenue to the Gateway P.U.D. The applicant has provided evidence which both the State and City staffs believe justifies these improvements. However, the installation of the raised median and the right turn -in -only access point is inconsistent with the South COIICQe Access Plan as adopted by City Council. The Board is seeking further clarification from City Council on the implementation of the South College Access Plan. Before the Board makes a final determination on the Gateway P.U.D., we believe it is appropriate to meet with Council to resolve these issues. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. B0\ 580 • Fort Collins, CO 50522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 i A c Or COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. Box 850 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303)353-1232 February 8, 1989 Mr. Mike Davis Director of Development Services City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Davis: S. College Access Control Plan DOH File 45100 The Colorado Department of Highways has received a January 26, 1989, letter from the former Transportation Administrator, Richard Ensdorff, request-ing a written response to the Draft South College Access Control Plan approved by the City Council on December 6, 1988. This plan is not acceptable to the Department in its current form due to the two conditions which were added regarding installation of raised median. In addition, the plan needs to be re-evaluated for the section between Kensington St. and Harmony Rd. given the impact of the Gateway to Harmony Road P.U.D. The statements in the draft plan regarding the raised median are found in the "Implementation" section at the end of the plan. We are concerned that these conditions would restrict our responsibility to install raised median on S.H. 287 if required by safety and/or operational considerations. It would be inappropriate for us to accept a plan which over -rides our authority to install raised median on a state highway. The issue of raised median is particularly important in relation to the Gateway P.U.D. project and other development which will be served by Kensington St. west of S.H. 287. Development of this area will require redesign of the existing median left -turn lane to accommodate the north- bound left turns to Kensington St. and to serve the heavy demand for left turns from S.H. 287 to Harmony Rd. (S.H. 68). The left -turn lane for Kensington will cause the need for a double left -turn lane at Harmony Rd. In our judgement, this condition should not exist without a raised median on S.H. 287 to prevent conflicts due to left turns at existing driveway access on the east side of the highway. This median would also be necessary if we are to allow a proposed right -in -only access to the Gateway P.U.D. i rj MIKE DAVIS February 8, 1989 Page Two We certainly appreciate the cooperation and effort on the part of City staff in the development of the South College Access Control Plan. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and the City Council, if necessary, to resolve the above issues --;n order to achieve a mutually acceptabie plan. You may call me or Saco.bson at 350-Cl06 to arrange an appropriate meeting. Very truly yours, Douglas D. Rames E'istrict Engineer DDR:mbc(WJ) cc: E. Rracke-=t. Collins Trans-D. L. Ripley -Ft. Collins Plan. P. Demosthenes -Staff Right of Way File: Jacobson via Crier L_ r ^gal atA c» • • In,,estment Post Office Box ,3- 5 Services Bouider. Co craco cG�C6 Corporat;on Phone 303.--13-6022 • - February 8, 1989 Members of the Fort Collins City_ Council City Hall Fcr Cc'.lirs. Cclor2do Ladies and Gentlemen: 'Iikecv i s As the owner (managing general partner) of the iand at the northwest corner o, Road and College Avenue, known as the Gateway P.U.D., I am writing to request a fair hearing regarding a situation which has arisen irrespective of our effort to accommodate the wishes of the City's planning and traffic departments. This is not an objection to the services or positions of the City staff who have been most `.eipful and reasonable throughout the processing of the P.U.D. The issue at hand (right turn -in only access from College Avenue to the McDonald's site) has become a problem regardless of staff recommendation for approval because the City and the State Highway Department (SHD) have differing opinions regarding the construction of the rais,_,d median in College Avenue between Kensington Street (at the :North edge of our property) and Harmony Road. The South College Access Plan (SCAP) recommended construction of the median and apparently the City has funds set aside for that construction. At the City Council meet:n- December 6, 1988, the Council voted not to construct the median at this time as a result of the unilateral objection of a property owner on the east side of College Avenue. we were not notified in anv way of the Council's deliberations regarding this issue or we would certainly have testified in support of construction of the median, thereby gaining more favorable consideration from the SHD for the access to McDonald's. , I would like to set forth the background of our P.U.D. and the points which we would have made and which we hope to make at a subsequent hearing on the issue. 1) We initiated the Gateway P.U.D. on January 5, 1987. At that time, access to McDonald's from Harmony Road was sought. After lengthy negotiations, that was denied. We wished to resubmit and were asked to wait until the SCAP was completed. We waited and resubmitted on November 5, 1988, requesting a right turn -in only access from College Avenue because we were told by the City traffic coordinator, Rick Ensdorf, and Matt Delich, the consultant who developed the SCAP, that the right turn -in only off College would be acceptable. 2) Having redesigned our plan to accommodate what staff and consultants told us was acceptable (including designation of the intersection of College and Kensington as a future signalized intersection), we proceeded with final engineering and design details for McDonald's and an Amoco station at the southwest corner of the intersection of College and Kensington. 3) Just before we were to appear before the P & Z Board, knowing we had the support of staff, on January 23, 1988, we were told that a conflict had arisen between the position of the SHD and the City of Fort Collins as a result of the decision to delay the construction of the median in College Avenue. Because of this conflict, staff requested that we put our P.U.D. on hold until the February 27, 1989 P & Z meeting in the hope that would give the SHD time to respond to City Council, and the Council time to reconsider the median issue. 4) This delay was apparently the result of an objection to cutting off left turn access for south -bound traffic to the service station in the northeast corner of College and Harmony. These left turns across three lanes of nOrtnc0und traffic are ack-now'ledged by zl: S!-ID traffic staff to be increasingly dangerous. Location of the Amoco station at the southwest corner of Kensington and College would have provided gas service to southbound traffic •.-vithout ct: those left turns. Naturally, the owner of the station at the northeast corner of Harmony and College wished to discourage ccmce6r.on crom Amcco. By delaying the median construction, he was in effect deliving the presence of competition in this area regardless of perpetuating a dangerous traffic situation. Even with the median in place, the station at the northeast corner of College and Harmony would command the lion's share of the business since he jets all the northbound traffic on College and East and westbound on Harmony. 5) - )n an effort to clarify the traffic implications of the access to the Gateway P.U.D. we hired INIatt De!icl in January, 1989 to do a careful study of all relevant information. A copy of that study is included witn this letter wim the salient points hignl.ghted. further supports the City staff's position that the access proposed in the P.U.D. works well. 6) The hang-up now is that the SHD states that they will not consider supporting the access proposal for the Gateway ?.li.D. unless a raised median is built in Cc!!ece A vemie between Kensington and Harmony. This is partially to preclude left turns into McDonald's by northbound traffic on College (although this could be precluded by extending the divider northwards between the right in only and the through traffic lanes). The SHD rigntfuliy asserts that the raised median is also necessary to properly handle the left turns by northbound College Avenue traffic into Kensington and the double left by southbound College traffic onto Harmony required by the increased vole .:a of that traffic. - In summary. We have been caught in a predicament not of our own making and wish to facilitate the prompt resolution of the problem. Although it is not a concern of Council, the costs to us exceed 510,000.00 per month in carrying costs, taxes and lost interest. McDonald's and Amoco are ready to close on their purchase and adhere to the P.U.D. plan approved by the City Planning and Transportation Departments, out we must first receive .) approval of the access. That will only be forthcoming if the construction of the raised median on College between Kensington and Harmony is approved. I therefore request that the Council reconsider the construction of the raised median as what is ultimately an absolute necessity and what is presently a much needed safety precaution. Thank you for the time you have taken to wade through this, and your further consideration of this matter. Yours sincerely, KENSINGTON PROPERTIES, LTD. B l - /�- J. FHeffron JPH/108 0 0 =i < o cv To: C'nl�o Ramon c Colorado Deoartment of Hi Qhi,•Iays Nally Jacob=on, Colorado Depart. of Hioh.�a•= Elaine Price, Colorado Department of HiQht,gays CD Paul Heffr•en, R''ensinotcwn Pr^oertie= L`' Jim Cla.-k, Mc Don aId`s Corporation Jim Gefroh, Gefrch Hattman. Inc. v J 11 I I 1 • W Frem: Hatt Del ich ✓. Date: January 30, 1?89 ,j < Subjac Rieht-in access from College Avenue to the Gateway at Harmony Road z. c'7 =This_. memorandum was prepared to provide information supporting the proposed r i on t-i n access to the Ga. te�.Iay at Harmony Road from southbound College Avenue. The pr000=_ed access is located 250 feet north of the center 1 i ne of Harmony Road. Th I = memerandUrn .,!ri=t�n documentation of my presentation at a meeting_ on January 26, 1989 attended by the recipients of this memorandum. College Avenue is a Category 3 State Hight -jay. Section 3.6.3. of the State Highway Access Code (2CC10 601-1) August 15, 1985, applies to the proposed access. 1 This section is presented below. c1 Z "Private direct access to the state highway system w shall be permitted only when the property in question z has no other reasonable access to the general street zsystem or if the local authority and Department w determine and agree that denial of direct access to the M > state highway and alternative direct access to another roadway would cause unacceptable traffic operation and = o c.� safety problems to the overall traffic flow of the < general street system. 4Jhen direct access must be W ¢ provided, the following shall be considered. G o a :z a• Such access. shall continue until such time that some -� other reasonable access to a lower funtion category street or highway is available and permitted. The 3 CJ access permit should specify under what circum- u.+ Q stances the change will be required, and if known, cc the future access location and the date the change F--. will be made. At no time shall the property be denied reasonable access to the general street system pursuant to this code. Subdivisions should 1 1 be t;Fc.j fined to pro,,) 1 r_-e gar a.l ternat i ve a.cce __= at future date. b. �rd0 more that one access shall be provided to an individual parcel or to c_,tiguous parcels under the same ovanership unless it can to shown that: (1) additional access w ouId he significantly benpficia.l - to the safe ty and aperat 1 on of the h i ght-,1ay, or ( 2) al lowing only one asses !:!ouId be in con fl jct vi th C. An access shall be limited to right turns only unless, (1) the access does not have the potential for signalization, ;" a ieft :urn would not create unreasonable congestion or safety problems and lower the level of service and. (?) in the determina.tiTn of the issuing authority, alternatives to the left turn would cause unacceptable traffic operation and safety problems on the general street system. - d. Private access, which has the potential for signalization may be permitted left turn movements if, (1) it meets the signalization spacing requirements for intersecting public_ street, roads. and highways, as per subsection 3.6.5 below, and (2) it does not interfere with the location, planning, and operation of the general street system and access to nearby properties." The items covered in this memorandum relate to operation, safety, and rea=_enabl=ness of access, as well as each of the subsections 3.6.3a—d. P,eference will also be made to the South Ccilege Avenue Access Control Study, November, 1988. Operation Analyses were performed, using year 2010 projec— tions, comparing the operation at key intersections with and without the proposed right —in access. At the College/Kensington intersection (future signalization), - operation would not be significantly different either with or without the proposed access. Operation at the College/Harmony intersection would be improved with the proposed right —in access. Operation at this intersec— tion will be in the level of service D category during the afternoon peak hour under both access conditions, but lower in the level of service D category without the access. At the Harmony/Mason intersection, operation in the afternoon peak will be in the level of service C category with the access and level of service D without the access. While level of service D is accept-..ble for short periods during the day, it is considered to be E • unacceptable for e>:tended per iocs. according to many Fort Collins traffic counts, the mornino_ r,eak hour of terr.)ocn peak hour occurs be tween 4:30 FM and 5 : 3 0 F'M. From the daily count information along College Avenue just north of this site, the hour]>• traffic volumes be tkaleen 1 1 :00 Atl and 6:00 Ft1 air not =_ i gn i f i ca.n t 1 y difT"erent Therefore, it is concluded that the level of service D operation will likely occur for 6-7 hours of a Fvn j r l of v i;:n I _h rer I _ f" t I Jl 1 ns criteria is considered to be unacc_pta.ble. I 1:.lould hasten to point out that right-in/right-out access points along Colieoe ""venue were granted between Foothills and Swallow, between boardwalk and Troutman Cat Best), and between Troutman and Leensincton Cat Target) in the South College Avenue Access Control Plan. In all of the analyses justifying these accesses, operation did not fall below level of service D either - with or without the accesses. Also, the improvement in operation with the particular access was the same relative level indicated in the analyses presented above. They were agreed upon by the City, County, and Highway.Department Staffs for the same masons presented above and in the rernalncer of this memorandum. Provision of the right -in access will reduce the number of southbound right -turns at Kensington, thereby reducing the number of westbound left -turns into the accesses along Kensington. This reduction will improve the operation along Kensington and, in fact, reduce the likelihood of left -turn lane conflicts along Kensington. In order for the proposed right -in access to operate safety and efficiently, it is recommended that a continuous right -turn lane be constructed on the west side of College Avenue from just south of Target to Harmony Road. This has been addressed in my November 30, 1988 and January 9, 1989 memoranda and, to my knowledge, has been accepted by both the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado Department of Highways, District 4. This recommendation is also made in accordance with the State Hiqhway Access Code, Section 4.8. Construction of Speed Change Lanes, "2. Where two accesses have speed change lanes that overlap, or are in close proximity but do not overlap, a continuous lane shall be established between the accesses to improve roadway consistency, safety, and to maintain edge continuity." It is expected that this continuous right turn lane will function similarly to the one on the west side of South College Avenue from Rutgers to Drake. This lane provides access at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. 3 0 0 ^r'-'�I �~ ?.=0ve �I=_.==1Cr!, I t , _ concluded 'hat Frn�isicn of the oroposed ri ,ht - in acc e=_= ,..!ill imrrove the operation at a number C. nter=_.ectlon=. ' be tween Col 1 cn tree t 'recommended ege r i gih t-turn and 1•la=_on . The continuous 1 ane i s i n accordance r,.,i th the State Hi Code. Sa'faty The right -in access reduces the number of vehicle going through five conflict points as sho(.vn in Figure 1. The right -in accessdoe=, introduce an additional conflict point on College Avenue. However, this. confl ict point i=_. located in a right -turn lane L•.,here this is expected to occur. Four of the five conflict points shovin in Figure 1 are in through travel lanes on Harmony Road and Mason Street. It is. concluded that provision of the right -in access will be a safer condition for the general traveling public, as well as those vehicles destined for thi s si te. Reasonable Access Information from McDonald's Corporation, the Institute of Transportation Engineer., Federal Highway Administration, and others document that between 50-70 percent of the patrons at a fast food restaurant are from passby traffic. A potential passby patron traveling southbound on College Avenue would probably not attempt to turn into the proposed McDonald's until it was in view. Finding no access along College Avenue and Harmony Road, the patron would be required to access from Mason Street. This requires an additional 1000 feet of travel for each trip from southbound College Avenue. Depending upon the phase of the signals or the gaps available for right -turn -on -red -after -stop, approximately 60-80 seconds are added to each inbound trip from southbound College Avenue. With conservative assumptions regarding passby traffic from College Avenue, the inbound travelers will collectively spend between 10 and 11 additional hours per day on the street system accessing this site without the right -in access. This also adds an additional 104 miles of travel per day at this very busy area of Fort Collins. This stop and go travel attempting to access this site increases the air pollution and fuel consumption. It is concluded that an access to the corner site, which adds 1000 feet of travel to an entering vehicle a] 0 C� J a.nd, zrlxrefor.s ;,e r i an t- acce=_s from -Co l l ege�A,✓enue should to Sta°ta - Hi phi iev Access Code As presented earlier, Section 3.6.3.a-d. of the S. tat& H;ghwa/ r=cc2ss CcCle Present= eesign standards and criteria regarding access to a Category 3 highway. Ci t i ric each Cf `he rr i tE( i � r.� i 1 - -_ ?[' I - C11. 3.6.3.a. "Reasonable Access'- - This site does not have reasonable access.when considering the aaditional travel ti-e and distance requi;:d to access this Site :ithout the right -in access. - 3.6.3.b. "Single Access Point" - Only one access point is being requested from the State _ Highway System. All other accesses to this sits are via `,he _ity str2.et system. The right -in access provides a safer condition than adding traffic to conflict points on the existing street system. 3.6.3.c. "Right turns only" - The access requested is for right turns only, in fact, the request is for a right -in only. �.o.3.d. "Signalization" - This access has no potential for signalization. Conclusion From the above analyses and evaluations, the following is concluded: - Provision of the right -in access improves the operation at the College/Harmony and Harmony/Mason intersections and along Kensington Street between College and Mason. - Right-in/right-out accesses in the South College Access Control Plan were agreed upon by City, County, and State staffs teased Qpon 'the same operational and safety criteria presented in this memorandum. - Provision of the right -in access improves the overall safety on the street system in this area. - Access to this site is not reasonable without the right -in access from College Avenue. 5 i • - = he State Highway across L:nde provides design standard_. and cr i ter i a vlh i cF, are sat i s.f i ed by the r i r:,h }- n -' r O S Given the above analyses, evaluations, and conclusions, it is recommended that the right - in only access from r,l 1 ego Avenue t^-he kt road be al 1 ok,jea wi th the necessary deli gn condi t i ons including medians on South College Avenue. r_a a KENSrN&ToN A I( tt f�61„! CONF't,ICT 1'� cJ CONFLICT FOINT COMPARISON 0 6 \---' HB nu ti NiINI.9 Rib: 1 1 1 r� Ei�_ rw.• is .ACOSG%G�7i'w wc� —•-•1•—'— -- — —. _ /—L — ,. — � � — � _:.}-ems rr. tis irn;.i�i � fsre_ --- -�,. 00 ow Im�. ,rliN.t= �,r.'}:'.�.ySS I 1 Fu.'.i,l�• n Ir_�^4T'sf!� toil 17-7 op AA ! ^, I--.:—•:11 i I� �4�c�'1.c.ky�N'I .�� �--_'� l.l.�• a 4 I I hiaua I i � — � ��� •�� � �' �� � �•i fry- � , r�•. ��� �-. j I pFS, f�r �_'_ i �!E'�r'-i•• :7.e•!-•1, ` ICr i 4-'s.' (t-, tx c I o M t`i - •`�-:-�Fr�..vs r (Iwiy:.�:4:fa,�.�L. h•. tle.l'�Idiali/F+�,�ar��s...�+- j ` , 9 - •slaor•i • _ > FXisi��vG. E As an update on the Gateway at Harmony PUD (McDonald's and Amoco), the Planning and Zoning Board at their January 23rd meeting, continued consideration of the application until Feb. 27th. The situation is as follows: 1. The applicant proposes to build a right -in (turn) off of College Ave. (mid block between Kensington and Harmony). This would allow for a better internal circulation pattern. 2. This proposal will only work (from a traffic safety and planning perspective) if a median is placed on College, between Kensing- ton and Harmony. 3. The State Highway Dept., in an informal conversation, has indicated that they will reject the section of the South College Access Plan modified by Council. You may remember that this was the deferral of the median project until certain circulation roads are constructed. We requested that the state submit a formal response. 4. It appears the formal response is forthcoming. The Transporta- tion Division believes that they will be prepared to bring the matter to the Council at the Feb. 21 meeting. Council will need to decide if the median project should be deferred. 5. The owner of the Gateway property (Paul Heffron), will appear at the Council meeting as will representatives of McDonalds and Amoco to argue for the median. 6. It is entirely possible that McDonalds will not go if the right -in is rejected. 7. The state does not like the right -in concept but may reconsider their opposition depending on Council action. Staff, on the other hand, supports the right -in. 8. You may want to notify the Manager and Council that the median issue is coming back. 9. The Planning and Zoning Board will not be meeting on Gateway until Feb. 27.