HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD, 1ST FILING - FINAL - 1-88C - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUEi • 6-K
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
specific 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 Highway 287 as well as
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 of ColoradQ
file/2
is
l T ff
J
Ciiv of Fort-Coilins
TO:
Devmment Services
Planning, Department
NIEN10ZA�P1�111
vlayor and Members of City
FROM: Laurie O'Dell, Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board Lr"
DATE: February 15, 1989
RE: South College Access Plan
On January 23, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board was asked to consider a
request for preliminary approval of a planned unit development known as the
Gateway P.U.D. The project is located on the northwest corner of the intcrscc-
tion of Harmony Road and College Avenue. The request was for approval of
a mixed 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 existing striped median in Collc3c Avenuc to accommodate left -turning
movements to Kensington Street and to provide for double Icft-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 College 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. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 50522-0580 - (303) 221-6750
•
u
5TAT E OF COLOKAL 0
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. Box 850
Greeley. Colorado 60632-0850
(303)353-1232
February 8, 1989
Mr. Mike Davis
Director of DevelopmenL, 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 DZsdorff,
requesting 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.
0
•
1.1I.{E 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 in order to achieve a mutually
acceptable plan. .ou may caii -,e or :,aiiy uaco son at j550-c_co zo arrange
an appropriate meeting.
Very truly yours,
Douglas D. Rames
District Engineer
DDR:mbc(WJ)
cc: E. Dracke-Ft. Collins Trans_n.
L. Ripley -Ft. Collins Plan.
P. Demosthenes -Staff Right of Way
File: Jacobson via Crier
r
0 •
,IkA_-�-viS
!n,es:r-er;t Pcst Ctfice Eox 3-3
Services Boulder. Co!craco 80306
Corporation Phone 303.=-13-6622
February 8, 1989
Members of.the Fort Collins City Council
City Hall
Fcrt Collins. Colcrsdo
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As the owner (managing general partner) of the iand at the northwest corner of Hai,r,on,�
Road and College Avenue, known as the Gateway Y.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 reason2ble 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 re�7ardin; the construction of the rnis,2d
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:ng of
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 wav 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.
0 •
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 north�,ound traffic are acknowled;:d by the `HD zzn.d t'-- '':ity
traffic staff to be iccreasingly dangerous. Location of the AMOCO station at the southwest corner
of Kensington and College would have provided gas service CO soutnbounu traffic without
those left turns. Naturally, the owner of the station at the northeast corner of Harmony and
Coilege wished to discourage cc—mcetition .rim :i v
:C_ . _43!ayinq *h., median constrtict:on. 1.9
was in effect Teliying 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 gets ail 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 "Matt Delich in Januarv. 1989 to do a careful study of all relevant information. A copy of
that study is included with this letter wim the salient points hAignl;;n.ed. lr. Delich' t ;.
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 P.U.D. unless a raised ;nedian is built in Cc!:ege Aven,.e t.etween
Kensington and Harmony. This is partially to preclude left turns into McDonald's by northbound
traffic on College (althou;h this could be precluded by extending the divider northwards between
the right in only and the through traffic lanes). The SHD rightfully 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 volume 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. LicDonald'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 SHD approvai 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.
JPH/ 108
c :z
<
rc cr+
O o:
O 19
U o
O
LU
r
z
E•
n
LU
G.7
w
C
W
S
Q
ikc
CD
z
LU
W
z
z
W
_J
U
z
0
G
F-
0
a
Cn
z
Q
U
Q
-
r I=_! !I_Ir,"r;E� 1 'i I
To: _
Doug Rame=_ . CO or ado Deoar tmen t of
Hi oht,'ia.ys
"JaI I Jacobson, 001cra.do Depart. of
Hiehl''.ja.ys
Elaine Price, Colorado Department of
Hight.+ays
Pau Heffron, kensinoton Properties
Lt-1
_
Jim Cla.rK, McDonaId's Corporation
y
Jim Gefroh, Gefroh Hattman, Inc.
-' - - _. � .. � ) � i ♦ i _ _ . 1. � � 1 � 11
Fr cm:
Platt DeIich
Date:
January 30, 1989
�ubjact:
Richt - in access from College Avenue
to the
Gatet/jay at Harmony Road
This. memorandum was prepared to provide information
supporting the proposed right -in access t'_ the Gate!',+a.y
at Harmony Road from =outhbound College Avenue. The
proposed access is located 250 feet north of the
centerline of Harmony Road. Th i c memcrar,i -
.vr i t t2n documentation of my
presentation
January 26, 1989 attended by the recipients ofthis
nq °n
memorandum.
College Avenue is a Category 3 State Hight -jay.
Section 3.6.3. of the State Highway Access Code (2CCR
601-1) August 15, 1985, applies to the proposed access.
This section is presented below.
"Private direct access to the state highway system
shall be permitted only when the property in question
has no other reasonable access to the general street
system or if the local authority and Department
determine and agree that denial of direct access to the
state highway and alternative direct access to another
roadway would cause unacceptable traffic operation and
safety problems to the overall traffic flow of the
general street system. 4dhen direct access must be
provided, the following shall be considered.
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
access permit should specify under what circum-
stances the change will be required, and if knot%ln,
the future access location and the date the change
will be made. At no time shall the property be
denied reasonable access to the general street
system pursuant to this code. Subdivisions should
be des. i aned t0 pro,,) I .cr i ternat i ve acce =__ at a.
future date.
b. r1'J0 more that one asses= shall be provided to a.n
indi idual parcel or to c-ntigucus parcels under the
same o+�.+ner=hip unie=_c_ it can to shown that; 1)
additional access Ljould bs e .iQnificantIy beneficial
to the =.are ty and operat ion of the h i ght-,lay, or (2)
al lo(,.ling only one access viouId be in conflict tai th
lrz
-
C. An access shall be limited to right turns only
unless., (1) the access does not have the potential
for signalization, (" a last _urn would not create
unreasonable congestion or safety problems - . and 1otjE_r
the level of service and, (?) in the determination
of the is. suing 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 reasonableness oz access, as well
as each of the subsections 3.6.3a—d. Reference will
also be made to the South Cc! 1ege 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
N
unaccepwtabI e for e;;tended per, ocs , According to many
Fort Coi Iins tr a.c Count., `he a, orninc peak `0
afternoon peak hour occurs be tween f4:30 FM and 5:36 F•M.
Frof-, the daily count information along Cal Ieee Avenue
just north of this site, the hourly traffic volume=.
be tvieen 1 1 :00 4,11 and 6:00 FM are not signifiCantly
different. Therefore, it is concluded that the level of
service D operation will likely occur for 6-7 hours of a.
tyviCal J?Wray :.hi�n rice ` r i cf r=ort Loll ,ns
criteria is considered to be unacceptable.
I !.could hasten to point out that right-in/right-out
access points along College Avenue were granted between
Foothills and Swallow, between boardwalk and Troutman
(at Best), and between Troutman and Kensincton (at
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 reasons presented
:,Cove and in the remainder of this memorandum.
Provision of the right -in access will reduce the
number of =_.outhbound 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 safely 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 Highway 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
rO7t ?.�Ove .I °- C I = _,_i r u,�� that
provi=_Izin of the propc_�,l ^,,_nt-in acce=_= VJ111 M0r01.)
the orerat, n a. number
l'Je �' I : _•--, _ ,' 9 1 = 1 nQ �n ., a
be tt
�n Col 1 eoe and t-1a=or. , The I recommended continuous
r i ght-turn 1 an i s i n accordance (,Ji th o th-
Acc•_•=_ Code. -- �-.
Sa-f e tY
The right -in access reduces the number of vehicles.
going through five conflict points as shown in Figure 1.
The right - in acce=_.= does. introduce an additional
confI i ct poi n t on Col 1 age f.,venue . However. th i
conflict point islocated in a right -turn lane ,there
this is expected to occl1r. 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
this si te.
Reasonable Access
Information =rc McDonalg"s ccrooraticn, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers., 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
4
a.nd. :n're+vre. -ne r 1 _n`-'ii =,_C�ss from Cc,l IegeyAvenue
s h o u 1 d be Aran ted .
S t A t hlJaY Accec S
As_ presented earlier, 'Section ?.6.3.a-d. of the
Hi _h ,af ;=crass -cc2 prrsen'_. cosign standards and
criteria regarding access to a Category 3 highway.
Ci tlrii� s�,ch
3.6.3.a. "Reasonable Access" - This site does not
have reasonable access when considering the
addi t i on al trave I t i, e and di stance requ i red
to access this site without 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.
site are via the i�y street 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.
3.6.3.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 bayed capon 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.
WE
`
=The State Highway Acce s s Code provides design
standards and cr i ter i a t%lh i ch are satisfied by the r i rJh t—
in
Given the above analyses, evaluations, and
conclusions, it is recommended that the right —in only
access from C-21 l e e Avenue t .h;,
_.teway at H=.rya,-,;
i=oaa be al lowed with the necessary design conditions
including medians on South College Avenue.
9
� KENS1f.1GToN {
a
' �6h1 COntFLICT _ c j I
CONFLICT FOINT COMPARISON
F ir,u RE
0
V,- v