Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-28PLANNING OBJECTIVES THE GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD 1. The Planning Objectives for the proposed amended plan remain the same or very similar in scope, Land Use Policies,and energy considerations to the original, approved PUD. 2. Important modifications include the following; * The! new business will be open 17 hours versus 24 hours. * There will be 4 gas dispensers in lieu of 6 to 8. * Customer traffic volume is estimated at 50% of the original Flan, 12,000 per month versus 25,000. * Canopy above the gas dispensers are oriented 45 degrees to College Avenue to lessen visual impact, and combined are about 60% less than the original plan in length. 3. Since the original plan was approved, Peterson Toyota and street and utility improvements have occurred. Alignment with the Peterson access at Kensington has been adjusted accordingly. 4. Basic Land Uses are the same as originally approved. Jiffy Lube installs automotive fluids and lubrications, Texaco provides fuel sales and the car wash remains as originally indicated. 5. Building exterior colors will coordinated with the intent of the overall development to blend with existing and future buildings in this development. 6. Landscape, although somewhat modified in choice of plant material is similar in placement of plant materials. 7. It is estimated that nine single shift. Ample parking has anticipated parking demand, on - in the original plan. employees will be working at any been proposed to accomodate all site. This compares with 5 spaces nc,, ARCHfIF.CIS STUDIO 117 East Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 303 48? 8125 STATE OF LOLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS --.. P.O. Box 850 Greelev. Colorado 80632-0850 - (303)353-1232 011 14�0, January 19, 1989 Larimer o., The Gateway at Harmony Rd. P.U.D. NW of Harmony Rd. and 287 Ms. "Linda Ripley Planning Department City of rt. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CC) 80522 Dear Ms. Ripley: J L DOH File 45100 This office has reviewed The Gateway at Harmony Rd. P.U.D. and provided comments to you in letters of 1/12/88 and 12/15/88. On 1/11/89 the District Engineer and I met with Rick Ensdorff, I•;ike Herzig, and Eric Bracke to discuss the n_rcnosed right -turn -in access from S.H. 287. As a result of that meeting and further review of traffic information, we have the following additional comments on this P.U.D. and the status of the South College Avenue Access Control Plan. The feasibility of this proposed access has been re-evaluated in relation to the State Highway Access Code and the Draft South College Access Control Plan. Upon discussion of this proposal with the District Engineer, we do not find justification for approval of this access based on the Access Code or the Draft Access Control Plan. At this time the Access Code is the determinating regulation since the Access Control Plan is not yet in effect. The Category Three standard in the Access Code does not allow direct access to the highway unless: the property has no other reasonable access or denial of highway access and alternative access would cause unacceptable traffic operation and safety problems to the overall traffic flow of the general street system. The traffic analyses which have been provided do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable alternative access from Kensington or Mason Streets. There is only a slight improvement in the Year 2010 Peak Hour Intersection Operation" of the Kensington/College intersection with a right-in/right-rout access, according to a December, 1987 study by Matt Delich. That analysis also assumes a right-in/right-out access to Harmony Rd. which is not shown on the current P.U.D. plan. Although the Access Control Plan is not yet in effect, we have considered the proposal according to the appropriate criteria in the Draft Plan. The criteria which must be met are the following: provision of joint access to an area -wide circulation system serving multiple properties or land uses, an improvement of traffic operation on S. College Ave., and meeting the design requirements of the City and State Highway Department. `•ie do not find that all of these criteria can be met. LINDA RIPLEY January 19, 1989 Page Two In addition to the access considerations for this project, we have reviewed the right of way analysis of 1/9/89 by Matt Delich. Given the location of the existing and planned public intersections _^3 the right cf way constraints, we find this analysis to be acceptable. The recommended additional 15---6 feet of right of way along the Gateway P.U.D. would result in a 75- to 76--foot width west of the highway centerline/section line. This is preferable to the 70-foot width which we have previously recommended, since it would provide a 5-foot area behind the future curb line. The development of the Gateway property and the area north of Kensington St. has important implications for the Access Control Plan and the need for median left -turn improvements. The northbound left -turn lane for Kensington St. and the southbound double left -turn lanes at Harmony Rd. will need to be in place to serve the existing and projected turning movements. The Access Control Plan has been approved by the City Council with conditions that preclude raised medians along this P.U.D. and south of Horsetooth Rd. until certain city streets are in place east of College Ave. In view of the above turn -lane considerations, we plan to discuss these conditions with City staff and the Council in order to achieve an acceptable plan. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 350-2168. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS RAMES DISTRICT ENGINEER Wallace R. J cobson Development Planning/Access Coordinator WJ:mbc cc: D. Yost E. Bracke File: Jacobson via Fames -Crier r. . �eai E;ta•e - ==�I = -.et Im,estment ?ost Office Box 1345 Services Boulder. Colorado a0306 Corporation Phone 303.443-6622 February 8,1989 Members of the Fort Collins Citv_ Council City Hall Fort Collins, Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen: cccii ike Davis `c,n As the owner (managing general partner) of the iand at the northwest corner of Harmony Rcad 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 helpful 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 rois=_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 meeting 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 any 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 ma;:e at a subsequent hearing on the issue. I) 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 A:,att 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 t. e 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 tse median issue. A) 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 41t .._ trait::; a,e a_"nowltd-,.., Sy the SHD and h. r'Uv trae, ffi.; aff to oe . sinzl dangerous Location of the Amoco station at the southwest corner of Kensington and College would have provided gas service to sou thbouno teat t is wit„out making those left turns. Naturally, the owner of the station at the northeast corner of Harmony and o lege wished to _courag ,;.,.ret:*.,. n from r; ccc. By <' avi;.y med an was in effect delaying the presence of competition in this area regardless of perpetuating .� 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 all the northbound traffic on College and East and westbound on Harmony. 5) fn an effort to clarify the traffic implications of the access to the Gateway P.U.D. we hired t47tt De'.ich in J_nuarv, 1989 to do a careful study of all relevant information. A copy of that study is included with this ietter with the salient points further supports the City staffs 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 median is built in College Avenue 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 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 S10,000.00 per month in carrying costs, taxes and lost interest. McDonald's and AToco are reacv *n close on their purchase and adhere to the P.U.D. plan approved -by the City Planning and Transportation Departments, but we must first receive �:iJ appro:ai u.e :.L. 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 consideratica of this matter. Yours sincerely, KENSINGTON PROPERTIES, LTD. JPH/108 P.O. Box 850 Greeley Colorado 80632-0850 (333)353-'232 February 14, 1989 Mr. Joe Frank Planning Department City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Frank: STATE OF COLOIZADO Larimer Co., S.H. 287 The Gateway at Harmony Rd. Y.U.D. , lst and 2nd Filings NW of Harmony Rd. and 287 DOH File 45100 We have reviewed the Gateway at Harmony Rd., lst and 2nd Final Filings, and we have the following comments. -,is P.U.D. has been reviewed by this office on several occasions dating ts have addressed a number of issues back to January 1988• Our commen involving S.H. 287, including: additional highway right of way, access to S.H. 287, surface runoff control, landscaping along S.H. 287, and new utility line connections. More recently this P.U.D. has been discussed in relation to the Draft South College Access Control Plan. Since the lst and 2nd Filing plans do not address surface runoff, landscaping, or utilities, we will limit ire followinE; co meats to the access and right of way issues. Our District Engine^r, Douglas Raines, has re-evaluated the proposed right -in -only access to this P.U.D. based on a 1i36%89 memorancum by vla Dcl.ich. Due to this analysis and his concern about potential left -turn without the requested access, he is now willing conflicts on Kensington St. l P.U.D. plans with certain conditions. to allow it as shown on the Fina These conditions are as follows: 1. A raised median shall be constructed between Kensington St. and ::armory R3, to physically prevent left -turn movements. 2. This median shall allow for double soutnocunc Harmony Rd. and a northbound left -turn lane at Kensington St. 3. A southbound right -turn deceleration lane shall be provided for Kensingtcn St., then continue to the Harmony Rd. intersection. 1n addition to the above conditions we are reauesting that the necessary ong-range highway width and detailed design right of way for the ultimate l mans be provided. Additional right of way to achieve the 75- or 76-foot r width identif-ed by Jlatt Delich should be dedica�ea. t true On cual i nor all widening along S.H. 287 should be prepared to fully identify i JOE FRANK February 14, 1989 Page Two how the access -related improvements will be accomplished. This is especially important at Harmony Rd. due to the existing signal poles, curb and gutter, and guardrail which will be affected by this highway widening and the transition south of the intersection. These plans will be required for an Access Permit to be approved by this office. We look forward to continued coordination with the City on this project and the South College Access Control Plan. As noted in our 2/8/89 letter to Mike Davis, we hope to meet with the City to achieve a mutually acceptable plan. Please contact me at 350-2168 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS RAMES DISTRICT ENGINEER / Ati-�6I-lCF f S ,. Wallace R. acobson Development Planning/ ccess Coordinator WJ:mbc cc: D. Yost Eric Bracke, Ft. Collins Transp. File: Jacobson via Crier Message. . Subject: Kensington Emtension Sender-: Ted SHEF"ARG / EFC:2/01 TO: Nike HERZI.G / CF(.52/01 Part 1. TO: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01 Rick ENSDORFF / CFC52/01. Joe FRANK. / CFC52/01 Nike HERZ IG i CFC52/01 Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 Fart _.. Dated: 11/09/89 at 0831. Contents: 2. I have received a phone from Bob Pennock (realty agent) rep- resenting Bill Stric.k:fadden (Fort Collins Assemblage) regarding the southeast corner of South College and Kensington Drive. The potential user is a :57000 sq. ft. freestanding restaurant. The Fort Collins Assemblage/restaurant user are willing to dedicate and construct their half of Kensington Drive as, indicated on the South} College Access Control Plan. They are also willing to do whatever is necessary to provide Wayne Schrader with: a frontage road for access. The issue becomes how does the north half of Kensington get: dedicated and built since the property to the north is owned by George Holter, who. in the past:., has proven to be an uncooperative land owner. Pennock: and Strick:fadden would Like some indication as to how Kensington will get built in this situation. Pennock: is willing to meet with, the appropriate City officials if a meeting is deemed necessary. Please give me your opinion on how best to get the information to Pennock. They need to structure their- contract based on accurate information. Thanks. End of Item 2. Ini:ray � Ago