Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGLOBAL VILLAGE ACADEMY II - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2016-05-18,4v- 4 o An International Charter School February 9, 2015 Ted Shepard Tyler Siegmund Martina Wilkinson City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80522 Global Village Academy — Fort Collins Learning through language and culture 2130 W. Horsetooth, Fort Collins, CO 80526 www slobalvillaaeacademv.m 970-402-6898 Dear Mr. Sigmund, Mr. Shepard and Ms. Wilkinson, Thank you for the prompt response to our eakier letter regarding the right hand turn lane planned for southbound Taft Hill Road at the intersection with West Horsetooth Road. 1 After reviewing your comments and receiving additional information from our traffic engineer we agree that it is in the best interests of safety for Global Village Academy -Ft. Collins to assist with the installation of the aforementioned right turn lane. Because this expense was not anticipated it is causing a real strain on our project budget and we ask that the City of Ft. Collins consider assisting with some portion of the project expense. If the City of Fort Collins is not willing to contribute toward this project for the safety of local citizens, Global Village Academy will pay the total expense. We want to be good citizens, and as always, we place a premium on safety. Thank you for your consideration and we believe this concession should address all of the concerns that have been expressed by City Staff. Sincerely, Terry Gogerty Terry Gogerty Global Village Academy Planning, Development & Transportation F6rtins TO: Planning and Zoning Board Traffic Operations 626 Linden P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221,6630 970.221.6282 - fax www.fcgov.com/traffic MEMORANDUM THROUGH: Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Ted Shepard, Chief Planner FROM: Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Tyler Siegmund, Engineering Department DATE: February 11, 2015 RE: Global Village Academy (GVA), Public Charter School, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA 150001 This memorandum provides additional information related to the warranted Auxiliary Turn Lanes for the above project; including updated information since the Planning and Zoning Board's work session on February 6, 2015. in terms of background, the Traffic Impact Study that was submitted in mid -January identified that four auxiliary turn lanes are warranted. Traffic volumes for one of those lanes is not impacted by GVA, the City can implement one lane with its overlay project this summer through re -striping the pavement, and a third lane is off -site and is acknowledged to be not feasible for construction by GVA. The fourth lane is the southbound right turn lane from Taft Hill Road onto Horsetooth Road. This lane is immediately adjacent to the GVA site, the right-of-way exists, and the traffic generated by Phase 2 expansion warrants the need for this lane. We consider this lane to be an operational and safety improvement. As was discussed at the work session, City staff is requiring the construction of this lane, is not supportive of a variance to eliminate the lane requirement, and cannot support a recommendation of approval of the project without its implementation. That position was communicated to GVA verbally and via staff comment letter within a few days of receipt of the TIS, and was re -iterated in a final response letter to GVA sent late last week. Subsequent to the work session, the City received the attached letter from Global Village. They now indicate that they are willing to construct the turn lane with this proposed development which is an important and positive step forward. F rt Cothns With the agreement from GVA to construct the southbound right turn lane at Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road, City traffic and engineering staff have no further objections to the project and will support a recommendation of approval. Page 2of2 Planning, Development & Transportation Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6605 970.221.6378 - fax fcgov. corn/engineering February 6, 2015 Terry Gogerty Global Village Academy Mr. Gogerty, We thank you and your team for working with City staff through the development review process for Global Village Academy (GVA) Phase 2. As noted and discussed throughout the process, Engineering and Traffic Operations staff are concerned about the traffic related impacts proposed by Phase 2 expansion of Global Village Academy. Upon receipt of the Global Village Academy Phase 2 Transportation Impact Study (TIS) dated January 2015, staff noted that the study identified four auxiliary turn lanes that are warranted and not constructed in the area of the Global Village Academy site. As with all projects, we are committed to finding an appropriate approach for mitigation, and determined that one lane that is identified is not impacted by GVA traffic, another lane identified can be implemented by a City project this summer as part of an overlay program through re -striping the existing pavement (this will not require additional construction), and one lane is off -site and not likely feasible for GVA to construct. The fourth lane identified is the southbound right turn lane from Taft Hill Road to Horsetooth Road. This lane is immediately adjacent to the GVA site and the traffic generated by Phase 2 expansion warrants the need for this lane. The current development proposal does not address or mitigate the traffic impacts that are generated by the expansion of Global Village Academy. Below is the City's position on traffic impact mitigation for the Global Village Academy Phase 2 expansion: 1. The traffic situation with Phase 2 is different from the Phase 1 project submittal. A year ago, the Phase 1 project proposed half of the amount of traffic that is being proposed with Phase 2 and the TIS for Phase 1 did not assign any GVA traffic to the southbound right turn movement at Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. During the site planning for Phase 1, right-of-way was obtained at this location and the site was adjusted to accommodate a future right turn lane, which could then be built once warranted by traffic volumes. The Phase 1 TIS acknowledged that any additional phases of development on the site would require a review of new traffic impacts generated by additional development. ,_eicodin� 2. One year later with the GVA Phase 2 development, the proposal is to double the number of students attending the school. The Phase 2 TIS indicates the need for this turn lane and GVA traffic alone meets the threshold for the turn lane at this location. 3. Staff does not support a variance request for the turn lane at Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. With the increased traffic volumes generated specifically by GVA Phase 2 at this intersection, City standards indicate that GVA has the responsibility to mitigate these impacts. The requested turn lane is along the GVA property frontage and right-of-way currently exists for construction of a turn lane. 4. In regard to the project timeline, the review period and opportunities for iterative efforts between the applicant and the City are limited by the requirements of the state charter school and Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process. An updated TIS for Phase 2 was not provided to City staff to understand the traffic impacts related to the expansion of the school until mid -January. City staff met with GVA on January 21, 2015 for the first time since the TIS had been submitted, where the need for the right turn lanes was discussed. Staff noted that if GVA was not intending to build the turn lanes as part of the project then a variance request letter would need to be submitted. City staff received the variance request on January 29, 2015. If this was a typical development review process, and not a SPAR, City staff would not have allowed the project to proceed to public hearing without the turn lane issue resolved. It is City staff position that an appropriate approach for mitigation has been identified. Of the four warranted turn lanes, we are requesting that the southbound right turn lane from Taft Hill Road to Horsetooth Road be constructed with the expansion of GVA. This is a movement that is heavily impacted by GVA traffic, adjacent to the site, and the appropriate right-of-way is available. Without this improvement, City Engineering and Traffic Operations staff cannot support the approval of Global Village Academy Phase 2 development project at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Please contact us if you have questions or would like to discuss this issue further. Sincerely, Martina Wilkinson City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 970.221.6887 mwilkinson@fceov.com Tyler Siegmund City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 970.221.6501 tsieemund@fceov.com ,4titi q 4e Global Village Academy — Fort Collins Learning through Canguage and cukure 3 2130 W. Horsetooth, Fort Collins, CO 80526 www.globalvillageacademy.org 970-402-6898 An International Charter School January 28, 2015 Tyler Siegmund, P.E. Fort Collins, Engineering Martina Wilkinson, P.E. Fort Collins, Traffic Engineering P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Tyler and Martina; This letter pertains to the south bound right -turn auxiliary lane at Taft Hill/ Horsetooth and Taft Hill/ Bronson intersections. According to 8.2.6 Exclusive Right Turn Lanes and Figure 8-4 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), on four -Lane arterials, a right -turn lane should be required with a turning volume of approximately 43 vehicles with a total approach volume of 926 vehicles, at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. Therefore, a right -turn lane is required based on the current afternoon peak hour traffic. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, the turning volumes clearly exceed the threshold for a right -turn lane. At the Taft Hill/ Horsetooth intersection the added traffic exceeds the threshold traffic volume for one hour in the afternoon. We recognize a greater need at the Taft Hill/ Bronson access intersections; however, in order to install this lane several obstacles would need to be overcome. 1) The land would need to be purchased from the home owners association. 2) The property is currently a storm water detention pond. It is unlikely that the volume of that pond could be reduced; therefore, additional land may be needed in order to relocate the pond. Due to the proximity of houses on the North and West this may not be possible. 3) Several mature trees would need to be removed It is acknowledged that a right -turn lane at each of these intersections will improve the overall operation by a small amount. It will not change the level of service significantly. However, the removal of the trees will have an impact on the environmental aspect and feel of the Taft Hill Corridor. Additionally, the financial burden that these improvements would require substantial cuts to the core function of the school. Because of the budgetary limitations of a public, non-profit charter school it is beyond our ability to cover the costs of major infrastructure improvements, however; within our site we have made many accommodations to reduce the traffic issues. We have gone to great lengths to reduce our traffic impacts by other means such as staggering our pick-up and drop off times, providing additional onsite traffic control, and conducting an aggressive education effort with parents. Therefore, it is requested that the turn lanes off of Taft Hill not be constructed. This request will have no impact on the capital and maintenance costs of the City of Fort Collins. It is respectfully requested that this variance be granted. Thank You. Sincerely, Te"rri Gogert�y Terry Gogerty Global Village Academy Tyler Siegmund From•• Martina Wilkinson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 3:43 PM To: Ted Shepard; Tyler Siegmund Cc: Joe Olson; Sheri Langenberger Subject: Global Village Right Turn Lane discussion Attachments: Scan ner@fcgov.com_20150128_145541.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Here's the compilation as best I can tell: For the Phase 1 development, the existing turning traffic volumes for southbound right from Taft onto Horsetooth was 22/65 (am/pm) in the peak hour For the Phase 1 development, Matt Delich assigned 0 traffic to that movement - assuming that everyone would turn at Bronson (46 in the am). There was discussion aboui the warrant then (see attached emails), but the decision was that since the impact was minimal (Matt assumed zeiro), a dedication was adequate. Matt's study acknowledges in the conclusions that if/when GVA would expand, a new study would be needed. For the Phase 2 development, the existing turning traffic volumes for southbound right from Taft onto Horsetooth is now 55/34 (am/pm) in the peak hour. For the Phase 2 development, Matt Delich assigned 43/19 (am/pm) traffic to that movement - in addition to 95/76 at Bronson. The warrant for the turn lane is about 43 turns in the peak hour. (It's a function of classification, speed, turning traffic and approach volume - so the 43 is an estimate off a graph). Bottom line is that the lane is warranted, and regardless of background traffic the amount of traffic that GVA is adding to this movement which is immediately adjacent to their property would in and of itself warrant a lane. That's why I asked for a variance letter explaining their thoughts why it shouldn't be built. It's appropriate that they put a letter together and provide justification for not meeting our standards. Then we need to decide how to move forward. I see a couple of options: 1- We ask for the lane, and they agree to construct it. (Not likely!) 2 - We ask for the lane, and if they refuse then recommend denial. (Sort of feels like the nuclear option.) A middle ground solution: 3 - We ask for the lane, and if they refuse, then negotiate for some degree of contribution towards construction of the lane. (This was Sheri's idea and maybe she can explain it further) The final weasel worked solution - if we're looking to approve, but don't really totally agree: 4 - If we ask and they refuse to build the lane, or contribute to it, then indicate in the staff report that we're concerned about the traffic, that we asked for cooperation, but we don't have the jurisdiction to require it. Since it's an arterial/arterial intersection we know there may come a time when a capital project will come built it. And as such we feel we need to accept this conclusion. Your thoughts? Tyler Siegmund From: Martina Wilkinson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 3:43 PM To: Ted Shepard; Tyler Siegmund Cc: Joe Olson; Sheri Langenberger Subject: Global Village Right Turn Lane discussion Attachments: Scan ner@fcgov.com_20150128_145541.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Here's the compilation as best I can tell: For the Phase 1 development, the existing turning traffic volumes for southbound right from Taft onto Horsetooth was 22/65 (am/pm) in the peak hour For the Phase 1 development, Matt Delich assigned 0 traffic to that movement - assuming that everyone would turn at Bronson (46 in the am). There was discussion about thei warrant then (see attached emails), but the decision was that since the impact was minimal (Matt assumed zero), A dedication was adequate. i Matt's study acknowledges in the conclusions that if/when GVA would expand, a new study would be needed. For the Phase 2 development, the existing turning traffic volumes for southbound right from Taft onto Horsetooth is now 55/34 (am/pm) in the peak hour. For the Phase 2 development, Matt Delich assigned 43/19 (am/pm) traffic to that movement - in addition to 95/76 at Bronson. The warrant for the turn lane is about 43 turns in the peak hour. (It's a function of classification, speed, turning traffic and approach volume - so the 43 is an estimate off a graph). Bottom line is that the lane is warranted, and regardless of background traffic the amount of traffic that GVA is adding to this movement which is immediately adjacent to their property would in and of itself warrant a lane. That's why I asked for a variance letter explaining their thoughts why it shouldn't be built. It's appropriate that they put a letter together and provide justification for not meeting our standards. Then we need to decide how to move forward. I see a couple of options: 1- We ask for the lane, and they agree to construct it. (Not likely!) 2 - We ask for the lane, and if they refuse then recommend denial. (Sort of feels like the nuclear option.) A middle ground solution: 3 - We ask for the lane, and if they refuse, then negotiate for some degree of contribution towards construction of the lane. (This was Sheri's idea and maybe she can explain it further) The final weasel worked solution - if we're looking to approve, but don't really totally agree: 4 - If we ask and they refuse to build the lane, or contribute to it, then indicate in the staff report that we're concerned about the traffic, that we asked for cooperation, but we don't have the jurisdiction to require it. Since it's an arterial/arterial intersection we know there may come a time when a capital project will come built it. And as such we feel we need to accept this conclusion. Your thoughts?