Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 March 29, 2018 Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Special Meeting March 29, 2018 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Packet Page 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 March 29, 2018 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 CHILD CARE CENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the approved Final Plan for Harmony Commons Lot 5 for a new Child Care Facility. As proposed, the one-story building would contain 12,142 square feet. Lot 5 is 1.8 acres in size and located at the northwest corner of Lady Moon Drive and Timberwood Drive. Lot 5 was originally approved for a two-story, 25,000 square foot medical office building in 2016. Access would be from internal private drives with no direct access to either Lady Moon or Timberwood Drives. The site is a portion of Tract S of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment, and represents an individual phase of a larger (total of seven lots) commercial center. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. APPLICANT: Everbrook Child Care c/o Ms Allison Morgan Capital Real Estate, Inc. 50 South Sixth Street, #1480 Minneapolis, MN 55402 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ted Shepard • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. COMPASS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE CHARTER SCHOOL, SPA180001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: This is a request to locate a charter school at 2105 S College Ave. (parcel #8731408023). The school aims to accommodate 400 students from grades 6-12. 95 parking spaces currently serve the building. No exterior modifications to the building are proposed as part of this submittal. The school proposes adding striping to various crosswalks in the existing parking lot to provide a stronger pedestrian connection to the MAX. The applicant also proposes adding 12 bicycle parking spaces to serve the school. The site is located within the General Commercial District designated on the City Structure Plan Map. This proposal is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review. Jan Harrison Compass Community Collaborative Charter School 910 W Oak St. Fort Collins CO, 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clay Frickey • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE FOR SPECIAL MEETING Date of Posting: 3/14/18 Name of Board/Commission or Subcommittee: Planning & Zoning Board Date of Meeting: 3/29/18 Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave., Council Chambers Reason for meeting: The Board will hear a proposal for a new charter school. State and City requirements mandate that charter school applications be reviewed at a public hearing no later than 30 days from submittal. The next regularly scheduled Board hearing falls beyond the prescribed timeframe. NOTE: While this is the primary reason for the special meeting, additional agenda items may be added. The complete agenda will be available by the end of the day on Thursday, March 22nd, on the Planning & Zoning Board website. https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php For additional information call: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, 970-224-6174 Packet Page 3 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 29, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 MAJOR AMENDMENT, #PDP170036 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the approved Final Plan for Harmony Commons Lot 5 for a new Child Care Facility. As proposed, the one-story building would contain 12,142 square feet. Lot 5 is 1.8 acres in size and located at the northwest corner of Lady Moon Drive and Timberwood Drive. Lot 5 was originally approved for a two-story, 25,000 square foot medical office building in 2016. Access would be from internal private drives with no direct access to either Lady Moon or Timberwood Drives. The site is a portion of Tract S of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment, and represents an individual phase of a larger (total of seven lots) commercial center. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. APPLICANT: Everbrook Child Care c/o Ms Allison Morgan Capital Real Estate, Inc. 50 South Sixth Street, #1480 Minneapolis, MN 55402 OWNER: Harmony Commons LLC c/o Mr. Bill Wells Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary A. The Major Amendment is a component of, and in compliance with, Tract S of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment. This is a 270-acre O.D.P., owned by multiple parties, and where the primary and secondary uses have been apportioned such Packet Page 4 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 2 that there is approximately 75% primary and 25% secondary uses. B. The Major Amendment is a part of Harmony Commons commercial center and development of this parcel, as proposed, does not impact any of the other platted lots or public improvements approved for the center by previous action. C. The Major Amendment is in substantial conformance with the approved Final Plan. D. The Major Amendment complies with the development standards of the H-C zone district of Article Four. E. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. Comments: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-C Broadcom, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Comcast S: H-C Hotel (Lot 6, Harmony Commons) S H-C WilMarc Medical Mfg. (Tract E, Harmony Technology Park) E: H-C Mixed-Use Commercial (Harmony Commons Lots 3, 4 and 5) E: H-C Banner Health Hospital (Tract G, Harmony Technology Park) W: H-C Vacant (Harmony Commons Lot 7) W: H-C Intel (Tract A, Harmony Technology Park) The property was annexed as part of the 156-acre Harmony Farm in 1984. The first Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan consisted of 155 acres and was approved in 1997 in conjunction with Celestica Manufacturing. Since 1997, the following annexations occurred: • Kendall-Harmony Annexation - June 2000 • Johnson-Harmony Annexation - July 2000 These annexations triggered cooperation among various land owners which created the Harmony Technology Park O.D.P. (267 acres) - September 2000 In 2004, the Harmony Technology Park, O.D.P., Second Amendment was approved which added three residential properties and increased the total acreage of the O.D.P. from 267.19 acres to 270.19 acres. Since 2004, five additional amendments to the O.D.P. were approved in response to the great recession, parcel adjustment for various end-users, and re-allocation of the primary and secondary uses. The governing O.D.P. is the Seventh Amendment approved in 2014 and encompasses 270 acres divided among several property owners. The following projects have been approved in the Harmony Technology Park: Packet Page 5 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 3 Project Name Applicant/Use Year Site (acres) H.T.P. 1st Filing Celestica/Intel 1998 34.4 H.T.P. 2nd Filing H-P South Campus (Exp.) 2001 60.14 Brookfield Townhomes Chateau Development 2002 42.39 H.T.P. 3rd Filing Custom Blending 2008 5.01 Presidio Apartments Multi-Family 2011 11.83 H.T.P. 3rd Filing Numerica 2012 4.90 Milestone Apartments Multi-Family 2013 10.20 Banner Health Hospital 2013 27.95 H.T.P. 4th Filing Fuse Office 2014 1.62 Main Street Health Long Term Care 2015 7.5 Windsong Long Term Care 2016 3.34 Eye Center of No. Colo. Medical Office 2016 4.16 WilMarc Medical Medical Device Mfg. 2017 5.0 Harm. Commons Lots 3,4,5 Mixed-Use Commercial 2016 2.9 Harm. Commons Lot 6 Hotel 2016 1.77 Harm. Commons Lot 2 Mixed-Use Commercial 2017 1.05 Harm. Commons Lot 1 Medical Office 2017 1.61 2. Compliance with Harmony Corridor Plan: The entire 270-acre O.D.P. is within the Basic Industrial Non-Retail Employment Activity Center (B.I.N.R.E.A.C). The following land uses are existing or anticipated within Harmony Commons: • Medical Office Building - Primary Use - Lot 1 • Mixed-Use Convenience Center - Secondary Uses - Lots 2,3,4 and 5 • Hotel - Secondary Use - Lot 6 • Future Primary Use - Lot 7 The Harmony Corridor Plan states: “Secondary and supporting uses will also be permitted in the (BINREAC), but shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the Office (or Business) Park, Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable.” Development of the subject parcel contributes to fulfilling the vision of the Harmony Corridor being an area reserved for a variety of business-related uses on relatively large parcels within an attractive industrial park setting which are supported by secondary uses that are integrated with and function with the primary uses. Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Harmony Commons represent the secondary uses and are integrated into the larger O.D.P. 3. Compliance with the Harmony Technology Park, Seventh Amendment Overall Development Plan: By being located within the BINREAC, and zoned H-C, the Overall Development Plan is divided between 75% primary and 25% secondary uses. With approximately 270 acres, the uses are divided as follows: • Primary Uses 202 acres 75% • Secondary Uses 68 acres 25% Packet Page 6 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 4 Within the O.D.P., Tract S is further defined as containing 24.71 acres and the uses are divided as follows: • Primary Uses 17.14 acres • Secondary Uses 7.57 acres As noted in the table below, Tract S is divided between primary and secondary uses. Lot Category Acres 1 Primary 1.61 2 Secondary 1.05 3 Secondary .87 4 Secondary 2.03 5 Proposed Secondary 1.85 6 Secondary 1.77 7 (Vacant) 4.87 Total 14.05 The amount of secondary uses within Harmony Commons is capped at 7.57 acres. With the Child Care Center on Lot 5 classified as a Secondary Use, the allocation of Secondary Uses is now capped. Therefore, the last remaining lot, Lot 7, must develop as a Primary Use. The two owners of Tract S, Harmony Commons LLC (Lot 5) and MAV Development (Lot 7) are aware of the pre-established allocation of primary and secondary uses. (Note that the acreages indicated in the table represent net acres after dedications for the 80-foot buffer along Harmony Road, private drives and public streets.) 4. Compliance with Applicable Harmony Corridor Zone District Standards: As mentioned, a child care center is a permitted, secondary use. The building is below the maximum allowable height of six stories. The applicant is participating with the master developer of the Harmony Technology Park (M.A.V. Development) to establish and comply with the formation of the required 80-foot wide buffer along Harmony Road. In addition, the applicant’s parcel fits within an integrated pattern of streets in anticipation of the extensions of both Timberwood Drive and Technology Parkway. For example, the P.D.P. is designed in conjunction with the expected arrangement of buildings, drives, parking, landscaping, fire access and stormwater management of the entire Parcel S of the O.D.P. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) - Landscaping and Tree Protection Street trees are provided on 40-foot centers within the parkways along both Lady Moon Drive (collector street) and Timberwood Drive (local street). Foundation shrubs are placed along the north side of the building. In particular, a continuous row of landscaping is provided along the east property line between the back of the building and the sidewalk along Lady Moon Drive. This landscaping mitigates the reverse mode layout of the building relative to Lady Moon Drive. Foundation shrubs are also placed outside the fencing of the enclosed outdoor play area. Packet Page 7 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 5 B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Only the south edge of the parking lot adjoins a public street, Timberwood Drive, where the internal parking lot drive aisle is screened by a continuous row of shrubs supplemented by a mix of small evergreen trees behind the sidewalk. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The parking lot exceeds the minimum required 6% interior landscaping in the form of islands which complies with the required minimum for lots with less than 100 spaces. D. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking The parking and circulation system conforms to the approved Final Plan. There are no changes to the alignment of the two internal private drives. Similarly, there are no changes to the access points to the two adjoining public streets. As per the approved Final Plan, the east-west private drive will ultimately connect Lady Moon Drive on the east and Technology Parkway on the west. The north-south drive divides the current and future phase and connects to Timberwood Drive. There is no direct, head-in or diagonal parking along these two drives which eases the circulation within the overall commercial center. The Major Amendment is specifically designed so that there will be no cut-through traffic in front of the building. E. Section 3.2.2 (C)(4) - Bicycle Parking The standard requires that child care centers provide one bike parking space per 4,000 square feet of gross leasable area. With 12,142 square feet, four spaces are required and four spaces are provided. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways The Major Amendment provides multiple private walkways in compliance with the standard in the following manner: • One walkway connects to Lady Moon Drive; • One walkway connects to Timberwood Drive; • One walkway connects to the private east-west drive. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) - Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations As mentioned, the multiple walkways to the two adjoining public streets and the private drive allow for both bikes and pedestrians to connect to multiple destinations and the surrounding Harmony Technology Park, including Transfort Route 16, which adjoins the commercial center along Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive. H. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks for Vehicular Use Areas As mentioned, there is only one area where the internal parking lot drive aisle faces a public street. Along this edge, the vehicular use area is setback 10 feet in compliance with the standard. Packet Page 8 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 6 I. Section 3.2.2(K)(3) - Parking Lots - Maximum Number of Spaces A child care center is required to have no less than one space per 1,000 square feet. With 12,142 square feet, 13 spaces are required. The Major Amendment provides 67 spaces which exceeds the standard. As part of the Harmony Commons commercial center, there will be cross-access agreements across all six lots that are controlled by the developer to allow for shared parking. This is typical for all centers and allows for spaces to be efficiently utilized at the differing peak times for the various users. For example, the child care center parking demand is expected to peak in the early morning and late afternoon whereas the restaurants are expected to peak over lunch and early evening. J. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Parking lot pole lighting and wall-mounted sconces will feature down-directional and full cut-off fixtures. There are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. The parking lot lighting will match the existing fixtures within the center. K. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(E)(F) - Building and Project Compatibility The essence of these standards is to encourage new commercial buildings to take their architectural cues from the surrounding context, and where there is no established context, to create new buildings that set an enhanced standard of quality. The context of the area is influenced by following: • North: Harmony Commons Multi-Tenant Commercial Buildings, Lots 3 and 4; • East: Banner Health Hospital; • West: Intel; • South: Fuse Office Building, Numerica, Custom Blending/Rodelle The proposed building features a base of cultured stone and a red brick field. Gray brick is used as accent bands at mid-height and at the top of the wall. The west facing entrance is highlighted by a projecting element that rises above the height of the wall and is characterized by spandrel glass in a variety of shapes and styles. This entry feature wraps around to a portion of the south (Timberwood) elevation. The east elevation faces Lady Moon Drive and features two wall plane projections that exceed the height of the wall and include two canopies over a matching set of windows and doors. L. Section 3.5.3(B)(2) - Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings As noted, the building is oriented to the corner of Lady Moon Drive and Timberwood Drive. Thus, there are no parking spaces or drives located between the building and street. The standard requires that the building be placed between 10 and 25 feet from Lady Moon Drive. With a setback of 16 feet, the building complies with this standard. M. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Memorandum was completed and analyzed the trip generation for the child care center based on a facility with 12,142 square feet, 142 children and 20 employees. (This Memorandum is attached.) Per the approved Final Plan, the end-user on Lot 5 is a two-story, 25,000 square foot medical office building. This building does not go away. Rather, it has been moved over to Lot One Packet Page 9 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 7 where it replaces a mixed-use, multi-tenant commercial building similar to the two existing buildings within the center. The Memorandum, therefore, compares the trip generation of the child care center with the former multi-tenant building on Lot One. The comparison is as follows: Former Multi-Tenant Building Child Care Center Total Trip Generation 662 528 Morning Peak 51 112 Afternoon Peak 49 111 The Memorandum makes the following conclusions: • The change in the short-range peak hour traffic at the key intersections along Harmony Road will be less than one percent. • The impact on the short-range peak hour operation will be negligible. • The change in the short-range peak hour traffic at the key intersections along Lady Moon Drive will be 4-5%. • The impact on the short-range peak hour operation at the Lady Moon intersections will be negligible. • No additional auxiliary lanes will be required. N. Section 3.8.11 - Fences and Walls There will be two types of fencing. The outdoor play area will be fenced by a semi-private, vinyl- coated, almond-colored fence. Along the east side of the building, along Lady Moon Drive, the fencing will transition to an open-picket, ornamental iron fence. All fencing will be softened by perimeter landscaping. 6. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was not held for this Major Amendment as a child care center is a customary and expected land use within commercial shopping centers. For the original Harmony Commons development, however, a neighborhood information meeting was held on November 18, 2015. There have been four public hearings thus far for development within Harmony Commons. This major amendment will be the fifth. After the first neighborhood meeting, followed by four public hearings, it is clear that development of this commercial center has not generated any level of public interest beyond an occasional question or two. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Harmony Commons Lot 5 - Child Care Facility - Major Amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Major Amendment is a component of, and in compliance with, Tract S of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment. This is a 270-acre O.D.P., owned by multiple parties, and where the primary and secondary uses have been apportioned such that there is approximately 75% primary and 25% secondary uses. Packet Page 10 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 8 B. The Major Amendment is a part of Harmony Commons commercial center and development of this parcel, as proposed, does not impact any of the other platted lots or public improvements approved for the center by previous action. C. The Major Amendment is in substantial conformance with the approved Final Plan. D. The Major Amendment complies with the development standards of the H-C zone district of Article Four. E. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve Harmony Commons Major Amendment, #170036, based on the Findings of Fact contained within this Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Harmony Tech Park O.D.P. 7th Amendment 3. Harmony Commons Original Site Plan - Lots 3,4 and 5 4. Harmony Commons Landscape Plan - March 5. Lot 5 Major Amendment Architectural Elevations - February 6. Transportation Impact Memorandum 7. Public Comment, F. Brewster 8. Color Elevations - Received 3/23/18 Packet Page 11 Fossil Ridge High School Precision Dr Le Fever Dr Brookfield Dr Timberwood Dr Steelhead St Voyager Ln Southern Cross Ln Rock Creek Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Technology Pkwy E Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd © Harmony Commons Lot 5 Child Care 1 inch = 500 feet SITE ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 12  ƛϓ  ȫϓ Ǻϓ Ɖϓ Ŕŕϓ TɬǤ% τöυÞ  I ˹ϓ  W7 ͆ͅϓ = , •${3< = ›2ϓ  ϓφϓ ȱϓ V{ȝ<$ ²ϓʶǂ! <ȳ3 Nϓ ɒϓ :ΧîϓïĭϓJΕ͹ίϓʭͥΤϓ ſ ̣ÃϓʳɹΥĔϓ       ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 14 HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN| 03.20.2017 SCALE: 1” = 20’ - 0” NORTH 020 30 40 LADY MOON DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE TIMBERWOOD DRIVE PROPOSED BUILDING LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 6 PLAY YARD PLAY YARD PLAY YARD ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 15 a#$#~[cS~^7\<T 6+~/ +~8??# c#$~^7_7^<c :]+ 6+* %~7??# `^/ `\& c]~7k\G\D 6+& %~7??# :], d]~v 7w 7^<c~ 6~&3 *%~ 7 ?? [^& :], ::& ?:&          `c& c]~[cV~^7\<T 6+~/ +~7?> b$~:7\]^m 6&~% %~7??           T.O. STONE @ 2'-8" A.F.F. FIN FLOOR @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WINDOW @ 9'-4" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET @ 18'-10" A.F.F. T.O. STONE @ 2'-8" A.F.F. FIN FLOOR @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WINDOW @ 9'-4" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET @ 18'-10" A.F.F. T.O. STONE @ 2'-8" A.F.F. FIN FLOOR @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WINDOW @ 9'-4" A.F.F. T.O. MTL PANEL @ 18'-10" A.F.F. T.O. STONE @ 2'-8" A.F.F. FIN FLOOR @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. CANOPY @ 10'-0" A.F.F. T.O. MTL. PANEL @ 25'-2" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET @ 21'-0" A.F.F. T.O. CANOPY @ 10'-0" A.F.F. T.O. MTL. PANEL @ 25'-2" A.F.F. BR-1 FULL BRICK VENEER - GENERAL SHALE RF-1 ROCK FACE CMU - AMCON SP-1 MANUFACTURER SP-2 BR-2 TAG COLOR / STYLE RED CENTENNIAL VELOUR FULL BRICK VENEER - GENERAL SHALE SMOKE GRAY VELOUR - UTILITY #210 RUST STONE - 4X8X16 SPANDREL GLASS - OLDCASTLE GLASS PMS7706C - RAIN TEXTURE FIBER CEMENT PANELS - NICHIHA VINTAGE WOOD CEDAR - 18"X10'-0" PREFINISHED METAL PANEL - ALPOLIC CLEAR ANODIZED SUN SHADE - TBD CLEAR ANODIZED PREFINISHED METAL COPING - PAC-CLAD NOT USED SPANDREL GLASS - OLDCASTLE GLASS PMS7710C - RAIN TEXTURE SP-3 SPANDREL GLASS - OLDCASTLE GLASS PMS7702C - RAIN TEXTURE SP-4 SPANDREL GLASS - OLDCASTLE GLASS PMS7457C - RAIN TEXTURE SP-5 SPANDREL GLASS - VIRACON SUBDUED GRAY V 903 PREFINISHED METAL COPING - PAC-CLAD SILVER PREFINISHED METAL COPING - PAC-CLAD SIERRA TAN 4-SIDED SSG CURTAIN WALL - OLDCASTLE CLEAR ANODIZED - BLACK SEALANT 10'-8" 4'-0" 2'-0" 16'-8" 1'-8" 13'-0" 1'-8" 16'-4" 1'-0" 6" 6" DIA. CONC. FILLED STEEL BOLLARD, 4'-0" H., TYP. STEEL GATE - FACTORY PRIMED, FIELD PTD. ROCK FACE CMU TO MATCH BUILDING FIELD BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING SOLDIER COURSE PREFINISHED CAP FLASHING T.O. WALL @ 6'-0" A.F.F. GRADE @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL @ 6'-0" A.F.F. GRADE @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL @ 6'-0" A.F.F. GRADE @ 0'-0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL @ 6'-0" A.F.F. GRADE @ 0'-0" A.F.F. 1'-0" 6" 6" 1'-0" 6" DIA. CONC. FILLED STEEL BOLLARD, 4'-0" H., TYP. STEEL GATE - FACTORY PRIMED, FIELD PTD. 6" DIA. CONC. FILLED STEEL BOLLARD, 4'-0" H., TYP. ROCK FACE CMU TO MATCH BUILDING FIELD BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING SOLDIER COURSE PREFINISHED CAP FLASHING GALV. STEEL ANGLE, TYP. STEEL GATE - FACTORY PRIMED, FIELD PTD. 6'-0" ROCK FACE CMU TO MATCH BUILDING FIELD BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING SOLDIER COURSE PREFINISHED CAP FLASHING 2'-0" 3'-0" 1'-0" 6'-0" ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 1 of 11 Packet Page 19 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 2 of 11 Packet Page 20 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 3 of 11 Packet Page 21 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 4 of 11 Packet Page 22 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 5 of 11 Packet Page 23 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 6 of 11 Packet Page 24 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 7 of 11 Packet Page 25 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 8 of 11 Packet Page 26 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 9 of 11 Packet Page 27 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 10 of 11 Packet Page 28 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 11 of 11 Packet Page 29 From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:58 AM To: Ted Shepard <TSHEPARD@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: Day care hearing at Harmony and Lady Moon Hi Ted – This is a note from Frank Brewster regarding the Harmony Commons daycare proposal. I’ve talked with him on the phone this week and have sent him the procedures for the hearing on the 29th. I also let him know that these will be added to the comments for P&Z. Thanks! Sylvia Tatman-Burruss | Development Review Liaison Neighborhood Services, City of Fort Collins (970) 224.6076 | statman-burruss@fcgov.com | www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/ From: FRANK BREWSTER [mailto:fknabrewster@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:31 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com> Cc: David Glista <david@fresh-bits.com>; Huston Hoffman <Huston.Hoffman@brinkmancolorado.com> Subject: Day care hearing at Harmony and Lady Moon Hi Sylvia, Thanks for speaking with us last Thursday and giving us great information. We appreciated all your knowledge. I want to write you explaining my concerns with the addition of the Day Care. I have a problem with the parking space with the addition of the Day Care. 1st - there needs to be another paved lot (lot 2) added before the Day Care starts construction. There is not enough parking currently at Harmony Commons. Brinkman has added too many food stores that use parking at the same times and the City has approved too many food stores. I can walk out to the parking lot when we are busy/peak times and people drive in and drive right out because there is no parking space available. My restaurant is not full at these times either. I can potentially lose my business because Harmony Commons cannot support the businesses that exist. 2nd - The current parking lot drawing for the Day Care has a circle drive that doesn't maximize parking. This drawing shows 1/2 the capacity of the original drawings and current dirt temporary lot. Our temporary dirt lot is full at peak times. We are all told we share parking at HC and the Day Care cannot go in with parking that cannot be maximized. This will ruin all the businesses until some just go under because people get frustrated with parking. I hear my Guests complain to me all the time. 3rd - The City need to look at the double bike lane on Timberwood Drive and consider parking along that street. The Fairfield Hotel being built doesn't even have enough parking and street parking would help support that business. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 30 I know I was shown drawings of what HC was supposed to look like and I was told from Josh Gurnsey/Brinkman that the tenant mix would be helpful to all including a fitness/gym where Tokyo Joes is, a hair salon, a Dentist/medical, but all they keep adding is more restaurants. I also understand the City wants to reduce parking enticing people to walk and bike. This is great but we must still have adequate parking in the winter months when people won't walk and bike. Please pass along this email to whomever is associated with building, planning and approving the Day Care. I look forward to meeting them all on March 29th. Thanks Frank Brewster Midici Ft Collins CO 303 246 5854 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 31 From: Sylvia Tatman‐Burruss Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:25 AM To: FRANK BREWSTER <fknabrewster@comcast.net> Cc: Ted Shepard <TSHEPARD@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: hearing for HC Good morning, Mr. Brewster – Thank you for your email regarding the Harmony Commons Lot 5 proposed childcare facility, on the agenda for the upcoming Planning and Zoning Board hearing on February 15th. I have cc’d the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, on this email. He will make sure your email is included in the project packet for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns. Thank you, Sylvia Sylvia Tatman-Burruss | Development Review Liaison Neighborhood Services, City of Fort Collins (970) 224.6076 | statman-burruss@fcgov.com | www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/ From: FRANK BREWSTER [mailto:fknabrewster@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:35 AM To: Sylvia Tatman‐Burruss <statman‐burruss@fcgov.com> Subject: hearing for HC Hi Sylvia, I am the owner of Midici a new restaurant in SE FC. You have a hearing on Harmony Commons Lot 5 for a child care facility on Thursday. I can't attend but want to voice my concern because there is not enough parking currently. My business has stagnated because there is a big lack of parking for Guests let alone employees. There needs to be a lot developed to the west of the Famous Toastery for parking before this day care is developed. Either way there needs to be another lot developed before anything happens. It would be great if the Banner Hospital would let us park in their lot instead of telling us they will tow us. The Fairfield hotel going in will have parking but they need to be told they share parking with us all. Please help because the viability of my business is dependent if Guests can park their cars. Thanks Frank Brewster, Owner Midici Ft Collins CO 303 246 5854 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 32 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 8 COLOR ELVATIONS - RECEIVED 3/23/18 Packet Page 33 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 29, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME COMPASS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE CHARTER SCHOOL, SPA180001 STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to locate a charter school at 2105 S College Ave. (parcel #8731408023). The school aims to accommodate 400 students from grades 6-12. 95 parking spaces currently serve the building. No exterior modifications to the building are proposed as part of this submittal. The school proposes adding striping to various crosswalks in the existing parking lot to provide a stronger pedestrian connection to the MAX. The applicant also proposes adding 12 bicycle parking spaces to serve the school. The site is located within the General Commercial District designated on the City Structure Plan Map. This proposal is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review. APPLICANT: Jan Harrison Compass Community Collaborative Charter School 910 W Oak St. Fort Collins CO, 80521 OWNER: Bankcenter Group LLC PO Box 271731 Fort Collins, CO 80527 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions of Compass Community Collaborative Charter School, SPA180001. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Compass Community Collaborative Charter School Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes and Land Use Code section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. Packet Page 34 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the South College Avenue Consolidated Annex on April 25, 1957. The property was originally developed as part of the Bankcenter Square First Filing in 1971. The building originally housed a Century Magnavox store. Since then, the building has contained various retail and commercial tenants. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (CG) Enclosed mini-storage South General Commercial (CG) Grocery store, liquor store, retail East General Commercial (CG) Retail, hair salon West Employment (E) Office A zoning and site vicinity map is presented on the following page. Packet Page 35 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 3 Figure 1: Colorado Early Colleges Zoning & Site Vicinity Packet Page 36 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 4 2. Right of Advisory Review Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the Poudre School District Board of Education. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the school’s governing board, in this case, the Poudre School District Board of Education, by a vote of not less than two- thirds of its membership. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. also provides that the planning commission or governing body may request a charter school to submit a site development plan for the proposed facility. After receiving the development plan, the commission or governing body must review and comment within 30 days after receiving such plan. The relevant planning commission or governing body, if not satisfied with the response to such comments, may request a hearing before the board of education regarding such plan. Such hearing shall be held, if at all, within thirty days after the request of the relevant planning commission or governing body. The charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by school board resolution. 3. Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures: A Site Plan Advisory Review Section was adopted and added to the Land Use Code in July 2014, outlining specific evaluation criteria for Site Plan Advisory Review Applications. These review criteria are presented below, followed by analysis of this development application: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. Packet Page 37 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 5 4. Analysis Location The location of the proposed school is in the General Commercial District on the City Structure Plan Map. City Plan states: General Commercial Districts include a wide range of community and regional retail uses as well as offices, business and personal services, and, to a lesser extent, residential uses. While these districts are typically the location for traditionally auto-oriented uses, they also offer opportunities to create new areas and transform existing developed areas, over time, from more auto-oriented places to a series of mixed use, multi-modal centers which relate more closely to surrounding residential neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Examples of General Commercial Districts include College Avenue, including the South College Corridor, Midtown, Downtown, and North College Corridor areas. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. The City Plan purpose statement of the General Commercial District does not directly identify schools; however, the language references the transformation of existing, auto-oriented developments into a series of mixed-use, multi-modal centers. Schools are a land use that could contribute to a greater mix of uses. Compass also aims to use the MAX and promote multi-modal transportation in an infill environment. Schools often locate in neighborhoods to be closer to households, so Compass would make the strip commercial center at College and Rutgers relate more closely to nearby neighborhoods and make it a more significant hub along the MAX line. While schools are not necessarily contemplated and explicitly referenced in the purpose statement of the General Commercial District, a school like Compass could add to the vibrancy of this commercial center and fulfill the intent of the CG zone in accordance with this standard. Character The proposed school will use the existing site and building as is. The applicant proposes to maintain existing trees and replacing shrubs in the landscape islands in the parking lot and adding shrub beds along the southside of both buildings to meet the landscaping standards in section 3.2.1 of the Land Use Code. By using the existing building and ensuring appropriate landscaping, the proposal meets this code provision. Extent The extent of impacts generated by the proposed school to drainage and utilities is expected to be minimal and can be accommodated through existing infrastructure. The existing drainage and utilities will be used and will not need any upgrades due to this use. Packet Page 38 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 6 The Compass Community School proposal provided a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Following staff comments, a revised study was submitted and reviewed by Traffic Operations staff. Given the information and analysis, the following is noted regarding transportation: • The submittal indicates that the school will generate approximately 1,000 daily vehicular trips with 324 trips related to school start traffic and 232 trips related to school end traffic. • The school is proposing to stagger start and end times into three distinct schedules to minimize traffic impacts. This staggering of the school schedule is critical to the function and operations of the transportation network in the vicinity of the facility. • With a staggered schedule, the operations along College are expected to continue to meet vehicular transportation Level of Service standards. The goal for typical school sites is to separate the various modes of transportation. As charter schools move into existing facilities that were not planned for school transportation, this can be a challenge. Most neighborhood schools are located in residential areas, and other charter schools have moved into office / industrial areas. This will be the first large-scale charter school in Fort Collins to move into a bustling retail area. The noticeable vehicular impacts will predominantly be limited to the private parking lots west of College Avenue and will not be within public rights-of -way. Therefore, the following items are noted for information regarding on-site circulation: • The busiest time is expected at 4:45 to 5:00 pm when the last school session lets out and coincides with the peak hour for adjacent traffic on College and an increasingly busy time at Whole Foods and other commercial stores. • The efficient function of school-related drop off and pick up is dependent on two drive lanes (one lane for drop off and pick up, and one lane for through vehicles) and having a designated zone the length of several cars so more than one vehicle can load at a time. Without these two components, the peak times of impact for school traffic will lengthen, and the queuing analysis may prove to be optimistic. It is recommended that the applicant work towards identifying an area for drop off and pick up with two lanes. • The study anticipates somewhat long delays exiting the site at the right-in, right-out access north of Rutgers (about 1 min per vehicle), which will likely result in more parents utilizing Rutgers or heading further south to Columbia to exit the site. This results in school traffic crossing paths on-site. • It is very typical at schools that numerous parents choose to not wait in the drop off and pick up line, and instead prefer to park and walk in or have their students meet them in a particular parking location. It is unknown to what degree this will impact the Whole Foods and other adjacent business’ parking lots. As noted above, this would occur on private property. Packet Page 39 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 7 The TIS included a pedestrian level of service analysis based on an activity center, (not a school site). The main areas of comment regard on-site pedestrian connectivity. It is acknowledged that these concerns are on private property. • With previous submittals on this property, the City has required the completion of a pedestrian/bike connection from College to the MAX station. This was intended to be a continuation of a distinctive and direct east-west path built by the mattress store abutting to the east. A north-south path has also been discussed. The implementation of these important multi-modal connection remains an interest for the City and would be an obligation of the property when it re-develops. • The proposed east-west pedestrian route is along the building edge. It is not currently ADA compliant, and involves numerous driveway crossings. It is recommended that this be improved to support pedestrian activity, both school related and as a connection between College and MAX. Bike traffic can utilize the Mason Trail (and existing overpass) for north/south travel and to provide access to the west. Access to the east is via Columbia Street. The school has indirect connections to both facilities. The bottom line for transportation is that the proposal will meet vehicular Levels of Service requirements along the public roadway system (College Avenue). On-site circulation, pedestrian connectivity, and other transportation related impacts to adjacent properties, parking lots etc. all occur on private property. Recommendations for improvements have been provided to the applicant. Staff also analyzed the parking proposed as part of this SPAR compared to the amount of parking other previously approved charter schools have provided. School Staff and Faculty Anticipated # of Students Parking Spaces Ratio Bike Parking Spaces Ratio Ridgeview Classical 86 810 151 16.85% 17 1.90% Liberty Common High School 60 360 105 25.00% 20 4.76% Centennial High School 14 245 23 8.88% 12 4.63% Colorado Early Colleges (McMurray) 30 550 68 11.72% 54 9.31% Colorado Early Colleges (Innovation) 84 700 162 20.66% 30 3.83% Fossil Ridge High School 140 1800 1032 53.20% 63 3.25% Compass Community Charter 32 400 98 22.69% 12 2.78% Packet Page 40 Agenda Item 2 Revised 3/28/18 Item #2, Page 8 Compass proposes a parking count that is lower than many other previously approved charter schools. One key difference is Compass is locating in an existing building. As a point of reference, Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(b), provides that existing buildings undergoing a change of use are normally exempt from minimum parking requirements. Students also will not be permitted to bring their cars to the Compass school site. This means that the Compass school has 95 potential parking spaces for 32 staff and faculty. The 95 parking spaces shown on the site plan however, are shared with the other tenants of the buildings on this lot. Currently, these tenant spaces are vacant. Future building tenants will similarly be exempt from minimum parking requirements since they are changing the use of an existing building. Neighborhood Meeting: Due to the size and scope of this proposal, the Planning Manager waived the neighborhood meeting requirement for this project. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Compass Community Collaborative Charter School, SPA180001, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The site of the proposed Compass Community Collaborative Charter School is consistent with the purpose statement for the General Commercial District found in City Plan. B. The character of the proposed Compass Community Collaborative Charter School, which uses an existing building, is consistent with the character of the District. C. The proposed Compass Community Collaborative Charter School will have minimal impact on the City’s utilities, drainage, and transportation systems. Transportation impacts are anticipated to occur on private property; comments and recommendations have been provided by staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Compass Community Collaborative Charter School, SPA180001. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Narrative – Original 3/22/18 2. Site Plan – Updated 3/28/18 3. Traffic Study – Updated 3/21/18 4. Letter from Whole Foods – Original 3/22/18 5. Email from Poudre Fire Authority – Received 3/28/18 Packet Page 41 1 March 5, 2018 Clay Frickey City Planner Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Compass Community Collaborative Charter School- 2105 S. College Ave Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Submittal Dear Mr. Frickey, The attached SPAR submittal package is for the lease of 2105 S. College Avenue to serve as the home for Compass Community Collaborative Charter School. Our lease includes most of the east building in a two-building property (15,025 sq.ft.) and is part of a community-focused redevelopment of this property being conducted by local, visionary developers, Stuka, LLC. Compass Community Collaborative School (CCCS) has a charter contract from Poudre School District and will be opening a 6-12th grade charter school in the August, 2018. We will employ entrepreneurial mindsets and use community-engaged venture projects that inspire deep learning of academic, social-emotional, and essential competencies. We are the first public secondary school in Fort Collins to offer a fully interdisciplinary, community-engaged curriculum with multi-age student project teams and a flexible school day schedule that promotes community collaboration inside and outside of our school building. Our 21st Century school is being designed by a diverse team of educators, students, parents, artists, and community leaders in an entrepreneurial business incubator where we are embedding secondary education into real-world problem solving and co-creation of a regenerative future for the City of Fort Collins. Community-Engaged Learning The city of Fort Collins was recently highlighted as a contemporary case study in the Smithsonian Museum of American History in the Places of Invention exhibit. "The exhibition examines what can happen when the right mix of inventive people, untapped resources, and inspiring surroundings come together". We want to extend the reach of our community's collaborative, creative, and forward-thinking culture into our secondary schools. We will function as an exemplar of place-based education, design thinking and action research in ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 12 Packet Page 42 2 secondary education. For example, we are working with Ascend at Colorado State University (CSU) on a digital badging system that allows students to demonstrate mastery in 21st Century skills that will make them effective in their post-secondary education and careers. Additionally, CSU is home to secondary teacher and principal licensing programs, strongly positioning us to train new teachers and school leaders in community-engaged, applied learning that will benefit our K-12 education system well into the future. We have developed collaborative arrangements with other colleges at CSU, including, for example, the College of Natural Sciences, who will provide a state of the art science lab for our students each afternoon. Local nonprofits, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, No Barriers, and Impact Dance, will collaborate on curriculum and resources (including mentors and teachers) with CCCS. Fort Collins has the capacity to showcase an innovative school; we have the collaborative spirit and human resources to put educational innovation on the national stage. The Getting Smart organization partnered with the eduInnovation & Teton Science Schools to study the benefits of place-based education to both the learners and the community. They define “Place-Based Education is anytime, anywhere learning that leverages the power of place, and not just the power of technology, to personalize learning”. Shifting learning out of the traditional setting and putting kids back into the community is the heart of Compass. Our philosophy aligns perfectly with Getting Smarts’ idea that “Through inquiry, projects and problems, entrepreneurship, community-centered design and service learning, place-based education offers relevance to students and teachers, infinite pathways to personalization and tools for students to experience agency and a sense of ownership for community sustainability and improvement”. Benefits of Place-Based Education Diagram source: What-is-Place-Based-Education-and-Why-Does-it- Matter-3.pdf written by Getting Smart and Teton Science School with support from EduInnovation ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 12 Packet Page 43 3 Future Ready: CCCS Supports Fort Collins’ Goals for Sustainable Development and Economic Health Technology will be used to support student learning, exploration, creativity, problem solving, connecting, and sharing. From our standards-based learning management software, our work- based learning experiences, digital badging and the design of digital portfolios to our college science lab and our annual coding camp deep dives, students will be masters of their digital universe and will have the skills to succeed in college and beyond. The ongoing technological and connectedness revolution is eliminating or replacing vast numbers of workers and even entire careers. The jobs needed in the 21st Century are vastly different than the jobs of the past and require a markedly different set of skills—and thus a different kind of education—than what has been offered in the past. The skills demanded by employers in 2020, as noted in the most recent Future of Jobs Report, demonstrate the versatile self-management skills and attitudes that employers need now (see Top 10 Skills graphic), as opposed the strict content knowledge that used to be valued. Across Colorado there is a great need for both an educated workforce as well as increased equity for people of color and poverty. The Larimer County Economic and Workforce Health Report highlights that in our county, only 36.5% of the population has an associate degree or higher, and over 23% of the population has “some college, no degree”. This lack of college persistence is a real concern both in terms of career readiness and in terms of debt accrual among young adults. Debt and having qualifications only for low paying jobs are part of the reason why fewer than half of Larimer County Households could afford to buy a house without being cost burdened. Drilling down even further, the Talent 2.0 Regional Workforce Strategy, published in February, 2017, shows that the Fort Collins/Loveland Metro Statistical Area (MSA), is the most educated area of the county, with fully 44% of the population aged 25 and over have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 2015, graduation statistics at Colorado State University included a 38.6% four-year diploma for full-time students, and up to 65.2% of students graduating after six years. While the high cost of college and university is a strong contributing factor to lack of persistence, likewise, lack of clarity of purpose and direction also contributes to this failure to complete. This is why at Compass Community Collaborative School our mission is to help students discover learning with purpose. All students at Compass will begin work on their Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP) as soon as they start at CCCS. Students will prepare for community college and/or university ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 12 Packet Page 44 4 entrance exams and will be strongly encouraged to take at least one concurrent enrollment and/or college course before graduation. Because we are one MAX line stop away from CSU campus, we will make daily use of CSU as a resource for learning and building confidence in our students as being college-ready. Combined with the rigorous academic program and high expectations (with high support), and individualization of our learning platform, this will assure that students have confidence in their ability to succeed in college courses. Additionally, students will have completed a minimum of one semester-long professional internship/work- based learning experience by the time they graduate. They will have a professional resume, a letter of reference for future employment, a professional digital portfolio with microcredentials in the form of digital badges in essential competencies, and the confidence to interview for positions on their career journey. To help us manage our internship program we will partner with the Larimer County Workforce Center to help us track student opportunities. The School Leader is an associate member of the Larimer County Workforce Board and we will have a dedicated staff member working with students and community partners to effectively team with community partners on developing work-based learning opportunities for youth across our city, not only at CCCS. As a community collaborative, we see ourselves as leaders in a “Youth Cluster”, much like our county and city has developed manufacturing, health care, and other career clusters. Our goals as leaders in the Fort Collins Youth Cluster align with many of Fort Collins citywide initiatives and goals, including the revitalization of mid-town, the creation of a Creative District, supporting the Economic Health Plan, and the Climate Action Plan. See Appendix A for a visual description of our connection to city goals. Community Developed and Supported: The planning team has held numerous community design meetings over the last 28 months. We have additional community involvement events planned through our opening date in August of 2018. • Design sessions with adolescents: o middle school/ high school design session o Interviews with postsecondary young adults • Design and input sessions with parents o Non-college educated parents and college educated parents attended design sessions to express their desires for their children’s futures and how school could help meet those needs. We also asked them to give us feedback on our ideas. • Open community meetings: o Film screenings, including Paper Tiger and Most Likely to Succeed, were used to attract community members to discuss what they want in secondary education • Meetings with Colorado State University administrators, Deans, and program directors have informed our design in terms of college readiness and college persistence/graduation. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 12 Packet Page 45 5 • Meetings with business leaders and city government officials, including the city manager and mayor, the Larimer County Workforce Center, and the Chamber of Commerce have informed our essential skills and badging protocol, as well as our internship program design. • Prototyping a CCCS project experience in collaboration with CSU Writing Project this spring and summer. Our participants were ages 12-17 years, with a demographic profile including 38% minorities (PSD is 26% minority overall), and 31% FRL (PSD is 31% FRL overall). The voices informing the design of Compass have been ethnically, socio-economically, and socially diverse and our continuing community events have led to lively discussions with creative ideas being shared that have been incorporated into our school design. Some of the clear messages that came from middle and high school students were: • Make school more relevant to the “real world” • Include more diverse perspectives and cultural lenses in history and English classes • Include more outdoor opportunities and field trips outside of the school building • Give kids more say in what they learn and where/how they learn it • Give school credit for work and internships - let us do them during the school day • School should start later • We live in a town with a university campus, so go to campus to get used to the idea of college • Help create a more positive and supportive school culture. Gay kids and brown kids feel different and often uncomfortable • Get rid of busy work in school and as homework Postsecondary interviews with 40 PSD graduates revealed that they think that in order to create the most opportunity for young adults, secondary schools need to: • Provide challenging academic courses and push all students to take college level classes. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 12 Packet Page 46 6 • Provide the time and support for postsecondary planning as part of the regular school day, including: o College explorations that involve time on campuses o Focus-groups with college students on those campuses o Financial aid exploration and support o Internships and work experience o Personal interests and strengths exploration • Explicitly teach and give ample practice time for: o Teamwork and professional collaboration o Self-advocacy o College-level research skills and public/university library use o Personal financial management o Personal time management Some of the clear messages from parents that informed our school design included universal hopes for school to help them prepare their children to: • be good communicators • make it safely through the adolescent years • contribute to the wellbeing of the family and community • be successful and happy in college and/or work • grow up to be happy, self-sufficient adults Our design thinking approach will keep us listening to our community and refining our design into the future. Our community support has continued to grow and we will collaborate extensively with our supporters: local businesses, Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College, civic organizations, federal research institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Our students will bring fresh perspectives and engagement to the entire city. Six examples of our developing partnerships stand out: • CSU Education and Outreach Center in the College of Natural Sciences: Dr. Andrew Warnock, Director of the EOC, has agreed to schedule his modern science lab on the third floor of the Natural Sciences Building on campus for use by CCC every school day ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 12 Packet Page 47 7 afternoon from 1:00 p.m-3:15p.m. for STEM venture projects led by Compass teachers. There is a Max Line station within a three-minute walk of the lab. • The CSU Writing Project partnered with Compass in creating a prototype summer program this spring and summer. The Writing Project contributed funding from their National Science Foundation grant, classroom space on campus, and use of two laptops and eight iPads for writing, researching, and movie making as well as curriculum support. The CSU Writing Project is part of the National Writing Project and excited to continue to develop multiple collaborative opportunities to work with CCCS staff and students. • Youth Innovation Lab and DesignCase: Youth Innovation Lab (YIL) is a locally -based, international organization that is sharing their entrepreneurship curriculum and expertise with Compass. The founder and owner of DesignCase, an international maker education consulting firm, is on our Board of Directors and is working with us currently to design effective integrations of maker tools into our venture project curriculums. Additionally, he has provided, pro bono, the tools, materials, and expertise for three different pop up makerspace events in Fort Collins. He will continue to support in this role and help us write grants to bring additional maker tools to the CSU EOC science lab. • Larimer County Workforce Center: Compass is in preliminary discussions with the staff at the Workforce center about how best to serve our students internship needs. We are, as a community collaborative, looking for new and interesting ways to tap into, and support, the resources that already exist in our community rather than reinventing them on our own. Additionally, our school leader is an Associate Member of the Workforce Development Board provide additional pathways to strengthen our ties to the business community. • No Barriers USA: No Barriers is an international nonprofit located in Fort Collins that works with veterans and youth on social emotional learning and character development through outdoor challenge and travel experiences, and service projects. No Barriers has generously donated an in-kind grant worth $550/student for use of their wilderness camp in Red Feather, Colorado, for one week of culture building for our students and staff at the beginning of each school year. We will also work together to broaden our social emotional learning curriculum for our Advisory classes. • Impact Dance Company: Impact Dance is a local, nationally recognized dance company that performs and teaches around the world. They are excited to collaborate with Compass to share space, teach students (dance and other forms of performance art, business, marketing, anatomy and physiology, etc.), and promote arts in our community. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 12 Packet Page 48 8 • CSU School of Interior Design: Dr. Laura Malinin, Program Coordinator of Design and Merchandising in the College of Health and Human Sciences, created a capstone project for her senior design students to help us design our “CCCS dream home”. She looks forward to continuing opportunities to work with CCCS staff and students. • Other local businesses and nonprofits are developing opportunities for collaboration with Compass Students and staff. We presented over 30 letters of support in our charter application to PSD. Supporters include: o Students who have been active in our school development o Parents who have signed our Intent to Enroll Form o The City of Fort Collins Mayor and City of Fort Collins Manager o The Fort Collins Museum of Discovery o Local small businesses and nonprofits 2105 S. College Avenue is the Right Home for Compass Community Collaborative School Housing Compass at 2105 S. College fits the needs of our innovative school model and the needs of the community for thoughtful redevelopment of this site. As part of the SPAR review, the city has interest in the location, character, and extent of the development. Location: • Mid-town and at a MAX line stop means that our families can use the MAX to get their students to school, and the school can use the MAX to move around to the rest of our campus, the City of Fort Collins and the CSU campus. • Supports our values of low-environmental impact by using an existing building on the major public transportation route in the city. • Positions us to make quick and easy use of our partnerships with colleges and departments at CSU and nonprofits, parks, art venues, and scientific organizations downtown. • Adjacent to the Spring Creek bike trail to provide natural areas for exercise and academic research and supports biking to school and to community partners. • Adjacent to Gardens on Spring Creek to provide opportunities for students to participate in community food production. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 12 Packet Page 49 9 • The City of Fort Collins has approved secondary schools in commercially zoned areas before (Pioneer charter school started in strip mall at Drake and Shields), and other cities have multiple examples of elementary and secondary schools in redeveloping commercial districts (Greeley, Thornton, Commerce City, Denver) Character: • The open, flexible floor plan we need for our 21st Century learning space is well served by this building. Originally designed as a bowling alley, the open expanses serve our design well. • • PSD facilities manager, Pete Hall, and Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Todd Lambert, have toured the site with us and have expressed their enthusiasm for the location as well- suited for our school model and the 10-year lease with two, five-year options for renewal as important for providing location stability for the long-term success of our school. • We are not a typical school that will offer CHAASA sports programs or students with class periods “off” during the day. All students will be engaged in supervised learning at our building and out in our extended, community campus all day. We will enforce a “closed campus” for our common, supervised, lunch break. • Our innovative school model is place-based and community-engaged, making it essential that we be in a location served by high quality public transportation and within a few minutes arrival of many, diverse community partnership opportunities. • Redeveloping an existing building that has been underutilized and largely neglected for many years serves the interests and values of both the City of Fort Collins and CCCS. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 12 Packet Page 50 10 Extent: • We are being permitted by the State of Colorado, but we are working with City of Fort Collins departments to comply with building and zoning codes to every extent reasonably possible. • We are not the owners of the building, so will not take the lead on improving the full extent of the campus, but we will work with our landlord, City of Fort Collins departments, and neighbors to improve the appearance, functionality, and longevity of the property. • We are working with our landlord, Stuka LLC., to reach out to neighboring businesses to be more than just good neighbors, but instead to be partners, collaborators, and supporters. We have been met with enthusiasm and creative ideas for win-win partnerships. • Our traffic study indicates that our small size, staggered start and end times, and extensive use of the bike path and MAX line will minimize any impact to traffic patterns in the area. Additionally, our school will not be open after 5 p.m., on weekends, during holidays, or over 10 weeks of the summer, so we will have NO impact during the local business’ busiest hours and days of the week/year. Any other use of this building would likely have more traffic impact during these busy times than will we. • Our traffic study indicates this site offers us a circulation pattern and drop-off cueing pattern that will not impact our neighboring businesses. We have ample staff and guest parking, as well as handicap parking and bicycle parking. • Our traffic study indicates that we can easily and safely get students and staff to and from the MAX bus stop without impeding traffic, disturbing neighbors, or putting students at unreasonable risk. • Access to our building, and all facilities in our building will be ADA compliant. We are thrilled to have such a perfectly located and designed space in which to put the home of Fort Collins newest, innovative, entrepreneurial, community-engaged learning school. We look forward to sharing our research, learning, and community service with the City of Fort Collins. Yours, Jan Harrison School Leader On behalf of the entire Compass Community Collaborative School Team, families, and students ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 12 Packet Page 51 11 APPENDIX A: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11 of 12 Packet Page 52 12 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 12 of 12 Packet Page 53 C.O. Y A BIG A SELF STORAGE (N.A.P.) VACANT LAND (N.A.P.) SPRING CREEK MAX STATION MATTRESS FIRM (N.A.P.) PELETON CYCLES (N.A.P.) WHOLE FOODS (N.A.P.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING BR 15 BERBERIS THUNBERGII `ROSE GLOW` ROSY GLOW BARBERRY 5 GAL CA 48 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER` FEATHER REED GRASS 3 GAL SEE PLA HS 79 HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS BLUE OAT GRASS 3 GAL SEE PLA JC 4 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `ARMSTRONGII` ARMSTRONG JUNIPER 5 GAL SEE PLA PF 23 POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA BUSH CINQUEFOIL 5 GAL SEE PLA PS 4 PRUNUS X CISTENA PURPLE LEAF SAND CHERRY 5 GAL SEE PLA Traffic Impact Study Compass Community Collaborative School Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: ML-3, LLC ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 55 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Compass Community Collaborative School Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for ML-3, LLC PO Box 270695 Fort Collins, 80527 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4582 South Ulster Street Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 228-2300 March 2018 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 03/21/2018 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 56 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................ii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 5 3.1 Existing Roadway Network ................................................................................................5 3.2 Existing and Future Study Area .........................................................................................7 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................7 3.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth ...........................................................................7 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 11 4.1 Trip Generation................................................................................................................11 4.2 Trip Distribution ...............................................................................................................12 4.3 Traffic Assignment ...........................................................................................................14 4.4 Total (Background Plus Project) Traffic............................................................................14 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 18 5.1 Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................18 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis .............................................................................19 5.3 State Highway Turn Bay Length Analysis ........................................................................22 5.4 Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................24 5.5 Pedestrian Analysis .........................................................................................................25 5.6 Internal Site Circulation and Queuing Analysis ................................................................29 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 32 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 57 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page ii APPENDICES Appendix A – TIS Base Assumptions Appendix B – Intersection Count Sheets Appendix C – Traffic Growth Information Appendix D – Trip Generation Worksheets Appendix E – Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix F– Queue Analysis Worksheets Appendix G – On Site Queue Analysis Worksheet Appendix H – Conceptual Site Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Compass Community Collaborative School Traffic Generation..................................12 Table 2 – Level of Service Definitions .......................................................................................18 Table 3 – Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue LOS Results ...................................................20 Table 4 – College Avenue Right-In/Right-Out Access LOS Results ..........................................21 Table 5 – Queuing Analysis Results ..........................................................................................24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 – Existing Lanes and Control ........................................................................................6 Figure 3 – Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................8 Figure 4 – 2020 Background Traffic Volumes..............................................................................9 Figure 5 – 2040 Background Traffic Volumes............................................................................10 Figure 6 – Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................13 Figure 7 – Project Traffic Assignment .......................................................................................15 Figure 8 – 2020 Total Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................16 Figure 9 – 2040 Total Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................17 Figure 10 – Recommended Lane Configurations and Control ...................................................31 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 58 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A new charter school, Compass Community Collaborative School, is proposed within the northwest quadrant of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. The project is anticipated to occupy an existing building with 15,025 square feet of building area. The school proposes to have a capacity of 400 students on site. It is expected that the project will be completed by 2020; therefore, analysis was completed for the 2020 short term horizon as well as the 2040 long term horizon per City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requirements. Of note, Compass Community Collaborative School is not anticipated to meet student compacity by 2020, but full capacity was assumed in 2020 to provide a conservative and full buildout scenario. The purpose of this study is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential project traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. The intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue was incorporated into this traffic study in accordance with City of Fort Collins and CDOT standards and requirements. In addition, the existing right-in/right-out access along College Avenue to be shared with the proposed development was evaluated. Primary access to the site will be provided by Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue. Direct access to the project is proposed from the existing signalized intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue, and an existing right-in/right-out driveway along College Avenue. The existing right-in/right-out access along College Avenue is located approximately 300 feet (measured center to center) north of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection. The Compass Community Collaborative School project is expected to generate approximately 992 daily weekday trips with 130 of these trips occurring during the morning peak hour of the generator and 139 trips during the afternoon peak hour of the generator based on the staggered start times. Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns, anticipated surrounding development areas, and the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 59 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 2 proposed access system for the project. Assignment of project traffic was based upon the trip generation described previously and the distributions developed. Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the proposed Compass Community Collaborative School will be successfully incorporated into the existing roadway network. The west leg of the College Avenue (US-287) right-in/right-out access intersection is anticipated to have traffic volumes increase by more than 20 percent, and therefore it is believed that CDOT will require an access permit for this access intersection. All off-site and on- site improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to standards of the City of Fort Collins, CDOT, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – 2009 Edition. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 60 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has prepared this report to document the results of a Traffic Impact Study of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Compass Community Collaborative School to be located near the northwest of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. A vicinity map illustrating the project site location is shown in Figure 1. The project is anticipated to occupy an existing building with 15,025 square feet of building space. The charter school proposes to include a capacity of 400 students on site. It is expected that the project will be completed by 2020. Analysis was therefore conducted for the 2020 short term horizon, as well as the 2040 long-term horizon per City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requirements. A conceptual site and circulation plan illustrating the development and access locations is shown in Appendix H. The purpose of this study is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential project traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. The intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue was incorporated into this traffic study in accordance with City of Fort Collins and CDOT standards and requirements. In addition, the existing right-in/right-out access along College Avenue to be shared with the proposed development was evaluated. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form is shown in Appendix A. Primary access to the site will be provided by Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue. Direct access to the project is proposed from the existing signalized intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue, and an existing right-in/right-out driveway along College Avenue. The existing right-in/right-out access along College Avenue is located approximately 300 feet (measured center to center) north of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 61 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 62 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 5 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Roadway Network Rutgers Avenue provides one lane of travel each direction, eastbound and westbound, and has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour east of College Avenue. West of College Avenue, the Rutgers Avenue alignment provides access to an existing commercial center. This access provides two through lanes in each direction west of College Avenue to the existing Whole Foods grocery store. College Avenue (US-287) is owned and maintained by CDOT. The State Highway Access Category Schedule categorizes the segment of College Avenue (US-287) through the study area as NR-B: Non Rural Arterial. College Avenue provides three lanes of travel each direction, northbound and southbound, and has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. College Avenue has a raised median through the project study area. The existing intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue operates with a traffic signal and permissive only left turn phasing on all approaches except for the northbound left turn movement which operates with protected-permissive phasing. The eastbound approach consists of a left turn lane and shared through/right turn lane. The westbound approach to the frontage road providing residential access includes a single lane approach. Beyond this point at the intersection with College Avenue there is adequate width for separate left turn and through/right turn lanes. The northbound approach consists of a left turn lane and three through lanes with the outermost being a shared through/right turn lane. The southbound approach consists of a left turn lane, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. An existing right-in/right-out access is located approximately 300 feet north of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection, measured center to center. This existing access is anticipated to remain and provide shared access with the proposed development. This existing College Avenue driveway is an unsignalized “T”-intersection with stop control on the eastbound approach. The eastbound approach consists of a single right turn lane, with controlled right turn movements only due to a raised median island within College Avenue. The intersection lane configuration and control for these study area key intersections are shown in Figure 2. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 63 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 64 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 7 3.2 Existing and Future Study Area The existing site is comprised of two existing multi-tenant specialty retail buildings. The surrounding area contains a mix of uses. Directly to the north of the site is A’s Storage. Directly to the west of the site is the MAX BRT line. Directly to the east of the site (between the site and College Avenue) are retail uses. Directly to the south of the site are commercial uses (Whole Foods Shopping Center). Outside of these uses, residential areas exist to the east, while Colorado State University exists to the west and northwest. 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the key intersections on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. The counts were conducted in 15-minute intervals during the morning and afternoon peak hours of adjacent street traffic from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, respectively, on this count date. Existing turning movement counts are shown in Figure 3 with count sheets provided in Appendix B. 3.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth According to information provided on the website for the Colorado Department of Transportation, the 20-year growth factor along College Avenue (US-287) within the study area is 1.02. This value equates to an annual growth rate of approximately 0.10 percent. Upon discussions with the City of Fort Collins, it was determined that an annual traffic volume growth rate of one percent was more appropriate to represent anticipated future traffic volumes along College Avenue and Rutgers Avenue. Therefore, an annual traffic volume growth rate of one (1) percent was used in this traffic analysis for all movements not being generated by the retail along the west side of College Avenue as this traffic is anticipated to remain constant in the future. Traffic information from the CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) website is included in Appendix C for information purposes only. The City recommended annual growth rate of one percent per year was used to calculate future traffic volumes for the near term 2020 and long term 2040 traffic volume projections at the key intersections, as shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 65 62(110) 1561(1597) 11(11) 85(252) 1142(2208) 4(22) 96(224) 4(18) 44(146) 3(11) 3(13) 6(10) 1687(1839) 11(24) 1232(2464) 2(14) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 66 62(110) 1592(1629) 11(11) 85(252) 1165(2252) 4(22) 96(224) 4(18) 44(146) 3(11) 3(13) 6(10) 1721(1876) 11(24) 1257(2514) 2(14) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 67 62(110) 1943(1988) 14(14) 85(252) 1421(2748) 5(27) 96(224) 4(18) 44(146) 4(14) 3(13) 7(12) 2100(2289) 11(24) 1533(3067) 2(14) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 68 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 11 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Trip Generation Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual Trip Generation Report1 published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is the industry standard for determining site-generated traffic estimates. ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. Compass Community Collaborative School is a proposed charter school expected to have an enrollment capacity of 400 students. Based on this, Kimley-Horn used the ITE Trip Generation Report average rate equations that apply to Private School (536) for traffic associated with the proposed development. The school will have staggered start and release times. The first start (which is anticipated to occupy 40 percent of the school population) will begin at 7:55 AM and be released at 3:10 PM. The second start (which is anticipated to occupy 30 percent of the school) will begin at 8:40 AM and be released at 4:00 PM, while The third start (which is anticipated to also occupy 30 percent of the school population) is scheduled to begin at 9:25 AM with a release time of 4:45 PM. Trip generation reduction factors were utilized due to the staggered start and release times for the school. It was determined through evaluation of the existing traffic counts that the morning peak hour of traffic occurred from 8:15 AM to 9:15 AM while the afternoon peak hour of traffic occurred from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM, as it relates to the peak hour of the school generator. The morning peak hour coincides with the second start which is anticipated to occupy 30 percent of the school; however, 40 percent of the anticipated trips generated by the school in the morning were used in the analysis to be conservative. The afternoon peak hour coincides with the release of both the second and third waves which are anticipated to combine to occupy 60 percent of the school population. Therefore, 60 percent of the anticipated trips generated by the school in the afternoon peak were used in the analysis. The trip generation worksheet is 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation: An Information Report, Tenth Edition, Washington DC, 2017. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 69 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 12 included in Appendix C. These calculations illustrate the equations used and directional distribution of trips based on ITE studies. The proposed school is a redevelopment of previous uses; however, the existing retail shops are primarily vacant and a reduction of trips already being generated by the retail uses was not utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Taking into account the staggered bell schedule reduction factors, Compass Community Collaborative School is expected to generate approximately 992 daily weekday trips with 130 of these trips occurring during the morning peak hour of the generator and 139 trips during the afternoon peak hour of the generator. Calculations were based on the procedure and information provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition – Volume 1: User’s Guide and Handbook, 2017. Table 1 summarizes the estimated trip generation for the proposed development. Table 1 – Compass Community Collaborative School Traffic Generation Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Private School (K-12) – 400 Students (ITE 536) 992 198 126 324 97 135 232 Staggered Bell Schedule Factors (40% AM – 60% PM) 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 Site Trip Generation 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 4.2 Trip Distribution Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns, anticipated surrounding development areas, expected roadway improvements, and the proposed access system for the project. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of site-generated traffic that approaches the site from a given direction and departs the site back to the original source. Figure 6 illustrates the expected trip distribution for the site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 70 [50%] 5% 45% [20%] [10%] 10% 40% 5% [50%] [20%] [70%] 55% [20%] ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 71 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 14 4.3 Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment was obtained by applying the project trip distributions to the estimated traffic generation of the school shown in Table 1. Traffic assignment for the project is shown in Figure 7. 4.4 Total (Background Plus Project) Traffic Site traffic volumes were added to the background volumes to represent estimated traffic conditions for the short term 2020 and long term 2040 horizons. These total traffic volumes for the site redevelopment with the project are illustrated for the 2020 and 2040 horizon years in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 72 32(23) 4(3) 10(16) 26(41) 5(8) 10(16) 8(6) 26(41) 36(26) 4(3) 10(16) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 73 94(133) 1592(1629) 11(11) 89(255) 1175(2268) 4(22) 122(265) 9(26) 54(162) 3(11) 11(19) 6(10) 1747(1917) 47(50) 1261(2517) 12(30) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 74 94(133) 1943(1988) 14(14) 89(255) 1431(2764) 5(27) 122(265) 9(26) 54(162) 4(14) 11(19) 7(12) 2126(2330) 47(50) 1537(3070) 12(30) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 75 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 18 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Kimley-Horn’s analysis of traffic operations in the site vicinity was conducted to determine potential capacity deficiencies in the 2020 and 2040 development horizons at the identified key intersection and access driveway. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2. 5.1 Analysis Methodology Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). For intersections and roadways in this study area, typical standard traffic engineering practice recommends intersection LOS D as the minimum threshold for acceptable operations for overall intersections and LOS E for movements and approaches of unsignalized intersections. Table 2 shows the definition of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2 – Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Signalized Intersection Average Total Delay (sec/veh) Unsignalized Intersection Average Total Delay (sec/veh) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 F > 80 > 50 _______________ Definitions provided from the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2010. Study area intersections were analyzed based on average total delay analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Under the unsignalized analysis, the level of service (LOS) for a two-way stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of service for a two-way stop-controlled 2 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Washington DC, 2010. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 76 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 19 intersection is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Level of service for a signalized and all-way stop controlled intersection is defined for each approach and for the overall intersection. 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis Calculations for the level of service at the key intersection and project access driveway for the study area are provided in Appendix E. The signalized intersection analysis utilizes the observed cycle lengths of 110 seconds for the morning peak hour and 120 seconds for the afternoon peak hour with existing phasing and timing splits of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection. The existing year analysis is based on the lane geometry and intersection control shown in Figure 2. LOS for the intersections was calculated using Synchro software presenting the HCM results. Existing peak hour factors were utilized at the study area intersections with exception of the movements to and from the school from the right-in/right-out access. Movements to and from a school typically have lower peak hour factors due to students arriving and departing in a timeframe spanning less than a full hour. For these movements, a peak hour factor of 0.50 and 0.70 was used during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The afternoon peak hour factor is higher due to coinciding with two release times whereas the morning peak hour only coincides with one start time. The peak hour factors should be conservative due to staggered school start times and the right-in-right-out access being a shared access. Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue The existing intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue operates with a traffic signal and permissive left turn phasing on all approaches except for the northbound left turn movement which operated with protected-permissive phasing. With the existing configuration, the intersection currently operates at LOS A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the afternoon peak hour. With or without the addition of school traffic, this intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably with LOS C or better during the peak hours throughout the 2040 horizon. Therefore, no modifications are anticipated to be needed at this intersection due to construction of the project. Table 3 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 77 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 20 Table 3 – Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 2018 Existing – Overall Eastbound Left Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right Northbound Left Northbound Through Southbound Left Southbound Through Southbound Right 8.0 49.3 43.5 44.7 41.7 4.6 4.3 6.2 6.8 5.3 A D D D D A A A A A 19.3 54.1 43.2 48.6 36.9 46.3 8.9 14.7 19.4 11.9 B D D D D D A B B B 2020 Background Traffic – Overall Eastbound Left Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 21 College Avenue Right-In/Right-Out Access The existing College Avenue access is an unsignalized “T”-intersection with stop control on the eastbound approach. This existing right-in/right-out access is located approximately 300 feet (measured center to center) north of the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue signalized intersection. The southbound right turn lane at the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection is constructed back to this right-in/right-out access, which can serve as an acceleration lane for right turn exiting movements out of the driveway. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all right turn exiting traffic operates with stop control and not the use of this southbound right turn lane. With the existing configuration, the eastbound right turn currently operates acceptably at LOS C during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour. With the addition of project traffic in 2020 and 2040, the eastbound right turn movement may operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour. As noted, the operational analysis was performed with all eastbound right turn traffic coming to a stop on the eastbound approach and waiting for a gap in southbound College Avenue traffic. Delays are anticipated to be less than predicted due to the existing southbound right turn deceleration lane constructed from the Rutgers Avenue signalized intersection to this access. This right turn deceleration lane will allow right turning traffic to use this lane for acceleration to facilitate improved right turn movements. If high delays and poor level of service are realized in the future on this exiting right turn movement, traffic is anticipated to reroute on the street network and use the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue signalization intersection to exit the site. Therefore, no modifications are anticipated to be needed at this intersection with development of the project. Table 4 provides the results of the level of service. Table 4 – College Avenue Right-In/Right-Out Access LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 2018 Existing Eastbound Right 16.5 C 39.2 E 2020 Background Traffic Eastbound Right 16.8 C 41.3 E 2020 Total Traffic Eastbound Right 18.5 C 53.2 F 2040 Background Traffic Eastbound Right 20.1 C 69.6 F 2040 Total Traffic Eastbound Right 22.7 C 106.1 F ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 79 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 22 5.3 State Highway Turn Bay Length Analysis Since the College Avenue (US-287) is a state highway and maintained facility, it is recommended that auxiliary turn lanes along US 287 be constructed in accordance with the current CDOT State Highway Access Code (SHAC). The following discusses requirements for turn lanes along College Avenue (US-287) with the roadway posted speed limit being 40 miles per hour through the project study area. The State Highway Access Category Schedule categorizes the segment of College Avenue (US-287) through the study area as NR-B: Non-Rural Arterial. According to the State Highway Access Code for category NR-B roadways with a speed limit of less than or equal to 40 miles per hour, the following thresholds apply: · A left turn deceleration lane with storage length plus taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 25 (vph). · A right turn deceleration lane with storage length plus taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 50 (vph). · Right turn acceleration lanes are generally not required. Based on existing and future traffic projections, the auxiliary turn lane requirements were calculated per the SHAC for the intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue as well as the project access along College Avenue (US-287). The west leg of the US-287 right-in/right-out access intersection is anticipated to have traffic volumes increase by more than 20 percent with the Compass Community Collaborative School redevelopment project; therefore, it is believed that CDOT will require an access permit for this intersection. The Rutgers Avenue signalized intersection along College Avenue (US-287) is not anticipated to have traffic volumes increase by more than 20 percent with the project, and therefore an access permit is not believed to be needed at this intersection. Through the existing access intersections, the State Highway provides three lanes of travel in each direction (northbound and southbound) with a 40 mile per hour posted speed limit. As such, right turn acceleration and deceleration lanes aren’t generally needed, but were identified herein to determine if they could provide a benefit. Turn lane requirements at the College Avenue signalized intersection with Rutgers Avenue and the right- in/right-out access are as follows: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 80 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 23 Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) Signalized Intersection · A northbound left turn lane is currently warranted at the existing Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) intersection with existing traffic being 110 vehicles per hour (vph) and the threshold for requiring a left turn deceleration lane being 25 vph. The projected northbound left turn volume with the project is anticipated to be 133 vph. The northbound left turn deceleration length requirement is 150 feet of storage plus a 144- foot taper. This lane exists today and provides a length of 225 feet with a taper of approximately 100 feet. It isn’t believed that it would be beneficial to shorten the length of the turn lane to increase the taper length (especially since it is a reverse curve taper instead of a straight taper). Therefore, it is believed that this existing northbound left turn deceleration lane is in compliance with the SHAC and no modifications are needed. · A southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the existing Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) intersection with the existing right turn volume being 252 vph with the threshold for requiring a right turn deceleration lane being 50 vph. The southbound right turn volume with the project is anticipated to increase to 255 vph. The SHAC southbound right turn deceleration length requirement is 250 feet storage plus a 144-foot taper. This lane currently exists with a length of 225 feet that extends to the project right-in/right-out access. The calculated extension per SHAC is due to the existing traffic volumes (252 right turns), but this storage lane is constructed to the maximum length available due to the location of the driveway to the north; therefore, no mitigation is recommended at this location. Providing a continuous lane through the existing driveway location is not feasible due to the sloped wall located along the west side of College Avenue north of the right-in/right-out access location. Therefore, it is believed that this existing southbound right turn will not require any modifications. College Avenue (US-287) right-in/right-out access intersection · A southbound right turn deceleration lane is not warranted at the existing College Avenue (US-287) right-in/right-out access intersection with the projected right turn volume being 50 vph and the threshold for requiring a right turn deceleration lane being greater than 50 vph. As mentioned previously, a right turn lane is not feasible due to the grade separated sloped wall located north of the project access driveway. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 81 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 24 5.4 Queuing Analysis A queuing analysis was conducted for the signalized study area intersection of Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue (US-287) and the existing College Avenue right-in/right-out access intersection. The queuing analysis was performed using the Synchro analysis software presenting the results of the 95th percentile queue lengths. Results are shown in the following Table 5 with calculations provided within the level of service operational sheets of Appendix E for the unsignalized intersection and Appendix F for signalized intersection. Table 5 – Queuing Analysis Results Intersection Turn Lane Existing Turn Lane Length (feet) 2020 Calculated Queue (feet) 2020 Recommended Turn Lane Length (feet) 2040 Calculated Queue (feet) 2040 Recommended Turn Lane Length (feet) Rutgers Avenue & College Avenue Eastbound Left Westbound Left Northbound Left Southbound Left Southbound Right 250’ C 225’ 225’ 225’ 345’ 25’ 116’ 33’ 93’ 250’ C 225’ 225’ 225’ 391’ 21’ 124’ 58’ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 25 existing onsite configuration and layout will successfully accommodate this queue length with a throat of 75 feet provided. 5.5 Multimodal Transportation Analysis A multimodal transportation analysis was performed as part of this traffic study per the request of the City of Fort Collins. This multi-modal evaluation includes an assessment of operations and level of service for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as outlined with the City of Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual and Adequate Public Facilities Plan. Each of these will be discussed further within the following sections: Pedestrian Analysis The five level of service standards specific to pedestrian facilities were reviewed as part of this project. These include directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest and amenity, and security. Compass Community Collaborative School is proposed to be located within the City of Fort Collins Activity Commercial Corridor and Enhanced Travel Corridor. The five level of service quality measure assessments are as follows: Directness The City of Fort Collins identifies directness as the walking distance to destinations including transit stops, schools, parks, commercial employment or activity areas. A grid street pattern with sidewalks typifies the ideal system, as is present with this proposed project location. Measurement of directness is the ratio of the Actual distance to such destinations by way of pedestrian sidewalk or pathway divided by Minimum right-angle distance characterized by the grid street pattern (the A/M ratio). Pedestrian activity generated by this project is anticipated to be along the east and west side of College Avenue and from the pedestrian bridge immediately west of the site for the Spring Creek TransFort MAX Transit Station. TransFort provides transit stops along the College Avenue corridor from north of Mountain Avenue and south of Harmony Road. The threshold LOS for directness within Activity Center Corridors is LOS B. As the actual distance from the residential grid system is slightly larger than minimum distance, the ratio of directness is negligibly higher than 1.0, which is less than the maximum 1.2 threshold for Level of Service A and acceptable threshold of 1.4. Therefore, this criterion is met with this project, and is expected to operate at level of service A. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 83 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 26 Continuity Continuity is defined as the completeness of the sidewalk/walkway systems with avoidance of gaps. Where the pedestrian corridor is integrated within the activities along the corridor, level of service A results. College Avenue includes sidewalks along both the east and west sides of the street within the project vicinity. College Avenue will be the primary desired pedestrian connection to and from the site. Additionally, the local streets to the east of College Avenue provide sidewalks on both side of the streets. A pedestrian bridge is provided immediately west of the site at the Spring Creek MAX Station and this will provide access to the site for pedestrians on the west side of the TransFort Transitway. Given that a complete pedestrian connection is present from the residential areas surrounding the project site, it is believed to meet City of Fort Collins standards, level of service A results as the pedestrian sidewalk appears as a single entity within the activity area. Street Crossings There are four types of street crossings with associated level of service ratings. The first is signalized intersections where elements include grade separation, number of lanes to cross, signal indication, well-marked crosswalks, lighting, raised median width, visibility, curb ramps, pedestrian buttons, convenience, comfort, and security. The second is unsignalized intersection crossing of major streets where grade separation, number of lanes to cross, well-marked crosswalks, lighting, raised median width, visibility, and curb ramps are evaluated. Third, unsignalized intersection crossings of minor streets that include an evaluation of well-marked crosswalks, lighting, and curb ramps. The fourth and last is mid-block crossings where the number of lanes to cross, strength of crosswalk presence, well-marked crosswalks, lighting, raised median width, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, convenience, comfort, and security are considered. Along the College Avenue pedestrian path north and south of the project site, there are two signalized intersection public street crossings in nearby vicinity of the site. There are no unsignalized public street crossings nor any mid-block crosswalks within the vicinity of the site. A signalized pedestrian crossing exists on the north, south, and west legs of the intersection of Rutgers Avenue/Commercial Access and College Avenue. This pedestrian crossing is located approximately 150 feet south of the project site and includes a six through lane crossing of ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 84 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 27 College Avenue, a four-lane crossing of the Commercial Access west leg, pedestrian signal heads, a well-marked crosswalk, lighting, standard curb ramps on side opposite of the frontage road, good visibility, pedestrian push buttons, nice convenience and comfort, and security. Given that all of these elements are present and that there are six lanes to cross, this crossing operates at level of service C. A pedestrian crossing also exists at the signalized intersection of Johnson Drive/Spring Park Drive and College Avenue. The pedestrian crossings are located on the east, west, and north legs of this intersection. This pedestrian crossing is located approximately 625 feet north of the project site and includes a six through lane crossing of College Avenue, a three-lane crossing of the east leg of Spring Park Drive, and a two-lane crossing of the west leg of Johnson Drive. This pedestrian crossing also includes pedestrian signal heads, a well-marked crosswalk, lighting, standard curb ramps, good visibility, pedestrian push buttons, nice convenience and comfort, and security. Given that these elements are present and that there are five lanes to cross, this crossing operates at level of service C. The two pedestrian street crossings within the vicinity of the site both meet the desired LOS C threshold for the Activity Centers and Corridors district. Further, a pedestrian bridge is provided immediately west of the site at the Spring Creek MAX Station and this will provide access to the site for pedestrians on the west side of the TransFort Transitway. Visual Interest and Amenity This identifies a pedestrian system to be aesthetically compatible with local architecture and include pedestrian amenities. A landscaping buffer zone with trees and generous sidewalk widths is provided in some areas along College Avenue, but the sidewalk is primarily connected directly to the edge of the roadway in most areas surrounding the project site. Pedestrian lighting, visual clarity, some street furniture and landscaping is provided within the vicinity of the site; therefore, the visual interest and amenity is categorized with LOS B which meets the desired threshold for the Activity Centers and Corridors district. Security As identified by the City of Fort Collins requirements, the highest level of service for the pedestrian security category is an environment with the presence of frequent sidewalk users, ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 85 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 28 good lighting, clear sight lines, and separation from vehicles. The lowest level of service occurs when the streetscape is pedestrian intolerant which includes major breaches in pedestrian visibility from the street. Lighting is present along the College Avenue corridor adjacent to the site and there are unobstructed lines of sight. This area of College Avenue does not have a high volume of pedestrians which lowers the sense of security of the sidewalk and pedestrian connection resulting in a LOS B which meets the desired threshold. Based on this evaluation criteria, it is believed that the project meets the minimum requirements for pedestrian level of service with this project. Bicycle Analysis Bicycle level of service standards are based on connectivity to various bike facilities in connecting corridors. Bicycle corridors may contain either on-street lanes, off-street paths, or on-street routes, with on-street routes preferred providing this safer and more direct connectivity. College Avenue is a no bicycling zone adjacent to the project. A hard surface multi-use trail extends parallel to the west of College Avenue immediately west of the TransFort Transitway line. The pedestrian bridge located at the Spring Creek MAX Station will provide a connection from the multi-use trail to the project site. Matthews Street is a local residential with designated bike route located in the neighborhood to the east. Columbia Road is a collector street with bikes lanes located in the neighborhood to the east. The site is not directly connected immediately adjacent to the project, but does provide indirect connections to the east and west. Based on this, the site is directly connected to a north-south off street path and indirectly connected to an east-west on-street corridor immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the bicycle analysis demonstrates that LOS D exists for this project. Transit Analysis Transit level of service standards have been developed to plan for a well-connected intermodal transportation system. The transit service is developed so that it is frequent, reliable, and accessible. The MAX TransFort transit route extends north-south immediately west of College Avenue and provides a pedestrian bridge at the Spring Creek Station which provides direct access to the project site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 86 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 29 The MAX line provides 18 hours of service (5:23 AM to 11:23 PM) during the weekday and the peak period headway is 10 minutes. The average travel time from the South Transit Center to the Downtown Transit Center is 24 minutes, whereas by vehicle travel is approximately 17 minutes. Based on the transit connections and availability, the transit level of service for this project is anticipated to be LOS A. 5.6 Internal Site Circulation and Queuing Analysis An internal site circulation and queuing analysis was also performed. As shown in the site and circulation plan of Appendix H, the proposed circulation for the student drop-off and pick-up zones has vehicles traveling around the school building in a clockwise direction. The student drop-off zone is located on the north side of the east building. This drop-off zone will also be the location where queuing of vehicles will begin for the pick-up of students as school is dismissed. Vehicles exiting the site with destinations south on College Avenue utilize the existing right- in/right-out driveway while vehicles exiting the site with destinations north on College Avenue will utilize the full commercial access that aligns with Rutgers Avenue. All parents will be notified by Compass Community Collaborative School to enter the site at the commercial access that aligns with Rutgers Avenue when dropping off students. The path of the drop-off route will have one location where entering vehicles cross the path of exiting vehicles. This crossover of drop- off and pick-up vehicles will occur north of the existing drive aisle located between the west side of both Mattress Firm and Floyd’s 99 Barbershop. This crossover point will be the end of the allowable on-site queuing for student pick-ups. The crossover point equates to a maximum allowable on-site vehicle queuing storage of approximately 915 feet. It is believed that operations will function acceptably, but school staff may need to be present to direct the flow of traffic if excessive delays are created for vehicles exiting the drop off area. An on-site queueing analysis was performed as requested by the City of Fort Collins. The procedure used was from data collected from other school evaluations conducted in the United States. This evaluation is based on the number of students being picked up once school is dismissed. The number of students used in the analysis was factored based on the staggered bell schedule. Three bell schedules are proposed with the largest release of students expected to be 40 percent of student population during one of the three dismissal times. 40 percent of the expected capacity student enrollment of 400 students equates to a maximum of 160 students being released at one time. 160 students being released was utilized in the evaluation ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 87 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 30 worksheets for the queuing analysis provided in Appendix G. The calculations provide conservative results because reductions were not made to the number of released students to take into students attending after school programs and tutoring. As shown in these calculations, an average queue of 680 feet can be expected, with the high demand queue being 885 feet. These distances are accommodated onsite with the proposed 915 feet of on-site vehicle queue storage. Based on the results of the level of service operational analysis and turn lane analysis, the recommended lane configurations and control of the study area intersections are shown in Figure 10 for both the 2020 and 2040 horizons. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 88 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 89 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School Page 32 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the proposed Compass Community Collaborative School project will be successfully incorporated into the existing roadway network. The west leg of the College Avenue (US-287) right-in/right-out access intersection is anticipated to have traffic volumes increase by more than 20 percent, and therefore it is believed that CDOT will require an access permit for this access intersection. All off-site and on-site improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to standards of the City of Fort Collins, CDOT, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – 2009 Edition. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 90 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDICES ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 91 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX A TIS Base Assumptions ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 92 North: South of Arthur Dr South: Rutgers Avenue East: West: S. College Avenue Short Range: 2020 Long Range: 2040 Sat NA Passby: Overall Trip Distribution Mode Split Assumptions Date: Local Entity Engineering: Attachement A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions S. College Avenue Compass Community Collaborative School Near NWC South College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue Project Information Type of Study Intermediate: Study Area Bounderies Areas Requiring Special Study 2. S College Ave/Rutgers Ave 3. S. College RIRO 4 5 6 7 8 NA AM: 7:30 - 9:30 PM: 3:00-5:00 Study Years 3/1/2018 Traffic Engineering: Curtis Rowe Project Name Project Location Full: X Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Captive Market: NA See Attached Figure 1.0 Percent per year TIS Assumptions NA Trip Adjustment Factors Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives Time Period for Study Trip Generation Rates See attached ITE Calc Sheet / Staggered Bell Schedule Factors ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 93 Project Compass Collaborative Community School Subject Trip Generation for Private School (K-12) Designed by Jeff Planck Date February 28, 2018 Job No. 096707000 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Private School (K-12) (ITE Land Use Code 536) Independant Variable - Students (X) Students = 400 X = 400.0 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Weekday (Series 500 Page 81) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting (T) = 2.48 (X) T = 992 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 2.48 * (400.0) 496 entering 496 exiting 496 + 496 = 992 AM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 84) Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. T = 0.81 (X) T = 324 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.81 * 400 198 entering 126 exiting 198 + 126 = 324 PM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 85) Directional Distribution: 42% ent. 58% exit. T = 0.58 (X) T = 232 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.58 * 400 97 entering 135 exiting 97 + 135 = 232 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 94 Compass Community Collaborative School Trip Generation In Out Total In Out Total Private School (K-12) 400 Students 992 198 126 324 97 135 232 Staggered Bell Schedule Factors (40% AM - 60% PM) - - 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 PM Site Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Daily AM Units ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 95 [50%] 5% 45% [20%] [10%] 10% 40% 5% [50%] [20%] [70%] 55% [20%] ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 96 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX B Intersection Count Sheets ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 97 File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave Groups Printed- Automobiles Rutgers Ave Eastbound Rutgers Ave Westbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total 07:30 AM 15 1 8 0 24 3 0 2 0 5 7 399 2 0 408 3 266 25 0 294 731 07:45 AM 20 1 9 0 30 1 1 1 0 3 14 426 1 0 441 1 285 17 0 303 777 Total 35 2 17 0 54 4 1 3 0 8 21 825 3 0 849 4 551 42 0 597 1508 08:00 AM 17 2 10 0 29 0 0 2 0 2 10 350 2 0 362 4 220 21 0 245 638 08:15 AM 21 1 12 0 34 1 1 1 0 3 18 383 4 0 405 1 244 12 0 257 699 08:30 AM 36 1 12 0 49 2 1 0 0 3 15 398 3 0 416 0 252 26 0 278 746 08:45 AM 19 1 8 0 28 2 1 0 0 3 11 443 3 0 457 1 339 24 0 364 852 Total 93 5 42 0 140 5 3 3 0 11 54 1574 12 0 1640 6 1055 83 0 1144 2935 09:00 AM 20 1 12 0 33 1 0 2 0 3 18 337 1 0 356 2 307 23 0 332 724 09:15 AM 20 0 17 0 37 0 0 1 0 1 10 298 2 1 311 3 257 34 0 294 643 Grand Total 168 8 88 0 264 10 4 9 0 23 103 3034 18 1 3156 15 2170 182 0 2367 5810 Apprch % 63.6 3 33.3 0 43.5 17.4 39.1 0 3.3 96.1 0.6 0 0.6 91.7 7.7 0 Total % 2.9 0.1 1.5 0 4.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0.4 1.8 52.2 0.3 0 54.3 0.3 37.3 3.1 0 40.7 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 98 File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Right 182 Thru 2170 Left 15 U Turns 0 Out In Total 3211 2367 5578 Right 9 Thru 4 Left 10 U Turns 0 Out In Total 41 23 64 Left 103 Thru 3034 Right 18 U Turns 1 Out In Total 2268 3156 5424 Left 168 Thru 8 Right 88 U Turns 0 Out In Total 289 264 553 2/14/2018 07:30 AM 2/14/2018 09:15 AM Automobiles North File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave Eastbound Rutgers Ave Westbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:15 AM 08:15 AM 21 1 12 0 34 1 1 1 0 3 18 383 4 0 405 1 244 12 0 257 699 08:30 AM 36 1 12 0 49 2 1 0 0 3 15 398 3 0 416 0 252 26 0 278 746 08:45 AM 19 1 8 0 28 2 1 0 0 3 11 443 3 0 457 1 339 24 0 364 852 09:00 AM 20 1 12 0 33 1 0 2 0 3 18 337 1 0 356 2 307 23 0 332 724 Total Volume 96 4 44 0 144 6 3 3 0 12 62 1561 11 0 1634 4 1142 85 0 1231 3021 % App. Total 66.7 2.8 30.6 0 50 25 25 0 3.8 95.5 0.7 0 0.3 92.8 6.9 0 PHF .667 1.00 .917 .000 .735 .750 .750 .375 .000 1.00 .861 .881 .688 .000 .894 .500 .842 .817 .000 .845 .886 College Ave (US-287) Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Right 85 Thru 1142 Left 4 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1660 1231 2891 Right 3 Thru 3 Left 6 U Turns File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave Groups Printed- Automobiles Rutgers Ave Eastbound Rutgers Ave Westbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total 03:00 PM 44 1 25 0 70 3 1 1 0 5 25 391 2 0 418 6 511 47 0 564 1057 03:15 PM 39 4 32 0 75 3 2 3 0 8 33 409 3 0 445 3 490 55 0 548 1076 03:30 PM 57 3 37 0 97 0 2 5 0 7 21 412 4 0 437 5 505 41 1 552 1093 03:45 PM 46 0 29 0 75 6 2 4 0 12 25 403 0 0 428 3 518 48 0 569 1084 Total 186 8 123 0 317 12 7 13 0 32 104 1615 9 0 1728 17 2024 191 1 2233 4310 04:00 PM 50 8 36 0 94 1 3 1 0 5 23 360 4 0 387 5 550 64 1 620 1106 04:15 PM 48 3 27 0 78 3 1 2 0 6 40 397 0 0 437 5 566 62 0 633 1154 04:30 PM 67 3 44 0 114 1 6 4 0 11 26 405 2 0 433 6 498 62 0 566 1124 04:45 PM 59 4 39 0 102 5 3 4 0 12 21 435 5 0 461 6 594 64 0 664 1239 Total 224 18 146 0 388 10 13 11 0 34 110 1597 11 0 1718 22 2208 252 1 2483 4623 Grand Total 410 26 269 0 705 22 20 24 0 66 214 3212 20 0 3446 39 4232 443 2 4716 8933 Apprch % 58.2 3.7 38.2 0 33.3 30.3 36.4 0 6.2 93.2 0.6 0 0.8 89.7 9.4 0 Total % 4.6 0.3 3 0 7.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 0.7 2.4 36 0.2 0 38.6 0.4 47.4 5 0 52.8 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 101 File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Right 443 Thru 4232 Left 39 U Turns 2 Out In Total 3646 4716 8362 Right 24 Thru 20 Left 22 U Turns 0 Out In Total 85 66 151 Left 214 Thru 3212 Right 20 U Turns 0 Out In Total 4523 3446 7969 Left 410 Thru 26 Right 269 U Turns 0 Out In Total 677 705 1382 2/14/2018 03:00 PM 2/14/2018 04:45 PM Automobiles North File Name : College Ave and Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave (US-287) and Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave Eastbound Rutgers Ave Westbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 50 8 36 0 94 1 3 1 0 5 23 360 4 0 387 5 550 64 1 620 1106 04:15 PM 48 3 27 0 78 3 1 2 0 6 40 397 0 0 437 5 566 62 0 633 1154 04:30 PM 67 3 44 0 114 1 6 4 0 11 26 405 2 0 433 6 498 62 0 566 1124 04:45 PM 59 4 39 0 102 5 3 4 0 12 21 435 5 0 461 6 594 64 0 664 1239 Total Volume 224 18 146 0 388 10 13 11 0 34 110 1597 11 0 1718 22 2208 252 1 2483 4623 % App. Total 57.7 4.6 37.6 0 29.4 38.2 32.4 0 6.4 93 0.6 0 0.9 88.9 10.1 0 PHF .836 .563 .830 .000 .851 .500 .542 .688 .000 .708 .688 .918 .550 .000 .932 .917 .929 .984 .250 .935 .933 College Ave (US-287) Rutgers Ave Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) Right 252 Thru 2208 Left 22 U Turns 1 Out In Total 1832 2483 4315 Right 11 Thru 13 Left 10 U Turns 0 File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave Groups Printed- Automobiles RIRO Eastbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru U Turns App. Total Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 457 0 457 287 1 0 288 745 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 441 0 441 308 7 0 315 756 Total 0 0 0 0 0 898 0 898 595 8 0 603 1501 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 341 0 341 240 1 0 241 582 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 410 0 410 251 3 0 254 664 08:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 464 0 464 320 2 0 322 787 08:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 449 0 449 358 4 0 362 812 Total 0 2 0 2 0 1664 0 1664 1169 10 0 1179 2845 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 364 0 364 303 2 0 305 669 09:15 AM 0 2 0 2 0 325 0 325 305 4 0 309 636 Grand Total 0 4 0 4 0 3251 0 3251 2372 24 0 2396 5651 Apprch % 0 100 0 0 100 0 99 1 0 Total % 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 57.5 0 57.5 42 0.4 0 42.4 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 104 File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) RIRO College Ave (US-287) Right 24 Thru 2372 U Turns 0 Out In Total 3251 2396 5647 Left 0 Thru 3251 U Turns 0 Out In Total 2376 3251 5627 Left 0 Right 4 U Turns 0 Out In Total 24 4 28 2/14/2018 07:30 AM 2/14/2018 09:15 AM Automobiles North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 105 File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave AM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School AM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave RIRO Eastbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru U Turns App. Total Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:15 AM 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 410 0 410 251 3 0 254 664 08:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 464 0 464 320 2 0 322 787 08:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 449 0 449 358 4 0 362 812 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 364 0 364 303 2 0 305 669 Total Volume 0 2 0 2 0 1687 0 1687 1232 11 0 1243 2932 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 99.1 0.9 0 PHF .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .909 .000 .909 .860 .688 .000 .858 .903 College Ave (US-287) RIRO College Ave (US-287) Right 11 Thru 1232 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1687 1243 2930 Left 0 Thru 1687 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1234 1687 2921 Left 0 Right 2 U Turns 0 Out In Total 11 2 13 Peak Hour Begins at 08:15 AM Automobiles Peak Hour Data File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave Groups Printed- Automobiles RIRO Eastbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru U Turns App. Total Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total 03:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 436 0 436 570 4 0 574 1012 03:15 PM 0 1 0 1 0 452 0 452 536 4 0 540 993 03:30 PM 0 2 0 2 0 464 0 464 575 5 0 580 1046 03:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 430 0 430 550 9 0 559 990 Total 0 6 0 6 0 1782 0 1782 2231 22 0 2253 4041 04:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 425 0 425 629 3 0 632 1059 04:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 433 0 433 628 5 0 633 1068 04:30 PM 0 5 0 5 0 499 0 499 559 10 0 569 1073 04:45 PM 0 5 0 5 0 482 0 482 648 6 0 654 1141 Total 0 14 0 14 0 1839 0 1839 2464 24 0 2488 4341 Grand Total 0 20 0 20 0 3621 0 3621 4695 46 0 4741 8382 Apprch % 0 100 0 0 100 0 99 1 0 Total % 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 43.2 0 43.2 56 0.5 0 56.6 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 107 File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave College Ave (US-287) RIRO College Ave (US-287) Right 46 Thru 4695 U Turns 0 Out In Total 3621 4741 8362 Left 0 Thru 3621 U Turns 0 Out In Total 4715 3621 8336 Left 0 Right 20 U Turns 0 Out In Total 46 20 66 2/14/2018 03:00 PM 2/14/2018 04:45 PM Automobiles North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 108 File Name : College & RIRO North of Rutgers Ave PM Site Code : IPO 309 Start Date : 2/14/2018 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Compass Community Collaborative School PM Peak College Ave RIRO North of Rutgers Ave RIRO Eastbound College Ave (US-287) Northbound College Ave (US-287) Southbound Start Time Left Right U Turns App. Total Left Thru U Turns App. Total Thru Right U Turns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 425 0 425 629 3 0 632 1059 04:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 433 0 433 628 5 0 633 1068 04:30 PM 0 5 0 5 0 499 0 499 559 10 0 569 1073 04:45 PM 0 5 0 5 0 482 0 482 648 6 0 654 1141 Total Volume 0 14 0 14 0 1839 0 1839 2464 24 0 2488 4341 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 99 1 0 PHF .000 .700 .000 .700 .000 .921 .000 .921 .951 .600 .000 .951 .951 College Ave (US-287) RIRO College Ave (US-287) Right 24 Thru 2464 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1839 2488 4327 Left 0 Thru 1839 U Turns 0 Out In Total 2478 1839 4317 Left 0 Right 14 U Turns 0 Out In Total 24 14 38 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Automobiles Peak Hour Data Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX C Traffic Growth Information ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 110 Compass Collaborative Community School Traffic Projections ROUTE REFPT ENDREFPT LENGTH UPDATEYR AADT YR20FACTOR DHV LOCATION 287C 343.187 344.194 0.997 2015 39000 1.02 9 ON SH 287 COLLEGE AVE N/O HORSETOOTH RD FT COLLINS 287C 344.194 345.212 1.002 2015 37000 1.02 9.5 ON SH 287 COLLEGE AVE N/O DRAKE RD FT COLLINS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 111 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX D Trip Generation Worksheets ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 112 Project Compass Collaborative Community School Subject Trip Generation for Private School (K-12) Designed by Jeff Planck Date February 28, 2018 Job No. 096707000 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Private School (K-12) (ITE Land Use Code 536) Independant Variable - Students (X) Students = 400 X = 400.0 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Weekday (Series 500 Page 81) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting (T) = 2.48 (X) T = 992 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 2.48 * (400.0) 496 entering 496 exiting 496 + 496 = 992 AM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 84) Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. T = 0.81 (X) T = 324 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.81 * 400 198 entering 126 exiting 198 + 126 = 324 PM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 85) Directional Distribution: 42% ent. 58% exit. T = 0.58 (X) T = 232 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.58 * 400 97 entering 135 exiting 97 + 135 = 232 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 113 Compass Community Collaborative School Trip Generation In Out Total In Out Total Private School (K-12) 400 Students 992 198 126 324 97 135 232 Staggered Bell Schedule Factors (40% AM - 60% PM) - - 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 992 79 51 130 58 81 139 PM Site Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Daily AM Units ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 114 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX E Intersection Analysis Worksheets ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 115 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2018 Existing AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 6 3 3 62 1561 11 4 1142 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 6 3 3 62 1561 11 4 1142 85 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 4 48 8 4 8 72 1774 16 8 1360 104 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.86 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.84 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 240 16 194 203 72 144 353 4089 37 243 3587 1116 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.71 Sat Flow, veh/h 1393 123 1475 1344 549 1099 1774 5198 47 263 5085 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 143 0 52 8 0 12 72 1157 633 8 1360 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1393 0 1598 1344 0 1648 1774 1695 1854 263 1695 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.1 12.2 12.2 1.1 11.8 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.7 0.0 3.2 3.8 0.0 0.7 1.1 12.2 12.2 4.3 11.8 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 0 210 203 0 217 353 2667 1459 243 3587 1116 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.03 0.38 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 430 0 429 387 0 442 450 2667 1459 243 3587 1116 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.9 0.0 42.9 44.6 0.0 41.8 4.3 3.8 3.8 5.9 6.5 5.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 5.8 6.5 0.1 5.5 1.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 0.0 43.5 44.7 0.0 41.9 4.6 4.3 4.7 6.2 6.8 5.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 195 20 1862 1472 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.7 43.0 4.5 6.7 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.0 19.0 8.9 82.1 19.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 71.5 29.5 10.5 56.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 13.7 3.1 13.8 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 46.6 0.7 0.1 36.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 2010 LOS A ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 116 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2018 Existing PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 10 13 11 110 1597 11 22 2208 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 10 13 11 110 1597 11 22 2208 252 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 255 32 176 20 24 16 159 1736 20 24 2374 257 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.54 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 340 55 304 188 234 156 188 3619 42 209 3080 950 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.70 0.70 0.61 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 1346 244 1339 1166 1032 688 1774 5182 60 272 5085 1569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 0 208 20 0 40 159 1136 620 24 2374 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1346 0 1583 1166 0 1720 1774 1695 1852 272 1695 1569 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.2 0.0 14.0 1.9 0.0 2.2 4.5 18.2 18.2 5.3 41.4 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.4 0.0 14.0 15.9 0.0 2.2 4.5 18.2 18.2 12.4 41.4 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 340 0 359 188 0 390 188 2368 1293 209 3080 950 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.48 0.48 0.12 0.77 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 366 0 389 210 0 423 260 2368 1293 209 3080 950 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.4 0.0 41.3 48.4 0.0 36.7 29.6 8.2 8.2 13.5 17.5 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 16.7 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.9 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.0 0.0 6.3 0.6 0.0 1.1 6.0 8.6 9.6 0.5 19.9 4.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.1 0.0 43.2 48.6 0.0 36.9 46.3 8.9 9.5 14.7 19.4 11.9 LnGrp LOS D D D D D A A B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 463 60 1915 2655 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 40.8 12.2 18.7 Approach LOS D D B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.3 31.7 11.1 77.2 31.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 81.5 29.5 11.5 65.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.2 26.4 6.5 43.4 17.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 58.7 0.8 0.2 21.7 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 2010 LOS B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 117 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Background AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 6 3 3 62 1592 11 4 1165 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 6 3 3 62 1592 11 4 1165 85 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 4 48 8 4 8 72 1809 16 8 1387 104 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.86 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.84 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 240 16 194 203 72 144 346 4091 36 237 3588 1116 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.71 Sat Flow, veh/h 1393 123 1475 1344 549 1099 1774 5199 46 254 5085 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 143 0 52 8 0 12 72 1180 645 8 1387 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1393 0 1598 1344 0 1648 1774 1695 1855 254 1695 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.1 12.5 12.5 1.2 12.1 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.7 0.0 3.2 3.8 0.0 0.7 1.1 12.5 12.5 4.7 12.1 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 0 210 203 0 216 346 2668 1459 237 3588 1116 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.39 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 418 0 414 375 0 427 444 2668 1459 237 3588 1116 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.9 0.0 42.9 44.6 0.0 41.8 4.3 3.8 3.8 6.1 6.6 5.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 5.9 6.7 0.1 5.8 1.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 0.0 43.5 44.7 0.0 41.9 4.6 4.4 4.8 6.3 6.9 5.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 195 20 1897 1499 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 43.0 4.5 6.8 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.1 18.9 8.9 82.1 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.5 28.5 10.5 57.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 13.7 3.1 14.1 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 47.8 0.6 0.1 37.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 2010 LOS A ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 118 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Background PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 10 13 11 110 1629 11 22 2252 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 10 13 11 110 1629 11 22 2252 252 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 267 32 176 20 24 16 159 1771 20 24 2422 257 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.54 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 350 57 313 198 241 161 188 3582 40 200 3029 935 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1347 244 1340 1166 1032 688 1774 5184 59 263 5085 1570 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 267 0 208 20 0 40 159 1158 633 24 2422 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1347 0 1584 1166 0 1720 1774 1695 1852 263 1695 1570 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.3 0.0 13.9 1.8 0.0 2.2 4.8 19.2 19.2 5.7 44.1 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.5 0.0 13.9 15.7 0.0 2.2 4.8 19.2 19.2 13.5 44.1 9.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 350 0 370 198 0 402 188 2343 1280 200 3029 935 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.56 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.49 0.49 0.12 0.80 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 369 0 392 214 0 426 255 2343 1280 200 3029 935 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.0 0.0 40.5 47.5 0.0 36.1 31.0 8.7 8.7 14.5 18.7 11.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 17.4 0.7 1.4 1.2 2.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.5 0.0 6.2 0.6 0.0 1.1 6.1 9.1 10.2 0.5 21.1 4.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.7 0.0 42.2 47.7 0.0 36.2 48.4 9.4 10.1 15.8 21.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS D D D D D A B B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 475 60 1950 2703 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 40.0 12.8 20.2 Approach LOS D D B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.4 32.6 11.4 76.0 32.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 81.3 29.7 11.5 65.3 29.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.2 27.5 6.8 46.1 17.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 57.9 0.6 0.2 18.9 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 2010 LOS C ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 119 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 9 54 6 11 3 94 1592 11 4 1175 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 9 54 6 11 3 94 1592 11 4 1175 89 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 182 10 59 8 15 8 109 1809 16 8 1399 109 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.86 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.84 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 279 39 229 236 189 101 330 3911 35 223 3395 1056 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, veh/h 1380 234 1382 1324 1138 607 1774 5199 46 254 5085 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 0 69 8 0 23 109 1180 645 8 1399 109 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1380 0 1616 1324 0 1745 1774 1695 1855 254 1695 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.1 0.0 4.1 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.9 14.5 14.5 1.4 13.9 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.3 0.0 4.1 4.7 0.0 1.2 1.9 14.5 14.5 6.6 13.9 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 279 0 268 236 0 289 330 2551 1395 223 3395 1056 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.26 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.33 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.41 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445 0 463 395 0 500 470 2551 1395 223 3395 1056 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.3 0.0 40.0 42.0 0.0 38.8 6.0 5.2 5.2 8.2 8.4 6.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 6.9 7.8 0.1 6.6 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 0.0 40.5 42.1 0.0 38.9 6.5 5.8 6.3 8.5 8.8 6.7 LnGrp LOS D D D D A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 251 31 1934 1516 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 39.7 6.0 8.6 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.3 22.7 9.3 77.9 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 69.5 31.5 13.5 51.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.5 17.3 3.9 15.9 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 44.5 0.9 0.2 31.6 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.0 HCM 2010 LOS B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 120 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 26 162 10 19 11 133 1629 11 22 2268 255 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 26 162 10 19 11 133 1629 11 22 2268 255 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 46 195 20 35 16 193 1771 20 24 2439 260 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.54 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 395 83 353 223 328 150 222 3380 38 184 2690 829 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.65 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1336 305 1292 1133 1201 549 1774 5184 59 263 5085 1567 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 241 20 0 51 193 1158 633 24 2439 260 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1336 0 1597 1133 0 1750 1774 1695 1852 263 1695 1567 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.7 0.0 15.5 1.8 0.0 2.6 8.1 21.7 21.7 6.4 52.1 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.3 0.0 15.5 17.4 0.0 2.6 8.1 21.7 21.7 13.2 52.1 11.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 395 0 436 223 0 478 222 2211 1208 184 2690 829 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.55 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.87 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.91 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 404 0 446 230 0 489 299 2211 1208 184 2690 829 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 0.0 37.4 44.8 0.0 32.7 36.0 11.0 11.0 18.4 25.6 16.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 18.1 0.9 1.6 1.5 5.7 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.4 0.0 7.0 0.6 0.0 1.3 7.4 10.2 11.4 0.5 25.6 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 38.8 45.0 0.0 32.8 54.1 11.9 12.7 19.9 31.3 17.0 LnGrp LOS D D D C D B B B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 556 71 1984 2723 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.7 36.2 16.3 29.9 Approach LOS D D B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 82.8 37.2 14.8 68.0 37.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.5 33.5 15.5 57.5 33.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.7 32.3 10.1 54.1 19.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 52.2 0.4 0.2 3.4 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.7 HCM 2010 LOS C ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 121 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Background AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 7 3 4 62 1943 14 5 1421 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 4 44 7 3 4 62 1943 14 5 1421 85 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 4 48 9 4 11 72 2208 20 10 1692 104 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.86 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.84 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 239 16 196 205 58 159 283 4082 37 173 3580 1114 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.79 0.79 0.70 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1390 123 1475 1344 434 1195 1774 5198 47 171 5085 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 143 0 52 9 0 15 72 1440 788 10 1692 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1390 0 1598 1344 0 1629 1774 1695 1854 171 1695 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.1 17.4 17.5 2.5 16.2 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 0.0 3.2 3.9 0.0 0.9 1.1 17.4 17.5 11.1 16.2 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 0 212 205 0 216 283 2663 1456 173 3580 1114 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.24 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.25 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.47 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 376 0 371 338 0 378 364 2663 1456 173 3580 1114 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 42.8 44.5 0.0 41.7 5.3 4.4 4.4 8.1 7.2 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 8.3 9.3 0.2 7.7 1.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.4 0.0 43.3 44.6 0.0 41.9 5.8 5.2 5.9 8.8 7.7 5.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 195 24 2300 1806 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 42.9 5.4 7.5 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.9 19.1 8.9 81.9 19.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 75.5 25.5 9.5 61.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.5 13.9 3.1 18.2 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 52.5 0.6 0.1 41.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.4 HCM 2010 LOS A ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 122 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Background PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 12 13 14 110 1988 14 27 2748 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 18 146 12 13 14 110 1988 14 27 2748 252 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 267 32 176 24 24 20 159 2161 25 29 2955 257 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.54 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 317 52 284 169 197 164 181 3692 43 150 3098 956 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.71 0.71 0.61 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 1341 243 1338 1166 928 773 1774 5182 60 179 5085 1569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 267 0 208 24 0 44 159 1413 773 29 2955 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1341 0 1581 1166 0 1701 1774 1695 1852 179 1695 1569 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.0 0.0 14.3 2.3 0.0 2.5 6.3 24.7 24.7 11.5 65.1 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.5 0.0 14.3 16.6 0.0 2.5 6.3 24.7 24.7 23.8 65.1 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 317 0 336 169 0 362 181 2416 1319 150 3098 956 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.62 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.88 0.58 0.59 0.19 0.95 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 317 0 336 169 0 362 181 2416 1319 150 3098 956 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.9 0.0 42.8 50.4 0.0 38.2 39.0 8.5 8.5 17.4 21.9 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.2 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 35.3 1.0 1.9 2.8 8.5 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.4 0.0 6.6 0.8 0.0 1.2 7.0 11.7 13.2 0.7 32.5 4.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.2 0.0 46.3 50.8 0.0 38.3 74.2 9.5 10.4 20.3 30.4 11.7 LnGrp LOS E D D D E A B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 475 68 2345 3241 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.0 42.7 14.2 28.8 Approach LOS E D B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.0 30.0 12.4 77.6 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 85.5 25.5 7.9 73.1 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 26.7 27.5 8.3 67.1 18.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 58.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.7 HCM 2010 LOS C ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 123 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 9 54 7 11 4 94 1943 14 5 1431 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 9 54 7 11 4 94 1943 14 5 1431 89 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 182 10 59 9 15 11 109 2208 20 10 1704 109 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.86 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.84 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 278 39 231 238 166 122 271 3904 35 163 3388 1054 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, veh/h 1377 234 1382 1324 993 728 1774 5198 47 171 5085 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 0 69 9 0 26 109 1440 788 10 1704 109 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1377 0 1616 1324 0 1721 1774 1695 1854 171 1695 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 0.0 4.1 0.7 0.0 1.4 2.0 20.2 20.3 3.0 18.5 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 0.0 4.1 4.7 0.0 1.4 2.0 20.2 20.3 13.9 18.5 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 270 238 0 288 271 2546 1393 163 3388 1054 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.40 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.50 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 0 419 359 0 446 379 2546 1393 163 3388 1054 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.3 0.0 39.9 41.9 0.0 38.7 7.6 5.9 5.9 11.0 9.2 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.9 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.1 9.5 10.7 0.2 8.7 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.9 0.0 40.3 42.0 0.0 38.9 8.6 6.8 7.6 11.7 9.7 6.8 LnGrp LOS D D D D A A A B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 251 35 2337 1823 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 39.7 7.2 9.6 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.1 22.9 9.3 77.8 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.5 28.5 11.5 56.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.3 17.6 4.0 20.5 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 47.4 0.8 0.1 34.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.6 HCM 2010 LOS B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 124 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/02/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 26 162 12 19 14 133 1988 14 27 2764 255 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 26 162 12 19 14 133 1988 14 27 2764 255 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 46 195 24 35 20 193 2161 25 29 2972 260 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.54 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 343 72 306 175 262 150 215 3563 41 143 2860 882 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.69 0.69 0.56 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1330 304 1290 1133 1102 630 1774 5182 60 179 5085 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 241 24 0 55 193 1413 773 29 2972 260 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1330 0 1594 1133 0 1732 1774 1695 1852 179 1695 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.5 0.0 16.3 2.3 0.0 3.0 8.8 26.8 26.9 12.5 67.5 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.5 0.0 16.3 18.6 0.0 3.0 8.8 26.8 26.9 24.4 67.5 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 343 0 379 175 0 411 215 2331 1273 143 2860 882 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.64 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.90 0.61 0.61 0.20 1.04 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 343 0 379 175 0 411 215 2331 1273 143 2860 882 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 0.0 41.1 49.5 0.0 36.0 40.2 10.0 10.1 20.6 26.2 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.1 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 34.8 1.2 2.2 3.2 28.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.2 0.0 7.5 0.8 0.0 1.5 8.4 12.7 14.3 0.7 38.7 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.6 0.0 44.6 49.8 0.0 36.2 75.0 11.2 12.2 23.8 54.3 14.6 LnGrp LOS E D D D E B B C F B Approach Vol, veh/h 556 79 2379 3261 Approach Delay, s/veh 63.3 40.3 16.7 50.9 Approach LOS E D B D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.0 33.0 15.0 72.0 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 28.5 10.5 67.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.9 30.5 10.8 69.5 20.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 38.9 HCM 2010 LOS D ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 125 HCM 2010 TWSC 2018 Existing AM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 1687 1232 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 1687 1232 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 50 92 91 86 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 4 0 1854 1433 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 724 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 316 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 316 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.5 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 316 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 16.5 - - HCM Lane LOS - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 126 HCM 2010 TWSC 2018 Existing PM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 1839 2464 24 Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 1839 2464 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 70 92 92 95 60 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 0 1999 2594 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1324 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 126 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 125 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 39.2 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 125 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.16 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 39.2 - - HCM Lane LOS - E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.5 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 127 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 Background AM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 1721 1257 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 1721 1257 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 50 92 91 86 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 4 0 1891 1462 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 739 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 309 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 309 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.8 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 309 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 16.8 - - HCM Lane LOS - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 128 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 Background PM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 1876 2514 24 Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 1876 2514 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 70 92 92 95 60 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 0 2039 2646 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1350 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 120 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 119 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 41.3 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 119 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.168 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 41.3 - - HCM Lane LOS - E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.6 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 129 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 Total AM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 0 1747 1261 47 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 0 1747 1261 47 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 50 92 91 86 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 24 0 1920 1466 94 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 780 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 290 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 290 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.5 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 290 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.083 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 18.5 - - HCM Lane LOS - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 130 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 Total PM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 30 0 1917 2517 50 Future Vol, veh/h 0 30 0 1917 2517 50 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 70 92 92 95 70 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 43 0 2084 2649 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1367 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 117 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 116 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 53.2 0 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 116 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.369 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 53.2 - - HCM Lane LOS - F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 1.5 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 131 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Background AM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 2100 1533 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 2100 1533 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 50 92 91 86 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 4 0 2308 1783 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 899 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 242 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 242 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.1 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 242 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 20.1 - - HCM Lane LOS - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 132 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Background PM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 2289 3067 24 Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 2289 3067 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 70 92 92 95 60 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 0 2488 3228 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1641 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 76 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 75 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 69.6 0 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 75 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.267 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 69.6 - - HCM Lane LOS - F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 1 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 133 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Total AM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 0 2126 1537 47 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 0 2126 1537 47 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 50 92 91 86 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 24 0 2336 1787 94 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 941 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 227 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 227 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 22.7 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 227 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.106 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 22.7 - - HCM Lane LOS - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 134 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Total PM.syn 2: S. College Avenue & Access 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 30 0 2330 3070 50 Future Vol, veh/h 0 30 0 2330 3070 50 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 70 92 92 95 70 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 43 0 2533 3232 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1659 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 74 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 74 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 106.1 0 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) - 74 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.579 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 106.1 - - HCM Lane LOS - F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 2.5 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 135 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX F Queue Analysis Worksheets ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 136 Queues 2020 Total AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 69 8 23 109 1825 8 1399 109 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.20 0.03 0.07 0.37 0.49 0.06 0.44 0.11 Control Delay 59.1 12.7 33.7 25.6 8.4 7.0 12.5 11.9 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.1 12.7 33.7 25.6 8.4 7.0 12.5 11.9 2.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 6 5 9 18 165 2 169 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 41 14 23 42 247 6 235 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 264 327 344 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 225 225 Base Capacity (vph) 395 507 379 508 379 3749 133 3198 1013 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.49 0.06 0.44 0.11 Intersection Summary ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 137 Queues 2020 Total PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 241 20 51 193 1791 24 2439 260 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.44 0.10 0.11 0.78 0.53 0.21 0.92 0.30 Control Delay 74.6 13.1 33.8 24.6 48.5 11.4 24.2 34.1 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.6 13.1 33.8 24.6 48.5 11.4 24.2 34.1 7.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 231 38 11 20 95 256 10 652 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) #345 21 17 26 116 295 33 #813 93 Internal Link Dist (ft) 264 327 344 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 225 225 Base Capacity (vph) 369 575 221 502 288 3373 112 2657 861 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.42 0.09 0.10 0.67 0.53 0.21 0.92 0.30 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 138 Queues 2040 Total AM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/01/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 69 9 26 109 2228 10 1704 109 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.45 0.59 0.13 0.54 0.11 Control Delay 59.5 12.7 33.9 23.7 12.1 8.2 17.2 13.6 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.5 12.7 33.9 23.7 12.1 8.2 17.2 13.6 2.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 6 5 9 18 230 3 225 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 41 15 25 46 338 8 320 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 264 327 344 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 225 225 Base Capacity (vph) 356 464 343 457 294 3751 77 3175 1006 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.37 0.59 0.13 0.54 0.11 Intersection Summary ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 139 Queues 2040 Total PM.syn 1: S. College Avenue & Rutgers Avenue 03/02/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 241 24 55 193 2186 29 2972 260 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.49 0.14 0.13 0.90 0.63 0.43 1.04 0.28 Control Delay 98.6 19.1 38.6 28.6 70.4 11.3 38.7 54.0 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 98.6 19.1 38.6 28.6 70.4 11.3 38.7 54.0 5.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~248 59 15 24 99 307 12 ~910 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) #391 41 21 31 #124 349 #58 #995 77 Internal Link Dist (ft) 264 327 344 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 225 225 Base Capacity (vph) 313 493 177 424 216 3488 68 2865 913 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.01 0.49 0.14 0.13 0.89 0.63 0.43 1.04 0.28 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 140 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX F On-Site Queuing Analysis Worksheet ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 141 MSTA School Traffic Calculations AM and PM Peak Traffic Estimates (These numbers do not reflect peak hour traffic volumes) School Name: This is an Urban Charter Version: 111015 AM PM Avg. PM PM PM Average Cars / Cars / Car At one Total Peak Queue Student Student Length Time Vehicles Vehicles Length 30% 55.94% 39.15% 22.19 48.67% Grade K-10 160 15 63 31 680 194 126 885 2 15 52.91% 47.50% 22.19 46.12% Grade 11 50.08% 47.58% 22.83 55.71% Grade 12 Sum >> 160 15 63 31 680 194 126 885 204 Grade K-10 AM Trips Generated PM Trips Generated Direction Parents Buses Staff Trips Parents Buses Staff Trips IN 90 15 105 63 63 OUT 90 90 63 63 ADT 194 126 335 Grade 11 AM Trips Generated PM Trips Generated Direction Parents Buses Staff Trips Parents Buses Staff Trips - Average Queue Length does not IN include an alternative traffic pattern OUT required for high traffic demand days. - Average Queue Length may Grade 12 include the Student Loading Zone. AM Trips Generated PM Trips Generated - Peak traffic volumes at schools Direction Parents Buses Staff Trips Parents Buses Staff Trips normally occur within a 30-minute IN time period. (justifying a PHF of 0.5) OUT In 105 In 63 Out 90 Out 63 Total 194 Total 126 335 All AM TRIPS All PM TRIPS NOTES High Demand Length Calculations AM K-10 Trips PM K-10 Trips AM 11 Trips Total PM Trips PM 11 Trips Compass Community Collaborative School AM 12 Trips PM 12 Trips MSTA School Queue Input Type School Student Population Number of Buses Staff Members Student Drivers Total AM Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096707000 – Compass Community Collaborative School APPENDIX H Conceptual Site Plan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 143 C.O. Y MASON CORRIDOR TRANSITWAY A BIG A SELF STORAGE (N.A.P.) VACANT LAND (N.A.P.) SPRING CREEK MAX STATION MATTRESS FIRM (N.A.P.) PELETON CYCLES (N.A.P.) WHOLE FOODS (N.A.P.) DROP-OFF ZONE MAIN ENTRANCE NORTH COMPASS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL PARKING AND CIRCULATION EXHIBIT MARCH 20, 2018 LEGEND ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 144 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 145 From: Andrew Rosen [mailto:arosen@poudre-fire.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:01 AM To: Clay Frickey Subject: RE: Compass - Revised plan Hi Clay I would like to confirm that the most recent Fire Lane design will satisfy PFA requirements. Please inform the project team that the Fire Lane along the north side of their building is required to be 20ft wide. It appears to be indicated as wider than 20ft. Thank you Andrew Andrew Rosen Fire Protection Technician Plan Review Team Poudre Fire Authority 970-416-2599 arosen@poudre-fire.org ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 PFA EMAIL - RECEIVED 3/28/18 Packet Page 146 Trips Calculated 3/20/2018 By:_______ ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 142 North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 109 North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 106 Out In Total 51 34 85 Left 110 Thru 1597 Right 11 U Turns 0 Out In Total 2364 1718 4082 Left 224 Thru 18 Right 146 U Turns 0 Out In Total 375 388 763 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 103 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 102 0 Out In Total 19 12 31 Left 62 Thru 1561 Right 11 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1192 1634 2826 Left 96 Thru 4 Right 44 U Turns 0 Out In Total 150 144 294 Peak Hour Begins at 08:15 AM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 100 Morrison, CO 80465 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 99 77’ 250’ C 225’ 225’ 225’ College Avenue RIRO Access Eastbound Right C (175’) 38’ C 63’ C C = Continuous Lane As shown in the table representing the queuing results, all anticipated queues are accommodated or managed within existing turn bay lengths with exception of the eastbound left turn queue at the Rutgers Avenue and College Avenue intersection. This storage lane is built to maximum length as it backs to an internal drive aisle that fronts the existing building. This intersection is expected to operate at LOS D with 38.9 seconds of delay during the future peak hour; therefore, additional green time could be provided to the minor approaches while maintaining acceptable operations (delay threshold from D to E is 55 seconds). This additional green time could alleviate queues if they begin to back up to the nearest on-site drive aisle. The eastbound exiting queue length for the existing shared right-in/right-out access along College Avenue was also evaluated. The eastbound right turn queue was calculated to need 63 feet of storage which amounts to approximately three vehicles of storage (75 feet) in 2040. The ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 82 Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right Northbound Left Northbound Through Southbound Left Southbound Through Southbound Right 8.0 49.3 43.5 44.7 41.9 4.6 4.4 6.3 6.9 5.3 A D D D D A A A A A 20.3 54.7 42.2 47.7 36.2 48.4 9.4 15.8 21.0 12.5 C D D D D D A B C B 2020 Total Traffic – Overall Eastbound Left Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right Northbound Left Northbound Through Southbound Left Southbound Through Southbound Right 10.0 47.8 40.5 42.1 38.9 6.5 5.8 8.5 8.8 6.7 B D D D D A A A A A 26.7 54.5 38.8 45.0 32.8 54.1 11.9 19.9 31.3 17.0 C D D D C D B B C B 2040 Background Traffic – Overall Eastbound Left Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right Northbound Left Northbound Through Southbound Left Southbound Through Southbound Right 8.4 49.4 43.3 44.6 41.9 5.8 5.2 8.8 7.7 5.3 A D D D D A A A A A 25.7 67.2 46.3 50.8 38.3 74.2 9.5 20.3 30.4 11.7 C E D D D E A C C B 2040 Total Traffic – Overall Eastbound Left Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right Northbound Left Northbound Through Southbound Left Southbound Through Southbound Right 10.6 47.9 40.3 42.0 38.9 8.6 6.8 11.7 9.7 6.8 B D D D D A A B A A 38.9 77.6 44.6 49.8 36.2 75.0 11.2 23.8 54.3 14.6 D E D D D E B C D* B * LOS grade corrected from Synchro report based on delay level. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC STUDY - UPDATED 3/21/18 Packet Page 78 RG 12 RIBES ALPINUM `GREEN MOUND` GREEN MOUND ALPINE CURRANT 5 GAL SEE PLA R COMPASS COMMUNITY SCHOOL FORT COLLINS, CO CHRISTOPHER ROSE, PLA CO LICENSE No. 0001085 LANDSCAPE / SITE EXHIBIT NORTH COMPASS COMMUNITY SCHOOL BEING A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF LOT 3, BANKCENTER SQUARE FIRST FILING AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PLANT SCHEDULE EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING (2) EXISTING AT GREADE PLANTER, TYP. EXISTING SIDEWALK, TYP. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING ELECTRICAL VAULTS, TYP. EXISTING LANDSCAPE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING SIDEWALK, TYP. REMOVE ALL EXISTING SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS; EXISTING ROCK MULCH TO REMAIN, TYP. REMOVE ALL EXISTING SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS; EXISTING ROCK MULCH TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING CURB, TYP. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING ROCK MULCH RO REMAIN, TOP- DRESS WITH MATCHING SIZE AND COLOR WHERE NEEDED TO PROVIDE MIN. 3" DEPTH IN ALL PLANTING AREAS, TYP. EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT, TYP. EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH WOODEN SCREEN FENCE; PROVIDE AND INSTALL WOODEN GATE TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE. IRRIGATION NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXTENTS AND OPERABILITY OF EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING CONTROL VALVES, EMISSION DEVICES, CONTROLLER(S) AND POINT OF CONNECTION. 2. EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSESS AND MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS TO PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE TO PROPOSED PLANTING SHOWN HEREIN. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN EXHIBIT TO OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT VEHICLE TRAVEL PATH PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL PATH SPACE OCCUPIED BY COMPASS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL BICYCLE RACK, TYP. TOTAL PARKING 98 SCHOOL PARKING PROVIDED* 36 ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED 2 VISITOR PARKING PROVIDED 10 RETAIL PARKING PROVIDED 50 VEHICLE STACKING PROVIDED 37 BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED 12 *NOTE:STUDENTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BRING CARS TO CAMPUS. FLEX POST, TYP. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 SITE PLAN - UPDATED 3/28/18 Packet Page 54 TRASH RECYCLING CONTAINER 6'-0" 6' H. SEMI-PRIVATE PVC FENCING MFR.: RAFAB INC. SCALE: SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 1 A3.0 SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 2 A3.0 SCALE: EAST ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 3 A3.0 SCALE: WEST ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 4 A3.0 12/12/2017 DETAILS LOT 5 HARMONY COMMONS 17710 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 Phone (216) 521-5134 Fax (216) 521-4824 www.adaarchitects.cc 4681 LADY MOON DRIVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 JOB NO. DATE JOB NO. SHEET NO. # DATE TYPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REVISIONS ARCHITECTS, INC. This document (“Instrument of Service”) was prepared by ADA Architects, Inc. (“ADA”) specifically for the referenced project and is not intended for any other use. ADA retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. This Instrument of Service shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project or for completion of this project by others without ADA's prior written consent. Any unauthorized use of this Instrument of Service shall be at the User's sole risk and without liability to ADA. ADA makes no warranties, express or implied, of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. A-3.0 SCALE: TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION 3/4"=1'-0" 5 A3.0 SCALE: FENCING ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 6 A3.0 N TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 18 STOREFRONT - OLDCASTLE CLEAR ANODIZED - ALUMINUM PRECAST STONE SILL NATURAL - 4"T X 4'-0"L METAL COLUMN COVER - ALPOLIC CLEAR ANODIZED EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN WILLIAMS EGGSHELL - SW 6088 - NUTHATCH SEMI-G. - SW 7573 - EAGLET BEIGE SEMI-GLOSS - SW 7072 - ONLINE EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN WILLIAMS EXTERIOR PAINT - SHERWIN WILLIAMS BR-1 CO-3 CO-3 SN-1 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND BR-2 BR-2 BR-1 BR-2 BR-2 BR-1 BR-1 BR-1 BR-1 BR-1 BR-2 BR-2 RF-1 RF-1 RF-1 RF-1 CO-3 CC-1 CO-2 CO-3 CO-2 CO-3 CO-2 CO-3 SP-2 SP-1 SP-4 SP-3 ST-1 FC-1 SS-1 CO-2 MP-1 CW-1 BR-1 SP-5 FC-1 FC-1 TOP OF ROOF ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT PARAPET BEYOND CW 1 SN-1 CO-3 SN-1 CO-3 CHILD TOILET CHILD TOILET CHILD TOILET KITCHEN CONFERENCE OFFICE RECEPTION/WAITING CUSTODIAL/ CC LAUNDRY ROOM 89'-2" TOI ET E 39'-6" 29'-4" 38'-1" 25'-11 1/2" 28'-10" 34'-5" 26'-8" CHILD IL L TOILET LE E 32'-9" 55'-7" 88'-4 1/2" H OI HI TO TOO T OIL HH OI LL IL STAFF LOUNGE CLOSET STAFF WORK ROOM CHILD TOILET TTO TO CHILD TOILET T TO OI LE ETTTT 5'-9" 5'-0" CLOSET CLOSET JUNIOR IO OOOO IT CLOSET JUNIOR CLOSETT ET CLOSET C OSET JUNIOR JUNIORRR CLOSET CCLO C SET CLOSET ET ETT JUNIOR CLOSET C JUNIOR JU II VESTIBULE CLOSET PRESCHOOL 1 (650 SF REQ'D.) 733 SF ACTUAL 20 CHILDREN EARLY PRESCHOOL (770 SF REQ'D.) 749 SF ACTUAL 16 CHILDREN EARLY 2s (630 SF REQ'D.) 572 SF ACTUAL 14 CHILDREN PRESCHOOL 2 (650 SF REQ'D.) 707 SF ACTUAL 20 CHILDREN PRE-KINDERGARTEN (720 SF REQ'D.) 814 SF ACTUAL 24 CHILDREN MULTI-PURPOSE SE ROOM (750 SF REQ'D.) 726 SF ACTUAL 20 CHILDREN INFANTS (450 SF REQ'D.) 470 SF ACTUAL 8 CHILDREN SCHOOL AGE (950 SF REQ'D.) 1059 SF ACTUAL 30 CHILDREN TODDLER (500 SF REQ'D.) 535 SF ACTUAL 10 CHILDREN SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION : 1/8"=1'-0" 1 A2.0 SCALE: EAST ELEVATION : 1/8"=1'-0" 2 A2.0 SCALE: SOUTH ELEVATION : 1/8"=1'-0" 3 A2.0 SCALE: WEST ELEVATION : 1/8"=1'-0" 4 A2.0 NORTH PLAN 2 A1.0 1 A1.0 4 A1.0 3 A1.0 ELEVATIONS 12/12/2017 EXTERIOR LOT 5 HARMONY COMMONS 17710 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 Phone (216) 521-5134 Fax (216) 521-4824 www.adaarchitects.cc 4681 LADY MOON DRIVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 JOB NO. DATE JOB NO. SHEET NO. # DATE TYPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REVISIONS ARCHITECTS, INC. This document (“Instrument of Service”) was prepared by ADA Architects, Inc. (“ADA”) specifically for the referenced project and is not intended for any other use. ADA retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. This Instrument of Service shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project or for completion of this project by others without ADA's prior written consent. Any unauthorized use of this Instrument of Service shall be at the User's sole risk and without liability to ADA. ADA makes no warranties, express or implied, of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. A-2.0 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 17               9_* |~c]#~^7_7^<c~ 6&~3 &%~7??# f]# kG\;]k 64~.~8?#?~ `^, `^. `\& 9_& 9_+ 9_+ 9_& `^& `^+ 9_* :$,               _=&         9_& _?&                      9_& _?& :],  _?*  :], 9_& :],                               '()( (('(~H~Hop~Hqo~Hop~Hpo~Hoq~Hpo~Hrq~Hpo~Hrq~Hpo~Hoq~Hpo~Hoq~Hpo~HHIHJH     HHIHJH HHIHJ                   ``&   9_&                      `^/       #                                  :],                             :]+             :]+ :],            #  ## 9_+  #  c#]~^7_7^<d 6~&3 &%~7??~   9_+   c]~u G\;]k 64-~ 7?A~   cs  ~tc]\< 6+3~ 7 ??~  ?G\~?U]]_ 6~% % ~7??~     :]+~ :],~ :k&~  9_+   c]~^7_7^<d 6~&3 &% ~7??~    9_+  c#]#~u G\;]k 64-~ 7??!~  c]~`d]\< 6+ 3 ~7?? ?G\~?V]]_ 6~% % ~7?@ 9_+ c"]~x cV~5 7\<T 6~&3 &%~ 7??!~ c#]~y 7z 7^<c 6+*%~ 7??!~  9_+ c]~u G\;]k~{ 64-~ 7?A"~ cs ~tc]\<{ 6+3~ 7??~ ?G\~?V]]_{ 6% % ~7??~ c]~[d}~ 57\<T~ 6+/+~ 7?C~ { 6~&%%~ 7?? cs ~tc]\<{ 6+3~ 7??~ ?G\~?V]]_{ 6% % ~7??~       !  !# ?gTT~9_K:R~j<\<<_  D<\<_7T~`E7V< ?gTT~9_G:R~j<\<<_  D<\<_7T~`E7V< _]:R~A7:<~:[g~ 7[:]\ `^7\;_<T~DT7``~ ]T;:7`cT<~DY7`` `^7\;_<T~DT7``~ ]T;:7`cT<~DT7`` `^7\;_<T~DY7``  ]T;:7`cT<~DT7`` `^7\;_<T~DY7``~ ]T;:7`cT<~DT7`` `^7\;_<T~DZ``~ jG_7:]\ ?M9<_~:<[<\c~^7\<T`~ \G:FGF7 ^_<?G\G`E<;~[<c7T~^7\<T  7W^]TL: `g\~`E7;<~ c9; ^_<BN\G`E<;~[<c7T~:]^G\D  ^7::T7; ^_<?M\O`E<;~[<c7T~:]^G\D  ^7::X7; ^_<?G\P`E<;~[<c7T~:]^G\D  ^7::T7; -`G;<;~``D~:g_c7G\~k7TT  ]T;:7`cT< `c]_<?_]\c~ ]T;:7`dT< ^_<:7`c~`b]\<~`GTT [<e~7T~:]Ug[\~:]j<_~ 7T^]TG: <lc<_G]_~^7G\d~ `E<_kG\~kLVTQ7[` <lc<_G]_~^7G\d~ `E<_kG\~kLVTG7[` <lc<_G]_~^7O\c~ `E<_kG\~kLVTG7[`                     ##"# _<;~:<\c<\\G7T~j<T]g_ `[]R<~D_7m~j<T]g_~ gcLVGcm +&%~_g`d~`c]\<~ -l3l&0 ^[`11%0:~ _7G\~c<lch_< ^[`11&%:~ _7G\~c<lcg_< ^[`22%+:  _7G\~c<lch_< ^[`1./1:  _7G\~c<lcg_< `g9;g<;~D_7m~j~4%, jL\c7D<~k]];~:<;7_  &3l&% % :T<7_~7\];Gn<; :T<7_~7\];Gn<; \]c~g`<; `GTj<_ `G<__7~c7\ :T<7_~7\];Gn<;~ 9Y7:R~`<7Y7\c :T<7_~7\];Gn<;~ 7Ti[G\g[ \7cg_7T  .c~l~-%V :T<7_~7\];Gn<; <DD`E<VT~ `k~0%33~ \gcF7c:F `<[GD~ `k~1/1,~ <7DT<a~9<GD< `<[GDT]``~ `k~1%1+~ ]\UG\<                                                                             ##            ~                                      ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 16     “ TIϓ ϓ®'ϓ¯'ϓŠ’ƒϓ‚ϓ##΄̹ϓOŎ5Aϓ>ϓƒϓ„ϓ#   “ɥȿbϓ ϓEbϓWQ'Oϓ/#ˬT>  ϓ„ϓɩ5ĥϓ®¯ϓȏϓ#  ϓ˚'ōϓ  ȕ%  ϓ/”Iϓ uϓWϓ‚ϓ'ϓ/ ΅6;XŽ"ªʗ¢6ϓ ³4 Jϓ"ȬJȚǁɦ4̊ȌŶϓ      ŊŀŁłƿϓ  δϓ   Ń  ȐŠ εϓ 5>/ϓʺ ŏƹǩ ϓ 7 ϓǣ ń |  ƣƝŖŷϓ ẮȖēϓ 3N²’ϓ Ľ̗ɪθŰŧϓŅŤeϓØιϓ Ħħļϓ ɐcèAŐϓ ʴάéϓŮfϓ ƢÖƓņóƔϓ · XȮ"˛"+4™ȗϓ̮ə͊ϓ+ÑÒëϓ ¾͋ʋ ƅ÷ΩĨΆϓ ϓ Ǒ ϓ Ȫ(Á(Ɋ̶͈͉˭̬̭Á(@Ɩ@(ζϓ κϓYϓçϓ ȯϓ  £! N2! M!-ϓ,ϓ Ýϓ ųέÎϓ h0ϓ ƜEϓ ƇEϓϓO 0Ɔϓ ϓ°š°”ϓ Ȱ5 >ϓ Ì ?ϓ͂Ƭϓ ĩŪϓőϓ̐Īϓ ůϓ λϓ0Œƭ%0ϓϓšǽ̂ϓ̈́Ï īϓ ƽΫɃϓ ́ή ƕϓ Dzϓ £!ƯȲMŹdƴƻϓYϓ¸ϓ  ϓ #%           ȑ R ɚϓ ȴ$‰ϓLȵ‰LϓL •ϓ   Ġϓ ʵ ƈqœqƺϓ M! -ϓVR€ϓ ūμνξϓ οϓπ       dzcϓ         χ   )2w¦-ϓ,€ϓ    ϓ̜ ijAƱ ϓ   CƤdˈ )$ §%w-Qřϓ ϓ,ϓ ! ̍ĮͲį̛ϓ  ?ϓ ?ϓ  ωϓ             ΰϓ ĢŲģϓ Ìϓ       ƊjŚƞ2Yϓ¸ϓ ) | %Qϓ ĄĤgśϓmBBϓ¹ͫ̾ÉÇaϓ iƵϓ7˯ŵ ϓ   ăġŴŘϓmsBϓˮͪ̽ÉÇaϓ CƧŗhs§%Cuϓ7¹g VRϓ %  ψϓ )- ϓ  ϓ & ϓ         =  İƟĻϊϓ ],ϓǥ¦›œϓȶ––œ=ıϓ Ǧ$˲̧Ǖĕϓ 3<ȷ )ϓ Ž˜ʊ;…+9ϓ¨;4 Ljȋ͘ϓ ϓ ȭ(   ʧηϓ % ôʦʆˤ˽ŝȁ˱Έ@ÛíςΪxlj¤ɴƀϓÐɂäǵϓ˘ˆ˾ˆʽƘÂϓƸ͟ϓ΁ϓϓɺɌ˫ϓʱeȄ̀ʌìÄÓϓΣżÔťÈÚ͌ɫϓ̸͡ϓ¤xρǖȎϓ΃ϓɑϓϓͮΐŞʹϓ ʉǷɈɉṵ̀Àüʚ̴ϓ ȃ̈ÂʝΉΚÅϓ±ʍșσϓĬͱϓ¿ľϓǼʡϓĺʠÈϓ Ǫʰɻˇϓˑ͕ʪɸG±Ǯfʿϓ˼ʞϓǾțɎϓˆ˷ʎ̦͍ƚɼȜϓ   Hϓ ͎˸ϓ†ʥϓȩϓ˪ȥʈȘ»ϓ*      ǚǀ̻ɲzUȈϓ  ǓϓȒžº9˩ȦϓǍŦ̉ɓʖɷŒ̱Ėϓ    ą61ȞyȣKϓ …ʤϓȤNj˅¢ ̄ϓ¶Ǵ‹ɽʛ͙ʢ»ϓ*ǜϓȓʘ˵9³‹ϓǙ˜ʏ—ɾ˜ėϓ            ϓ     }͇͚ͬ̿ϓ1̔[  ̥ϓ1ΔͭΛϓĆşϓŠ̎ϓͿ͜Ψϓ Ÿưrĵ̝ϓ βo^:Ι̟ϓ  ΌƮˉÜϓ  S˓´ ´NJɧªϓ_PǟɜˊϓDžȔĘϓ "  ȟ¼[% ͩΦϓ͵[ͼ̓ƌϓύϓ  $ƍƦϓ΍͐Β½ϓ % %    %  ƋvϓšŢţϓ p^   ϓŬϓ % ¥Ǡɛϓ  Ίň~Θ˿Μ *ûͷ­ ϓP&ǃϓȧɯʕŒ˻ϓ¾̨Ƕ ˳­âϓ K̃ϓ8Ǟϓ†Ã̳ͯΑϓyɱ ǛXɀɳz+ũ˄ϓ ȍϓ *ʇ˨Ǘϓ Ȃ—ȉ ;Ĝϓ  ȸϓ  *PZͧ̒ͽ\Z̖ͨĹ\ϓ ϓ kDDϓFËϓ kD FĶ½ϓ ˙ͻ\ϓ ώϓ Ǝ.lr:tɔϓ ɕϓ Õğϓ ʲĞϓæϓűϓΞϓʐlFoϓƒΎpƳ̙ˋ]Ʌϓϓ.vϓƲϓɁDZϓ Ëϓ «ºǨµž¶Ǐ¨ϓ_ʷǝ} ˀ«ϓźʼnɭĚϓ %    ϓ  ǫϓ ͺϓ ;ϓ ďZϓ"8  % ΂IJijϓ ĎͰϓ˗ϓ ʸ Ͷ¼̞̤ϓ ¬&% ǿϓ¬&͏ό͖̓ϓDŽ̵ϓǧƙ͞ϓnϓƶαϓ̚ϓ ©ϓ ϋϓ .  .ƨϓ΋:Ɛn‘ϓ  ̕Ζϓ ΀Π̘UͳΏǘSϓć8ǡɝSϓ6Ňˌķϓ µʑ+ɵ"ϓĈdžɞɟϓ8H91ɠ©ęϓ  %     ƑĝƩĴϓ‘ϓ ƠtƥêĿϓ   ¥&~&™UHKϓ % % ơϓ ȹϓ  Ϗýϓ͛`‡̠Êϓʼʀˍϓ͠ϓ˶˒̩ϓʨϓ ‡͑ΟʒÊϓ˥Ρ͗ɮƏĊϓϑƃ˧ͣɢʩ˺ϓɍ¡ʁϓȨÄ̀ʂ˝ϓǸƗˎǢϐϓ̋ǯɣʙƾȆϓ̌ʣˏɤ˞͸˃˟ʃϓˁÅȇϓʬ̷Ʉ`ɋɨϓɖϓ˕ȅǬ·ϓĒ̅njāɘĉãΗʾÿ΢Ⱥ˖ɡƼȊŨǰ˴ɇȀŽɿ¿ñƫŻòáƁϓ ɰĐˠːϓǎŸϓ ěϓʓđ˰ʻʹċÍ͝ϓȻȼǔʫȠȡǭŜ͒Æ̏͢LJˡϓ̺̲ϓˢÆàƂ̪ʮƄ͓ʟŋʄ͔ϓ ƷúGϓγ˦ĸ̢̯̑ΝϓϓŭɆϓßÙõ̫Čˣϓ̡Ƚ̆·̼ϓøΓǻå̇ʯGðȾʜŌͦčǹÀɶϓǒ¡˔×ͤǐþɗĀɏϒŸϓ ʅʔ˂Ȣϓ     ƪžϓ      %" & && $&   $&  & # &  #  !&&                       ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 13