Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2019 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 November 21, 2019 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz 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 Hearing November 21, 2019 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 Pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 November 21, 2019 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z October Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the October 17, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Planning & Zoning Board 2020 Work Plan DESCRIPTION: All City of Fort Collins Boards and Commissions are required to submit an annu work plan to the City Clerk’s Office, which summarizes work completed in the pr year and planned projects for the next year. The attached work plan provid information on the projects reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2019 a areas of focus for 2020. STAFF ASSIGNED: Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. City Council Appeals Code Amendments DESCRIPTION: City staff has drafted changes to the City Council appeals procedure contained in City Code in order to clarify aspects of the appeals procedure and to improve the appeals process. City staff is seeking a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council regarding the changes. STAFF ASSIGNED: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk 4. Harmony Gateway Plan Update and Standards and Guidelines - Postponed 5. Fort Collins Montessori School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to build a charter school on a 4.3-acre property at the southwest corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Board to provide comments on the plan to the Poudre School District Board of Education (PSD) per State statutes. APPLICANT: TFG Design, LLC David Kasprzak, e. david@tfgdesign.com 138 E 4th St., Ste. 1, Loveland, CO 80537 OWNER: Fort Collins Montessori School Paul Vincent 1900 S. Taft Hill Rd. #1227 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clark Mapes, City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Date: Start Time: 6:00 p.m. Stop Time: 10:15 p.m. Roll Call Haefele Hobbs Hogestad Katz Schneider Whitley Hansen Vote X X X X X X X 7 present 1 – 2 Consent: October Meeting Minutes & 2020 Work Plan Katz Hobbs Schneider Whitley Haefele Hogestad Hansen Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7:0 3 - City Council Appeals Code Amendments Hobbs Schneider Whitley Haefele Hogestad Katz Hansen Y Y Y Y Y N Y 6:1 5 - Fort Collins Montessori School Schneider Whitley Haefele Hogestad Katz Hobbs Hansen Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7:0 Whitley Haefele Hogestad Katz Hobbs Schneider Hansen Haefele Hogestad Katz Hobbs Schneider Whitley Hansen Hogestad Katz Hobbs Schneider Whitley Haefele Hansen Katz Hobbs Schneider Whitley Haefele Hogestad Hansen Hobbs Schneider Whitley Haefele Hogestad Katz Hansen Roll Call & Voting Record Planning & Zoning Board 11/21/2019 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Shar Gerber, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17, 2019 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the October 17, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft October 17, 2019 P&Z Minutes Packet Pg. 3 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast 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 Hearing October 17, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, McWilliams, Betley, Everette, Overton, McWilliams, Scheidenhelm, and Manno Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, wanted the Board to be aware of the latest application for a metro district. Also, to follow up on comments from the last meeting regarding changes to code regarding appeals procedures. Discussed his experience with personal appeals brought forward. Mike Feldhausen, 5102 Northern Lights Dr., lives near the Harmony Gateway, provided documents to the board entitled “Protect our Harmony Gateway” with a 5th scenario proposed by the citizens. Director Leeson responded to Mr. Feldhausen, mentioning the public forum on Monday 10/21 from 6-8pm at the Lincoln Center, encouraging people to attend. Attorney Yatabe noted that the City 6-month calendar reflects that the appeal code updates are scheduled to go to first reading before Council on January 7, 2020 and will come before P&Z soon. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 19, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda consisting of the draft minutes for the September 19, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. This motion is also based on the materials and information presented during the work session and at this hearing along with Board discussion, the analysis, finding of fact and conclusion contained within the staff report which includes the agenda materials for this hearing, be adopted by this Board. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Garcia House Adult Residential Treatment Facility, PDP190009 Member Haefele disclosed her neighbor is an architect involved in the project. She does not feel it will interfere with decision making. Member Whitley disclosed his wife worked for SummitStone Health Partners for 9 years, she has since retired, he feels this will have no effect on his judgement. Member Katz’s firm is a representative of the applicant Russel + Mills on a different project, he does not feel this will affect his judgement. Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a two-story long-term care facility on a .6-acre site at the corner of Patton Street and East Elizabeth Street. The request includes a modification of standard to reduce parking lot drive aisle width from 24 feet to 22 feet. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Planner Overton gave a brief verbal/overview of this project. Shelley LaMastra of Russell + Mills Studios also provided a presentation. Highlighting the preservation of current trees. The parking lot will be smaller, with an exit only onto Patton. No shade trees on one side due to utilities present under the sidewalk. Outdoor screened courtyard with seating, gardening, and room for activities. Pedestrian access will be from Patton and McHugh. Reviewed Zone District Standards and how this project meets those standards. Sean Moscrup with ALM2S, architects for the project. Discussed existing architectural concepts in place prior to this project. A building nearby was found to be historically eligible, and they modified their plans. Changed the color of the brick to more closely match the color of the moss rock. The brick has been lowered to relate to the nursing home. Tried to tie in the shapes of their roof into the surrounding buildings. Planner Overton responded by covering topics on what we are looking for under the Land Use Code. Building and project compatibility was referenced. Showed pictures of surrounding buildings for comparison. The nursing facility at 1020 Patton has been determined to be a historic resource. Referred to the Institutional and commercial buildings, design that is comfortable for pedestrians with architectural interest with materials tailored to the project and context. Reviewed the modification being requested. The plan does not diverge from the code but in a nominal and inconsequential way. There was a question in the work session as to what is located to the south, it’s a 5-foot mulched area. Member Katz asked about the exit for the west and how that would be regulated. Ms. LaMastra explained there will be proposed signage, exit only and public right of way signs will indicate this is exit only, enforced by management for the property. Member Katz also asked about the width of the parking aisle, concerned about vision and backing out. Ms. LaMastra believes this is an additional 5-6 feet from the drive aisle. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Tony Hanlen, 1020 Patton St., owner of the nursing home, did not receive notice of this project, and has concern with semi-trucks coming in constantly backing into the south side of the property. Sysco comes to deliver food, trash trucks come twice a week. Annabel Simpson, 1317 Laurie Street, owns a duplex close by, this is a quiet business area. The sidewalks are one person sidewalks, there are 12-14 employee parking spots, what about visitors and people dropping off patients. Something needs to be widened. Most of the area is filled with duplexes, but there is not enough parking for the added traffic from this project. Diane Campbell, Annabel’s daughter who helps with the duplex. This is the first they have heard about the project. Asked multiple questions about the type of residents, and the security of residents and others with bicycles and car traffic, there are 2 childcare facilities close-by, with the traffic and parking, she feels more parking needs to be available for staff, visitors and vendor parking. Colin Campbell, Diane’s husband, the announcement is the first they have heard about the project. The development can create fear. He has security concerns especially with the childcare facilities nearby. Dixie Gibbons, 1026 McHugh Street, says she didn’t know about this project. She wants to know if this type of project will negatively affect her property value. She is also concerned with parking and the potential for issues. She also questioned the safety of those living in the neighborhood. Bill Gibbons, Gibbons Trucking, is there enough room to back trucks in safely? Staff Response Planner Overton responded to the question regarding the type of people in the facility and the length of stay. The project is being reviewed under the definition of a long-term care facility. This definition supports facility types for patients that require in patient services for substance abuse disorders and other mental health issues, housed up to ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 6 90 days. Clients are not free to come and go as they please. The facility will be staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Planner Overton verified the affected property owners list, and that everyone was on the list. The mailing went out September 4, 2019, the sign was posted June 10, 2019 and a neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2019 (zero attendees). Staff feels confident that all efforts were made for this project. Parking is based on the number of spaces required per bed. For this type, .33 parking spaces per bed are required. This project has a proposed 16 beds which equates to 6 parking spaces. A punched window is a window surrounded by material on all four sides. Based on existing conditions the access will grow compared to what it is currently. Kelly Toll and Greg Murphy addressed the security. There will not be any coming or going from the facility. Visitors must be scheduled with staff. This is a voluntary treatment facility, not a corrections facility. Sidewalks will be improved around the entirety of the site. Sidewalks not within the project but near the site would be required to come up to current standard at the time of their redevelopment. Deliveries could be coordinated to avoid and safety issues, additional pavement is being added as well. Property values are not evaluated during the review process. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hogestad heard from citizens that all who came forward did not receive notification, is this normal? Planning Manager Everette responded that the Planning Department did review the address list and sent letters based on criteria. How many notices were sent out? CDNS Direct Leeson responded 116. Planning Manager Everett stated that she would go back and review the list to see if those missed were indeed on the list. She did state that they were all on the list. Staff was not surprised that there was not much interest in the neighborhood meeting. Member Haefele commented that it is unusual the no one showed for the neighborhood meeting. Planner Overton responded to Member Whitley regarding his inquiry into the sign posting timeline. Planner Overton reiterated the timeline as stated above. Member Hogestad wanted to know why it did not go to the Landmark Preservation Commission but rather a closed- door meeting with the Director and some staff. Historic Preservation Manager McWilliams responded that staff and the Director can make the determination based on the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7. Member Hogestad wanted to know if a decision was made before it went to the Director for review. HP Manager McWilliams responded that staff first reviewed, then discussed with the Director and he then signed off on the project. He feels this is a short cut and is not as in-depth as it would be if Landmark Preservation Commission were to do the review. HP Manager McWilliams commented that the new codes went into effect in March and roughly 4-6 reviews have taken place and have followed the new process. HP Manager McWilliams reviewed the building compatibility with adjacent buildings as well as the materials being used. Member Hogestad questioned the shed roof. In response to the roofing, the gables seemed to create an awkward connection, so the shed roof became a focus. Chair Hansen wanted to know if and is concerned with the standard for a dead-end drive isle in the parking standards. Engineer Betley responded that the 22 feet was beyond the parking area and that there was greater than one car length and enough room. Planner Overton commented that there is a width standard for drive isle for angle of parking. 90 degree parking the width is 24 feet. Member Katz wanted clarification on the underground installation of stormwater detention. Mr. Simpson with Fort Collins Utility Stormwater explained the requirements for all new projects. The risk is on the private property owner. The applicant has worked to provide sufficient volume and would drain over a period of hours. If clogged a restrictor plate could control the flow to allow cleaning and let the volume out of the system. The system was created for a 200-year storm event and flow off to the adjacent right-of-way. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Member Hogestad wanted clarification and/or meaning on what was meant in the staff report regarding Section 3.5.1. Planner Overton explained that is was about the improvements to the sidewalk and pedestrian experience along the sides of the building. Staff dose believe this would be an enhancement with the narrow sidewalks that exist and the surrounding area. Member Hogestad is concerned with the review process of this project. It cut out public input from the process and has also cut out LPC from reviewing the project. Member Hansen commented on compatibility and that is should not be taken too literally; it should not look forced. Member Hobbs does not see continuity within the neighborhood, and he has no issues with the compatibility and design of the project. Attorney Yatabe interjected commenting that 3.4.7(f) has a waiver of this requirement made by determination of the Director. He does not believe the Planning and Zoning Board has the ability to require that the recommendation be done pursuant to the Land Use Code. Chair Hansen, for understanding, the LPC review was waived by the Director and that eliminates the option of sending it out to LPC. Had it gone to LPC, they would be giving us a recommendation so that we, P&Z, would have our own discussion. This lets us do the same review as LCP would have done. Mr. Yatabe stated that it is not the same review that this Board does. 3.4.7 makes the P&Z the decision maker. Member Haefele understands, based on the timeline, that the project was brought to the City for its review and scheduled for its consent agenda in September. It was discovered a step was missing, the project was pulled it and now back a month later. When was the Director’s waiver granted? Director Leeson responded; we the determination was made that there was a historic resource that needed to be reviewed. The applicant went back and made changes to the building to be more compatible. Based on the revised plans, the determination was made. Member Whitley requested clarification on if the building was not considered next to a historic resource initially because there was not sufficient review of the surrounding area by staff and then it was pointed out that there was local historic resource at which point it did go back. This sounds like the step was missed way far back. Why did someone not look around next door and aske the right questions? Member Hobbs stated that this is a process question that does not specifically relate to the process this project has gone through. Member Hobbs heard the concern of the owner of the nursing home, 1020 Patton, and the semis blocking this shared access easement. Chair Hansen commented that this is a shared space and that there needs to be a shared level of neighborly cooperation required to make it function like it should. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification to standard in section 3.2.2(l) Parking Stall Dimensions. Based on staffs recommendation that it is nominal and inconsequential and that our approval of this modification would be based on the agenda materials, the materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Vice Chair Schneider seconded. Vice Chair Schneider supports the motion because it is a singular parking bay, there is no typical back to back. Chair Hansen can support as it is single loaded and available bumper overhang. Vote: 7:0. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Garcia House Adult Residential Treatment Facility, PDP190009. This approval is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Katz seconded. Member Hogestad will not support the motion, he does not believe the project has met 3.4.7 and 3.5.1. Member Katz spoke to the context and compatibility. Chair Hansen spoke to compatibility. Vice Chair Schneider added that the neighborhood is eclectic, and compatibility is tough. The project has done a good job to improve, he believes this project complies with the standards and compatibility. Member Whitley agrees with Vice Chair Schneider, but historic compatibility should have been looked at from day one. Member Haefele feels the process may have been a bit rushed. Vote: 6:1 Other Business ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Director Leeson mentioned the Board having a short retreat on November 15, 2019 directly following the work session that Friday. Public notice will be given. Member Hogestad mentioned the need for a Citizen Planning Advisory group and have not heard back. Director Leeson stated that staff is engaged in doing research on what other communities are doing or have done. Once all information is gathered, staff will report back to the Board. Chair Hansen feels this is a good point. Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Jeff Hansen, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD 2020 WORK PLAN STAFF Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All City of Fort Collins Boards and Commissions are required to submit an annual work plan to the City Clerk’s Office, which summarizes work completed in the prior year and planned projects for the next year. The attached work plan provides information on the projects reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2019 and areas of focus for 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board 2020 Work Plan Packet Pg. 10 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation TO: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk FROM: Jeff Hansen, Chair Planning & Zoning Board DATE: November 15, 2019 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board 2020 Work Plan Planning & Zoning Board at a Glance • The Planning and Zoning Board's responsibilities include making recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning, annexations, land use code amendments, major public and private projects and any long-range planning activities (such as City Plan or subarea plans) that require Council approval. • The Board is also the final decision-making authority regarding land use proposals, including overall development plans, project development plans, major amendments and planned unit development master plans for projects under 640 acres in size. In addition, the Board coordinates with the Poudre and Thompson school districts, the Larimer County Planning Commission, and other City boards and commissions. • The Board is composed of seven volunteer members, with expertise ranging from architecture, engineering and construction to historic preservation, real estate, and community engagement. 2019 in Review To-date in 2019, the Planning & Zoning Board continued to review a significant caseload of development applications. Projects included: • Front Range Community College – Larimer Campus – Health Care Careers Center – Site Plan Advisory Review • Appeal of 1032 W. Prospect Road Extra Occupancy • Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment • Appeal of 744 Eastdale Drive Minor Subdivision • Northfield Project Development Plan • VOA Senior Residences Project Development Plan (PDP) • CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review • Dutch Bros Drive-Thru PDP • Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay • The Overlook – Modification of Standard • Garcia House Adult Residential Treatment Facility PDP • Hughes Stadium Annexation Property Rezoning One project review was appealed during the year, the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment. In addition to regular project reviews, the Board made recommendations to City Council on: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 • Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan – Transfer of Density Units Program Closure • City Plan • Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment There was an effort to continue refining elements of the Land Use Code where there is misalignment with City land use policy direction or to address unforeseen circumstances. The Board recommended to City Council changes to several code requirements, including the following items: • Historic Preservation Land Use Code Changes • Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendments • City Council Appeals Code Amendments • Director-Authorization of Minor Variances • Routine Annual Code Changes 2020 Initiatives and Ongoing Projects In addition to reviewing and evaluating development proposals, the Board will address important land use policy issues during 2020, including: • Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home Preservation – The board will discuss and provide a recommendation to City Council on the anticipated mobile home park preservation efforts currently being analyzed. Local zoning and land-use regulations can play a large role in the long- term viability of manufactured home communities and the Board will provide a recommendation on potential code amendments. • City Plan Implementation: Land Use Code Audit – The board will discuss and provide input on a Land Use Code Audit that is designed to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities in the Land Use Code as they relate to new City Plan policy direction and set the stage for future Land Use Code revisions and other implementation strategies. Priorities include promoting attainable housing, improving the community’s jobs-to-housing balance, strategically accommodating density in neighborhoods, continued emphasis on open space protection, and other topics. • Mulberry Corridor Plan Update and Annexation – The board will discuss and provide input on the analysis of existing conditions and land use along the Mulberry Corridor, in anticipation of long- term annexation. This will be a multi-year effort that begins in 2019. • Exterior Lighting Code Update – The board will consider a recommendation to Council to update code requirements for outdoor building and site lighting on development projects. The intent of this code update is to better address new and changing technology, limit unnecessary lighting, and minimize impacts to adjacent properties, natural features, and the night sky. cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Dean Klingner, Planning, Development and Transportation Interim Director Cameron Gloss, Comprehensive Planning Manager Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 3 Item #3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME Changes to City Council Appeals Procedure Contained in City Code Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 STAFF Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Carrie Daggett, Legal Brad Yatabe, Legal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City staff has drafted changes to the City Council appeals procedure contained in City Code in order to clarify aspects of the appeals procedure and to improve the appeals process. City staff is seeking a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council regarding the changes. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed changes to City Council. STAFF ANALYSIS Proposed changes: I. USection 2-46. – DefinitionsU. In addition to the minor clean-up of wording in certain definitions a number of changes are proposed as follows: 1. Appellant: The term appellant is being clarified to include multiple parties-in-interest instead of a single party-in-interest. Past appeals have included multiple parties-in-interest and this change is to match the actual practice and intent of the appeals process. 2. Evidence: The term audio was added to ensure all types of testimony and evidence are captured. 3. New Evidence: To assist in discerning new evidence from evidence already contained in the record of the decision being appealed, a requirement for identifying the location of new evidence has been added to this term. 4. Party-in-Interest: The term party-in-interest includes persons connected in multiple ways to the decision being appealed. Based on direction received earlier from the Planning & Zoning Board, as well as feedback from public engagement, this will include parties with an ownership or possessory interest in the property at issue. Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 3 Item #3, Page 2 UII. Section 2-47. – Certain appeals to be taken to city councilU. Language has been added to clarify that any final decision expressly appealable to the City Council under other provisions of City Code, including the Land Use Code, shall be decided by the City Council in the manner set forth in this Division. UIII. Section 2-48. – Appeal of final decision permitted; effect of appeal; grounds for appealU. The proposed change to Section 2-48(c) requires that appeals filed by City Councilmembers include specific questions to be considered on appeal. This replaces the current requirement for a general description of the issue and is intended to better identify the particular issues being raised. UIV. Section 2-49. – Filing of notice of appeal; new evidence, USUno other written materialsUS. In addition to clean-up language to make the text more easily understood, a number of changes are proposed as follows: 1. Changes to Subsection (b) clarifying that the notice of appeal shall be signed by all persons joining the appeal. 2. Changes to Subsection (b)(5) requiring that new evidence not contained in the record of the decision being appealed, and associated with an allegation that a fair hearing was not conducted, be: a. submitted by the appellant within 7 calendar days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal; and b. clearly marked as new evidence. 3. Changes to Subsection (b)(6) requiring contact information for the person authorized to receive, on behalf of all persons joining an appeal, any notice required to be mailed by the City. 4. Changes to Subsection (c) clarifying the additional information an appellant may submit for Council consideration. 5. New Subsection (d) stating how information related to an appeal will be accessible (through the website and for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office). UV. Section 2-50. – USUCostUSUFee for filing of appealU. The title language has been changed to reflect that the required $100 is a filing fee as opposed to the cost of the appeal. UVI. Section 2-51. – Record on appealU. Clarifies what information is included in the record that Council may rely upon in making its decision. Changes are proposed as follows: 1. Changes to the first paragraph referencing new evidence. Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item #3, Page 3 2. Changes to Section (3) removing an outdated reference to videotape and replacing this term with video recording. 3. New Section (4) requiring submittal of a copy of notice of the hearing on the decision appealed, along with a list of those to whom such notice was mailed. UVII. Section 2-52. – Scheduling of the hearing/no ex parte contactsU. Proposed changes to this Section are as follows: 1. Changes to Subsection (a) clarifying items related to scheduling an appeal hearing as follows: a. An appeal hearing will be scheduled no fewer than 28 calendar days (new) and no more than 77 (was 75 days) calendar days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. b. The City Clerk will determine a possible hearing date(s) and determine if unavoidable conflicts exist (new). c. Written notice will be sent to the appellant and parties-in-interest not less than 21 calendar days prior to the date of the appeal hearing (was 11 days). 2. New Subsection (b) consolidating multiple appeals of the same decision unless Council decides otherwise. This codifies the current Council practice of consolidating multiple appeals. 3. New Subsection (c) providing a mechanism for the City Manager to request that Council extend the time for hearing an appeal beyond the specified 77-day period. 4. New Subsection (d) moving the prohibition on ex parte contacts to this Section from Section 2-53. UVIII. Section 2-53. – Site inspectionUSU/no ex parte contactsUS. The proposed change to this section is to remove Subsection (d). The change is intended to clarify that the sole purpose of a site inspection is to provide Councilmembers with a better understanding of the physical characteristics of the property at issue and the surrounding area. The current language being deleted states that another purpose of a site visit is to allow Councilmembers to gain a better understanding of the issues on appeal. This change is being proposed because gaining an understanding of the issues on appeal is best addressed at the appeal hearing itself when all participating Councilmembers and parties- in-interest are present to hear the information and can respond or discuss as allowed. The prohibition on ex parte contacts has been moved to Section 2-52. UIX. Section 2-54. – Procedure at the hearingU. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Changes to Subsection (a)(1) clarifying the staff presentation. 2. Changes to Subsection (c) clarifying how procedural issues are addressed. Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item #3, Page 4 3. Changes to Subsection (e) clarifying that the Mayor may modify procedures when multiple appeals have been consolidated to expedite the appeal hearing. UX. Section 2-55. – Written materials; new evidence; USUscope of review; alternative actions available to the city council; date of final actionUS. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Changes to Subsection (a) clarifying what evidence and information the Council may consider in making its decision, including new evidence. 2. Changes to Subsection (b) specifying what new evidence Council may consider in making its decision. 3. Changes to Subsection (b)(1) requiring the appellant to submit new evidence according to Section 2- 49(b)(5); within 7 calendar days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal and clearly marked as new evidence. 4. Changes to Subsection (b)(2) requiring a party-in interest opposed to the appeal to submit new evidence within 21 calendar days after the deadline for filing the related notice of appeal. 5. Changes to Subsection (b)(4) authorizing Councilmembers to add new evidence based on their inspection of development plans or other proposals that are subject to the appeal. 6. New Subsection (c) specifying that City staff will prepare the record which includes the staff agenda item summary and presentation. This Subsection also specifies that Council will determine whether each item of new evidence shall be admitted for Council consideration. 7. New Subsection (d) setting the deadline for parties-in-interest to submit presentation materials for the appeal and requiring that at least twenty hard copies be made available if hard copies are to be provided, along with the digital presentation. 8. Original Subsections (e), (f), and (g) have been moved to Section 2-56. UXI. Section 2-56. – Council decision on appealU. This is being proposed as a new Section related to Council decisions on appeal. Original Subsections (e), (f), and (g) are proposed to move to this Section from Section 2-55 as Subsections (a), (b) and (c). Subsection (d) adds a procedure for Council to amend adopted resolutions in order to clarify or correct the language or to modify a decision to resolve a legal dispute or comply with applicable law. In order to make a change to an adopted resolution, the proposed change requires notice to be sent to the appellant, applicant, and persons who appeared at the appeal hearing and such persons may comment on the proposed change at the time Council considers it. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item #3, Page 5 U5. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff conducted four public outreach sessions. The first session invited applicants who had been involved in the appeals process in the last three years. The second invited appellants who had been involved in the appeals process in the last three years. The remaining two sessions were open to the general public. Summary notes from all meetings are attached (Attachments 3-6). RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed changes to City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed amendments to City Council appeals procedure, City Code Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3. 2. Excerpt from the minutes of the February 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. 3. Notes from the June 5, 2019 Public Outreach meeting for Applicants. 4. Notes from the June 6, 2019 Public Outreach meeting for Appellants. 5. Notes from the June 12 Public Outreach meeting for the general public. 6. Notes from the July 22 Public Outreach meeting for the general public. Packet Pg. 17 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 3, CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURE Sec. 2-46. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Appellant shall mean a party one or more parties-in-interest who has taken an appealing from a board, commission or other decision maker to the City Council by the filing of a notice of appeal. Applicant shall mean the person who or organization which that submitted the application to the board, commission or other decision maker whose decision has been appealed. Evidence shall mean any information, whether in verbal, audio, written, graphic, or other form, presented at the hearing to support or refute a particular proposition or conclusion. Evidence shall not include argument as to how information offered as evidence should be viewed by the City Council. Final decision shall mean the action of a board, commission or other decision maker by a vote of a majority of its members when no further rehearing is available before such board, commission or other decision maker; provided, however, that a recommendation to the City Council from a board, commission or other decision maker shall not be considered as a final decision of that board, commission or other decision maker. New evidence shall mean any evidence, relating to the proposal or application which that was the subject of final decision by a board, commission or other decision maker, and which that was not presented at the hearing before such board, commission or other decision maker. New evidence does not include modifying, highlighting, underlining, italicizing or otherwise emphasizing certain portions of writings or graphics presented to the original decision maker as long as any modified graphic presented to the City Council at the appeal hearing is accompanied by a reference to the location of the original graphicmaterial in the record of the decision being appealed. Party-in-interest shall mean a person who or organization which that has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker. Such standing to appeal shall be limited to the following: (1) The applicant; (2) Any party holding a proprietaryan ownership or possessory an ownership interest in the real or personal property which that was the subject of the decision of the board, commission or other decision maker whose action is to be appealed; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (3) Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the hearing of the board, commission or other decision maker; (4) Any person who or organization which that provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board, commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter which is to be appealed; (5) Any person who or organization which that appeared before the board, commission or other decision maker at the hearing on the action which is to be appealed; (6) The City Council as represented by the request of a single member of the City Council. Sec. 2-47. - Certain appeals to be taken to city council. An appeals taken from of any final decision expressly appealable to City Council under other provisions of this Code, including the Land Use Code, or any final decisions made by any of the following boards, commissions or other decision makers, shall be taken to decided by the City Council in the manner set forth in this Division.: (1) Building Review Board; (2) Fire Board of Appeals; (3) Landmark Preservation Commission; (4) Planning and Zoning Board, except for decisions made under Sections 22-32-124 and 31-23-209, C.R.S.; (5) A "decision maker" under the provisions of Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code; (6) Water Board; (7) Zoning Board of Appeals. Sec. 2-48. - Appeal of final decision permitted; effect of appeal; grounds for appeal. (a) A party-in-interest may appeal to the City Council the final decision of any board, commission or other decision maker to which this appeal procedure applies in the manner provided in this Division. Any action taken in reliance upon any decision of a board, commission or other decision maker that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this Division shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (b) Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; c. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant; or e. The board, commission or other decision maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business, personal or social relationship that interfered with the decision maker's independence of judgment. (c) Appeals filed by members of the City Council need not include specific grounds for appeal, but shall include a general description of the issues statement of each specific question to be considered on appeal. (1) Upon the filing of any such appeal, the director of the affected City service area shall identify the specific Code provisions that may pertain to the issues specific questions raised by such appeal and shall provide such information to the City Clerk prior to the date that the notice of hearing on the appeal is to be mailed by the City Clerk to parties-in-interest under § 2-52 of this Division. (2) Said information shall then be mailed to the parties-in-interest together with the notice of hearing. (3) Councilmembers who file an appeal may participate in hearing such an appeal in the same manner as they participate in hearing appeals filed by other parties-in-interest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT Sec. 2-49. - Filing of notice of appeal; new evidenceno other written materials. (a) An appeal shall be taken commenced by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker to which this Division applies with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after the action whichthat is the subject of the appeal. (b) Such notice of appeal shall be on a form provided by the City Clerk, shall be signed by all appellantspersons joining the appeal and shall include the following: (1) The action of the board, commission or other decision maker whichthat is the subject of the appeal; (2) The date of such action; (3) The name, address, telephone number and relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the board, commission or other decision maker; (4) In all appeals except those filed by members of City Council, the grounds for the appeal, including specific allegations of error and a summary of the facts contained in the record on appeal which support those allegations; (5) In the case of an appeal alleging a fair hearing issue under Subparagraph § 2- 48(b)(2)c, d or e,. above that a board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading, any all new evidence related to such allegations that the appellant wishes for Council to submit consider at the hearing on the appeal in support of this allegation must be submitted to the City Clerk within seven (7) days calendar days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal and must be clearly marked as new evidence; (6) In the case of an appeal filed by more than one (1) appellant person, the name, address and telephone number of one (1) such appellant person who shall be authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants persons joining the appeal, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants under the provisions of § 2-52 of this Division; and (7) Any other information required by the City Clerk. (bc) No information materials other than that specified in Subsection (ab) above shall be included in or attached to the notice of appeal or submitted by the appellant, except for presentation materials as allowed in §2-55(d). (d) The City Clerk will promptly post the notice of appeal and any attached information, and any new evidence subsequently received pursuant to Subsections (b)(5) above or 2-55(b)(2), on the City’s website, and such information shall be available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT Sec. 2-50. - CostFee for filing of appeal. In all appeals, except those filed by members of the City Council, the appellant shall be charged a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.)for the cost of the appeal, to be paid to the City Clerk at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal. Sec. 2-51. - Record on appeal. Any appeal to the City Council shall be an appeal on the record of the hearing before the board, commission or other decision maker together with such additional evidence as may be admitted by the Council for consideration as provided in this Article. The record provided to the City Council shall include the following: (1) All exhibits, including, without limitation, all writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs, photographs and other tangible items received or viewed by the board, commission or other decision maker at the proceedings; (2) A verbatim transcript of such proceedings before the board, commission or other decision maker. The cost of the transcript shall be borne by the City. If a verbatim transcript of the proceedings does not exist and cannot be produced, whether due to an equipment malfunction or clerical error, or for any other reason, the decision that is the subject of the appeal will be re-heard before the decision maker after notice as required by the relevant provisions of this Code or the Land Use Code, whichever is applicable, and the appeal shall be terminated. (3) If available, a videotape recording of such proceedings before the board, commission or other decision maker. The cost of reproducing any such videotape recording for review by the City Council shall be borne by the City. Additional copies shall be provided to any party-in-interest requesting the same within a reasonable period of time prior to the date for hearing the appeal, at a cost not to exceed the actual reproduction costs incurred by the City. (4) A copy of notice of the hearing on the decision appealed, along with a list of those to whom such notice was mailed. Sec. 2-52. - Scheduling of the hearing/no ex parte contacts. (a) In the event of an appeal, the City Clerk shall schedule the hearing on the appeal for a date as early as reasonably practicable but no fewer than twenty-eight (28) days and no more than seventy-five seven (757) calendar days after the date of deadline for filing of the notice of appeal. Prior to scheduling the hearing, the Clerk shall provide the appellant and applicant with a possible hearing date, or dates, to determine if unavoidable conflicts that make attendance impossible at such date, or dates, exist. The City Clerk shall mail Wwritten notice of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be mailed by the City Clerk to the appellant and all other parties-in-interest no less than ten (10) twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the date of said hearing. Said notice shall also include a copy of the notice of appeal (excluding attachments, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT which shall be available as provided in § 2-49(c)) and shall inform the parties-in-interest of the period of time within which any new evidence permitted under Paragraph 2-55(b)(1) or (2) below must be submitted. (b) All appeals regarding the same decision shall be consolidated and scheduled together to be heard in a single hearing. Council may in its discretion by majority vote at the time of the scheduled hearing separate the hearing process for individual appeals. (c) At any time prior to the expiration of the time for Council to hear an appeal under Subsection (a), the City Manager may in the event of scheduling difficulties or notice defects request that Council approve by motion or resolution the extension of the time for hearing an appeal for a specified period. (d) In order to afford all parties-in-interest a fair opportunity to respond to the information upon which the City Council is to base its decision on appeal, and in order to preserve the impartiality of Councilmembers hearing the appeal, all Councilmembers who intend to participate in hearing the appeal shall, to the extent reasonably possible, avoid communications with parties-in-interest and members of the general public regarding the merits of the appeal prior to the hearing on the appeal. Sec. 2-53. - Site inspection/no ex parte contacts. (a) Councilmembers may inspect the site of an overall development plan, project development plan or other proposal that is the subject of an appeal, either alone or with City staff present, for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding area, as well as the issues on appeal. (1) If a Councilmember wishes to schedule a site inspection with City staff present, he or she shall, no later than ten (10) days after the filing of the notice of appeal, request that the City Manager schedule such inspection. (2) Upon receipt of such a request, the City Manager shall forthwith schedule the inspection for a date and time when he or she believes that a majority of the Councilmembers wishing to inspect the site will be able to attend. (3) The City Clerk shall, no less than five (5) days prior to the date of the site inspection, mail notice of such inspection to the appellant and to all parties-in-interest to whom notice of the appeal hearing was sent by the City Clerk under Section § 2-52 above. (4) The appellant and all other parties-in-interest shall be entitled to attend such scheduled inspection, along with any members of City staff whose presence is requested by the City Manager. Failure to mail notice to any party-in-interest shall not affect the scheduling or validity of any proceeding held or determination made under this Division. Upon receipt of any notice returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked as undeliverable for any reason, the City Clerk may exclude the party-in-interest to which such notice had ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT been mailed from any future mailings related to the appeal that was the subject of the returned notice. (b) Any Councilmembers conducting a site inspection under the provisions of Subsection (a) above, either alone or with City staff present, shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of the appeal. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to authorize any Councilmember or other officer or employee of the City to enter upon any parcel of real property that is not open to the public without the permission of the owner of such property or the permission of such other person or entity as may be lawfully in possession of the property. (d) In order to afford all parties-in-interest a fair opportunity to respond to the information upon which the City Council is to base its decision on appeal, and in order to preserve the impartiality of Councilmembers hearing the appeal, all Councilmembers who intend to participate in hearing the appeal shall, to the extent reasonably possible, avoid communications with parties-in-interest and members of the general public regarding the merits of the appeal prior to the hearing on the appeal. Sec. 2-54. - Procedure at the hearing. (a) At the hearing on the appeal by the City Council, the presentation of argument on the merits of the appeal shall be made in the following order, subject to such limitations in time and scope as may be imposed at the discretion of the Mayor: (1) Explanation of Presentation by City staff explaining the nature of the appeal or appeals and presentation by City staff the decision being appealed; (2) Comments by Councilmembers who have inspected the site pursuant to Subsection 2-53(a) above; (3) Consideration of any procedural issues identified under Subsection (c) below; (4) Presentation of argument by the appellant and any party-in-interest in support of the appeal; (5) Presentation of argument by any party-in-interest who is an opponent of the appeal; (6) Rebuttal presentation by the appellant and any party-in-interest in support of the appeal; (7) Rebuttal presentation by any party-in-interest who is an opponent of the appeal; (8) Councilmember questions of City staff and parties-in-interest; and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (9) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council. (b) Factors to be considered in determining the period of time for the presentation of argument on the merits of an appeal shall include, but not be limited to, the complexity of the issues raised in the notice of appeal, the length of the record on appeal, the potential impact that the determination of the appeal may have on the community at large and the number of parties-in- interest who wish to address the Council with regard to the merits of the appeal. (c) Prior to hearing the presentation of argument on the merits of the appeal, the Mayor may, in his or her discretion, establish a separate period of time during which the Council may first consider and the Mayor may determine, subject to override by the Council by majority vote, any procedural issues related to the hearing of the appeal, including, but not limited to, the possible introduction or exclusion of certain evidence, the period of time to be allowed by the Mayor for presentation of argument and rebuttal on the merits of the appeal and any concerns or objections related to the record on appeal. The City Council may, by majority vote, separate one or more appeals of the same decision by different appellants that have been consolidated in accordance with § 2-52(b). (d) No person making a presentation to the City Council shall be subject to cross-examination except that members of the City Council and the City Attorney may inquire of such person for the purpose of eliciting information and for the purpose of clarifying information presented. (e) In the event of multiple appeals involving the same decision of a board, commission or other decision maker that have been consolidated in accordance with § 2-52(b), the Mayor, in his or her discretion, may modify the procedure contained in Subsection (a) above so as to expedite the hearing of such appeals. Sec. 2-55. - Written materials; new evidence; scope of review; alternative actions available to the city council; date of final action. (a) The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal, including any new evidence admitted for or at the appeal hearing, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and any other applicable legal authorities, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal, and the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing on the appeal, and the City staff report and presentation prepared for the appeal; provided, however, that issues raised during the presentation of argument but not raised in the notice of appeal shall not be considered by the City Council in deciding the appeal. (b) No written materials new evidence related to an appeal, other than the notice of appeal and the record on appeal, shall be presented to the City Council before or during an appeal hearing, and no new evidence shall be considered on appeal, except that new evidence in oral or written form may be submitted and considered under the following circumstances as follows: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (1) When offered in support of or in opposition to an allegation under Subparagraph 2-48(b)(2)c. of this Article that a board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; by an appellant and submitted pursuant to § 2-49(b)(5); (2) When offered in support of or in opposition to an allegation of bias under Subparagraph 2-48(b)(2)e. of this DivisionWhen offered by a party-in-interest opposed to the appeal in response to and regarding appeal allegations under § 2-48(b)(2)c, d, or e, provided that any such new evidence must be submitted to the City Clerk within twenty- one (21) calendar days after the deadline for filing the related notice of appeal and the City Clerk shall not provide any new evidence to Council submitted by any person after the time for submittal has expired; (3) When offered by City staff or parties-in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers under Subsection 2-54(a) or (d) above; or (4) When offered by Councilmembers after inspecting the site of the project development plan or other proposal that is the subject of an appeal pursuant to the provisions of § 2-53 of this Article. (c) City staff shall prepare for Council consideration the record as described in § 2-51, together with a staff agenda item summary and presentation materials, which shall become part of the record of the appeal hearing. Staff shall also provide to the Council the notice of appeal and all attachments to it, and new evidence provided to the City Clerk in accordance with subsection (b)(2), above. The Council will determine whether to admit for consideration each item of new evidence offered by any party, and those materials admitted for consideration shall become part of the record of the appeal hearing.Any new evidence permitted under Paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) above and submitted prior to the hearing or offered at the appeal hearing by City staff or parties-in-interest shall be limited to that which is either: (1) Described in the notice of appeal; (2) Submitted to the City Clerk in writing at least seven (7) days prior to the appeal hearing by any party-in-interest opposed to the appeal; or (3) Provided to the City Council by City staff prior to or during the appeal hearing. (d) Any party-in-interest shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of all materials, including digital presentations, to be presented to the Council at the appeal hearing no later than noon on the day of the appeal hearing, or 4:00 p.m. the business day prior to the appeal hearing if the Council meeting at which the hearing will be conducted is scheduled to begin earlier than 6:00 p.m., and such materials shall thereafter be made reasonably available by the City Clerk to any persons upon on request. In light of the limitations on admission of new evidence, admission of any such materials for consideration shall be subject to Council determination at the appeal hearing. Any party-in-interest may provide a true and accurate hard copy of any such presentation for Council reference, so long as no fewer than twenty (20) such copies are provided to the City Clerk along with the digital presentation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (de) Any party-in-interest who believes that new evidence has been improperly introduced into the appeal hearing may, at any time during the hearing, interrupt the proceedings and object to the Council's consideration of such evidence. If such an objection is made, the Mayor shall rule on the objection, after consultation with the City Attorney if necessary, and the evidence shall either be received and considered by the Council or disregarded by the Council in accordance with the ruling of the Mayor; provided, however, that the Mayor's ruling on this or any other procedural issue raised during the course of the hearing may be overridden by a majority of the Council. The failure of a party-in-interest to make such an objection shall constitute a waiver of the same by that party-in-interest for the purpose of any court appeal of the Council's decision. (e) In considering an allegation that a board, commission or other decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter asserted under Paragraph 2-48(b)(1) of this Article, the City Council shall determine how such provisions should, in the City Council's judgment, be applied to the evidence contained in the record on appeal. (f) At the conclusion of such hearing, the City Council shall uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the board, commission or other decision maker; provided, however, that: (1) The City Council shall instead remand the matter for rehearing if it finds that the appellant was denied a fair hearing before the board, commission or other decision maker for any of the reasons stated in Paragraph 2-48(b)(2) of this Article. (2) The City Council may also remand the matter for rehearing in order for the board, commission or other decision maker to receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. Any such remand shall include direction from the City Council to the board, commission or other decision maker as to the issues to be considered at the rehearing. (g) No later than the date of its next regular meeting, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision. The date of passage of such resolution shall be the date of final action of the City Council for the purpose of any subsequent judicial review of the decision of the City Council. Sec. 2-56. - Council decision on appeal. (a) In considering an allegation that a board, commission or other decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter asserted under Paragraph 2-48(b)(1) of this Article, the City Council shall determine how such provisions should, in the City Council's judgment, be applied to the evidence contained in the record of the appeal hearing. (b) At the conclusion of such hearing, the City Council shall uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the board, commission or other decision maker, and may impose such conditions as the Council determines appropriate to further the purposes of or compliance with the standards governing the decision; provided, however, that: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW October 27,2019 DRAFT (1) The City Council shall instead remand the matter for rehearing if it finds that the appellant was denied a fair hearing before the board, commission or other decision maker for any of the reasons stated in Paragraph 2-48(b)(2) of this Article. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary in City Code, if City Council determines that on remand the board, commission, or decision maker will be unable to provide a fair rehearing or will be unable to provide a rehearing because a quorum will not be available, City Council shall remand the matter for rehearing to a qualified, alternative decision maker determined by City Council. Additionally, City Council may remand the matter for rehearing to a qualified, alternative decision maker if the public confidence in the decision on remand would be better served than remand to the original board, commission, decision maker. (2) The City Council may also remand the matter for rehearing in order for the board, commission or other decision maker to receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. Any such remand shall include direction from the City Council to the board, commission or other decision maker as to the issues to be considered at the rehearing. (c) No later than the date of its next regular meeting, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision. The date of passage of such resolution shall be the date of final action of the City Council for the purpose of any subsequent judicial review of the decision of the City Council. (d) Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution required under Subsection (c), above, the Council may amend said resolution at any time in order to clarify or correct it, or to modify the decision in order to resolve a related legal dispute or to bring the decision into compliance with federal, state or local law, including the Charter and Code of the City of Fort Collins. (1) At least fourteen (14) days prior to consideration of any such amendments, written notice that the Council will consider such amendments must be mailed to the last known address of the appellant, the applicant, and any other party-in-interest who appeared at the related appeal hearing. (2) Persons entitled to notice of the consideration of amendments shall have an opportunity to comment at the time of such consideration. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment 2 Excerpt from the Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2019 Appeal Code Changes: Staff and Applicant Presentations City Clerk, Coldiron, gave a brief verbal visual overview of this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current Blvd., spoke of the process flow and how the deliberative bodies put a focus on the conflicts of the terms of the provisions of the land use code. He feels it is difficult for those entering for the first time. He urges the Board to review the grand plan a bit more. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Dr., would like a continuance to get more citizen comment. Rick Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Dr., is concerned with changes tipping the scale favoring developers at the expense of the neighborhoods and citizens. He is concerned with combining appeals. He feels the real effort should be short stopping appeals to the City Council to being with and doing it at the P&Z level. Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Dr., feels that the radical changes look deleterious to her rights as a citizen. The P&Z Board should weigh in before going to City Council. She does not feel that the practice of combining appeals needs to be codified. Due process right should be observed if you are an appellant. Staff Response City Clerk Coldiron responded that they have been working on the change over the past 8 months. City Clerk Coldiron appreciates the comment regarding improvements on our part does not mean improvements for the residents. City Clerk Coldiron mentioned the April elections and asked that the Board push this further past the election time period to facilitate proper outreach. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Whitley asked City Clerk Coldiron to pull the timeline and wanted confirmation on the number of days, 20 or 28. City Clerk Coldiron responded 28. Member Hobbs asked if there was further opportunity after the initial filing date. City Clerk Coldiron deferred to Attorney Yatabe for clarification. Attorney Yatabe clarified that the new evidence requirement states that it must be submitted at the time of notice of appeal and that there are exceptions. Member Hogestad asked City Clerk Coldiron if Council had the opportunity to consolidate appeals even if they are not similar. City Clerk Coldiron responded that if they were very different, we would work ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 with the City Attorney’s office, but would present as separate items. Member Hogestad wanted to know if the City Attorney’s office would recommend not consolidating or if it was at their discretion. Attorney Yatabe gave an overview of current state and clarified wording. Member Rollins wanted to know if there was public outreach conducted prior to this hearing. City Clerk Coldiron responded no. Member Hansen explained that there should be discussion on. Member Hansen commented that the general mood is that this should be continued, and that discussion should be had regarding why and what goal or strategies should be implemented. Member Hobbs sought clarification as to whether the Board should discuss the code changes before making a motion to continue or not. Member Hansen would like a feel from the Board if the general notion is to continue to help him decide how to proceed. Member Whitley would like to continue this item as he would like to hear public comment. Member Rollins feels it would be useful for City staff if the Board has comments on certain sections, to hear those comments now. Chair Hansen commented that if the general sense is that this item will be continued, he would like to give specific comments as to what is in the proposed code as they see it now and what we have heard from public comment. Leading up to a motion to continue if there is enough information to provide suggestions as part of an approval to move forward or to deny and have a more in-depth deliberation and discussion. Member Hogestad feels that this should be continued as his concern is that there has not been enough public outreach and input. He wanted to know what kind of outreach and how it would be implemented. City Clerk Coldiron responded that it would be neighborhood meetings through notification. Member Whitley asked about the outreach schedule. City Clerk Coldiron responded that they could get to neighborhood meetings the latter part of April. Member Hobbs is in favor of continuance. His concerns lie in the areas of definitions excluding lease holders from the process and the fact that we would require all new evidence to be submitted at 14 days. For simple appeals this may be possible, for others it may not allow a person or group to put the evidence together in that timeframe. He would like staff to explore expanding. Member Rollins wanted to know if it would be difficult to search back a few years on anyone that has pursued an appeal and that you also notify them in the instance they are not in the neighborhood. She is also interested in input from individuals regarding consolidation of appeals. She appreciates all the work put in so far by staff. Chair Hansen does not feel encouraging more public input at P&Z hearings is the place for it. He feels that using neighborhood meetings for public input has not worked as hoped. He would like the process to be less bumpy, and that it would be beneficial for those that have appealed their projects also be contacted and involved when an appeal comes forward. Adjustments to the period for new evidence ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 should be made to avoid an unnecessary information dump. 14 days is too short, but longer than that is a long time for an applicant to wait, maybe there is an interim step. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board to recommend to City Council regarding the appeals code amendments that were presented here tonight to a future date to be worked out by staff. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31 Public Outreach – Municipal Code Changes Regarding the Appeals Process Applicant Focus Group – June 5, 2019 (Invitation sent to all applicants who had been involved in an appeal in the last three years) City Staff Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Present: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Participants: One Attendee Meeting Specifics: Wednesday, June 5th, 1:00 P.M. 281 North College Ave. Discussion: Council Appeals: • Is there a reason why Councilmembers do not have to pay for an appeal? o Councilmembers theoretically are raising issues from a policy standpoint (they are asking questions, not arguing anything). Their appeals are intended to foster additional discussion and Council review of issues of concern. Definitions: • Does it really make sense to have renters included as party-in-interest? o Currently, only property owners receive notification of Development Review projects. If the Municipal Code is updated to include renters in notification, we anticipate a change to match what is happening in Development Review. Members of the Planning and Zoning Board asked that notifications related to development review projects be sent to renters as well as owners. Members of the board expressed a desire for this change because they believe that because nearly 50% of Fort Collins residents are renters, they may also have an interest in how a project will affect them. Sending notification letters to renters is currently being piloted by the Development Review team and has not yet been codified. General: • What was the catalyst for the change of the appeals process? o Changes were initiated by staff to clarify procedures based on questions that have been received by those involved in the appeals process, as well as staff. Some of the changes also document current practices that are occurring. Concerns about due dates for materials and not having enough time to pull things together has been expressed to staff on multiple occasions. • Will the criteria for filing an appeal remain the same? o Yes. The criteria for an appeal is not proposed to change. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 32 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes June 5, 2019 Page 2 New Evidence: • In what way does it change materials that can be submitted to Council? o It establishes deadlines for and clarifies the information that can be submitted as new evidence. New evidence will only be allowed if there is a fair hearing issue as described in Section 2-49: 1. information considered was false or grossly misleading; or 2. the hearing body failed to receive all relevant information; or 3. the hearing body was biased. • If there are slides at the end of a presentation that are not shown at the hearing, do those need to be included in the appeals documents or only those that have been shown in the hearing? o Only the slides that have been shown at the hearing or neighborhood meeting. The additional slides only need to be included if they were presented and were part of the formal record. • Wouldn’t there be new evidence in each hearing? o Not necessarily. But new evidence can come up at the time of the hearing which, now, both sides must take time at the meeting to review and Council asks whether there are any objections to the new information provided. The proposed changes try to eliminate this by setting deadlines for new evidence submittal and clarifying the type of information that would be allowed. Notice: • Why was the 10 days moved to three weeks? o To enable the parties opposing the appeal to have sufficient time to prepare. o The applicant should have materials ready; they should be the same as was used at the hearing. It seems unfair to give them time to additional time to rebut what is in the appeal if the same opportunity is not given to the appellants. Remanding to Another Board: • When would a decision be remanded and to which decision-making body would the decision be remanded to? o This is most likely to occur with a Type 1 Administrative Hearing. If the decision were remanded, it would likely be remanded to a board such as the Planning and Zoning Board. Timelines: • The issue of a longer appeals process is troublesome and can potentially be a high cost burden for the developer. That developer may then attempt to pass on the cost to the prospective future property owner, therefore increasing the price of the property. With the current appeals criteria, neighbors can simply use the process to be obstructionist and they do not have to present other evidence at the time of the appeal. Therefore, there seems to be a bias towards the appellant and not the applicant. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 33 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes June 5, 2019 Page 3 • Can the City Clerk’s office offer only one date to the appellant for the appeal to speed up the scheduling process? o The Clerk’s office can try; however, we generally try to work with everyone involved to find a time that is agreeable. Working around schedules can be challenging. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 34 Public Outreach – Municipal Code Changes Regarding the Appeals Process Appellant Focus Group – June 6, 2019 (Invitation sent to all appellants who had been involved in appeals in the last three years) City Staff Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Present: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Participants: Three Attendees Meeting Specifics: Wednesday, June 6th, 6:00 P.M. 281 North College Ave. Discussion: Definitions: • Clarify that a party-in-interest can be opposed or in support of an appeal. Ex Parte Communications: • Is ex parte communication something that is an appealable issue? o If someone believes that a decision-maker was biased or had received information outside of the public hearing process, that can be offered as a reason for applying for an appeal. • During a City Council appeal site visit, the City didn’t outline clearly what was ex parte communication during that visit. The Assistant City Attorney did not allow the appellant to enter the conversation, but the developer was allowed to joke with the attorney. Maybe an unaffiliated third party can run the meeting to keep there from being bias in the process. o Perhaps the site visits could be facilitated by the Development Review Liaison (she explained the role of the Development Review Liaison). General Comments: • Decision-maker should only be offering a decision in writing and not during a public hearing. o Because people who appeal projects may not want to read a written decision and would rather see deliberation and decision-making occur in a public setting, it is better to have a decision rendered at a hearing. One could then have both a written and verbal decisions available. • The larger issue here is that the City does not follow its codes and procedures. Another issue is that citizens enter into the appeals process without an understanding of the process, which creates a lot of confusion. People don’t know that they need to refer to the Land Use Code rather than referring to subjective information. o Valid concerns, however, not part of this particular code change or update. • In the past, the Planning and Zoning board has reached decisions too quickly. The neighborhood meeting is an important part of the process, but those meetings have been skewed to benefit the developer rather than the community. The key sticking point on The Union (on Elizabeth) was density and height. Ultimately, no compromise was reached to allay community concerns. The decision was therefore not made fairly by the Planning and Zoning Board. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 35 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes June 6, 2019 Page 2 • Development Review staff and the developer seem to be too friendly. • Someone can sit through a hearing and know something isn’t meeting the Land Use Code, but it only comes out during an appeal. The City should clarify for someone whether there are grounds for appeal and, if not, should coach someone not to pursue it. • There are no standards that appellants have to meet; they can file anything. Think the process is biased towards the appellant. Can standards be created? • The City’s website should be updated to make it easier to understand how to make comments regarding development review projects. o The Development Review website is currently being updated to provide greater clarity to customers, including how they can be involved in the Development Review process. Notice: • It is a problem that only property owners receive notification of a development proposal and not renters. This keeps renters from knowing that a project may be coming into their neighborhood. o The proposed changes attempt to match the current requirement in the Land Use Code. Planning and Development is considering changing this policy to include renters in the notification list. If this gets done, staff would move forward with a recommended change to this policy to ensure consistency. Timelines: • Why is 77 days the number of days? Is there a reason why both sides don’t get the chance to extend that date? o Review of deadlines dates was done. The change in the number of days is meant to allow for greater equity among parties in the appeal. There is a chance to extend these in extenuating circumstances. The goal of the 77 days is to ensure an appeal is not delayed indefinitely. The move from 75 to 77 days is in keeping with staff’s efforts to ensure deadlines do not fall on weekends (moving to multiples of 7). Similar things were done for the election code deadlines. • Reinforce that there could be new evidence submitted that is either in opposition or support of the appeal, not just in opposition to the appeal. Deadlines need to take this into account. • A pre-appeal meeting would be nice to make sure that all evidence has been accounted for. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 36 Public Outreach – Municipal Code Changes Regarding the Appeals Process General Community Meeting – June 12, 2019 (Advertised in weekly Development Review Newsletter, posted on City’s Facebook page, posted on the Development Review and City Clerk Website Pages) City Staff Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Present: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Participants: Three Attendees Meeting Specifics: Wednesday, June 12th, 6:00 P.M. 281 North College Ave. Discussion: Combined Appeals: • If there are appeals that are different, are they heard together? If heard together, that could either strengthen or diminish each point. o This is the current practice. Each appellant would have the opportunity to present their evidence to Council. Mayor decides how much time the appellants would get; the time would need to be shared. • In cases where there are multiple appellants, they should be given more time than the applicant for more fairness. • Equal time should be given to applicants as well as each appellant to allow them to respond to testimony and questions. • In cases where appeals are combined, appellants have not been a coordinated group until the appeal is heard. The applicant, however, does have time to coordinate among teams and already have their presentations together. This could cause some issues. Council Appeals: • Does Council have to stick to the same appeals timeframe? o Yes • If a Councilmember appeals a project, is that Councilmember still allowed to make decisions on that appeal? o Yes General: • Why were these code changes initiated? o Changes were initiated by staff to clarify procedures based on questions that have been received by those involved in the appeals process, as well as staff. Some of the changes also document current practices that are occurring. Concerns about due dates for materials and not having enough time to pull things together has been expressed to staff on multiple occasions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 37 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes June 12, 2019 Page 2 • If someone wants to bring in an expert witness, would you need to have them known at the time of appeal and the time of evidence submission? o Will need to share time given at Council and is a good idea to warn Council that an appellant is planning to call on a witness. • Do not have City staff give a presentation on the project during the appeals process. Staff has already given the presentation to a decision-making body and it is in the record already. Councilmembers could watch the video of the presentation. Staff has already made a recommendation on the project to either support or deny. They shouldn’t be given a second chance to present. • Who decides what a frivolous appeal is? Could the Ethics Review Board hear the project and decide if there will be grounds for appeal? o That is for Council to decide under current provisions; they are the hearing body. • Perhaps some criteria can be developed to help ensure appeals are not frivolous and a waste of everyone’s time. New Evidence: • In making the proposed changes related to new evidence, are you looking to forestall technical glitches or other problems? o Staff is simply trying to get new evidence to Council and all parties involved ahead of the appeal hearing. • New evidence can only be submitted at the deadline? o Yes and is only allowed, under these provisions, if there is a fair hearing issue as described in Section 2-49: 1. information considered was false or grossly misleading; or 2. the hearing body failed to receive all relevant information; or 3. the hearing body was biased. • If a deadline changes the structure of an appeal, staff will be able to build counterarguments into the presentation with time for Council to see that evidence. The presentation would then cover those new items in the appeal. This seems unfair to others who have already had to submit their information. Notification: • How would I know that an appeal has been filed? o Currently, the general public would know if they are reviewing Council agendas as they are posted. The City Clerk’s Office is considering adding a section on the Clerk’s webpage that would provide this information as soon as an appeal request is submitted. Staff is also considering a kind of subscription for notification of appeals similar to what is available for Council agendas. Another idea is to add this information, at least for ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 38 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes June 12, 2019 Page 3 appeals related to development projects, to the weekly Development Review newsletter. Remanding to Another Board: • Q: What would prevent the Council from remanding the decision to a board that isn’t quasi- judicial? o Anticipate that Council would send to a board that was somehow related to the type of project being appealed; most likely would be quasi-judicial for development projects. For example, there may be an instance where the Landmark Preservation Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals might be able to take a look at a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board. The most likely instance is if a Type 1 hearing officer makes a decision and Council decides to remand the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board. This gives Council additional flexibility to do this. Site Visit: • Does the site visit allow questions to be asked of staff from Councilmembers? If so, this seems unfair because during the site visit, appellants are instructed not to talk to Councilmembers. o This is a question for the City Attorney’s office. One option may be to have the site visits facilitated by a third party, such as another City staff member from Neighborhood Services. • Appellants need to receive clarification on procedures prior to the site visit so they can come prepared. Timelines: • The changes to the timeline lengthens the process a lot? o Likely lengthens the hearing date from 28 days to 35 days as the earliest time a hearing could be held since proposing a notice be sent 21 days prior to hearing [currently 10 days prior]. Hearing date could move out to 42 days or more if new evidence is allowed. [An exception to this would be if an appeal was filed earlier than the 14-day deadline.] • Consider proposing a back-loading whereby the hearing date is established, then the deadlines are established. Can take weeks to come up with evidence. Can take a long time for community members to learn the codes and procedures for projects. • Make sure there isn’t dead time when the appeal is filed and that there is enough time to submit the appeal. • To get an extension on an appeal, would you go to the Clerk’s Office or contact Darin Atteberry, City Manager, directly? o The Clerk’s Office will need to come up with a process for this, but someone would likely be requesting an extension through the Clerk’s Office. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 39 Public Outreach – Municipal Code Changes Regarding the Appeals Process General Community Meeting – July 22, 2019 (Advertised in weekly Development Review Newsletter, posted on City’s Facebook page, posted on the Development Review and City Clerk Website Pages, Press Release, Nextdoor Post) City Staff Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Present: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Participants: Eight Attendees Meeting Specifics: Monday, July 22nd, 6:00 P.M., Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Avenue. Discussion: Definitions: • Not clear why anyone should be excluded from the appeal process. No one should be excluded from being a party-in-interest. Everyone should be able to appeal decisions. • Question about why a member of the Planning and Zoning Board was not allowed to speak at an appeal hearing? This should be addressed in the municipal code. o The board member was part of the decision-making body that made the decision that was appealed. Comments made by the board member as part of the hearing to the Planning & Zoning board are part of the record that has gone to Council. • Question about whether individuals can add their names to existing appeals. Ex Parte Communication: • Having this “gag order” is an issue; the Mayor should not keep people from offering public comment on land use issues because they might be appealed. General: • Concern that citizens are not notified of an appeal but are still interested in participating in the process. Is important for others who are interested in the process to be notified in order for them to be able to participate. • Question about why these changes being brought forward at this time? o Changes were initiated by staff to clarify procedures based on questions that have been received by those involved in the appeals process, as well as staff. Some of the changes also document current practices that are occurring. Concerns about due dates for materials and not having enough time to pull things together has been expressed to staff on multiple occasions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 40 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes July 22, 2019 Page 2 o Think there should be more clarity about the objectives of these changes. Be clear about the purpose or objective to allow the public to see whether these are successful. There also needs to be clearer definitions on things like what is considered ex parte communication. • Question about how these meetings were publicized. o This meeting was specifically advertised in as many media avenues as possible, including through a formal press release, the Development Review newsletter, on the Nextdoor platform, on the City’s Facebook page, and on City webpages frequented by various City customers. • The City Council cannot modify resolutions with a resolution. They are not complying with the City’s charter. They must enact any change with an ordinance. The problem statements for these changes have not been clearly defined. The lack of information for the public doesn’t just start with the appeals process. The planning and development review process should also change. Need better planning outcomes, then would have many less appeals. Code changes need to be made there. o Need to clarify the Land Use Code and have a more collaborative process. • Appeals process related to the Sunshine House was not proper. The issue was not in the Land Use Code, it was really about a policy from a different department. The Water Board decision was not part of publicly available information. The daycare floodplain variance was not publicized, and, therefore, not appealable by the deadline. o During the Bucking Horse Childcare Center appeal, there was controversy over the comments not having been submitted in a timely manner. Is this a written procedure or is this codified in the Land Use Code?  There is nothing codified in the Land Use Code related to this. The closest thing comes under Section 2.2.7(B)(1) which talks about a person appearing at the public hearing and submitting evidence. It is routine practice that community input received prior to a hearing be included in the information that is provided to the hearing body. • Planning and Zoning Board work sessions should be scheduled at night like hearings to allow more people to attend. • Question about whether there is any training on appeals for Councilmembers before appeals occur. o The City Attorney provides guidance and training on this. Hearing Procedure: • Question about the change related to explanation of the appeal. o This clarifies that City staff will provide the explanation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 41 Public Outreach – Proposed Appeal Code Changes July 22, 2019 Page 3 New Evidence: • Question about the fair hearing guidelines for new evidence. o Only allowed under these provisions if there is a fair hearing issue as described in Section 2-49: 1. information considered was false or grossly misleading; or 2. the hearing body failed to receive all relevant information; or 3. the hearing body was biased. • Question about how City Council determines what evidence can be submitted? o Decided based on information provided and any objections received at time of hearing. Notice: • The process should be made more transparent. One way to accomplish this is to allow people outside of the 1,000-foot notification area to be notified in the development review process. • Use the radius of notification on development review projects for other board decisions that relate to development review projects. • Public notice should be given to all parties in interest, including everyone within the original notification area for the development review application. Timelines: • Can take a long time to understand the ramifications of decisions, therefore deadlines should be extended to fill this knowledge gap. • The timeline for new evidence – 1 week after deadline to file an appeal, this is limiting evidence for the appellant. It may take the appellant much more time to assemble new evidence. • Developer should only get one week to put in more evidence, not two. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 42 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 5 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: November 21, 2019 Fort Collins Montessori School, Site Plan Advisory Review SPA190003 Summary of Request This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to build a charter school on a 4.3-acre property at the southwest corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Board to provide comments on the plan to the governing body of the charter school per State statutes. Zoning Map Next Steps If the Planning and Zoning Board is not satisfied with the response to its comments by the governing body, the Planning and Zoning Board can request a hearing before the Poudre School District Board of Education. Site Location Southwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street, 1109 W. Harmony Road Zoning Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Property Owner Fort Collins Montessori School Paul Vincent 1900 S. Taft Hill Rd. #1227 Applicant/Representative TFG Design, LLC David Kasprzak, e. david@tfgdesign.com 138 E 4th St., Ste. 1, Loveland CO 80537 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner p. (970) 221-6225 e. cmapes@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction ....................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ............................................ 4 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 ......................................................... 5 4. Staff Evaluation ............................................ 6 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ..... 9 6. Attachments .................................................. 9 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the P&Z Board provide comments to the governing body on several issues explained in this staff report. Packet Pg. 43 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STAFF REVIEW OVERVIEW This Fort Collins Montessori School is a charter school within the Poudre School District. The proposed new school would consolidate and replace two existing Montessori school locations currently operating in two local churches. The proposed plan is to remove the existing residence, detached garage, and minor outbuildings, and develop a new one-story school structure with a footprint of 14,757 square feet; and two temporary modular buildings adjacent to the school structure. The new school will serve primary grades ages 3-5, and elementary grades ages 5-12. Capacity is expected to be approximately 160-200 students. The school development plan includes future phases which would remove the modular buildings and build approximately 15,000 square feet of additional permanent space, ultimately adding capacity for approximately 100 additional students. The plan provides queuing and drop-off lanes and 48 parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s standard of 32 spaces for all phases. All parking and circulation is included in Phase I of the proposed project. The plan includes handicap parking, bicycle parking, walkways, a trash enclosure designed with compatible architectural materials, and parking lot lighting that comports with City requirements to prevent glare and spillover lighting. The applicants’ narrative, which describes the school’s proposal, is attached. The City’s review of charter schools is governed by State statutes. The criteria for review are more general than the City’s Land Use Code standards, and a degree of interpretation is necessary. Staff’s review of the proposed Montessori school reflects established practice, which does not evaluate compliance with Land Use Code standards per se. Rather, plans are evaluated based on the requirements explained below. 1. State Requirements for City Review Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (C.R.S.), govern the City’s review of public charter school development plans, in two specific Sections. These supersede the City’s typical processes for development plan review. • Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. specifically governs charter school reviews with the following pertinent provisions: o the process of City review: the Planning and Zoning Board may review and comment on the plan to the PSD Board of Education, but it must do so, if at all, within 30 days of a development plan submittal. o The basis for City review: the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. • Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. generally governs all public facilities with the following pertinent provision: o “no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission [the Planning and Zoning Board].” Verbatim excerpts from the statutes are attached. Packet Pg. 44 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 3 of 9 Back to Top 2. Land Use Code Requirements The Land Use Code incorporates the statutory requirements above into Sections 2.1.3(E) and 2.16(H) under the Site Plan Advisory Review Process (“SPAR”). Following are pertinent excerpts for convenient reference: “2.1.3(E) Site Plan Advisory Review. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character and extent of improvements to parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan.” “2.16.2 Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures (H) Standards: [LUC standards are] Not applicable, and in substitution thereof, an application for a Site Plan Advisory Review shall comply with the following criteria: (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.” B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Current Conditions The 4.3-acre site contains a residence, detached garage, various outbuildings, gravel access drive and extensive landscape area comprising mostly pasture grasses and numerous trees. The property is a large-lot residential property that was originally subdivided and developed outside of City Limits, and remains unplatted. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) across Harmony Rd. Low Density Residential (RL) Low Density Residential (RL) Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Vacant and planned for future grocery store and multi-family residential Single family residential – a 1.4-acre residential property abuts the site; and the Westbury subdivision wraps around that property on the south and west Front Range Community College across Shields St. Single family residential – Westbury subdivision P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 4 of 9 Back to Top 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was held on September 23, 2019 at 23 Church. 19 residents attended. Notes from the meeting are attached. The discussion consisted mostly of Q and A, with the predominant issues related to traffic volumes, speeds, and behavior around the Harmony/Shields intersection. Other issues discussed were the trees on the site, operational parameters of the school, and phasing/timing expectations. B. PUBLIC COMMENT No other public comment has been received. Any communication received between the public notice and the hearing will be provided to the Board for the hearing. Packet Pg. 46 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 5 of 9 Back to Top 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 A. SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review meeting was held on May 30, 2019. 2. Neighborhood Meeting Held on September 23, 2019 and satisfies the applicable requirement of Section 2.16.2 – Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures. 3. Submittal The project development plans were submitted on October 16, 2019 and deemed complete on October 25, 2019, and subsequently routed to all reviewing departments. The staff report was issued on November 7, to enable compliance with statutory requirements for local review of charter school development plans. Staff’s initial review will be completed November 14. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted notice: September 16, 2019, Sign #519 Written notice: November 7, 2019, 124 letters sent. Hearing notification area (blue shading) 800’ Radius SITE Harmony Rd. Shields St. Packet Pg. 47 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 6 of 9 Back to Top 4. Staff Evaluation A. LOCATION The site is designated as the ‘Suburban Neighborhood’ land use place type in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood on the City’s Zoning Map. The school is consistent with these land use designations. Many primary and elementary schools are located in neighborhood areas where people may get to the school without being required to use arterial streets. This location requires using arterial streets, but it may be worth noting that the charter school does not have an enrollment area, and its students come from throughout the city and parts of unincorporated Larimer County within the district. B. CHARACTER AND EXTENT 1. Building Placement A fundamental concept in the City’s planning and development system is that buildings must be placed in direct relation to street sidewalks, with no intervening vehicle use areas. Multiple purposes behind this concept involve community character, with an emphasis on streets as attractive public space; walkable neighborhoods and districts; and visual interest and pedestrian comfort generally. Parking lots and drives are to be fitted into development sites behind or beside buildings where they don’t impact the visual and pedestrian environment of the city to the same degree. In this particular case, for multiple reasons, staff has supported the placement of the building as shown, provided that: 1. The vehicular use areas are fully screened with architecturally designed walls or fences that bring the building architecture out toward the street sidewalks in combination with landscaping; and 2. Walkways connect to Shields as well as Harmony. The plan provides these features, with a note that “the fencing and architectural column features will ultimately depend on availability within the construction budget” -- an unusual note on plans submitted for approval. Staff recommends that the Board provide a comment to the governing body that these features are important and should be assimilated into the whole land purchase and project program. 2. Potential Historic Resources Staff has noted that the buildings on the site are over 50 years of age, and for projects that are not exempt from the Land Use Code under SPAR provisions, this would typically require an independent historic survey to determine if any site resources are eligible for historic landmark designation. Staff typically assists in this effort. This consideration of potential historic resources would be required prior to plan submittal for projects that are not exempted under SPAR. If such a survey were to identify resources on the development site are identified as historic resources, then the plan would be required to include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of those structures to the maximum extent feasible. Staff is providing this comment for information and for the record, for the purpose of acknowledging that the issue was recognized; but does not propose any recommendation to PSD. Packet Pg. 48 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 7 of 9 Back to Top 3. Transportation The development plan submittal includes a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which includes a review of anticipated vehicles to/from the site; reviews operations for level of service; analyzes queuing for pick-up and drop-off; and provides recommendations. Pertinent aspects of staff’s review of the TIS and subsequent discussions include: • The study used newly gathered traffic counts from late August 2019 for their existing data. There was a question about the use of 2009 counts. The 2009 counts included in the report were only used to compare with the 2019 counts to determine the overall regional growth rate of traffic in the area. The study appropriately used the current counts, added an annual regional growth (based on the comparison), and then added the anticipated school traffic upon buildout. • The study assumed that 80% of the school traffic would exit the site on Shields heading south, then mostly make its way through the Westbury neighborhood to get back to Harmony. In reaction to staff and neighbor concerns, the internal circulation of the site was refined so all school traffic can circulate internally to get to the Harmony exit. This eliminates the need for school traffic to use neighborhood roads for circulation, while exiting traffic from the site to Harmony will be much higher than shown in the report. • The study did not recommend a dedicated right turn lane on Shields into the site. Based on LCUASS standards for volumes, and staff’s operational concerns related to slowing traffic and the potential for queuing traffic, the applicant has added a right turn lane along their frontage into the Shields access. (The Harmony access will not have a right turn lane, as the turning volumes are far lower, speeds are typically slowing, and Montessori does not have control over the adjacent property.) • The applicant will need to obtain access and excavation permits for work in the public right-of-way. That will require a final set of plans post hearing. Staff is requiring the median in Shields to be rebuilt to physically restrict the ability to make left turns out (the TIS recommended a sign). We’ll also need a signing and striping exhibit. • Staff is strongly encouraging the applicant to consider detaching the sidewalk along Shields per the jointly adopted Larimer County/City standards. • Access locations are located as far as possible from the major Shields/Harmony intersection. • Access locations are limited movement (right-in, right-out on Harmony, and right-in, right-out and left-in on Shields). No left turn out of the site are allowed to support safety. • A southbound right turn lane was added at the Shields entrance to allow for slowing and the potential for queuing vehicles. • Internal circulation was refined to accommodate both queuing and traffic flow within and through the site. This greatly reduces the need for neighborhood streets for school traffic circulation (as shown in the TIS). • The TIS notes that the school operates with staggered bell times to help mitigate queuing congestion during peak drop-off and pick-up times. The queuing analysis that was provided indicated the site could just barely meet the anticipated vehicle queuing length upon buildout. The analysis is dependent on assumptions, and staff still has concerns related to vehicle queuing in the afternoon waiting for school to let out – especially in the long term as student count increases. Potential queuing on Shields is particularly problematic. Should queuing problems occur on Shields, staff will work with the school on other internal circulation options and reserves the right to change access if needed. Staff recommends that the Board provide a comment that the understanding is that final civil engineering plans will address necessary technical design for work in City-owned right-of-way. Packet Pg. 49 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 8 of 9 Back to Top 4. Stormwater Quality Treatment The development plan provides stormwater detention; however, it does not provide treatment for filtering runoff as is required by the City. Adequate “Low Impact Development” (LID) water quality treatment for filtering runoff is required prior to discharge into the City’s stormwater system. The City’s “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System” (MS4) ultimately discharges into the Poudre River and the City holds the MS4 discharge permit from CDPHE. The City will not allow a development to make connection to the storm system without meeting the stormwater quality requirements. City staff can assist the development team with workable solutions to meet these requirements. Staff recommends that the Board provide a comment to PSD on the understanding that final civil engineering plans will address necessary technical design for work in City-owned right-of-way. 5. Building Architecture The one-story building is designed with pitched roofs, modulated proportions, extensive windows, stone and high quality wood-look siding. These aspects are combined to create building form, scale, character and color that are compatible with residential neighborhood scale appropriate to the location. 6. Landscaping The landscape plan includes street trees, stormwater detention landscaping, parking lot landscaping, and functional landscaping to complement different outdoor spaces in the “back yard” of the site where play areas are located. Existing spruce trees along the west perimeter are preserved and augmented with additional trees transplanted on the site. 7. Fencing Fencing is not addressed in the plans. However, discussions between staff and applicants confirm that the school will work with neighbors or the HOA as appropriate to confirm ownership and repair or replace existing fencing between properties to provide 6’ perimeter fencing. 8. Lighting A photometric plan is provided with the plan submittal and comports with City requirements for evening and nighttime character, with no spillover impacts. Packet Pg. 50 P&Z Agenda Item #5 SPA190003 | Fort Collins Montessori School Thursday, November 21, 2019 | Page 9 of 9 Back to Top 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation In evaluating the request for the Fort Collins Montessori School, #SPA190003, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board send a concise letter to the governing body of the charter school recommending approval of the development plan with the following message: The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board finds that the location, character, and extent of the proposed development plan for the Fort Collins Montessori School, City of Fort Collins Project #SPA190003, is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and mitigates its functional and visual impacts to streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, to the extent reasonably feasible, with the following understanding: 1. Final Civil engineering plans for work in the City-owned ROW of Harmony and Shields will address curb cuts for access, the right turn lane on Shields, the median changes in Shields at the access, and signing and striping. 2. Final Civil engineering plans for stormwater runoff discharge into the City-owned stormwater drainage system will address requirements for water quality treatment. 3. Pedestrian and visual mitigation of the vehicular use areas with walls, fences or columns is a fundamental aspect of community character as called for in the City’s comprehensive plan and should be included with construction of the parking lot and drives, with the cost assimilated into the whole land purchase and project pro forma. These issues are typical of issues that are addressed routinely in discussions and plan revisions in Fort Collins’ development review process. 6. Attachments 1. Applicants Narrative 2. Rendering 3. Site Plan 4. Architecture 5. Landscape Plan 6. Traffic Impact Study 7. Civil Plan Set 8. Plat 9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 10. Excerpts from Colorado Revised Statues Pertinent to the Proposed School Packet Pg. 51 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 PROJECT NARRATIVE Fort Collins Montessori School 1109 W. Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80538 Past Meeting Dates The following meetings have been held regarding the proposed Fort Collins Montessori School: Concept Review (CR) – 2019.05.30 Neighborhood Meeting – 2019.09.23 Fort Collins Montessori School Fort Collins Montessori School is a public charter school within the Poudre School District providing a classic Pre-K through 6th grade Montessori educational experience. The school offers whole-child, mixed- age groupings in a setting that involves engaging the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of each child learning together in a community. The school currently operates out of two lease spaces in Fort Collins, one at Immanuel Christian Reformed Church located at 1900 S. Taft Hill Road, #1227 and the second at Westminster Presbyterian Church located at 1709 W. Elizabeth Street. Fort Collins Montessori School intends on building a new school at the SW intersection of W. Harmony Road and S. Shields Street in Fort Collins. The physical address is 1109 W. Harmony Road. The Property and Zoning The proposed site is located in the northeast quarter (NE ¼) of Section 3, Township 6, North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Specifically, the property is located southwest of the intersection of West Harmony Road and South Shields Street. The property address is 1109 West Harmony Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. The site is 4.29 acres, currently zoned as low-density mixed-use neighborhood district (LMN). The existing site consists of a residence, detached garage, various outbuildings, gravel access drive and native vegetation. The site is bound by Harmony Road to the north, Shields Street to the east, and residential lots to the south and west. Renovations to the Property and Building Fort Collins Montessori School intends to demolish the existing residence, detached garage and various outbuildings with exception to one wood out building that they intend to keep as an open play structure within the playground. They intend on removing and rebuilding a new wood privacy fence at the perimeter of the playground. Fort Collins Montessori School intends to keep or relocate as many of the existing site trees as possible, especially along the low density mixed used neighborhood bordering the south and west property. Proposed Use Fort Collins Montessori School has proposed to build a wood framed school building. The proposed new building will be a one-story structure with a total footprint of 14,757 square feet. The building will have an Administration Office area of approximately 3,770 S.F., and a Primary Classroom Wing area of 10,987 S.F. The intended occupancy groups proposed for this building will be Business Group (B) and Educational Group (E). The administration area will consist of Main Office, Business Manager Office, Clinic, Conference Room, Staff Lounge, and Work Room. The Primary Classroom Wing will consist of ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 seven primary classrooms and one flex classroom, each at approximately 945 S.F. along with support spaces. In addition, the school will place two temporary modular buildings adjacent to the school that will house four elementary classrooms for a total of 12 classrooms for the school. The Primary school will be considered Phase I and is anticipated to start construction in January 2020 and completed in August 2020. Phase II will involve the removal of the modular buildings and the construction of an approximately 11,000 S.F. Elementary Classroom Wing to the south of the primary building that will provide for eight classrooms, each at approximately 945 S.F. Phase II is anticipated to be constructed by 2025. Phase III will consist of a 4,500 S.F. Multipurpose space that will tie the primary and elementary classroom wings together. The anticipated construction of Phase III will be in 2030. The property will be provided with two 24 foot wide curb cuts, one off W. Harmony Road and one off S. Shield Street. A right turn lane will be constructed off S. Shields Street that will connect to a double wide drop off queue lane and a drive through lane. An asphalt parking area is provided that will serve a total of 48 parking spaces including three handicap accessible parking spaces. A bicycle rack will be provided near the east facing main entry doors and near a connecting pedestrian sidewalk to W. Harmony Road. Furthermore, a trash enclosure, new landscaping and site lighting are proposed. Two playground spaces will be constructed on the south side of the Primary Classroom Wing and east of the future Elementary Classroom Wing to serve both the primary aged children and the elementary age children. The building exterior finishes will be consistent with the residential properties to the south and west with the use of stone veneer and fiber cement siding varying in pattern and color, asphalt roof shingles, and fiberglass windows. The school intends that the form, scale, and design of the building and other improvements to the property generally, will blend in and match the adjacent neighborhood. Utilities The building will be connected to the City of Loveland electrical services; water and sewer connections to the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District. A new fire line will be installed for the building. Fire Protection Plan The proposed site has provided accommodations for fire rescue apparatus equipment to enter and exit the site with both curb cuts off W. Harmony Road and S. Shield Street utilizing B-40 turning templates. A new fire hydrant is proposed on site. The building will be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. The Fire Riser Room will be located at the north side of the building with the fire department connection nearby facing W. Harmony Road. The knox box will be located in the same vicinity of the fire riser room. Proposed Owner Fort Collins Montessori School (970) 631-8612 Contact: Paul Vincent pvincent@focomontessori.org Existing Owner Mark Joseph Brophy 1109 W Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 55 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 57 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 58 16 8 12 12 12 12 16 8 DETENTION AREA DROP OFF LANE DROP OFF ENHANCED CONCRETE PLAZA AREA CONNECTING CONCRETE WALK TO EXISTING WALK FUTURE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE PRIMARY PLAYGROUND (3-5 YRS.) PROPOSED PRIMARY SCHOOL (15,757 SF) CONCRETE PATIO, (TYP) PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT W HARMONY RD (EAST BOUND) S SHIELDS ST (SOUTH BOUND) EXISTING MEDIAN EXISTING MEDIAN 380.6' PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION EXISTING WOOD OUT BUILDING TO REMAIN FUTURE ELEMENTARY (10,970 SF) TEMPORARY WOOD PRIVACY FENCE RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT / LEFT-IN 380.2' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE EXISTING 8' WIDE WALK EXISTING 8' WIDE WALK PROPOSED FCMS 7'-3" 6'-2" 3'-6" 3' 4' 7'-3" 6'-2" 3'-6" 3' 4' 3' 8" 12' MAX. 5 1 4 1 2 4 80% 100% ALUMINUM FENCE SYSTEMS 6. CONTRACTOR'S NOTE: FOR PRODUCT AND COMPANY INFORMATION VISIT www.CADdetails.com/info REFERENCE NUMBER 048-088 3. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE CONSIDERED TRUE AND REFLECT MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTES: 4. AMETCO'S ALUMNIUM FENCING SYSTEM IS 100% MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES. 5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 1. THE 4" ALUMINUM EXTRUSION CAN RUN EITHER HORIZORTALLY OR VERTICALLY. NORTH 0 SCALE: 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 1" = X' TFG Design, LLC 138 E 4th Street, STE #1 Loveland CO 80537 (970) 669.3737 LANDSCAPE ARCHTEICTURE PLANNNIG SHEET OF SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: REVISIONS: PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER: DRAWN BY: David Kasprzak FILE LOCATION: X:\Shared\Projects\177 Hauser Architects\177-1902FC Fort Collins Montessori School\AutoCAD\177-1902FC Fort Collins Montessori School\DWG\Site\X FENCE & COLUMN DETAILS.dwg PLOT DATE: 11/14/2019 2:49 PM PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: PHASE: www.tfgdesign.com THIS DRAWING, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF TFG DESIGN, LLC. - THE FRONTERRA GROUP AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USED I N ANY WAY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. The Group Traffic Impact Study Fort Collins Montessori School Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Fort Collins Montessori School Building Corp. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 61 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Fort Collins Montessori School Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for Fort Collins Montessori School Building Corporation c/o Diversified Consulting Solutions, Inc. Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE 4582 South Ulster Street Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 228-2300 September 2019 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. 9/17/2019 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 62 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................ii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 7 3.1 Existing Study Area ...........................................................................................................7 3.2 Existing Roadway Network ................................................................................................7 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................9 3.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth .........................................................................12 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 15 4.1 Trip Generation................................................................................................................15 4.2 Trip Distribution ...............................................................................................................16 4.3 Traffic Assignment ...........................................................................................................16 4.4 Total (Background Plus Project) Traffic............................................................................16 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 21 5.1 Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................21 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis .............................................................................22 5.3 Vehicle Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................26 5.4 Pedestrian Connection Analysis ......................................................................................28 5.5 Improvements Summary ..................................................................................................28 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 31 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 63 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page ii APPENDICES Appendix A – Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Appendix B – Intersection Count Sheets Appendix C – Traffic Projection Data Appendix D – Trip Generation Worksheets Appendix E – Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix F – Queueing Analysis Worksheets Appendix G – Student Drop-Off and Pick-Up Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix H – Conceptual Site Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Fort Collins Montessori School Traffic Generation .....................................................15 Table 2 – Level of Service Definitions .......................................................................................21 Table 3 – Harmony Road and Shields Street LOS Results........................................................23 Table 4 – Westbury Drive and Shields Street LOS Results .......................................................24 Table 5 – Harmony Road Access LOS Results .........................................................................25 Table 6 – Shields Street Access LOS Results ...........................................................................26 Table 7 – Turn Lane Queuing Analysis Results.........................................................................27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 – Surrounding Site Area ................................................................................................8 Figure 3 – Existing Lane Configurations and Control.................................................................10 Figure 4 – Existing Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................................11 Figure 5 – 2024 Background Traffic Volumes............................................................................13 Figure 6 – 2040 Background Traffic Volumes............................................................................14 Figure 7 – Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................17 Figure 8 – Project Traffic Assignment .......................................................................................18 Figure 9 – 2024 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................19 Figure 10 – 2040 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................20 Figure 11 – 2024 Recommended Lane Configurations and Control ..........................................29 Figure 12 – 2040 Recommended Lane Configurations and Control ..........................................30 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 64 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A new 300-student Pre-K through 6th Grade Montessori Elementary School is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. Herein, this project is named Fort Collins Montessori School. It is expected that the project would be completed and open in the fall of 2021 with 160 students. The student population is anticipated to grow each year by around 45 students until the school reaches an enrollment capacity of 300 students, which is expected to occur in 2024. Analysis was therefore completed for the full student capacity in 2024 and the 2040 long term horizons per the City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requirements. The purpose of this study is to identify school traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential school traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. The following intersections were incorporated into this traffic study: x Harmony Road and Shields Street x Westbury Drive and Shields Street In addition, the proposed two accesses for the school along Harmony Road and Shields Street were included for analysis. Fort Collins Montessori School is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. Regional access to the school will be provided by Interstate 25 (I-25), and US-287. Primary access will be provided by Harmony Road and Shields Street. Direct access will be provided by two project access driveways. One project access is proposed along the south side of Harmony Road approximately 420 feet west of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center) and will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only. This access will primarily provide access to a parking lot located along the northern edge of the site. Direct access is also proposed along the west side of Shields Street approximately 450 feet south of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access is proposed to be restricted to three-quarter turning movements with the westbound left turn exit prohibited. This ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 65 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 2 access will primarily serve the proposed student drop-off and pick-up lanes to be located along the east side of the proposed school building. Fort Collins Montessori School is expected to generate approximately 556 weekday daily trips. Of these, 342 trips are expected to occur during the morning peak hour of generator, while 207 trips are expected during the afternoon peak hour of generator. Distribution of school traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns and volumes, demographic information to include potential student population residence location, and the proposed access system for the project. Assignment of project traffic was based upon the trip generation and distributions developed. Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the Fort Collins Montessori School, proposed on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado will be successfully incorporated into the existing and future roadway network. The proposed project development resulted in the following recommendations and conclusions: x With development of the project, a right-in/right-out access is proposed along the south side of Harmony Road approximately 420 feet west of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access will primarily serve the parking lot located along the northern edge of the project site. It is recommended that the northbound approach of the proposed T-intersection access include a single right-turn lane and operate with stop control with the installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To further identify this proposed access along Harmony Road as a right-in/right-out driveway, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be placed underneath the STOP sign and a R6-1(R) ONE WAY sign be installed within the existing center raised median along Harmony Road. x With development of the project, a three-quarter movement access is proposed along the west side of Shields Street approximately 450 feet south of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access will restrict eastbound left turn exiting movements. This driveway will be the primary access for the proposed student drop- off and pick-up lanes. It is recommended that the eastbound approach of the proposed T- intersection access include a single right turn lane and operate with stop control with the ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 66 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 3 installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To identify the restriction to eastbound right turns only at the proposed Shields Street three-quarter movement access, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be installed underneath the proposed “STOP” sign. x At the time of school opening, it is recommended that a 150-foot northbound left turn lane be striped at the Shields Street three-quarter access. There is currently sufficient pavement width within the center striped median area to designate this left turn lane without widening Shields Street. It should be developed as a back-to-back left turn lane with the southbound left turn lane at the Westbury Drive and Shields Street intersection to the south. x Based on the student drop-off/pick-up vehicle queuing analysis with 300 students, 1,275 feet of vehicle stacking should be provided in order to accommodate the anticipated vehicle demands. The site plan shows approximately 1,225 feet of queue length available for the drop-off/pick-up lanes. Since the proposed pick-up and drop-off queue length is slightly less than the identified length, the school is proposing staggered bell times. This will significantly reduce the queue lengths by spreading the traffic out over different drop-off and pick-up times. Likewise, this queue will likely be reduced while some parents will utilize the existing parking lot located along the northern edge of the project site near the Harmony Road access. Therefore, the proposed drop-off/pick-up queue length for the Fort Collins Montessori School is anticipated to provide sufficient length for school operations upon full school occupancy. Of note, the 160 students anticipated in the 2021 opening year had an identified drop-off and pick-up queue length of 680 feet which will be accommodated onsite. x By 2040 if future traffic volumes are realized, the southbound dual left turn lanes at the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection may need to be extended from 300 feet to 350 feet. x All on-site improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings and conform to standards of the City of Fort Collins and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – 2009 Edition. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 67 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has prepared this report to document the results of a Traffic Impact Study of future traffic conditions associated with a new Pre-K through 6th Grade Montessori Elementary School to be located on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. Herein, this project is named Fort Collins Montessori School. A vicinity map illustrating the school location is shown in Figure 1. The project is proposed to include a 300-student elementary school to be located on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. A conceptual site plan illustrating the school and access locations is provided in Appendix H. It is expected that the project would be completed by 2021 and will open in the fall of that year with approximately 160 students. The student population is anticipated to grow each year by around 45 students until the school reaches an enrollment capacity of 300 students, which is expected to occur in 2024. Analysis was therefore completed for the full enrollment capacity in 2024 and the 2040 long term horizons per the City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requirements. The City of Fort Collins required Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form is included in Appendix A. The purpose of this study is to identify school traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential school traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. The following intersections were incorporated into this traffic study: x Harmony Road and Shields Street x Westbury Drive and Shields Street In addition, the proposed two accesses for the school along Harmony Road and Shields Street were included for analysis. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 68 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 69 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 6 Fort Collins Montessori School is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. Regional access to the school will be provided by Interstate 25 (I-25), and US-287. Primary access will be provided by Harmony Road and Shields Street. Direct access will be provided by two project access driveways. One project access is proposed along the south side of Harmony Road approximately 420 feet west of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center) and will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only. This access will primarily provide access to a parking lot located along the northern edge of the site. Direct access is also proposed along the west side of Shields Street approximately 450 feet south of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access is proposed to be restricted to three-quarter turning movements with the westbound left turn exit prohibited. This access will primarily serve the proposed student drop-off and pick-up lanes to be located along the east side of the proposed school building. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 70 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 7 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Study Area The existing site is private residence consisting of a single-family home, which will be removed with construction of this project. Front Range Community College exists to the east of the project site across Shields Street. Westbury Residential Neighborhood is directly adjacent to the south and west of the proposed school. Outside of this immediate area, single family residential homes and vacant land exists in all directions. The land uses and roadway network surrounding the site are shown in Figure 2. 3.2 Existing Roadway Network Within the project study area, Harmony Road to the north of the proposed school location, provides two through lanes of travel in the eastbound and westbound directions, with designated left and right turn lanes at major intersections. It has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour throughout the study area. Shields Street to the east of the proposed school location, provides two through lanes of travel in the northbound and southbound directions, with designated left and right turn lanes at major intersections. It also has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour throughout the study area. Westbury Drive is a two-lane roadway that provides direct access to the Westbury Residential Neighborhood located directly west and south of the proposed school site. Westbury Drive provides one lane of travel in each direction with a solid yellow line and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The existing intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street is signalized and operates with protected-permitted left turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches and protected-only left turn phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of separate left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and separate right-turn lanes. The northbound and southbound approaches provide dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and separate right turn lanes. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 71 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 72 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 9 The existing Shields Street and Westbury Drive intersection is signalized that operates with protected-permitted left turn phasing on the southbound approach and permitted-only left turn phasing on the eastbound, westbound, and northbound approaches. The eastbound approach consists of a single lane for shared movements. The westbound approach consists of a shared left turn/through lane and a separate right turn lane. The northbound approach consists of a left turn lane and two through lanes with the outside lane being a shared through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The intersection lane configuration and control for the study area intersections are shown in Figure 3. 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the key study intersections on Tuesday, August 27, 2019. The counts were conducted during the morning and afternoon peak hours of school generator traffic, or the highest volume hour of site traffic, in 15-minute intervals from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM. These peak hours were identified based on drop off times for the Preschool being from 8:15 to 8:30 am and the Elementary School being from 8:00 to 8:15 am. The Preschool pick up is from 3:00 to 3:10 pm and the Elementary School is 3:15 to 3:30 pm. The turning movement counts are shown in Figure 4 with count sheets provided in Appendix B. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 73 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 74                                                 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 75 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 12 3.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth City of Fort Collins data and information including the published map of average daily traffic volumes and historic traffic counts were used to determine appropriate future traffic volume growth rates near the proposed Fort Collins Montessori School. Daily traffic volumes from year 2009 were compared with 2018 traffic volume counts shown at the intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street. A comparison of the 2009 and 2018 daily traffic volumes identified an average annual growth rate of approximately 0.9 percent per year along Shields Street south of Harmony Road and a growth rate of approximately 0.5 percent per year along Harmony Road west of Shields Street. The 2009 historic traffic counts from the City of Fort Collins, the 2018 average daily traffic volumes map, as well as the traffic volume calculations are included in Appendix C. Additionally, according to information provided on the CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) website, the 20-year growth factor along US-287 near the proposed Fort Collins Montessori School site is 1.18. This equates to an annual growth rate of approximately 0.83 percent. US-287 information from the OTIS website is included in Appendix C. Based on this information, an annual growth rate of one (1) percent was used to calculate future traffic volumes within the project study area. This annual growth rate was used to estimate near term 2024 and long term 2040 traffic volume projections at the key intersections. Background traffic volumes for 2024 are shown in Figure 5, while background traffic volumes for 2040 are shown in Figure 6. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 76                                                 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 77                                                 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 78 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 15 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. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation Report1 published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. For this study, Kimley-Horn used the ITE Trip Generation Report fitted curve equations that applies to Charter Elementary School (ITE Code 537) for traffic associated with the proposed redevelopment. The Fort Collins Montessori School is expected to generate approximately 556 daily weekday trips, with 342 of these trips occurring during the morning peak hour of generator and 207 trips occurring during the afternoon peak hour of generator. The peak hour of the generator is the highest one-hour time period of school traffic both in the morning and afternoon. Calculations were based on an enrollment of 300 students according to 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. The trip generation worksheets are included in Appendix D. Table 1 – Fort Collins Montessori School Traffic Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Charter Elementary School (ITE 537) – 300 Students 556 181 161 342 95 112 207 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, Washington DC, 2017. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 79 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 16 4.2 Trip Distribution Distribution of site traffic was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns and volumes, demographic information to include potential student population residence location, and the proposed access system for the project. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of school-generated traffic that approaches the site from a given direction and departs the site back to the original source. With the proposed restrictions to the school access driveways, it is anticipated that all eastbound, westbound, and northbound destined project traffic will utilize Westbury Drive through the residential neighborhood in order to gain access to Harmony Road and the intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street. The project trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 7. 4.3 Traffic Assignment Project traffic assignment was obtained by applying the project trip distribution to the estimated traffic generation of the development shown in Table 1. Project traffic assignment for Fort Collins Montessori School is shown in Figure 8. 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 2024 horizon and long term 2040 horizon. These total traffic volumes for the site are illustrated for the 2024 and 2040 horizon years in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 80 =?   =? =?   =?  =?  =? =? ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 81                           ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 82                                                                                                                         Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 21 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 2024 and 2040 development horizons at the identified key intersections. 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, standard traffic engineering practice and City of Fort Collins requirements identify overall LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for movements and approaches of unsignalized intersections as the minimum threshold for acceptable operations. 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, Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, Washington DC, 2016. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 85 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 22 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 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 intersection. 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis Calculations for the level of service at the key intersections for the study area are provided in Appendix E. The existing year analysis is based on the lane geometry and intersection control shown in Figure 3. The existing signalized intersection analyses utilize the observed cycle lengths with existing phasing and timing splits. Estimated peak hour factors are also used in the existing and short-term horizon (2024) analysis. Based on the expected arrival and departure of future school traffic volumes during the peak fifteen-minute time period, it was estimated that all turning movements into or out of the proposed school site will observe a peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.50. Synchro traffic analysis software was used to analyze the study intersections and access driveway for level of service. The Synchro Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology reports were used to analyze intersection delay and level of service. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 86 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 23 Harmony Road and Shields Street The existing intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street is signalized and operates with protected-permitted left turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches and protected-only left turn phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches. With existing conditions, this intersection operates with a LOS C during the morning and afternoon peak hours of school generator traffic. During the 2024 project build-out horizon with the addition of school traffic, this intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably with LOS D during the peak hours of school generator. By the long-term 2040 horizon, with or without the addition of school traffic, this intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably with a LOS D during peak hours of generator with the existing intersection configuration. Table 3 provides the results of the level of service of this intersection. Table 3 – Harmony Road and Shields Street LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 2019 Existing 34.6 C 33.9 C 2024 Background 34.6 C 34.7 C 2024 Background Plus Project 40.1 D 37.2 D 2040 Background 46.2 D 39.6 D 2040 Background Plus Project 54.9 D 42.9 D ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 87 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 24 Westbury Drive and Shields Street The existing Shields Street and Westbury Drive intersection is signalized that operates with protected-permitted left turn phasing on the southbound approach and permitted-only left turn phasing on the eastbound, westbound, and northbound approaches. With existing conditions, this intersection operates with a LOS B during the morning and afternoon peak hours of the school generator. During the 2024 project build-out horizon as well as throughout the long-term 2040 horizon, with or without the addition of school traffic, this intersection is anticipated to continue operating acceptably with a LOS B during peak hours of generator with the existing intersection configuration. Table 4 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 4 – Westbury Drive and Shields Street LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 2019 Existing 10.8 B 12.1 B 2024 Background 11.7 B 12.2 B 2024 Background Plus Project 11.8 B 12.3 B 2040 Background 15.1 B 12.3 B 2040 Background Plus Project 15.2 B 12.5 B ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 88 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 25 Harmony Road Access With development of the project, a right-in/right-out access is proposed along the south side of Harmony Road approximately 420 feet west of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center) and will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only. This access will primarily serve the parking lot located along the northern edge of the school site. It is recommended that the northbound approach of the proposed T-intersection access include a single lane and operates with stop control with the installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To further identify this proposed access along Harmony Road as a right-in/right-out driveway, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be placed underneath the STOP sign and a R6- 1(R) ONE WAY sign be installed within the existing center raised median along Harmony Road. With this configuration in the opening year of 2024 as well as the long-term horizon 2040, the northbound right turn movement at this access intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably with LOS C or better during the morning and afternoon peak hours of generator. Table 5 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 5 – Harmony Road Access LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 2024 Background Plus Project Northbound Right 16.2 C 11.8 B 2040 Background Plus Project Northbound Right 18.5 C 12.6 B ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 89 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 26 Shields Street Access With development of the project, a three-quarter movement access is proposed along the west side of Shields Street, approximately 450 feet south of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access will be restricted to three-quarter movements with the eastbound left turn exit prohibited. This driveway will be the primary access for the proposed student drop-off and pick-up lanes proposed to the east of the school building. The drop-off and pick-up lanes will have a counterclockwise site circulation. It is recommended that the eastbound approach of the proposed T-intersection access include a single right turn lane to operate with stop control with the installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To identify the right turn only restriction, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be installed underneath the STOP sign for the eastbound approach for motorists exiting the school. With the recommended lane configuration, it is anticipated that all movements will operate acceptably with LOS B or better during the peak hours of school generator throughout the 2040 horizon. Table 6 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 6 – Shields Street Access LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 2024 Background Plus Project Northbound Left Eastbound Right 10.1 13.4 B B 8.8 12.1 A B 2040 Background Plus Project Northbound Left Eastbound Right 10.3 14.5 B B 9.4 12.9 A B 5.3 Vehicle Queuing Analysis Queuing analysis was conducted for the study area intersections per City of Fort Collins standards and requirements. Results were obtained from the 95th percentile queue lengths obtained from the Synchro analysis. Queue analysis worksheets at the signalized intersections are provided in Appendix F, while queue length calculations for unsignalized intersections are provided within the level of service operational sheets provided in Appendix E. Results of the queuing analysis and recommendations at the study area intersections are provided in Table 7. Of note, any queue lengths calculated at less than one vehicle were rounded up to 25 feet to account for one vehicle of storage needed. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 90 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 27 Table 7 – Turn Lane Queuing Analysis Results Intersection Turn Lane Existing Turn Lane Length (feet) 2024 Calculated Queue (feet) 2024 Recommended Length (feet) 2040 Calculated Queue (feet) 2040 Recommended Length (feet) Harmony Rd & Shields St Eastbound Left Eastbound Right Westbound Left Westbound Right Northbound Left Northbound Right Southbound Left Southbound Right 325’ 225’ 400’ 275’ 225’ DL 325’ 300’ DL 175’ 168’ 27’ 178’ 67’ 90’ 69’ 257’ 40’ 325’ 225’ 400’ 275’ 225’ DL 325’ 300’ DL 175’ 204’ 46’ 240’ 67’ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 28 proposed vehicle circulation for student drop-off/pick-up is to have vehicles stack along the east side of the school building in dual queue lanes and extend in a counterclockwise fashion. The site plan shows approximately 1,225 feet of queue length for the drop-off/pick-up lane. This length falls slightly below the identified 1,275-foot queue length needed according to the Urban Charter School Queueing Calculator. Although the proposed pick-up and drop-off length is slightly less than the required length, the vehicle queuing calculation does not take into account parameters for reducing the estimated length of 1,275 feet. The school is proposing staggered bell times. Likewise, this queue will likely be reduced while some parents will utilize the existing parking lot located along the northern edge of the project site near the Harmony Road access. Therefore, the proposed drop-off/pick-up queue length for the Fort Collins Montessori School is anticipated to provide sufficient length for school operations upon full school buildout. Of note, with 160 students in the opening year of 2021, the required drop-off and pick-up queue length is 680 feet which will be accommodated onsite. 5.5 Pedestrian Connection Analysis Existing sidewalk exists along the south side of Harmony Road and along the east and west sides of Shields Street adjacent to the proposed school site. These sidewalks connect through the adjacent residential neighborhood surrounding the project area. Likewise, there are designated crosswalks on all four legs of both the Harmony Road/Shields Street and Shields Street/Westbury Drive intersections. Since both of these intersections are signalized, these are signalized pedestrian crossings. These designated crosswalks provide pedestrian access to the residential neighborhoods on all sides of the proposed school site. Designated bicycle lanes are provided along both sides of Harmony Road and Shields Street. Therefore, it is believed that acceptable pedestrian and bicycle connections are available for the proposed school. 5.6 Improvements Summary Based on the results of the intersection operational and queuing analysis, the key intersections recommended configurations and control are shown in Figure 11 for the 2024 horizon and Figure 12 for the 2040 horizon. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 92 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 93 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 94 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 31 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the Fort Collins Montessori School, proposed on the southwest corner of the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado will be successfully incorporated into the existing and future roadway network. The proposed project development resulted in the following recommendations and conclusions: x With development of the project, a right-in/right-out access is proposed along the south side of Harmony Road approximately 420 feet west of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access will primarily serve the parking lot located along the northern edge of the project site. It is recommended that the northbound approach of the proposed T-intersection access include a single right-turn lane and operate with stop control with the installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To further identify this proposed access along Harmony Road as a right-in/right-out driveway, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be placed underneath the STOP sign and a R6-1(R) ONE WAY sign be installed within the existing center raised median along Harmony Road. x With development of the project, a three-quarter movement access is proposed along the west side of Shields Street approximately 450 feet south of the Harmony Road/Shields Street intersection (measured center to center). This access will restrict eastbound left turn exiting movements. This driveway will be the primary access for the proposed student drop- off and pick-up lanes. It is recommended that the eastbound approach of the proposed T- intersection access include a single right turn lane and operate with stop control with the installation of an R1-1 “STOP” sign. To identify the restriction to eastbound right turns only at the proposed Shields Street three-quarter movement access, it is recommended that a R3-2 No Left Turn sign be installed underneath the proposed “STOP” sign. x At the time of school opening, it is recommended that a 150-foot northbound left turn lane be striped at the Shields Street three-quarter access. There is currently sufficient pavement width within the center striped median area to designate this left turn lane without widening Shields Street. It should be developed as a back-to-back left turn lane with the southbound left turn lane at the Westbury Drive and Shields Street intersection to the south. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 95 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School Page 32 x Based on the student drop-off/pick-up vehicle queuing analysis with 300 students, 1,275 feet of vehicle stacking should be provided in order to accommodate the anticipated vehicle demands. The site plan shows approximately 1,225 feet of queue length available for the drop-off/pick-up lanes. Since the proposed pick-up and drop-off queue length is slightly less than the identified length, the school is proposing staggered bell times. This will significantly reduce the queue lengths by spreading the traffic out over different drop-off and pick-up times. Likewise, this queue will likely be reduced while some parents will utilize the existing parking lot located along the northern edge of the project site near the Harmony Road access. Therefore, the proposed drop-off/pick-up queue length for the Fort Collins Montessori School is anticipated to provide sufficient length for school operations upon full school occupancy. Of note, the 160 students anticipated in the 2021 opening year had an identified drop-off and pick-up queue length of 680 feet which will be accommodated onsite. x By 2040 if future traffic volumes are realized, the southbound dual left turn lanes at the Harmony Road and Shields Street intersection may need to be extended from 300 feet to 350 feet. x All on-site improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings and conform to standards of the City of Fort Collins and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – 2009 Edition. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 96 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDICES ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 97 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 98 North: Harmony Road South: Westbury Drive East: West: Property Line Short Range: 2020 Long Range: 2040 Sat: N/A Passby: Overall Trip Distribution Mode Split Assumptions Date: Local Entity Engineering: Study Intersections 1. All access drives Time Period for Study Trip Generation Rates SEE ATTACHED ITE CALCULATION SHEET 9/16/2019 Traffic Engineering: Curtis Rowe Project Name Project Location Full: X Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Captive Market: N/A SEE ATTACHED SKETCH 1% Annual Growth Rate TIS Assumptions NA Areas Requiring Special Study 2. Harmony Rd/Shields St 3. Westbury Dr/Shields St 4 5 6 7 8 SEE ATTACHED ITE CALCULATION SHEET AM: 7:00-8:00 PM: 2:30-3:30 Study Years Trip Adjustment Factors Future Traffic Growth Rate Attachement A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Shields Street Fort Collins Montessori School SWC Harmony Road & Shields Street Project Information Type of Study Intermediate: Study Area Bounderies ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 99 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX B Intersection Count Sheets ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 100 File Name : Harmony and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Groups Printed- Automobiles Harmony Rd Eastbound Harmony Rd Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 28 199 33 1 261 34 94 51 0 179 39 194 39 0 272 96 153 10 0 259 971 07:45 AM 42 192 55 3 292 32 104 76 0 212 42 225 40 0 307 101 191 5 1 298 1109 Total 70 391 88 4 553 66 198 127 0 391 81 419 79 0 579 197 344 15 1 557 2080 08:00 AM 33 161 29 1 224 17 57 50 0 124 22 178 43 0 243 97 135 9 2 243 834 08:15 AM 24 133 37 0 194 19 67 56 1 143 18 199 41 0 258 88 150 13 2 253 848 Grand Total 127 685 154 5 971 102 322 233 1 658 121 796 163 0 1080 382 629 37 5 1053 3762 Apprch % 13.1 70.5 15.9 0.5 15.5 48.9 35.4 0.2 11.2 73.7 15.1 0 36.3 59.7 3.5 0.5 Total % 3.4 18.2 4.1 0.1 25.8 2.7 8.6 6.2 0 17.5 3.2 21.2 4.3 0 28.7 10.2 16.7 10.1 28 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 101 File Name : Harmony and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Sheilds Street Harmony Rd Harmony Rd Sheilds Street Right 37 Thru 629 Left 382 U Turns 5 Out In Total 1156 1053 2209 Right 233 Thru 322 Left 102 U Turns 1 Out InTotal 1230 658 1888 Left 121 Thru 796 Right 163 U Turns 0 Out In Total 885 1080 1965 Left 127 Thru 685 Right 154 U Turns 5 OutTotal In 480 971 1451 8/27/2019 07:30 AM 8/27/2019 08:15 AM Automobiles North File Name : Harmony and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Harmony Rd Eastbound Harmony Rd Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 28 199 33 1 261 34 94 51 0 179 39 194 39 0 272 96 153 10 0 259 971 07:45 AM 42 192 55 3 292 32 104 76 0 212 42 225 40 0 307 101 191 51298 1109 08:00 AM 33 161 29 1 224 17 57 50 0 124 22 178 43 0 243 97 135 9 2 243 834 08:15 AM 24 133 37 0 194 19 67 56 1 143 18 199 41 0 258 88 150 13 2 253 848 Total Volume 127 685 154 5 971 102 322 233 1 658 121 796 163 0 1080 382 629 37 5 1053 3762 % App. Total 13.1 70.5 15.9 0.5 15.5 48.9 35.4 0.2 11.2 73.7 15.1 0 36.3 59.7 3.5 0.5 PHF .756 .861 .700 .417 .831 .750 .774 .766 .250 .776 .720 .884 .948 .000 .879 .946 .823 .712 .625 .883 .848 Sheilds Street Harmony Rd Harmony Rd Sheilds Street Right 37 Thru 629 Left 382 U Turns 5 Out In Total 1156 1053 2209 Right 233 Thru 322 Left File Name : Harmony and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Groups Printed- Automobiles Harmony Rd Eastbound Harmony Rd Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 02:45 PM 69720012342 150 75 0 267 39 132 34 0 205 88 171 13 0 272 867 Total 6 97 20 0 123 42 150 75 0 267 39 132 34 0 205 88 171 13 0 272 867 03:00 PM 23 133 35 0 191 59 162 83 0 304 30 132 41 0 203 85 128 16 2 231 929 03:15 PM 17 109 14 0 140 50 143 88 0 281 25 137 31 0 193 71 149 26 1 247 861 03:30 PM 12 114 16 1 143 43 147 93 0 283 24 153 46 0 223 76 165 27 1 269 918 Grand Total 58 453 85 1 597 194 602 339 0 1135 118 554 152 0 824 320 613 82 4 1019 3575 Apprch % 9.7 75.9 14.2 0.2 17.1 53 29.9 0 14.3 67.2 18.4 0 31.4 60.2 80.4 Total % 1.6 12.7 2.4 0 16.7 5.4 16.8 9.5 0 31.7 3.3 15.5 4.3 0 23 9 17.1 2.3 0.1 28.5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 104 File Name : Harmony and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Sheilds Street Harmony Rd Harmony Rd Sheilds Street Right 82 Thru 613 Left 320 U Turns 4 Out In Total 951 1019 1970 Right 339 Thru 602 Left 194 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 925 1135 2060 Left 118 Thru 554 Right 152 U Turns 0 Out In Total 892 824 1716 Left 58 Thru 453 Right 85 U Turns 1 OutTotal In 802 597 1399 8/27/2019 02:45 PM 8/27/2019 03:30 PM Automobiles North File Name : Harmony and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Harmony Rd and Shields Street Harmony Rd Eastbound Harmony Rd Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 02:45 PM to 03:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM 02:45 PM 69720012342 150 75 0 267 39 132 34 0 205 88 171 13 0 272 867 03:00 PM 23 133 35 0 191 59 162 83 0 304 30 132 41 0 203 85 128 16 2 231 929 03:15 PM 17 109 14 0 140 50 143 88 0 281 25 137 31 0 193 71 149 26 1 247 861 03:30 PM 12 114 16 1 143 43 147 93 0 283 24 153 46 0 223 76 165 27 1 269 918 Total Volume 58 453 85 1 597 194 602 339 0 1135 118 554 152 0 824 320 613 82 4 1019 3575 % App. Total 9.7 75.9 14.2 0.2 17.1 53 29.9 0 14.3 67.2 18.4 0 31.4 60.2 8 0.4 PHF .630 .852 .607 .250 .781 .822 .929 .911 .000 .933 .756 .905 .826 .000 .924 .909 .896 .759 .500 .937 .962 Sheilds Street Harmony Rd Harmony Rd Sheilds Street Right 82 Thru 613 Left 320 U Turns 4 Out In Total 951 1019 1970 Right 339 File Name : Westbury and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Groups Printed- Automobiles Westbury Dr Eastbound School Access Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 403072080102 266 43 0 311 30 186 2 0 218 546 07:45 AM 5100640130171 292 51 0 344 93 190 1 0 284 651 Total 9 1 3 0 13 6 0 21 0 27 3 558 94 0 655 123 376 3 0 502 1197 08:00 AM 20002003030 238 53 0 291 58 118 1 0 177 473 08:15 AM 20103303062 268 87 0 357 88 117 1 0 206 572 Grand Total 131401890270365 1064 234 0 1303 269 611 5 0 885 2242 Apprch % 72.2 5.6 22.2 0 25 0 75 0 0.4 81.7 18 0 30.4 69 0.6 0 Total % 0.6 0 0.2 0 0.8 0.4 0 1.2 0 1.6 0.2 47.5 10.4 0 58.1 12 27.3 0.2 0 39.5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 107 File Name : Westbury and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Sheilds Street Westbury Dr School Access Sheilds Street Right 5 Thru 611 Left 269 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1104 885 1989 Right 27 Thru 0 Left 9 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 504 36 540 Left 5 Thru 1064 Right 234 U Turns 0 Out In Total 624 1303 1927 Left 13 Thru 1 Right 4 U Turns 0 OutTotal In 10 18 28 8/27/2019 07:30 AM 8/27/2019 08:15 AM Automobiles North File Name : Westbury and Shields AM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School AM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Westbury Dr Eastbound School Access Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 403 0 7 2080102 266 43 0 311 30 186 2 0 218 546 07:45 AM 51006 4 0 13 0 17 1 292 51 0 344 93 190 10284 651 08:00 AM 20002003030 238 53 0 291 58 118 1 0 177 473 08:15 AM 20103303062 268 87 0 357 88 117 1 0 206 572 Total Volume 13 1 4 0 18 9 0 27 0 36 5 1064 234 0 1303 269 611 5 0 885 2242 % App. Total 72.2 5.6 22.2 0 25 0 75 0 0.4 81.7 18 0 30.4 69 0.6 0 PHF .650 .250 .333 .000 .643 .563 .000 .519 .000 .529 .625 .911 .672 .000 .912 .723 .804 .625 .000 .779 .861 Sheilds Street Westbury Dr School Access Sheilds Street Right 5 Thru 611 Left 269 U Turns 0 Out In Total 1104 885 1989 Right 27 Thru File Name : Westbury and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 1 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Groups Printed- Automobiles Westbury Dr Eastbound School Access Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 02:45 PM 70108 23 1 32 0 56 1 180 10 0 191 28 198 2 0 228 483 Total 7 0 1 0 8 23 1 32 0 56 1 180 10 0 191 28 198 2 0 228 483 03:00 PM 3000380330410 151 13 0 164 25 197 3 0 225 433 03:15 PM 30306 17 0 49 0 66 0 164 11 0 175 19 184 7 0 210 457 03:30 PM 00000 19 0 52 0 71 0 163 9 0 172 23 203 1 0 227 470 Grand Total 1304017 67 1 166 0 234 1 658 43 0 702 95 782 13 0 890 1843 Apprch % 76.5 0 23.5 0 28.6 0.4 70.9 0 0.1 93.7 6.1 0 10.7 87.9 1.5 0 Total % 0.7 0 0.2 0 0.9 3.6 0.1 9 0 12.7 0.1 35.7 2.3 0 38.1 5.2 42.4 0.7 0 48.3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 110 File Name : Westbury and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 2 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Sheilds Street Westbury Dr School Access Sheilds Street Right 13 Thru 782 Left 95 U Turns 0 Out In Total 837 890 1727 Right 166 Thru 1 Left 67 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 138 234 372 Left 1 Thru 658 Right 43 U Turns 0 Out In Total 853 702 1555 Left 13 Thru 0 Right 4 U Turns 0 OutTotal In 15 17 32 8/27/2019 02:45 PM 8/27/2019 03:30 PM Automobiles North File Name : Westbury and Shields PM Site Code : IPO 454 Start Date : 8/27/2019 Page No : 3 Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Montessori School PM Peak Westbury Dr and Shields Street Westbury Dr Eastbound School Access Westbound Sheilds Street Northbound Sheilds Street 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 02:45 PM to 03:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM 02:45 PM 7 010 8 23 1 32 0 56 1 180 10 0 191 28 198 2 0 228 483 03:00 PM 3000380330410 151 13 0 164 25 197 3 0 225 433 03:15 PM 303 06 17 0 49 0 66 0 164 11 0 175 19 184 7 0 210 457 03:30 PM 00000 19 0 52 0 71 0 163 9 0 172 23 203 1 0 227 470 Total Volume 13 0 4 0 17 67 1 166 0 234 1 658 43 0 702 95 782 13 0 890 1843 % App. Total 76.5 0 23.5 0 28.6 0.4 70.9 0 0.1 93.7 6.1 0 10.7 87.9 1.5 0 PHF .464 .000 .333 .000 .531 .728 .250 .798 .000 .824 .250 .914 .827 .000 .919 .848 .963 .464 .000 .976 .954 Sheilds Street Westbury Dr School Access Sheilds Street Right 13 Thru 782 Left 95 U Turns 0 Out In Total 837 890 1727 Right 166 Thru 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX C Traffic Projection Data ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 113 Street 2009 2018 Growth (%) Harmony Road West of Shields Street 13,620 14,123 0.404 Shields Street South of Harmony Road 18,980 20,525 0.873 Fort Collins Montessori School Growth Projections *Growth Factors based on City of Fort Collins ADT Count Data ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 114 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 117 US-287 Traffic Projections: ROUTE REFPT ENDREFPT LENGTH UPDATEYR AADT OFFPKTRK YR20FACTOR DHV DD ROUTECAPAC VCRATIO VCRATIO20 DVMT VMT LOCATION 287C 340.181 341.542 1.37 2019 35000 2.4 1.18 8.5 54 4500 0.71 0.84 47950 47950 ON SH 287 COLLEGE AVE N/O TRILBY RD CR 34 FT COLLINS 287C 341.542 342.167 0.618 2019 34000 3 1.08 9.5 52 4000 0.84 0.91 21012 21012 ON SH 287 COLLEGE AVE S/O HARMONY RD FT COLLINS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 118 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX D Trip Generation Worksheets ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 119 Project Fort Collins Montessori School Subject Trip Generation for Charter Elementary School Designed by ACK Date Job No. Checked by Date Sheet No. of TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Charter Elementary School (ITE Land Use Code 537) Independant Variable - Students (X) Students = X = 300.0 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Weekday (Series 500 Page 93) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting (T) = 1.85 (X) T = 556 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.85 * (300.0) 278 entering 278 exiting 278 + 278 = 556 AM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 96) Directional Distribution: 53% ent. 47% exit. T = 1.14 (X) T = 342 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 1.14 * 300 181 entering 161 exiting 181 + 161 = 342 PM Peak Hour of Generator (500 Series Page 97) Directional Distribution: 46% ent. 54% exit. T = 0.69 (X) T = 207 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.69 * 300 95 entering 112 exiting 95 + 112 = 207 September 11, 2019 096781002 11 300 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 120 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX E Intersection Analysis Worksheets ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 121 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing AM.syn 1: Shields Street & Harmony Road 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 127 685 154 102 322 233 121 796 163 382 629 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 685 154 102 322 233 121 796 163 382 629 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 167 797 220 136 418 303 168 905 172 402 767 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 325 938 418 219 890 397 229 1345 600 464 1587 708 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.76 0.76 0.13 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 167 797 220 136 418 303 168 905 172 402 767 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 25.5 14.2 6.7 12.0 21.3 5.6 15.1 4.0 13.7 18.3 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 25.5 14.2 6.7 12.0 21.3 5.6 15.1 4.0 13.7 18.3 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325 938 418 219 890 397 229 1345 600 464 1587 708 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.85 0.53 0.62 0.47 0.76 0.73 0.67 0.29 0.87 0.48 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 415 1081 482 318 1051 469 562 1345 600 533 1587 708 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 41.9 37.7 32.8 38.2 41.7 51.0 10.9 9.5 50.9 23.4 19.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 5.9 1.0 2.9 0.4 6.2 4.5 2.7 1.2 12.7 1.1 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 3.6 11.9 5.6 3.1 5.3 9.0 2.5 4.0 1.4 6.7 7.8 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.1 47.8 38.8 35.7 38.6 47.8 55.5 13.6 10.7 63.6 24.5 19.2 LnGrp LOS CDDDDDEBBECB Approach Vol, veh/h 1184 857 1245 1221 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.8 41.4 18.9 37.2 Approach LOS D D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.6 49.9 13.3 36.2 12.5 58.1 14.9 34.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 31.5 15.5 36.5 19.5 30.5 16.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 17.1 8.7 27.5 7.6 20.3 10.2 23.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 6.1 0.2 4.1 0.4 3.9 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 122 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 453 85 194 602 339 118 554 152 320 613 82 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 453 85 194 602 339 118 554 152 320 613 82 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 533 139 237 654 373 155 609 183 352 681 108 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.85 0.61 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 227 791 353 340 1024 457 215 1382 616 409 1581 705 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.12 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 533 139 237 654 373 155 609 183 352 681 108 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 16.5 9.0 11.8 19.3 26.3 5.2 7.0 4.0 12.0 15.8 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 16.5 9.0 11.8 19.3 26.3 5.2 7.0 4.0 12.0 15.8 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 791 353 340 1024 457 215 1382 616 409 1581 705 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.67 0.39 0.70 0.64 0.82 0.72 0.44 0.30 0.86 0.43 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 390 1081 482 623 1555 693 533 1382 616 446 1581 705 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.7 42.7 39.8 30.5 37.3 39.7 51.5 8.9 8.6 51.9 22.9 19.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.0 0.7 2.6 0.7 4.6 4.5 1.0 1.2 14.7 0.9 0.5 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 2.1 7.3 3.6 5.3 8.5 10.7 2.3 2.3 1.4 6.0 6.8 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 43.7 40.5 33.1 37.9 44.3 56.0 9.9 9.8 66.6 23.7 20.3 LnGrp LOS CDDCDDEAAECC Approach Vol, veh/h 764 1264 947 1141 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.0 38.9 17.5 36.6 Approach LOS D D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.7 51.2 18.9 31.2 12.0 57.9 11.0 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 16.5 33.5 36.5 18.5 13.5 17.5 52.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 9.0 13.8 18.5 7.2 17.8 6.7 28.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.8 0.6 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 6.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 123 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 BG AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 133 720 162 107 338 245 127 837 171 401 661 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 133 720 162 107 338 245 127 837 171 401 661 39 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 175 837 231 143 439 318 176 951 180 422 806 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 339 1034 461 229 987 440 239 1223 545 489 1479 660 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.69 0.69 0.14 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 837 231 143 439 318 176 951 180 422 806 55 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 26.2 14.5 6.8 12.2 21.8 5.9 21.6 5.5 14.3 20.6 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 26.2 14.5 6.8 12.2 21.8 5.9 21.6 5.5 14.3 20.6 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 1034 461 229 987 440 239 1223 545 489 1479 660 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.81 0.50 0.62 0.44 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.33 0.86 0.54 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 385 1407 627 284 1377 614 677 1223 545 590 1479 660 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 39.5 35.3 30.9 35.7 39.2 50.6 15.6 13.1 50.4 26.5 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 2.6 0.8 2.8 0.3 2.5 4.3 4.9 1.6 10.9 1.4 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 3.7 11.7 5.7 3.1 5.3 8.7 2.5 5.8 2.0 6.9 8.9 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 42.1 36.2 33.7 36.0 41.7 55.0 20.6 14.8 61.3 27.9 21.4 LnGrp LOS CDDCDDDCBECC Approach Vol, veh/h 1243 900 1307 1283 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.1 37.7 24.4 38.6 Approach LOSDDCD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.5 45.8 13.3 39.4 12.8 54.4 14.9 37.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 21.5 12.5 47.5 23.5 18.5 13.5 46.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 23.6 8.8 28.2 7.9 22.6 10.3 23.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.1 6.7 0.5 0.0 0.1 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 124 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 BG PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 476 89 204 633 356 124 582 160 336 644 86 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 476 89 204 633 356 124 582 160 336 644 86 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 560 146 249 688 391 163 640 193 369 716 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.85 0.61 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 225 787 351 340 1029 459 225 1339 597 436 1556 694 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.75 0.75 0.13 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 560 146 249 688 391 163 640 193 369 716 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 17.5 9.5 12.4 20.5 27.9 5.4 8.3 4.8 12.5 17.0 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 17.5 9.5 12.4 20.5 27.9 5.4 8.3 4.8 12.5 17.0 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 787 351 340 1029 459 225 1339 597 436 1556 694 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.71 0.42 0.73 0.67 0.85 0.73 0.48 0.32 0.85 0.46 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 530 1081 482 599 1229 548 590 1339 597 562 1556 694 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.8 43.2 40.1 30.6 37.6 40.2 51.2 10.2 9.8 51.3 23.7 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.4 0.8 3.1 1.1 10.7 4.4 1.2 1.4 9.2 1.0 0.5 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 2.2 7.8 3.8 5.6 9.0 12.2 2.4 2.7 1.7 6.0 7.3 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 44.5 40.8 33.7 38.7 50.9 55.6 11.5 11.2 60.5 24.7 20.9 LnGrp LOS DDDCDDEBBECC Approach Vol, veh/h 803 1328 996 1198 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.7 41.3 18.6 35.4 Approach LOS D D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 49.7 19.6 31.1 12.3 57.1 11.4 39.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 13.5 32.5 36.5 20.5 12.5 27.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 10.3 14.4 19.5 7.4 19.0 7.0 29.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 1.5 0.7 4.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 125 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Total AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 222 776 162 170 338 245 127 837 171 401 724 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 222 776 162 170 338 245 127 837 171 401 724 39 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 292 902 231 227 439 318 176 951 180 422 883 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 411 1015 453 277 926 413 237 1129 504 473 1372 612 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 292 902 231 227 439 318 176 951 180 422 883 55 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.1 29.2 14.6 11.0 12.5 22.3 5.9 25.2 6.4 14.4 24.4 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.1 29.2 14.6 11.0 12.5 22.3 5.9 25.2 6.4 14.4 24.4 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 411 1015 453 277 926 413 237 1129 504 473 1372 612 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.89 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.77 0.74 0.84 0.36 0.89 0.64 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 416 1081 482 311 1051 469 533 1129 504 475 1372 612 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 41.0 35.9 31.1 37.4 41.0 50.7 19.5 16.1 50.9 30.1 23.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 8.9 0.9 14.5 0.4 6.8 4.5 7.7 2.0 18.7 2.3 0.3 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 6.6 13.9 5.8 5.8 5.5 9.4 2.6 7.7 2.3 7.4 10.8 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.6 50.0 36.7 45.6 37.8 47.8 55.3 27.2 18.1 69.6 32.4 23.7 LnGrp LOS CDDDDDECBECC Approach Vol, veh/h 1425 984 1307 1360 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.3 42.8 29.7 43.6 Approach LOSDDCD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.9 42.6 17.7 38.8 12.7 50.8 20.7 35.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 33.5 15.5 36.5 18.5 31.5 16.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.4 27.2 13.0 31.2 7.9 26.4 16.1 24.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.2 3.1 0.4 2.7 0.0 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 126 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Total PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 123 515 89 237 633 356 124 582 160 336 677 86 Future Volume (veh/h) 123 515 89 237 633 356 124 582 160 336 677 86 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 606 146 289 688 391 163 640 193 369 752 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.85 0.61 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 294 833 372 366 970 433 225 1238 552 436 1455 649 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.13 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 606 146 289 688 391 163 640 193 369 752 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 18.9 9.3 14.1 20.9 28.6 5.4 10.2 5.9 12.5 19.0 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 18.9 9.3 14.1 20.9 28.6 5.4 10.2 5.9 12.5 19.0 5.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 833 372 366 970 433 225 1238 552 436 1455 649 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.73 0.39 0.79 0.71 0.90 0.72 0.52 0.35 0.85 0.52 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 624 1081 482 597 1022 456 619 1238 552 562 1455 649 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.4 42.4 38.7 29.4 39.3 42.1 51.2 13.4 12.7 51.3 26.5 22.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 1.8 0.7 3.9 2.2 20.6 4.4 1.5 1.7 9.2 1.3 0.6 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 8.5 3.7 6.4 9.4 13.5 2.4 3.3 2.1 6.0 8.3 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 44.2 39.4 33.2 41.5 62.7 55.5 14.9 14.5 60.5 27.8 23.1 LnGrp LOS CDDCDEEBBECC Approach Vol, veh/h 947 1368 996 1234 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 45.8 21.5 37.2 Approach LOSDDCD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 46.3 21.4 32.6 12.3 53.6 16.8 37.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 13.5 32.5 36.5 21.5 11.5 34.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 12.2 16.1 20.9 7.4 21.0 11.8 30.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.7 0.8 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.5 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 127 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 BG AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 844 190 126 397 287 149 981 201 471 775 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 157 844 190 126 397 287 149 981 201 471 775 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 981 271 168 516 373 207 1115 212 496 945 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 329 994 444 217 940 419 271 1149 512 554 1439 642 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.65 0.65 0.16 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 981 271 168 516 373 207 1115 212 496 945 65 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 33.0 17.8 8.1 15.0 27.2 6.9 35.7 7.7 16.9 25.9 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 33.0 17.8 8.1 15.0 27.2 6.9 35.7 7.7 16.9 25.9 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 329 994 444 217 940 419 271 1149 512 554 1439 642 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.99 0.61 0.78 0.55 0.89 0.76 0.97 0.41 0.90 0.66 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 392 994 444 381 1051 469 648 1149 512 590 1439 642 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.7 43.0 37.5 32.1 38.0 42.4 49.5 20.7 15.7 49.4 28.9 22.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 25.2 2.5 5.9 0.5 17.4 4.4 20.4 2.5 15.6 2.4 0.3 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 4.5 17.8 7.2 3.8 6.6 12.6 3.0 12.2 2.7 8.5 11.4 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.0 68.2 40.0 37.9 38.5 59.8 53.9 41.0 18.2 65.0 31.3 22.5 LnGrp LOS C E D D D E D D B E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 1057 1534 1506 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.7 45.9 39.6 42.0 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.7 43.3 14.9 38.1 13.9 53.1 16.7 36.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 29.5 21.5 30.5 22.5 27.5 16.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.9 37.7 10.1 35.0 8.9 27.9 12.0 29.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 128 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 BG PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 558 105 239 742 418 145 683 187 394 755 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 558 105 239 742 418 145 683 187 394 755 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 656 172 291 807 459 191 751 225 433 839 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.85 0.61 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 220 824 367 345 1086 485 254 1195 533 495 1443 644 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.67 0.67 0.14 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 656 172 291 807 459 191 751 225 433 839 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 20.9 11.2 14.4 24.5 34.0 6.4 14.4 7.8 14.7 22.0 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 20.9 11.2 14.4 24.5 34.0 6.4 14.4 7.8 14.7 22.0 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 824 367 345 1086 485 254 1195 533 495 1443 644 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.80 0.47 0.84 0.74 0.95 0.75 0.63 0.42 0.87 0.58 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 1229 548 388 1086 485 590 1195 533 562 1443 644 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.1 43.4 39.7 30.2 37.4 40.7 50.1 15.4 14.3 50.3 27.7 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 2.2 0.9 14.2 2.8 28.1 4.5 2.5 2.4 13.1 1.7 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 2.6 9.4 4.5 7.4 11.0 16.9 2.8 4.4 0.4 7.3 9.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 45.7 40.6 44.3 40.2 68.8 54.6 17.9 16.8 63.5 29.4 23.8 LnGrp LOS CDDDDEDBBECC Approach Vol, veh/h 941 1557 1167 1405 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.5 49.4 23.7 39.4 Approach LOSDDCD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 44.8 21.1 32.3 13.3 53.2 12.3 41.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 21.5 19.5 41.5 20.5 20.5 25.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 16.4 16.4 22.9 8.4 24.0 7.7 36.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.6 0.3 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 129 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 246 900 190 189 397 287 149 981 201 471 838 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 246 900 190 189 397 287 149 981 201 471 838 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 324 1047 271 252 516 373 207 1115 212 496 1022 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 356 1081 482 236 1051 469 271 1140 509 446 1321 589 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 324 1047 271 252 516 373 207 1115 212 496 1022 65 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 34.9 17.2 11.5 14.4 26.0 6.9 36.2 7.9 15.5 30.4 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 34.9 17.2 11.5 14.4 26.0 6.9 36.2 7.9 15.5 30.4 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 356 1081 482 236 1051 469 271 1140 509 446 1321 589 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.97 0.56 1.07 0.49 0.80 0.76 0.98 0.42 1.11 0.77 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 1081 482 236 1051 469 619 1140 509 446 1321 589 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 41.2 35.0 32.4 34.8 38.9 49.5 21.1 16.0 52.3 33.3 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.7 20.1 1.5 77.2 0.4 9.2 4.5 21.9 2.5 76.4 4.5 0.4 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 6.3 18.1 6.8 9.8 6.3 11.2 3.0 12.7 2.7 11.4 13.8 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.2 61.3 36.5 109.5 35.2 48.1 54.0 43.0 18.5 128.7 37.7 25.1 LnGrp LOS EEDFDDDDBFDC Approach Vol, veh/h 1642 1141 1534 1583 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 55.8 41.1 65.7 Approach LOS E E D E Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 43.0 16.0 41.0 13.9 49.1 17.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 38.5 11.5 36.5 21.5 32.5 12.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 38.2 13.5 36.9 8.9 32.4 14.5 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 130 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 133 597 105 272 742 418 145 683 187 394 788 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 133 597 105 272 742 418 145 683 187 394 788 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 211 702 172 332 807 459 191 751 225 433 876 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.85 0.61 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 289 852 380 375 1027 458 254 1098 490 495 1346 600 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.62 0.62 0.14 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 702 172 332 807 459 191 751 225 433 876 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 22.5 11.1 16.1 25.1 34.7 6.4 16.8 9.1 14.7 24.4 6.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 22.5 11.1 16.1 25.1 34.7 6.4 16.8 9.1 14.7 24.4 6.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 289 852 380 375 1027 458 254 1098 490 495 1346 600 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.82 0.45 0.89 0.79 1.00 0.75 0.68 0.46 0.87 0.65 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 607 1081 482 576 1027 458 619 1098 490 562 1346 600 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 43.2 38.9 28.9 39.3 42.7 50.1 19.1 17.6 50.3 30.7 25.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 4.2 0.8 10.4 4.1 42.7 4.4 3.5 3.1 13.1 2.5 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 4.8 10.3 4.4 7.9 11.5 18.8 2.8 5.3 3.1 7.3 10.8 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 47.5 39.8 39.3 43.4 85.3 54.6 22.5 20.7 63.5 33.2 26.1 LnGrp LOS DDDDDFDCCECC Approach Vol, veh/h 1085 1598 1167 1442 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.8 54.6 27.4 41.6 Approach LOSDDCD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 41.6 23.5 33.3 13.3 49.9 17.6 39.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 13.5 32.5 36.5 21.5 11.5 34.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 18.8 18.1 24.5 8.4 26.4 12.5 36.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 131 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1064 234 269 611 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1064 234 269 611 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 4 12 16 0 52 8 1169 349 374 764 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.25 0.33 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 17 25 137 0 78 588 2048 602 401 3112 1388 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.16 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 673 340 507 1570 0 1585 698 2708 796 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 0 16 0 52 8 761 757 374 764 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1520 0 0 1570 0 1585 698 1777 1727 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.3 21.9 22.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.3 21.9 22.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 0 0 137 0 78 588 1344 1306 401 3112 1388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.57 0.58 0.93 0.25 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 545 0 0 540 0 535 588 1344 1306 678 3112 1388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1 3.6 6.2 6.3 17.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.4 0.0 1.7 1.9 13.0 0.2 0.0 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 7.6 7.8 9.2 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 65.5 3.6 8.0 8.2 30.1 0.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAEAEAAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 36 68 1526 1146 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 63.0 8.1 9.9 Approach LOSEEAA Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 95.3 10.4 109.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 37.5 40.5 70.5 40.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 24.8 4.7 2.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 8.4 0.2 6.6 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 132 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 658 43 95 782 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 658 43 95 782 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 0 12 92 4 208 4 723 52 112 815 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.46 0.92 0.33 0.73 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.96 0.46 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 133 9 39 265 10 246 512 2325 167 555 2736 1220 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.08 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 527 57 251 1331 67 1585 653 3362 242 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 0 96 0 208 4 382 393 112 815 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 835 0 0 1398 0 1585 653 1777 1827 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.2 10.1 10.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 15.3 0.2 10.1 10.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.30 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 0 276 0 246 512 1229 1264 555 2736 1220 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.85 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.30 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 655 0 0 806 0 839 512 1229 1264 727 2736 1220 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 49.3 5.7 7.3 7.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.8 3.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 57.1 5.8 7.9 7.9 4.7 0.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS DAADAEAAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 40 304 779 955 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.5 53.8 7.9 0.8 Approach LOS D D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 87.5 23.1 96.9 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 26.5 63.5 47.5 63.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 12.1 11.9 2.0 17.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.3 0.2 7.1 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 133 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 BG AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1118 234 269 642 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1118 234 269 642 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 4 12 16 0 52 8 1229 349 374 802 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.25 0.33 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 17 25 137 0 78 561 2040 569 401 3112 1388 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.19 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 673 340 507 1570 0 1585 673 2745 765 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 0 16 0 52 8 788 790 374 802 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1520 0 0 1570 0 1585 673 1777 1733 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.4 24.5 25.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.4 24.5 25.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 0 0 137 0 78 561 1321 1288 401 3112 1388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.60 0.61 0.93 0.26 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 545 0 0 540 0 535 561 1321 1288 654 3112 1388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1 4.0 7.1 7.3 19.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.4 0.0 2.0 2.2 14.1 0.2 0.0 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 8.7 9.0 9.1 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 65.5 4.0 9.1 9.5 33.6 0.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAEAEAAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 36 68 1586 1184 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 63.0 9.2 10.7 Approach LOSEEAB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.9 93.7 10.4 109.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 37.5 40.5 70.5 40.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 27.8 4.7 2.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 7.0 0.2 7.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 134 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 BG PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 692 43 95 822 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 692 43 95 822 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 0 12 92 4 208 4 760 52 112 856 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.46 0.92 0.33 0.73 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.96 0.46 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 130 9 38 262 10 242 496 2343 160 539 2745 1224 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.08 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 520 58 248 1330 67 1585 628 3375 231 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 0 96 0 208 4 400 412 112 856 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 826 0 0 1397 0 1585 628 1777 1829 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.2 10.7 10.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 15.4 0.2 10.7 10.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.30 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 177 0 0 272 0 242 496 1234 1270 539 2745 1224 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.86 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.31 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 0 0 404 0 390 496 1234 1270 756 2745 1224 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 49.6 5.6 7.2 7.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 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 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.0 4.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 60.1 5.7 7.9 7.9 4.7 0.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS DAADAEAAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 40 304 816 996 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.8 56.0 7.9 0.8 Approach LOS D E A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 87.8 22.8 97.2 22.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 57.5 29.5 81.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 12.7 11.9 2.0 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.2 0.1 7.8 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 135 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Total AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1136 234 269 658 118 Future Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1136 234 269 658 118 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 4 12 16 0 52 8 1248 349 374 822 190 Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.25 0.33 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 17 25 137 0 78 472 2038 559 401 3112 1388 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.20 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 673 340 507 1570 0 1585 557 2755 756 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 0 16 0 52 8 796 801 374 822 190 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1520 0 0 1570 0 1585 557 1777 1734 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.5 25.4 26.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.5 25.4 26.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 0 0 137 0 78 472 1314 1282 401 3112 1388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.61 0.62 0.93 0.26 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 545 0 0 540 0 535 472 1314 1282 647 3112 1388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1 4.1 7.4 7.6 20.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.4 0.1 2.1 2.3 14.4 0.2 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 9.1 9.5 9.0 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 65.5 4.2 9.5 9.9 34.7 0.2 0.2 LnGrp LOS EAAEAEAAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 36 68 1605 1386 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 63.0 9.6 9.5 Approach LOSEEAA Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.4 93.2 10.4 109.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 37.5 40.5 70.5 40.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 28.8 4.7 2.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 6.5 0.2 8.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 136 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Total PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 702 43 95 833 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 702 43 95 833 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 0 12 92 4 208 4 771 52 112 868 198 Peak Hour Factor 0.46 0.92 0.33 0.73 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.96 0.46 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 127 9 36 257 10 236 429 2357 159 537 2757 1230 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.08 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 509 60 244 1329 67 1585 529 3378 228 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 0 96 0 208 4 405 418 112 868 198 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 813 0 0 1396 0 1585 529 1777 1829 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.3 10.7 10.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 15.4 0.3 10.7 10.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.30 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 0 0 267 0 236 429 1240 1276 537 2757 1230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.88 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.31 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 210 0 0 309 0 284 429 1240 1276 888 2757 1230 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.0 46.7 0.0 50.0 5.5 7.1 7.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 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 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.6 0.0 4.0 4.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 0.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 72.9 5.6 7.8 7.8 4.6 0.3 0.3 LnGrp LOS DAADAEAAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 40 304 827 1178 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.3 64.8 7.8 0.7 Approach LOS D E A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 88.2 22.4 97.6 22.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 56.5 21.5 89.5 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 12.7 12.0 2.0 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 6.3 0.1 8.8 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 137 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 BG AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1311 234 269 753 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1311 234 269 753 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 4 12 16 0 52 8 1441 349 374 941 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.25 0.33 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 17 25 137 0 78 477 2012 473 400 3112 1388 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.27 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 673 340 507 1570 0 1585 591 2855 672 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 0 16 0 52 8 881 909 374 941 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1520 0 0 1570 0 1585 591 1777 1749 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.5 34.8 38.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.5 34.8 38.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 0 0 137 0 78 477 1252 1233 400 3112 1388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.70 0.74 0.94 0.30 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 545 0 0 540 0 535 477 1252 1233 585 3112 1388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1 5.3 10.4 10.9 26.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.4 0.1 3.3 4.0 17.7 0.3 0.0 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 13.3 14.5 10.8 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 65.5 5.4 13.7 14.8 43.9 0.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAEAEABBDAA Approach Vol, veh/h 36 68 1798 1323 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 63.0 14.2 12.6 Approach LOSEEBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 89.1 10.4 109.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 37.5 40.5 70.5 40.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 40.3 4.7 2.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.0 0.2 8.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 138 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 BG PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 811 43 95 964 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 811 43 95 964 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 0 12 92 4 208 4 891 52 112 1004 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.46 0.92 0.33 0.73 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.96 0.46 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 128 9 37 258 10 237 441 2379 139 483 2755 1229 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.08 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 511 59 245 1329 67 1585 547 3412 199 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 0 96 0 208 4 464 479 112 1004 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 815 0 0 1396 0 1585 547 1777 1835 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.3 12.8 12.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 15.4 0.3 12.8 12.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.30 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 0 0 268 0 237 441 1239 1279 483 2755 1229 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.88 0.01 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.36 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 221 0 0 321 0 297 441 1239 1279 938 2755 1229 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 49.9 5.5 7.4 7.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.0 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 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.8 5.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.2 0.0 0.0 47.4 0.0 70.7 5.6 8.3 8.3 5.0 0.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS DAADAEAAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 40 304 947 1144 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 63.4 8.3 0.8 Approach LOS D E A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 88.2 22.5 97.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.5 48.5 22.5 88.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 14.8 12.0 2.0 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 7.3 0.1 9.9 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 139 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1329 234 269 769 118 Future Volume (veh/h) 131490275 1329 234 269 769 118 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 4 12 16 0 52 8 1460 349 374 961 190 Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.25 0.33 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 17 25 137 0 78 404 2016 468 397 3113 1388 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.27 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 673 340 506 1571 0 1585 488 2863 664 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 0 16 0 52 8 889 920 374 961 190 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1519 0 0 1571 0 1585 488 1777 1751 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.6 35.6 39.3 13.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.6 35.6 39.3 13.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 0 0 137 0 78 404 1251 1233 397 3113 1388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.71 0.75 0.94 0.31 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 508 0 0 505 0 495 404 1251 1233 477 3113 1388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1 5.3 10.5 11.1 26.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.5 0.1 3.4 4.1 25.0 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 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 13.6 14.9 11.6 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 65.5 5.4 14.0 15.2 51.9 0.3 0.2 LnGrp LOS EAAEAEABBDAA Approach Vol, veh/h 36 68 1817 1525 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 63.1 14.5 12.9 Approach LOSEEBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.6 89.0 10.4 109.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 47.5 37.5 73.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 41.3 4.7 2.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 5.3 0.1 10.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 140 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Total PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 821 43 95 975 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 0 4 67 1 166 1 821 43 95 975 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 0 12 92 4 208 4 902 52 112 1016 198 Peak Hour Factor 0.46 0.92 0.33 0.73 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.96 0.46 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 124 9 35 252 10 231 383 2394 138 482 2769 1235 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.08 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 499 61 240 1328 67 1585 460 3415 197 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 0 96 0 208 4 469 485 112 1016 198 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 800 0 0 1395 0 1585 460 1777 1835 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.3 12.9 12.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 15.5 0.3 12.9 12.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.30 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 0 0 262 0 231 383 1246 1286 482 2769 1235 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.90 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.37 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 168 0 0 262 0 231 383 1246 1286 832 2769 1235 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 50.4 5.4 7.3 7.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 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 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.8 5.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.7 0.0 0.0 47.9 0.0 84.3 5.5 8.2 8.1 4.9 0.4 0.3 LnGrp LOS DAADAFAAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 40 304 958 1326 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.7 72.8 8.1 0.7 Approach LOS D E A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 88.6 22.0 98.0 22.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 60.5 17.5 93.5 17.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 14.9 12.0 2.0 17.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 7.8 0.0 11.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 141 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Total AM.syn 3: Access & Harmony Road 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1128 36 0 504 0 32 Future Vol, veh/h 1128 36 0 504 0 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 50 50 77 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1312 72 0 655 0 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 692 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 386 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 386 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 16.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 386 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.166 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - - You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 142 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Total PM.syn 3: Access & Harmony Road 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 704 19 0 843 0 22 Future Vol, veh/h 704 19 0 843 0 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 50 50 92 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 828 38 0 916 0 44 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 433 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 571 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 571 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 571 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.077 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 143 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total AM.syn 3: Access & Harmony Road 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1303 36 0 592 0 32 Future Vol, veh/h 1303 36 0 592 0 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 50 50 77 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1515 72 0 769 0 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 794 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 331 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 331 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 18.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 331 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.193 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.5 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - - You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 144 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total PM.syn 3: Access & Harmony Road 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 813 19 0 988 0 22 Future Vol, veh/h 813 19 0 988 0 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 50 50 92 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 956 38 0 1074 0 44 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 497 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 519 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 519 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 519 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.085 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 145 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Total AM.syn 5: Shields Street & Access 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 129 18 1160 930 127 Future Vol, veh/h 0 129 18 1160 930 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 85 85 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 258 36 1365 1094 254 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1976 674 1348 0 - 0 Stage 1 1221 - - - - - Stage 2 755 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *124 *685 738 - - - Stage 1 *523 - - - - - Stage 2 *572 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *118 *685 738 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *289 - - - - - Stage 1 *497 - - - - - Stage 2 *572 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.4 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 738 - - 685 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - - 0.377 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 0 13.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B - A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.8 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 146 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Total PM.syn 5: Shields Street & Access 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 90 10 880 935 67 Future Vol, veh/h 0 90 10 880 935 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 150 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 92 92 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 180 20 957 1016 134 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1602 575 1150 0 - 0 Stage 1 1083 - - - - - Stage 2 519 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *228 *685 964 - - - Stage 1 *646 - - - - - Stage 2 *671 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *223 *685 964 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *395 - - - - - Stage 1 *633 - - - - - Stage 2 *671 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.1 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 964 - - 685 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.263 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 0 12.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 147 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total AM.syn 5: Shields Street & Access 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 129 18 1361 1091 127 Future Vol, veh/h 0 129 18 1361 1091 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 150 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 2 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 92 92 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 258 36 1479 1186 254 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2125 720 1440 0 - 0 Stage 1 1313 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *117 *633 717 - - - Stage 1 *526 - - - - - Stage 2 *474 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *111 *633 717 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *330 - - - - - Stage 1 *500 - - - - - Stage 2 *474 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 717 - - 633 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.408 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 0 14.5 - - HCM Lane LOS B - A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 2 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 148 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total PM.syn 5: Shields Street & Access 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 90 10 1032 1097 67 Future Vol, veh/h 0 90 10 1032 1097 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 150 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 92 92 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 180 20 1122 1192 134 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1860 663 1326 0 - 0 Stage 1 1259 - - - - - Stage 2 601 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *142 *633 846 - - - Stage 1 *584 - - - - - Stage 2 *622 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *139 *633 846 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *331 - - - - - Stage 1 *570 - - - - - Stage 2 *622 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 846 - - 633 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.284 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - 0 12.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.2 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 149 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX F Queueing Analysis Worksheets ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 150 Queues 2024 Total AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 902 231 227 439 318 176 951 180 422 883 55 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.86 0.38 0.82 0.43 0.47 0.54 0.91 0.30 0.89 0.74 0.09 Control Delay 29.8 49.4 7.5 52.2 36.2 5.9 70.4 49.1 10.0 71.9 40.6 1.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.8 49.4 7.5 52.2 36.2 5.9 70.4 49.1 10.0 71.9 40.6 1.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 140 343 11 116 143 0 74 308 3 168 324 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 400 27 156 161 29 90 #490 m67 #257 370 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 907 438 485 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 225 400 275 225 325 300 175 Base Capacity (vph) 445 1077 627 291 1046 692 529 1042 593 479 1195 597 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.84 0.37 0.78 0.42 0.46 0.33 0.91 0.30 0.88 0.74 0.09 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 151 Queues 2024 Total PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 606 146 289 688 391 163 640 193 369 752 113 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.73 0.30 0.79 0.71 0.54 0.52 0.59 0.31 0.72 0.58 0.18 Control Delay 31.5 47.5 6.8 41.3 43.0 5.9 55.5 42.0 11.9 56.5 35.3 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.5 47.5 6.8 41.3 43.0 5.9 55.5 42.0 11.9 56.5 35.3 10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 233 0 151 254 0 62 181 0 142 242 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 245 5 178 290 67 82 #403 69 186 #412 40 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 907 438 485 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 225 400 275 225 325 300 175 Base Capacity (vph) 566 1082 585 529 1065 749 615 1086 619 577 1292 638 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.56 0.25 0.55 0.65 0.52 0.27 0.59 0.31 0.64 0.58 0.18 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 152 Queues 2040 Total AM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 324 1047 271 252 516 373 207 1115 212 496 1022 65 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.97 0.43 1.09 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.98 0.33 1.12 0.84 0.10 Control Delay 53.9 63.2 10.5 116.3 36.8 10.3 63.5 58.8 12.3 127.0 43.9 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.9 63.2 10.5 116.3 36.8 10.3 63.5 58.8 12.3 127.0 43.9 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 170 421 33 ~168 173 37 88 373 31 ~227 381 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #204 #520 46 #240 188 67 m102 #564 m70 #336 428 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 907 438 485 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 225 400 275 225 325 300 175 Base Capacity (vph) 363 1076 629 231 1046 685 615 1135 648 443 1222 636 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.97 0.43 1.09 0.49 0.54 0.34 0.98 0.33 1.12 0.84 0.10 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. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 153 Queues 2040 Total PM.syn 1: Harmony Road & Shields Street 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 702 172 332 807 459 191 751 225 433 876 133 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.70 0.30 0.85 0.72 0.56 0.56 0.89 0.41 0.79 0.83 0.25 Control Delay 27.6 41.5 5.3 44.4 39.8 5.2 57.5 61.3 16.3 59.3 48.5 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.6 41.5 5.3 44.4 39.8 5.2 57.5 61.3 16.3 59.3 48.5 15.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 256 0 165 290 0 75 247 0 165 332 21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 260 2 199 321 65 97 #582 80 #225 #651 60 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 907 438 485 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 225 400 275 225 325 300 175 Base Capacity (vph) 573 1142 627 547 1153 825 615 846 549 579 1059 540 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.61 0.27 0.61 0.70 0.56 0.31 0.89 0.41 0.75 0.83 0.25 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 154 Queues 2024 Total AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 16 52 8 1597 374 823 190 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.16 0.35 0.02 0.75 0.78 0.26 0.13 Control Delay 48.6 55.4 19.4 12.2 20.4 30.0 2.8 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.6 55.4 19.4 12.2 20.4 30.0 2.8 1.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 12 0 2 446 209 56 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 35 4 7 645 220 112 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 157 101 196 616 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 225 325 200 Base Capacity (vph) 499 558 570 395 2136 490 3137 1424 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.75 0.76 0.26 0.13 Intersection Summary You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 155 Queues 2024 Total PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 96 208 4 823 112 868 198 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.59 0.57 0.01 0.33 0.21 0.30 0.15 Control Delay 8.8 64.1 12.5 7.0 7.4 2.7 2.0 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.8 64.1 12.5 7.0 7.4 2.7 2.0 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 72 0 1 109 7 29 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 31 42 2 178 22 73 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 157 101 196 616 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 225 325 200 Base Capacity (vph) 288 255 454 434 2505 740 2868 1320 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.38 0.46 0.01 0.33 0.15 0.30 0.15 Intersection Summary You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 156 Queues 2040 Total AM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 16 52 8 1809 374 961 190 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.16 0.35 0.02 0.86 0.79 0.31 0.13 Control Delay 48.6 55.4 19.4 12.6 25.9 35.9 2.5 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.6 55.4 19.4 12.6 25.9 35.9 2.5 1.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 12 0 2 584 238 52 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 35 4 7 #888 m240 m114 m9 Internal Link Dist (ft) 157 101 196 616 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 225 325 200 Base Capacity (vph) 463 517 532 338 2107 472 3137 1424 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.86 0.79 0.31 0.13 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 157 Queues 2040 Total PM.syn 2: Shields Street & Westbury Drive 09/16/2019 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 96 208 4 954 112 1016 198 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.58 0.01 0.38 0.24 0.35 0.15 Control Delay 9.4 67.2 13.2 6.0 7.4 3.4 2.2 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.4 67.2 13.2 6.0 7.4 3.4 2.2 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 72 0 1 132 6 30 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 32 43 1 197 m15 68 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 157 101 196 616 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 225 325 200 Base Capacity (vph) 240 208 408 377 2526 697 2886 1327 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.46 0.51 0.01 0.38 0.16 0.35 0.15 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 158 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX G Student Drop-Off and Pick-Up Queuing Analysis Worksheets ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 159 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 20 63 31 680 199 126 885 215 52.91% 47.50% 22.19 46.12% Grade 11 50.08% 47.58% 22.83 55.71% Grade 12 Sum >> 160 20 63 31 680 199 126 885 204 Grade K-10 AM Trips Generated PM Trips Generated Direction Parents Buses Staff Trips Parents Buses Staff Trips IN 90 20 110 63 63 OUT 90 90 63 63 ADT 199 126 345 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 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 110 In 63 Out 90 Out 63 Total 199 Total 126 345 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 Fort Collins Montessori School - Opening Enrollment AM 12 Trips PM 12 Trips MSTA School Queue Input Type School Student Population Number of Buses Staff Members Student Drivers Total AM Trips 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-10 300 20 118 57 1274 356 236 1657 427 52.91% 47.50% 22.19 46.12% Grade 11 50.08% 47.58% 22.83 55.71% Grade 12 Sum >> 300 20 118 57 1274 356 236 1657 382 Grade K-10 AM Trips Generated PM Trips Generated Direction Parents Buses Staff Trips Parents Buses Staff Trips IN 168 20 188 118 118 OUT 168 168 118 118 ADT 356 236 612 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 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 188 In 118 Out 168 Out 118 Total 356 Total 236 612 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 Fort Collins Montessori School - Full Capacity Enrollment AM 12 Trips PM 12 Trips MSTA School Queue Input Type School Student Population Number of Buses Staff Members Student Drivers Total AM Trips Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 096781002 – Fort Collins Montessori School APPENDIX H Conceptual Site Plan ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 162 WEST HARMONY ROAD (PUBLIC ROW) SOUTH SHIELDS STREET (PUBLIC ROW) WESTBURY PUD 1ST REC. NO. 94098087 LOT 16 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 12 LOT 11 TRACT B SUBJECT PARCEL 187,034 SQ. FT. 4.294 ACRES 4626 SOUTH SHIELDS ST. PARCEL NO. 9603100009 ∆ ∆ ∆ DETENTION AREA DROP OFF LANE DROP OFF ENHANCED CONCRETE PLAZA AREA CONNECTING CONCRETE WALK TO EXISTING WALK FUTURE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE PRIMARY PLAYGROUND (3-5 YRS.) PROPOSED PRIMARY SCHOOL CONCRETE PATIO, (TYP) PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT (EAST BOUND) (SOUTH BOUND) EXISTING MEDIAN EXISTING MEDIAN 380.6' PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION EXISTING WOOD OUT BUILDING TO REMAIN FUTURE ELEMENTRAY TEMPORARY FENCE RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT / LEFT-IN UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: COVER SHEET C-1 1 RJP RJP VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,000' N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 1109 W HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS CO LOCATED IN THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. October 19 SITE CONTACT INFORMATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITECT: SURVEYOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ENGINEER AFFIRMATION STATEMENT UTILITY CONTACTS LIGHT & POWER WATER & WASTEWATER STORMWATER TELEPHONE SERVICE NATURAL GAS CABLE SERIVCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX # DWG. NO SHEET TITLE 1 C-1 COVER SHEET UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R GENERAL NOTES C-2 2 RJP RJP CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL PUBLIC WATER/WASTEWATER STANDARD NOTES: STORM DRAINAGE NOTES: CITY OF FORT COLLINS CONSTRUCTION NOTES: FORT COLLINS GENERAL NOTES: ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 165 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT NOTES LEGEND: DEMOLITION PLAN C-3 3 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 166 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C-4 4 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 167 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: UTILITY PLAN C-5 5 ___ ___ NOTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 168 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: SANITARY PLAN & PROFILE C-6 6 ___ ___ NOTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 169 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: FLOWLINE PLAN & PROFILE C-7 7 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TYPICAL SHIELDS STREET CROSS-SECTION UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 170 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: STRIPING PLAN C-8 8 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 171 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: GRADING PLAN C-9 9 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 172 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: DETAILED GRADING PLAN C-10 10 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ADA/HANDICAPPED PARKING AREA SOUTHEAST ACCESS NORTHWEST ACCESS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 173 N UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R BENCHMARK STATEMENT LEGEND: DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-11 11 ___ ___ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED BASIN FLOWS STANDARD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES EROSION BMP LEGEND DETENTION SUMMARY ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 174 UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R DETAIL SHEET 1 C-12 12 RJP RJP DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SP-2 2' CURB CUT DETAIL NOT TO SCALE CURB & GUTTER / SIDEWALK TOOLED JOINT SIDEWALK EXPANSION JOINT SP-8 CONCRETE JOINTS (PRIVATE) DETAIL NOT TO SCALE CATCHCURB CURB SPILL SP-1 18" CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SP-7 ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION (PRIVATE) CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 175 UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R DETAIL SHEET 2 C-13 13 RJP RJP ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 176 UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R DETAIL SHEET 3 C-14 14 RJP RJP ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 177 UTILITY PLANS FOR FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4045 St. Cloud Drive, Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80538 [P] 970-622-2095 [F] 970-461-4469 1109 W HARMONY ROAD NE1 4 OF SECTION 3, T6N, R69W, 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DWG. NAME 15 NO.REVISIONDATE SHEET NO. OF PROJECT: DATE: DESIGNER: DRAFTER: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: 2259.03 09/07/18 TWC TWC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Know what's R DETAIL SHEET 4 C-15 15 RJP RJP DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SECTION C SECTION B SECTION A WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE - PLAN VIEW EARTHEN SPILLWAY ELEVATION DR-1A WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 178 LOT 1 183,703 SQ. FT. 4.217 ACRES ROW DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 3,331 SQ. FT. 0.077 ACRES VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1000' MONTESSORI SUBDIVISION Situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado MAJESTIC SURVEYING, LLC 1111 DIAMOND VALLEY DRIVE #104, WINDSOR, CO 80550 PROJECT NO: 2019031 DATE: 10-11-2019 DRAWN BY: SIP PROJECT NAME: MONTESSORI FILE NAME: 2019031SUB CLIENT: DCS CHECKED BY: SIP SCALE: 1" = 30' 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 REVISIONS: DATE: STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION: Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned, being owner(s) of the following described land: A parcel of land situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section Three (3), Township Six North (T.6N.), Range Sixty-nine West (R.69W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.) being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; Thence West, along the North line of said Section, 500 feet; Thence South 500 feet; Thence East 500 feet to the East line of said Section; Thence North along the East line of said Section, 500 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, EXCEPT those parcels described as Parcels 2 and 2A in Stipulated Rule and Order recorded November 3, 2009 at Reception No. 20090073915, Larimer County records. Said parcel contains 187,034 Square Feet or 4.294 Acres more or less by this survey. surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as MONTESSORI SUBDIVISION (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicated on this Plat. The rights and obligations of the Plat shall run with the land. ________________________________________________ BY: AS: NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 20___. Witness my Hand and Official Seal. My commission expires: ________________. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby state that this Subdivision Plat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the forgoing Plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Steven Parks - On Behalf of Majestic Surveying, LLC Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor #38348 BASIS OF BEARINGS AND LINEAL UNIT DEFINITION Assuming the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township, 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., bearings contained herein relative thereto. The lineal dimensions as contained herein are based upon the "U.S. Survey Foot". NOTICE Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/ DevelopmentReview Fort Collins Montessori School – Proposed Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Notes September 23, 2019 Meeting Date 23 Church These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript. Please contact staff at any time with any comments or questions: Clark Mapes, City Planner, ph 970.221.6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison, ph 970.221.6076, statman-burruss@fcgov.com Steve Gilchrist, City Traffic Engineering, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Agenda 1. Purpose of the Meeting and City Process Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City of Fort Collins Development Review Liaison Sylvia introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the City. The meeting purpose is to share information between the prospective developer and interested community members, with City staff supporting as is helpful. The meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they formulate an actual development plan application for submittal to the City for review. Notes from the meeting would eventually be provided to the decision maker, which in this case would be the board of education. The process for the proposed Charter School is governed by State statute. The statute requires that an application be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at a hearing within 30 days of a development plan submittal. The Planning and Zoning Board reviews the plan and provides comments to the board of education. Notes from the meeting are emailed to those who sign in. If a project proceeds to a hearing, another mailing would be sent to the same affected property owners who received the mailing for this neighborhood meeting. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 180 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 2. The Proposed Development Project David Kasprzak, Landscape Architect and Land Planner, The FronTerra Group (aka TFG Design) Jeff Reed, Fort Collins Montessori School Rick Hazel, Hauser Architects David explained the context of the site and preliminary thinking about the proposed plan. The property is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zoning district. Zoning lists permitted uses, and the school is a permitted use. The plan is to develop the school in three phases. Total buildout would accommodate about 300 students ages 3-12. The plan proposes access from both Harmony Road and Shields Street. These arterials have limitations on turning movements. The design of access to and from Shields Street would be determined by review of traffic study information. Circulation on the site includes a loop turnaround so that vehicles could enter and also leave on Harmony. The proposed plan provides queuing space for drop-offs and pick-ups. Times are staggered. The building is situated so that kids are separated from traffic at the large intersection, creating outdoor play areas and picnic space in the area behind the building, and keeping the parking lot away from back yards. Stormwater detention would be within the loop drive median, and at the corner. There are a lot of trees on the site and the intent is to retain as many as possible, particularly the spruces along the western edge of the property. Preliminary architecture for the buildings was presented. The design is residential in character with single-story buildings, pitched roofs, siding, and modulated proportions that reduce the scale of the buildings. 3. Questions and Discussion Question/Comment: About the traffic study – will you do it soon? If you do, it will be inaccurate because a new Front Range Community College building is coming. Can this project be tabled until that new building is built? Response (City): The study can look at potential impacts of that. It can look at their traffic study. Development projects proceed and are reviewed based upon their own impacts, so one project would not be required to wait for another to proceed. Question/Comment: So there will be 300 more cars per day and I have two big concerns about that. The subdivision to the south has a wall along Shields and it’s been hit by cars twice. These roads are high speed. There are lots of accidents. There’s sun glare in the morning. It’s dangerous. I agree with the plan to keep kids away from the streets and you need to protect the interior. Not necessarily with a wall. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 181 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 Question/Comment: For traffic turning in on Harmony eastbound, will there be a turn lane? Sun glare is a problem. IF you don’t have a turn lane, crashes will go back up. Question/Comment: Westbury Drive is already a cut through for people who are trying to avoid the big intersection. People speed, drive laps around Westbury. People who leave going southbound to get to Harmony will go right on Westbury from Shields. Question/Comment: You will have 300 cars making U-turns at Harmony and Shields with sun glare. Question/Comment: About the 300 students and the phasing – how many are expected in phase one? And when would phase two be done? Response (Applicants): About 200 in phase one. Phase two is expected to take five years or maybe a little more. Question/Comment: My kids go to Kinard, a non-bus middle school. Every day it’s a cluster of cars. Probably 5-6 city blocks long. Response (Applicants): Drop-offs and pick-ups will be staggered to help with that. Question/Comment: Yes, but then that just makes the drop-off times longer. Question/Comment: There is a right turn onto Westbury currently. Response: (City) A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) will come with a development plan submittal. This project would mitigate its own impact. Existing problems, like the issues on Westbury, are outside of this. The City does have a neighborhood traffic program that could look at Westbury. You can take a look at that online, and contact us any time. Question/Comment: Regarding a left turn out to go north on Shields – is that a possibility? Response (City): Not sure yet. We will study that when we review the traffic study. There are a lot of nice trees -- could you move some of the trees that would be lost? Maybe into the neighborhoods? Response (Applicants): Yes, we would be willing to look at that. If the trees can be moved, and there’s a place, we would consider that. We have walked the site with a City Forester. We will be submitting a tree mitigation/inventory plan. We are saving about 2/3rds of the evergreen trees along the west property line. The landscape plan so far identifies a handful (10ish) of evergreen trees that may be transplanted elsewhere on-site. If it is cost-prohibitive, we'll plant new evergreen trees. Most of the site's trees will be removed. The contractor is open to allowing neighbors to pick up trees if it works out. There could be possible liability concerns with people being on an active construction site. On the landscape plan, the trees always look nice. But when you’re putting in new landscaping, you should show the trees as they go in. They’re just little saplings. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 182 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 4 Response (City and Applicants): It’s standard practice to show the design as it is intended to work as the trees grow. It is typical to show trees at about of the 2/3 mature size expected for the conditions. The plans are designed to allow appropriate room for the trees to grow and the drawing shows that design intent. Will you fix the west fence? It’s falling down, and there’s barbed wire along part of it. Response (Applicants): We weren’t aware of the fence issue. We will confirm ownership and work with owners or the HOA if needed, but we do want to have a fence there. What about lighting? Response (Applicants): The City requires lighting to be contained within the development with down-directional full cutoff fixtures. Question/Comment: I am pleased with the school use compared to other things that could happen at that corner. How much activity is there on weekends and after school? Response (Applicants): The school closes at 5:15. It’s closed on weekends. There may be a few events, and those typically end at 7:30. Question: What about the construction – will there be any utility service disruption during construction? Response (Applicants): The new utilities are built up to the point where they are ready to connect so that the actual connections happen quickly, typically with no disruption. If there were to be any disruption it would be very brief. Question: What’s the longevity and sustainability of the school? I’ve seen some recent closures. What are your projections? Response (Applicants): Currently there are two campuses. This project is to combine them into one. Conservative phasing is the approach. This has support from Poudre School District. We’re seeing growth in south Fort Collins. We have a waiting list currently. Question: Is it tuition-based? Response (Applicants): 3-4 year olds are tuition-based. 5-12 year olds, K-6th, is free. Comment: Walkability is tough. The roads are like rivers. The presentation mentioned traffic at the intersection – keep that in mind. This is not an ideal site for this kind of school. Question/Comment: Traffic at Harmony and College is already backed up at 5:00. There are 4 schools within a mile. The 5:00 pick-up will just make it worse. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 183 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 5 Response (City): A Transportation Impact Study will show the trip distribution. It is likely that a small proportion of the trips would end up at Harmony and College at a given time and they would probably not be significant relative to background traffic. Comment: I appreciate the parking lot location will keep any parking lot lighting away from houses. Comment: I think this is a great use for this property. Question: Will there be food, with a kitchen and cafeteria? Response (Applicant): No. Question/Comment: Charter schools have less public transparency – would you allow somebody from an HOA on your Board? Response (Applicant): We love to have community members on the Board. We especially need people with certain skills, such as budgeting. But we would welcome anyone interested to apply. Question: Do you own the property? Response (Applicant): We have it under contract. 19 residents 4 school team reps 3 staff ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 184 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 1 Statute Section Generally Regarding All Public Facilities 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31 - Government - Municipal Powers and Functions of Cities and Towns Article 23 - Planning and Zoning Part 2 - Planning Commission 31-23-209. Legal status of official plan When the commission has adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership. If the public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body, the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 185 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 2 Statute Section Specifically Regarding Charter Schools Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated Title 22. Education School Districts Article 32. School District Boards--Powers and Duties (Refs & Annos) 22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning - fees - rules - definitions (1) (a) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site development plan for review and comment to the planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any structure or building. The planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site development plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body. (b) Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings thereon, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located also shall consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site for its proposed use. (c) All buildings and structures shall be constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division of fire prevention and control in the department of public safety, referred to in this section as the "division". (c.5) In constructing buildings and structures, a school district, district charter school, or institute charter school may consult the guidelines adopted by the public school capital construction assistance board pursuant to section 22-43.7-106 (2)(a). (d) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board of education to finally determine the location of the public schools of the school district and construct necessary buildings and structures. (1.5) (a) Prior to contracting for a facility, a charter school shall advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, which has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located. The relevant planning commission or governing body may request the charter school to submit a site ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 186 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 3 development plan for the proposed facility, but must issue such request, if any, within ten days after receiving the written advisement. If requested by the relevant planning commission or governing body, the charter school, acting on behalf of its sponsoring school board, shall submit such a site development plan. The relevant planning commission or governing body may review and comment on such plan to the governing body of the charter school, but must do so, if at all, within thirty 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. (b) An institute charter school authorized pursuant to part 5 of article 30.5 of this title shall proceed pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (1.5). Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1.5) to the contrary, the relevant planning commission or governing body may request a hearing before the state board of education. The institute charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by the state board of education. (2) (a) (I) (A) This subsection (2) shall apply to building or structure construction. Except as specified in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the division shall conduct the necessary plan reviews, issue building permits, cause the necessary inspections to be performed, perform final inspections, and issue certificates of occupancy to assure that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division and that the school district or charter school, whichever is appropriate, has complied with the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section. Pursuant to this sub- subparagraph (A), the division may contract with third-party inspectors that are certified in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform inspections. The affected board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school may hire and compensate third- party inspectors under contract with the division or hire and compensate other third-party inspectors that are certified in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform inspections. If the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school is unable to obtain a third-party inspector and no building department has been prequalified, the division shall perform the required inspections. If a third-party inspector is used, the division shall require a sufficient number of third-party inspection reports to be submitted by the inspector to the division based upon the scope of the project to ensure quality inspections are performed. Except as specified in sub-subparagraph (B) of this subparagraph (I), the third-party inspector shall attest that inspections are complete and all violations are corrected before the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school is issued a certificate of occupancy. Inspection records shall be retained by the third-party inspector for two years after the certificate of occupancy is issued. If the division finds that inspections are not completed satisfactorily, as determined by rule of the division, or that all violations are not corrected, the division shall take enforcement action against the appropriate board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 187 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 4 (B) If inspections are not completed and a building requires immediate occupancy, and if the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school has passed the appropriate inspections that indicate there are no life safety issues, the division may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy. The temporary certificate of occupancy shall expire ninety days after the date of occupancy. If no renewal of the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued or a permanent certificate of occupancy is not issued, the building shall be vacated upon expiration of the temporary certificate. The division shall enforce this sub- subparagraph (B) pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S. (II) Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the appropriate building department and the division, the division may prequalify an appropriate building department to conduct the necessary plan reviews, issue building permits, conduct inspections, issue certificates of occupancy, and issue temporary certificates of occupancy pursuant to sub- subparagraph (B) of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a), to ensure that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, and take enforcement action. Nothing in the memorandum of understanding shall be construed to allow the building department to take enforcement action other than in relation to the building and fire codes adopted by the division. An appropriate building department shall meet certification requirements established by the division pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., prior to prequalification. An affected board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school may, at its own discretion, opt to use a prequalified building department that has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the division as the delegated authority. If a building department conducts an inspection, the building department shall retain the inspection records for two years after the final certificate of occupancy is issued. The fees charged by the building department shall cover actual, reasonable, and necessary costs. For purposes of this section, "appropriate building department" means the building department of a county, town, city, or city and county and includes a building department within a fire department. (III) The division shall cause copies of the building plans to be sent to the appropriate fire department for review of fire safety issues. The fire department shall review the building plans, determine whether the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division, and respond to the division within twenty business days; except that the fire department may request an extension of this time from the director of the division on the basis of the complexity of the building plans. (IV) If the fire department declines to perform the plan review or any subsequent inspection, or if no certified fire inspector is available, the division shall perform the plan review or inspection. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "certified fire inspector" has the same meaning as set forth in section 24-33.5-1202 (2.5), C.R.S. (V) If the building or structure is in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, and if the appropriate fire department or the division certifies that the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division, the division or the appropriate building department shall issue the necessary certificate of occupancy prior to use of the building or structure by the school district or by ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 188 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 5 the institute charter school. The division is authorized to charge a fee to cover the actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of the inspections of buildings and structures. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the director of the division by rule, on the basis of the direct cost of providing the service. (VI) If the division authorizes building code inspections by a third-party inspector pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) or authorizes building code planreviews and inspections by an appropriate building department pursuant to subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the plan reviews and inspections shall be in lieu of any plan reviews and inspections made by the division; except that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to relieve the division of the responsibility to ensure that the plan reviews and inspections are conducted if the third-party inspector or appropriate building department does not conduct the plan reviews and inspections. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed to require a county, town, city, city and county, or fire department to conduct building code plan reviews and inspections. (b) (I) If the division conducts the necessary plan reviews and causes the necessary inspections to be performed to determine that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, the division shall charge fees as established by rule of the director of the division. The fees shall cover the actual, reasonable, and necessary expenses of the division. The director of the division by rule or as otherwise provided by law may increase or reduce the amount of the fees as necessary to cover actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of the division. Any fees collected by the division pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the public school construction and inspection cash fund created in section 24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S. (II) Any moneys remaining as of December 31, 2009, in the public safety inspection fund created pursuant to section 8-1-151, C.R.S., from fees collected by the division of oil and public safety in the department of labor and employment pursuant to this paragraph (b) as it existed prior to January 1, 2010, shall be transferred to the public school construction and inspection cash fund created in section 24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S. (c) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1151), ch. 230, p. 1045, Section 1, effective January 1, 2010.) (d) The inspecting entity shall cooperate with the affected board of education or the state charter school institute in carrying out the duties of this section. (e) If the inspecting entity and the board of education or the state charter school institute disagree on the interpretation of the codes or standards adopted by the division, the division shall set a date for a hearing as soon as practicable before the board of appeals in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.7, C.R.S., and the rules adopted by the director of the division pursuant to article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 189 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 6 (f) The rules authorized by this subsection (2) shall be adopted in accordance with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. (g) School buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division pursuant to section 24-33.5-1203.5, C.R.S. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 190 According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. (13-80-105 C.R.S. 2012) TITLE COMMITMENT NOTE For all information regarding easements, rights-of-way and title of records, Majestic Surveying, LLC relied upon Title Commitment Number 580-F0628830-383-IKA, dated October 7, 2019, as prepared by Fidelity National Title Company to delineate the aforesaid information. This survey does not constitute a title search by Majestic Surveying, LLC to determine ownership or easements of record. CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION: LIENHOLDERS By:_____________________________________ As:_____________________________________ Witness my hand and seal this ______ day of ___________, 20 ___. NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 20___. Witness my Hand and Official Seal. My commission expires: ________________. MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE: The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty and guarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional Land Use Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements and other public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catch basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department. The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safety requirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also have any other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end of said two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain the responsibility of the Owner. Notice of Other Documents: All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Development which create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and may include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are on file in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested in purchasing any portion of the Development site. REPAIR GUARANTEE: In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public improvements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include, without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges within the right-of-way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defects in materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/her successors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineering techniques and due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any and all monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I further warrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code. Attorney: Address: Registration No.: APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER By the City Engineer, City of Fort Collins, Colorado this _____ day of _____________________, 20___. ________________________________ City Engineer PLANNING APPROVAL By the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this _____ day of _____________________, 20___. ________________________________ City Engineer Feet 0 30 60 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 179 2 C-2 GENERAL NOTES 3 C-3 DEMOLITION PLAN 4 C-4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN 5 C-5 UTILITY PLAN 6 C-6 SANITARY PLAN & PROFILE 7 C-7 FLOWLINE PLAN & PROFILE 8 C-8 STRIPING PLAN 9 C-9 GRADING PLAN 10 C-10 DETAILED GRADING PLAN 11 C-11 DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 12 C-12 DETAIL SHEET 1 13 C-13 DETAIL SHEET 2 14 C-14 DETAIL SHEET 3 15 C-15 DETAIL SHEET 4 All changes, addendums, additions, deletions and modifications to these drawings must be approved, in writing, by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. District Engineer Date FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT TYPICAL SHIELDS STREET CROSS-SECTION ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 164 380.2' FENCE WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE EXISTING 8' WIDE WALK EXISTING 8' WIDE WALK PROPOSED CONCRETE WALK 9' (TYP) 7' 17' 24' 17' WESTBURY PUD 1ST (RL) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE (RL) PINEVIEW PUD PH II (NC) VACANT PINEVIEW PUD PH II (MMN) WOODLANDS CONDOS PUD (MMN) RESIDENTIAL 1109 W HARMONY RD (LMN) WESTBURY PUD 2ND (RL) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 4626 S SHIELDS ST (LMN) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL (EXISTING STREET TO THE SOUTH) FUTURE ASPHALT EMERGENCY ACCESS TURN-AROUND 11 10 14 8 9 5 24' 24' HC HC HC 95' 24' TEMPORARY MODULAR EMERGENCY GATE ONLY DROP OFF QUEUE THROUGH LANE THROUGH LANE TO RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT HARMONY RD FUTURE PARKING EXIT RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT SHIELDS ST DROP OFF QUEUE DROP OFF QUEUE FUTURE ASPHALT EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE 24' NATURAL PLAY AREA ELEMENTARY PLAYGROUND (5-12 YRS.) PLAZA PRIMARY OPEN AREA (3-5 YRS.) OPEN SPACE 8' 5' 8' 5' 11' DETENTION AREA ENHANCED CROSSWALK FUTURE MULTI-PURPOSE TEMPORARY MODULAR 51.9' EXISTING 6' HT. WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY TO REMAIN 48" HT. PLAYGROUND FENCE 48" HT. PLAYGROUND FENCE PLAYGROUND HEADER, (TYP) FUTURE CONCRETE WALK FUTURE CONNECTING CONCRETE WALK TO EXISTING WALK NORTH 0 SCALE: 20' 40' 80' 120' 1" = 40' TFG Design, LLC 138 E 4th Street, STE #1 Loveland CO 80537 (970) 669.3737 SHEET OF SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: REVISIONS: PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER: DRAWN BY: David Kasprzak FILE LOCATION: X:\Shared\Projects\177 hauser architects\177-1902fc fort collins montessori school\AutoCAD\177-1902fc fort collins montessori school\DWG\Exhibits\EX2.1 SITE PLAN EXHIBIT.dwg PLOT DATE: 9/16/2019 11:39 AM PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: PHASE: www.tfgdesign.com THIS DRAWING, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF TFG DESIGN, LLC. - THE FRONTERRA GROUP AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. The Group Fro erra 1 1 EX2.1 SITE PLAN TIS EXHIBIT SPAR (SDP) OCT 1 , 2019 177-1902FC LARIMER FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 1109 W HARMONY RD PRELIMINARY SPAR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins Montessori School ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 163 Calculated 9/17/2019 By:_______ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 161 Calculated 9/17/2019 By:_______ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 160 Left 67 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 138 234 372 Left 1 Thru 658 Right 43 U Turns 0 Out In Total 853 702 1555 Left 13 Thru 0 Right 4 U Turns 0 OutTotal In 15 17 32 Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 111 0 Left 9 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 504 36 540 Left 5 Thru 1064 Right 234 U Turns 0 Out In Total 624 1303 1927 Left 13 Thru 1 Right 4 U Turns 0 OutTotal In 10 18 28 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 108 Thru 602 Left 194 U Turns 0 Out InTotal 925 1135 2060 Left 118 Thru 554 Right 152 U Turns 0 Out In Total 892 824 1716 Left 58 Thru 453 Right 85 U Turns 1 OutTotal In 802 597 1399 Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 106 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 105 102 U Turns 1 Out InTotal 1230 658 1888 Left 121 Thru 796 Right 163 U Turns 0 Out In Total 885 1080 1965 Left 127 Thru 685 Right 154 U Turns 5 OutTotal In 480 971 1451 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Automobiles Peak Hour Data North ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 103 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 102 102’ 80’ 336’ 60’ 325’ 225’ 400’ 275’ 225’ DL 325’ 350’ DL 175’ Shields St & Westbury Dr Eastbound Right Northbound Left Southbound Left Southbound Right 175’ 225’ 325’ 200’ 42’ 25’ 220’ 25’ 175’ 225’ 325’ 200’ 43’ 25’ 240’ 25’ 175’ 225’ 325’ 200’ Harmony Rd Access Northbound Right DNE 25’ C 25’ C Shields St Access Northbound Left Eastbound Right DNE DNE 25’ 45’ 150’ C 25’ 50’ 150’ C DL = Dual Lefts; DNE = Does Not Exist; 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 school project traffic in the 2024 project build out. At the time of project build-out, it is recommended that a 150-foot northbound left turn lane be striped at the Shields Street project access. There is currently sufficient pavement width in a full lane striped median to designate this left turn lane without widening Shields Street. By 2040, if future traffic volumes are realized, the southbound dual left turning lanes at the intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street may need to be extended from 300 feet to 350 feet. 5.4 Student Drop-Off and Pick-Up Queuing Analysis Based on the student drop-off/pick-up vehicle queuing analysis with 300 students, 1,275 feet of vehicle stacking should be provided in order to accommodate the anticipated vehicle demands (calculations are attached in Appendix G). The Shields Street project access will primarily serve the proposed drop-off/pick-up lanes near the east side of the school building. The ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 91       ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 84       ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 83 FronTerra # 12 X FENCE & COLUMN DETAILS SPAR (SDP) OCT 16 , 2019 177-1902FC LARIMER FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 1109 W HARMONY RD SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins Montessori School SCALE: 1 ENTRY 1/2" = 1'-0" DRIVE FEATURE (2 LOCATIONS) SCALE: 2 WALK 1/2" = 1'-CONNECTION 0" FEATURE SCALE: 3 SCREEN 1/2" = 1'-0" FENCE (AT BACK OF CURB) SCALE: 4 ALUMINUM 1/2" = 1'-0" (COLOR TO FENCE MATCH DARK BRONZE SYSTEM ON BUILDING) (OR APPROVED EQUAL) Packet Pg. 60 CONCRETE WALK 9' (TYP) 7' 17' 24' 17' WESTBURY PUD 1ST (RL) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL (REC. NO. 94098087) PINEVIEW PUD PH II (NC) VACANT PINEVIEW PUD PH II (MMN) 1109 W HARMONY RD (LMN) WESTBURY PUD 2ND (RL) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 4626 S SHIELDS ST (LMN) EXISTING RESIDENTIAL (PARCEL NO. 9603100009) OLT CT FUTURE ASPHALT EMERGENCY ACCESS TURN-AROUND 11 10 15 7 5 24' 24' HC HC HC VAN) ( 95' 24' EMERGENCY EGRESS GATE WITH PANIC HARDWARE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX DROP OFF QUEUE THROUGH LANE THROUGH LANE TO RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT HARMONY RD EXIT RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT SHIELDS ST DROP OFF QUEUE DROP OFF QUEUE FUTURE ASPHALT EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE 24' NATURAL PLAY AREA ELEMENTARY PLAYGROUND (5-12 YRS.) PLAZA PRIMARY OPEN AREA (3-5 YRS.) OPEN SPACE 8' 5' 8' 5' 11' DETENTION AREA ENHANCED CROSSWALK FUTURE MULTI-PURPOSE (4,500 SF) TEMPORARY MODULAR (1,440 SF) 51.9' EXISTING 6' HT. WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY TO REMAIN 48" HT. PLAYGROUND FENCE, CHAIN LINK BLACK VINYL CLAD PLAYGROUND HEADER, (TYP) FUTURE CONCRETE WALK EXISTING UE REC. NO. 20090073915 EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING UE REC. NO. 20090073915 CDOT PARCEL 2A REC. NO. 20090073915 EXISTING UE REC. NO. 20090076670 UTILITY EASEMENT REC. NO. 20080073484 CDOT PARCEL 2 REC. NO. 20090073915 EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING UG ELECTRIC EXISTING ELECTRIC CABINET EXISTING CROSSWALK SIGNAL EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLET DETENTION AREA DETENTION AREA EXISTING GAS N89°58'46"E 99.98' S83°31'41"E 96.13' N89°58'46"E 156.51' S00°17'54"W 140.32' S05°00'02"E 170.33' S89°58'54"W 447.42' N00°17'46"E 439.98' L= 102.01' L= 26.80' L= 23.32' 9 5 9 8 15 35' PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT TRACT B LOT 16 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 12 LOT 11 EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVE EXISTING REFLECTOR POSTS (6) BIKE PARKING SPACES 48" HT. PLAYGROUND FENCE, CHAIN LINK BLACK VINYL CLAD WOOD PRIVACY FENCE DROP-OFF / PICK-UP QUEUE SPACE, (TYP) RAMP BIOSWALE / LID FEATURE, RE: CIVIL PLANS ROW TO BE DEDICATED TO ACCOMMODATE RIGHT TURN LANE AND WALK EMERGENCY EGRESS GATE WITH PANIC HARDWARE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX TEMPORARY MODULAR (1,440 SF) CONNECTING CONCRETE WALK CONNECTING CONCRETE WALK 33' HT. FLAG POLE F.D.C. NORTH 0 SCALE: 15' 30' 60' 90' 1" = 30' TFG Design, LLC 138 E 4th Street, STE #1 Loveland CO 80537 (970) 669.3737 LANDSCAPE ARCHTIECTURE PLANNNIG SHEET OF SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: REVISIONS: PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER: DRAWN BY: David Kasprzak FILE LOCATION: X:\Shared\Projects\177 Hauser Architects\177-1902FC Fort Collins Montessori School\AutoCAD\177-1902FC Fort Collins Montessori School\DWG\Site\L1.1 SITE PLAN.dwg PLOT DATE: 11/14/2019 2:49 PM PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: PHASE: www.tfgdesign.com THIS DRAWING, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF TFG DESIGN, LLC. - THE FRONTERRA GROUP AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE P ERMISSION O F T HE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. The Group FronTerra 2 12 L1.1 SITE PLAN SPAR (SDP) OCT 16 , 2019 177-1902FC LARIMER FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 1109 W HARMONY RD SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins Montessori School SITE PLAN NOTES 1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 2. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. [IF APPLICABLE -- INCLUDE LANGUAGE FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH PDP/ODP]. 7. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 8. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 9. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 10. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 11. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSABLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 12. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. 13. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PARKWAY/TREE LAWN AND MEDIAN AREAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE CITY WITH THE FINAL PLANS, ALL ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF SUCH AREAS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/DEVELOPER. 14. THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT. 15. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR-CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 16. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 17. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 18. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY_FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX_INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE 1. FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE PLAN NOTES. HOWEVER, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE AND WITHIN FORT COLLINS MONTESSORI SCHOOL BUDGET, IT WILL ENDEAVOR TO SATISFY SITE PLAN NOTE REQUIREMENTS. 2. SEE GENERAL SPAR NOTES ON SHEET L1.0 SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW (SPAR) NOTES Packet Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 45