Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT STATION II - PDP - PDP150021 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSAt the Prospect/East Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the southbound approach in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service E and F, respectively. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. If/when Lots 2 and 3 develop (as 35,000 square feet of office), the eastbound right -turn volume in the morning peak hour will exceed the threshold requiring a right -turn deceleration lane according to LCUASS, Figure 8-4. Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. Acceptable level of service cannot be achieved for continuity and street crossings. Prospect Road was built under earlier street standards. ="L-DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 [—ASSOCIATES Page26 208 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Prospect Station on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2018) and long range (2035) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the Prospect Station is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The total short range (2018) trip generation of the Prospect Station development will generate approximately 830 daily trip ends, 112 morning peak hour trip ends, and 58 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The total long range (2035) trip generation of the Prospect Station plus the lots to the south will generate approximately 1216 daily trip ends, 167 morning peak hour trip ends, and 110 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - Currently, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections operate acceptably with existing control and geometry. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delays for the northbound and southbound approaches are commensurate with level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. At the Prospect/East Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the southbound approach is commensurate with level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. - It is expected that peak hour signal warrants will not be met at the any of the key stop sign control intersections. In addition to this, arterial/driveway intersections would not meet the signal spacing criteria. In the short range (2018) future, given development of the Prospect Station and an increase in background traffic, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the afternoon peak hour was commensurate with level of service F. At the Prospect/Center Driveway intersection the calculated delay for the northbound approach in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. The short range (2018) geometry is shown in Figure 13. In the long range (2035) future, given development of the Prospect Station and an increase in background traffic, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service E and F. At the Prospect/Center Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service F. =-//'—DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Page 25 207 Transit Level of Service The study area has extensive transit service. This area is served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes 1 and 7. The Prospect Station is adjacent to the MAX. The MAX will have a station on the north side a Prospect Road. The MAX will provide convenient north -south bus rapid transit to residents of Prospect Station. The Prospect Station development is located in an area defined as "mixed -use centers and commercial corridors" for the purpose of public transit level of service evaluation. In the future, transit service will be improved as depicted on the Fort Collins Transit System Plan. The future level of service will be in the B category. --//LDELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 771 rASSOCIATES Page 24 206 ► - Denotes Lane T 3 3Coo � o Y (n AN` 5 uJ U Pros ect Road SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY _--//L—DELICH -o —ASSOCIATES Figure 13 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 23 205 hours was commensurate with level of service F. At the Prospect/East Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the southbound approach in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service E and F, respectively. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Geometry Figure 13 shows a schematic of the short range (2018) geometry. This is the existing geometry. If/when Lots 2 and 3 develop (as 35,000 square feet of office), the eastbound right -turn volume in the morning peak hour will exceed the threshold requiring a right -turn deceleration lane according to LCUASS, Figure 8-4. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Prospect Station development. There will be five pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Prospect Station development. These are: 1) Colorado State University to the north of the site, 2) the residential area and office to the west of the site, 3) the commercial area to the east, 4) the residential area to the east of the site, and 5) the Spring Creek Trail to the south of the site. This site is in an area type termed "pedestrian district." The minimum level of service for "pedestrian district," is A, except for Street Crossing which is B. Acceptable pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. Continuity is not achieved, since Prospect Road was built under earlier street standards. Street Crossing is not achieved to area 4, since College Avenue has an eight lane cross section. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H Bicycle Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Prospect Station development. There are two destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Prospect Station development: 1) Colorado State University to the north of the site and 2) the Spring Creek Trail to the south. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, the level of service threshold for bicycles is LOS C. The Prospect Station site is adjacent to the Mason Street Multi -modal Corridor. The Mason Street Multi -modal Corridor will install a Pedestrian/Bicycle signal crossing Prospect Road just west of the railroad tracks. Prospect Station is connected to east -west bike lanes on Lake Street via the Mason Street Multi -modal Corridor, which satisfies the LOS C criteria. The bicycle LOS worksheet is provided in Appendix H. --/yLDELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Page 22 204 TABLE 5 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation tersection evel of Service :. EB LT B B Prospect/West Driveway WB LT A A (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A F SB LT/T/RT B F EB LT A B WB LT B B Prospect/Center Driveway NB LT/T/RT F F (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A C Prospect/East Driveway EB LT B B (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A D TABLE 6 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation tersection Movement 'evel of Service AM______.__.____.. Prospect/West Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B C WB LT B C NB LT/T/RT F F SB LT/T/RT E F Prospect/Center Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B C WB LT C C NB LT/T/RT F F SB LT/T/RT F F Prospect/East Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B C I SB LT/RT E F //!:=DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 -ASSOCIATES Page 21 203 Short Range (2018) tersection Prospect/West Driveway (stop sign) TABLE 3 Background Peak Hour Operation AM EB LT B B WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A F SB LT/T/RT B F Prospect/Center Driveway (stop sign) EB LT A B WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A B SB LT/T/RT A C Prospect/East Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B B SB LT/RT A D TABLE 4 Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection. Mo. ement EB LT evel of B S C Prospect/West Driveway (stop sign) WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A F SB LT/T/RT C F Prospect/Center Driveway (stop sign) EB LT A C WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A C Prospect/East Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B C SB LT/RT A F //LDELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 77,1 rASSOCIATES Page 20 202 Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting a year 2018 condition, and long range future, reflecting a year 2035 condition. Using the short range (2018) background traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the afternoon peak hour was commensurate with level of service F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Using the long range (2035) background traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections operate as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the afternoon peak hour was commensurate with level of service F. At the Prospect/East Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the southbound approach in the afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Using the short range (2018) total traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections operate as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The key intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the afternoon peak hour was commensurate with level of service F. At the Prospect/Center Driveway intersection the calculated delay for the northbound approach in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Using the long range (2035) total traffic volumes shown in Figure 12, the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections operate as indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. The key intersections will operate acceptably. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the morning and afternoon peak hours was commensurate with level of service E and F. At the Prospect/Center Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the northbound and southbound approaches in the morning and afternoon peak ---//'DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -7J 1=ASSOCIATES Page 19 201 0 0 0 Ln o 0 A& N f AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles T > 3 3: > a3i > � o o y a) c � W U 15/5 Ln o 0 ,(f 1460/2195 0 0 0 0/0 Prncncr4 / 1 0/0 ,n ,n + 1445/2165 0I o 55/25 J 1 / Road 5/5 � 1 T r 0/5 1 ( 5/5 1515/1765 i uO 0 LO 1470/1755 -i 0 0 l0 1500/1790 0/0 0 0 0 45/20 fO 0 7 � m LONG RANGE (2035) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —//L—DELICH -7,f [—ASSOCIATES 5/5 f 1500/2185 Figure 12 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 18 200 00 0 J� l0 0 f 1 cc 3 cU m > rA CU CU W W U 14/5 c� o 0 �— 1045/1574 J0 l0 (D �— 0/0 4/1 —)� ) t 1082/1269 —i o r 0/0 � o 0 0 0/0 f 1031/1564 / — 27/19 d 0/1 1056/1267 M o 26/13 00 00 0 N M SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —/A DELICH —Ti (=ASSOCIATES JM N i 1/5 1086/1275 i N --a— AM/PM 1/4 1058/1580 Figure 11 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 17 199 N �-- AM/PM cc 3 co 3: > � o o cc W U LONG RANGE (2035) ASSIGNED SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —/I' DELICH -T,t =ASSOCIATES Figure 10 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 16 198 N f AM/PM a m >, co ca � > > o 0 in .. u, CU � U SHORT RANGE (2018) AND LONG RANGE (2035) PASS -BY SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _—//L-DELICH -71 (—ASSOCIATES Figure 9 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 15 197 A N ► AM/PM co 3 3 cc > > � � o N Ch W U SHORT RANGE (2018) ASSIGNED SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 —//`DELICH -,i FASSOCIATES Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 14 196 0 0 o L0 l0 0 f 1 5/5 J 1490/1755 i 0/0 A& N --a-- AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles c ca 3 Cn y � c.1 a) w U 15/5 f 1450/2175 o/o /� Pr( I t r Ln o Un 0 0 0 Lo o 0 000 0/5 —r 1490/1765 -i 0/0 0/0 f 1465/2175 ,.4- 0/0 r 0 0 0 000 LONG RANGE (2035) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —��L—DELICH -7,rFASSOCIATES Jo u') 5/5 1485/1760 5/5 1465/2170 Figure 7 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 13 Well Co o \ 0 0 T 3 T C0 3 cc > N c U LU 14/5 f 1039/1570 Cl 0 0 0/0 PrncnPrt 411 1078/1263 —; 0/0 --4 o 0 0 0/0 f 1053/1573 0/0 � 0/1 fr 1078/1274 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 0 SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ---'/L-DELICH -71 [-ASSOCIATES c` N i 1/5 1077/1269 N f AM/PM 1 /4 f 1053/1570 Figure 6 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 12 194 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 --//I DELICH -,f FASSOCIATES Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 11 193 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Prospect Station was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2018) and long range (2035) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff. Background Traffic Projections Figures 6 and 7 show the respective short range (2018) background traffic and long range (2035) background projections at the key intersections. Background traffic projections for the short range and long range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes on Prospect Road would increase by approximately 2.0% per year plus other developments in the area. The developments included in this TIS were the Grove and the Choice Center developments, which are approved and under construction. The observed construction related vehicles on the south leg of the center driveway were not included in the background peak hour traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 8 shows the short range (2018) assigned site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 9 shows the short range (2018) and long range (2035) pass -by site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 10 shows the long range (2035) assigned site generated daily traffic assignment. Figure 11 shows the short range (2018) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Figure 12 shows the long range (2035) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It is expected that peak hour signal warrants will not be met at the any of the key stop sign control intersections. In addition to this, arterial/driveway intersections would not meet the signal spacing criteria. //LDELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Page10 192 eel �r — e(e6E Ecl 4[l[[�Wb A& N eLT suet r[tcs YA �eT� eEOe) Yt! iF. J I I I NOLTtl 0 [0 30 40 FEET f4 EYLLEO. ANULLY 30. tell SITE PLAN Figure 4 -//--DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 �7 / rASSOCIATES Page 9 191 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Prospect Station is proposed as a 29 unit (69 beds) apartment building and a 900 square foot retail use. In discussions with the project team members, it was decided a likely use would be a coffee shop. In the long range future, it is expected that lots 2 and 3 will develop as office uses. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the Prospect Station. The short range analysis (Year 2018) includes development of the Prospect Station (Lot 1) and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The long range analysis (Year 2035) includes development of the Prospect Station (Lots 1, 2, and 3) and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and in general accordance with the Fort Collins Structure Plan. The site plan shows that the Prospect Station will have one access to Prospect Road. The south leg of the Prospect/East Driveway intersection will be vacated. The south leg of the Center Driveway will be a public street (Tamasag). Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, gth Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at the Prospect Station site. Land use codes 220 (apartments), 936 (coffee shop), and 710 (general office) were used to determine the trip generation of the site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The total short range (2018) trip generation of the Prospect Station development resulted in 830 daily trip ends, 112 morning peak hour trip ends, and 58 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The total long range (2035) trip generation of Prospect Station plus the lots to the south resulted in 1216 daily trips, 167 morning peak hour trip ends, and 110 afternoon peak hour trip ends. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size Rate Tripa Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Short Range 69 ersons E . 174 0.06 4 0.22 15 E . 19 E . 10 te Modes — 25% 44 1 4 5 2 MAssignedA artment Tri s 130 3 11 14 8 0 0.9 KSF Data 700 5527 50 5301 48 20.38 18 20.38 18 ss-b — 90% 630 44 44 16 16 Assigned Coffee Shop Trips 70 6 4 2 2 Short Range Total Assigned Trips 200 9 15 16 10 Lon Ran e 710 1 General Office 35.0 KSF 11.03 386 1.37 48 0.19 7 0.25 9 1 1.24 43 Long Range Total Assigned Trips 586 57 22 25 1 53 --/«—DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 I=ASSOCIATES Page 8 190 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement eve airy ce AM PM Prospect/West Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B B WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A F SB LT/T/RT B F Prospect/Center Driveway (stop sign) EB LT A B WB LT B B NB LT/T/RT D B SB LT/T/RT A C Prospect/East Driveway (stop sign) EB LT B B WB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A F //!:=DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Page 7 189 Existing Operation The Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Caoacitv Manual. Using the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic shown in Figure 3, the peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon peak hours. At the Prospect/West Driveway intersection, the calculated delays for the northbound and southbound approaches are commensurate with level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. At the Prospect/East Driveway intersection, the calculated delay for the southbound approach is commensurate with level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersection from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Prospect Station site is in an area termed "campus district." The "campus district' is considered to be a "mixed use district" for the purpose of motor vehicle level of service standards. In areas termed "mixed use districts," acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/local intersection. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in this area were built under earlier street standards. Sidewalks exist along Prospect Road in this area. There are pedestrian crosswalks and ramps at the Prospect/Centre and College/Prospect intersections. Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road. Lake Street, one block to the north, is the closest street with east -west bike lanes. The Spring Creek Trail is to the south. A spur path to the Spring Creek trail runs along the west side of the railroad tracks connecting to Prospect Road. Transit Facilities The study area is service by Transfort. This area is served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes 1 and 7. Route 1 operates on College Avenue and Route 7 operates on Centre Avenue. =/l`DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 %1 r'ASSOCIATES Page 188 >' c>s 3 m 0 0 w .r Cn a) m w U 14/5 Q 0 0 f— 923/1359 0 0 I0 0/0 Prnenor4 4/1 942/1108 — o 0/0 � o 0 0 0/0 m CDc� f 935/1362 Io 0 0 -- 5/5 J 0/1 t r 935/1117 i o O ao 7/2 N O rM �i �— AM/PM 1/4 f 940/1364 r— 0/0 1/5 937/1120 —� 010 O O o RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 --/I L—DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Pages 187 N --w— - Denotes Lane m 3 m m m > L L _ N W U ma 'a Pros ect Road EXISTING GEOMETRY /JIDELICH -71 [—ASSOCIATES Figure 2 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 4 186 N Pitkin Street Lake Street m c Q m rn a> 0 Prospect Road c > C4 Q c Prospect Station SCALE: 1 "=500' SITE LOCATION -.//L-DELICH -7,f FASSOCIATES Figure 1 Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 Page 3 185 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Prospect Station is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily residential and commercial/office. There are residential uses to the north of the site. There are existing commercial uses to the north, east, and west of the site. Colorado State University is to the north of the site. This site is near the center of Fort Collins. Streets The primary street near the Prospect Station site is Prospect Road. Figure 2 shows the current geometry at the key intersections. Prospect Road is north (adjacent to) of the proposed Prospect Station site. It is an east -west street classified as a four -lane arterial street in this area on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has two through lanes in each direction and a two-way left -turn lane. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in this area pf Prospect Road. The west driveway serves 3500 square feet of office use (Griffin Buildings) on the south leg, and 16 apartment units and the Rocky Mountain Research Station on the north leg. The center driveway serves a vacant gas station (Prospect Station Site) on the south leg and 8 apartment units on the north leg. The east driveway serves a vacant gas station (Prospect Station Site) on the south leg and a 2400 square foot restaurant (Suh Sushi) and 3475 square feet of retail space on the north leg. The south leg of the east driveway will be vacated with the proposed Prospect Station development. All driveway accesses along Prospect Road have all movements combined into a single lane. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Prospect/West Driveway, Prospect/Center Driveway, and Prospect/East Driveway intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at the key intersections were obtained in February 2013. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. It was observed that the traffic to/from the south access at the Prospect/Center Driveway intersection was construction traffic for the Mason Street Corridor/Max Project. 0`7L—DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Page 2 184 I. INTRODUCTION This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Prospect Station. The proposed Prospect Station site is located along the south side of Prospect Road just west of the railroad tracks in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planning consultant (TB Group), the project architect (R4 Architects), the project civil engineer (Interwest Consulting Group), and the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). Scoping discussions were held with the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes,- - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation —/I 'DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 -7,f rASSOCIATES Page 1 183 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 7 2. Trip Generation......................................................................................................... 8 3. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 20 4. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation ........................................... 20 5. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation..................................................... 21 6. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation...................................................... 21 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry .....................................................................................................4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................................... 5 4. Site Plan....................................................................................................................9 5. Trip Distribution.......................................................................................................11 6. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................12 7. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Traffic.................................................13 8. Short Range (2018) Assigned Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ...........................14 9. Short Range (2018) and Long Range (2035) Pass -by Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic...........................................................................15 10. Long Range (2035) Assigned Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................ 16 11. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Traffic...........................................................17 12. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Traffic............................................................18 13. Short Range (2018) Geometry ................................................................................23 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation H. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets /IL—DELICH Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 �71 rASSOCIATES 182 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS..........................................................................................2 LandUse.........................................................................................................................2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 ExistingTraffic.................................................................................................................2 ExistingOperation...........................................................................................................6 Pederstrian Facilities.......................................................................................................6 BicycleFacilities..............................................................................................................6 TransitFacilities.............................................................................................................. 6 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................. 8 TripGeneration............................................................................................................... 8 TripDistribution............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections.....................................................................................10 TripAssignment............................................................................................................ 10 SignalWarrants............................................................................................................. 10 OperationAnalysis........................................................................................................ 19 Geometry...................................................................................................................... 22 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 22 Bicycle Level of Service................................................................................................ 22 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 24 IV. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 25 —/,/'—DELICH -71 r=ASSOCIATES Prospect Station TIS, February 2013 181 PROSPECT STATION TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FEBRUARY 2013 Prepared for: R4 Architects 117 E. Mountain Avenue, Suite 205 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1311 180 Attachment 6 Q: (Citizen) Where are you getting your utilities from? A: (Applicant) Utilities are already in from Prospect, along the existing driveway. Q: (Citizen) So you don't need to come up from the south? A: (Applicant) No. Q: (Citizen) Will you put in any retail? A: (Applicant) It took us awhile to fill our first retail space in Phase 1. We were willing to do live -work units for people, and we were surprised that no one wanted to do that. The businesses across the street have vacancies as well. And we didn't want the traffic congestion. Quiet enjoyment by good tenants we thought was a better use. Q: (Citizen) Will Prospect be expanded? We don't like being on Prospect right now. A: (City) The Prospect streetscape project was to make Prospect better for bikes and pedestrians within the existing right-of-way. A: (Applicant) The landscaping you see is interactive. Places for people to rest, enjoy the day, etc. Q: (Citizen) Will the current turning lane on Prospect stay? A: (Applicant) Yes, we won't be disturbing Prospect at all. A: (City) This is a diagram of the future plan for Prospect. The future street cross-section is 2 10-foot travel lanes on each side, a center turning lane, 2.5 foot sidewalks/bike facilities, and a tree lawn to separate the sidewalk from the street. Q: (Citizen) When I had a change in use, the city told me there would be some changes. A: (City) You mean you had to dedicate right-of-way? Q: (Citizen) It cost me quite a bit of money, and it's still costing me money. I had to make changes to the sidewalk, and deal with stormwater. I don't have the parking I used to have because of the right-of-way I had to dedicate for the railway. I have a parking problem, only enough parking for the operators of the buildings and a few customers. My tenants are threatening to move out because there isn't enough parking. A: (City) Thank you for doing that, thanks for making those improvements for the community. Q: (Citizen) Can you talk a bit about the schedule/likely schedule? How long will it take until you're ready to break ground, and then how long to build once you do break ground? A: (Applicant) Hope to start March 2016 and complete in May 2017. Prospect Station Phase II — Neighborhood Meeting Summary Page 3 October 6, 2015 179 Attachment 6 • City has adopted a Prospect Road streetscape program, and our sidewalk will comply with those guidelines. This will be one of the first projects under this newly adopted set of standards. • 36 units, 18 one -bedroom and 18 two -bedrooms • Differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2 o Phase 1 parking on main level (tuck -under parking) o Phase 2 parking — this will be a walk-up project with a traditional surface lot with breezeways. Residents can access building from both sides of building. • Hip roof, like Phase 1 with some shed roof elements. Want to be similar to Phase 1 without replicating exactly. • Design tries to break up the building with breezeways that are very identifiable as entry points. Break a long building down into smaller buildings, more of a human scale. • Materials are brick/masonry below, vertical siding up high, stucco in the middle. Using identifiable window treatments at different levels to add diversity to building. Questions, Comments & Responses: Q: (Citizen) What are the lease rates and square footage? A: (Applicant) Studios $950 (just under 500 sf) — $1500 for 2 bedroom Q: (Citizen) The housing problem is not going to last. What are you going to do with $950 studios when the bubble pops? A: (Applicant) We've been tracking the statistics. With CSU increasing enrollment, and the growth in town... Q: (Citizen) CSU's enrollment numbers aren't as big as you think A: (Applicant) People are continuing to move to Northern Colorado Q: (Citizen) I wish people would stop! If you stopped building, maybe they would stop coming. It's not as enjoyable as it used to be. Q: (Citizen) Can you afford to lower your rent? A: (Applicant) Yes, we could if the market dropped, but we don't think we will have to do that. There's also been a trend nationwide toward smaller units, people will trade size for location if it's a good location. Proximity to CSU, shopping, and downtown is attractive. Q: (Citizen) There's still not East-West connectivity A: (Applicant) We've been in Fort Collins a long time, and we love it as much as you do. We wanted to build a nice building that people want to live in. Growth is a challenge, and we need to figure out how to build density in a way that works. We had the ability to build more units, and we've chosen not to do that. Prospect Station Phase II —Neighborhood Meeting Summary Page 2 October 6, 2015 178 Attachment 6 Community Development & City O'F Neighborhood Services Planning Co 281 North College Avenue Fort llins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Prospect Station Phase II DATE: October 6, 2015 LOCATION: Plymouth Congregational Church, 916 W. Prospect Rd. PROJECT PLANNER: Seth Lorson NUMBER OF ATTENDEES: 4 P_roect Planner Presentation Summary: • Applicant has not formally applied yet —this is a pre -submittal neighborhood meeting. A preliminary design review meeting was held May 20, 2015. • The information from the neighborhood meetings will be forwarded to the decision maker for the project, in this case the Planning and Zoning Board. No public hearing date has been set yet. • Project consists of a parcel located at 303 West Prospect Rd. • The parcel is zoned for Employment use and is also located in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The project proposes a multifamily dwelling of 36 units with 54 bedrooms. As currently proposed, the project will require a modification because the Employment Zone limits secondary uses (such as residential uses) to 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. Applicant Presentation Summary: • Representatives from the TB Group, alm2s architects, property management for Prospect Station I and the property owner all present. • Rayno Seaser (owner): Has lived in FC for 27 years, owner of the Egg and I restaurant and background in construction. Our goal with Prospect Station I was not to create student housing, was to provide housing for young professionals and we're proud to say that we achieved that goal. We think we achieved our goal with the first phase of putting an attractive building together that is a gateway to CSU. • Alex Schuman (property management for project and existing building): Existing demographics are primarily young professionals, CSU faculty. • Griffin Foundation isn't interested in being in the existing building at 303 W. Prospect anymore • We have extra parking spaces in our first building that aren't being used • The existing building is transit -oriented, and that's been very successful. Our goal for Phase 2 is the same. We're hoping when the University Health building goes in on Prospect, that people working there will want to live nearby. • Driveway that already exists will be shared with new building, no new curb cuts. Parking on south side, 44 spaces (32 required). 177 Attachment 5 have closed their doors in the past few months due to lack of sales (El Monte and 900 Degree Pizza to name a few). Residential use, by those both living and working in the same neighborhood, rather than employment uses will limit increased vehicular traffic along the Prospect Road corridor. Allowing this project to be built as 100% residential in the Employment Zone will substantially reduce the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). 176 Attachment 5 1. The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. 2. Further, we feel that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Justification We feel that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested for the following reasons: • The proposed plan is in a location that is desirable for housing due to its proximity to CSU and the nearby new CSU medical center. Although not specifically targeted towards the student population, there is a housing need for CSU faculty, staff and other employees in the adjacent neighborhood. This project will provide opportunities for affordable living for this demographic. • Further, the site lacks the qualities that employment -based users are typically seeking due to its small 1-acre size. • The proposed alternative plan continues to improve the design, quality and character of new development by exceeding the building standards set forth in Section 3.5. The use of high quality residential building materials, building articulation, projections and recesses, along with pitched roof elements ensures sensitivity to and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product in an infill site with a price point that the market desires and that the community can be proud of. • We believe that the granting of a Modification by allowing 100% of the 1.04-acre site to be developed as a secondary land use is inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire Employment district. The intent of employment in this area was primarily intended for the CSURF-owned land to the south in the Centre for Advanced Technology. By allowing a small, 1-acre lot to develop as residential is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire zone district. Total Employment Zone = +/- 211.3 acres Primary Uses 72.9 acres 34.5% Secondary Uses 46.6 acres 22.1 % Vacant/Other 91.8 acres 43.5% With Prospect Station If being built as housing, the total of the Secondary Uses goes up to 22.5%, representing an increase of .4% • The addition of residential units only in this current Employment District will aid current businesses in the neighborhood of Prospect and College Avenue, some of which are struggling financially, with increased patronage and sales volume. Several businesses 2 175 Attachment 5 R= GROUP &dscapex&rbe=re I ring I Xsra ton February 1, 2016 City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Prospect Station 11 303 West Prospect Road Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Division 4.27 Employment District of the Land Use Code. Background The Prospect Station II PDP is located at 303 West Prospect Road. The project consists of a three story multi -family building containing 36 units and 54 bedrooms. The proposed project would replace the existing office building and asphalt parking area with a three-story 100% residential building with a surface parking lot. The 1.04-acre site is bounded by Prospect Road to the north and CSURF-owned land to the south. The existing Prospect Station apartment building is directly to the east. Overall density 34.6 dwelling units per acre. Modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) Code Language: Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses states the following: All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan. (d) Residential uses (except mixed -use dwellings when the residential units are stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor). Requested Modification: The Prospect Station 11 project is requesting to have 100% of the development plan be a residential use. Modification Criteria The request of approval for this modification complies with the standards per Review Criteria 2.8.2 (H)(1) and (2) in the following ways: 444 NAotntan Aw. to 970.532.5891 Baftud=80513 I w® TBG pup.us 20'BEYOND PROPERTY PROPERTY bo �bn��EO_9n So_b.o 1n So_ba—Y.V. S4 bo�be bo bo bo be bo bo bo bo bo bo ba ba b, lbila b1 y bo be b, b, b, ba b&ba b, i nAwc .fewer PROSPECT STATION II 0000 �aoo®©mono 000m� ©ao�o®or�;r�o �aoo�o�o� r�o lalllllhf I 1 ; I'-L.I,,_ liiol 'ill`II�',I. Ill.FinRml G:no! I I1.., solid l_ .I lla I alIlb @ uc�� h 19u f 1i kiiAIiI � 14 iii I BY9TMIxderTT" � v e_ r e 0 IIN� PROSPECT STATION 1 rayr�..e.mrore n.. nrrrn rwr ..�,.e.�....�.—,.... —.—.,ate ...d.-..,.— .r�.s:Ce.? ..,-.—...�.—..._e. {ati'41Y� sr®sn•msmm•r •r �mnrasru•esranurr••ana•..m�rw.w•m W • • u uma w...m • • • r • u mmaw• �rw • • • um tl • rim rr • • r + . m arry rwrr • r •• m•r • my mr.•r. • • . vs • •.• rsmw rrw • • •• � w m u • � m mm � • r .m • • � 0 � p • �v.,.•mr r • r MFTN•� ® 1gOE6Bp.Y0 WN®M1.FM1'Y. weurovma v.rap. •am ae�wnoa.®pnaspwc epmrna.rww••n•• ®�. mw o.9� ••2 v�• sac �Tr• PROSPECT STAIM • o.•.ww ..�r ,,N�r ..�,o ----- — — — — — — — - a. o.n..c dN Prospect Station 11 Ft Collins, Colorado PROSPECT STATION 11 Agenda Item 7 inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. When considered within the context of the total Employment (E) District in the area of the P.D.P., allowing a 1.04 acre lot to develop as residential increases the percentage of secondary uses within the total E District by only .4%. "Total E District" was defined as the general area bounded by Prospect Road to the north, Drake Road to the south, Shields Street to the west and College Avenue to the east, not including property owned by Colorado State University. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Prospect Station II Project Development Plan, P.D.P. #150021 based on the findings of fact found on page 10 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Prospect Station II - Site Plan (PDF) 2. Prospect Station I[- Landscape Plans (PDF) 3. Prospect Station II - Elevations (PDF) 4. Prospect Station II - Photometric Plan (PDF) 5. Prospect Station II - Modification Request (PDF) & Prospect Station II - Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 7. Prospect Station I I —Traffic Impact Study (PDF) Item # 7 Page 9 167 Agenda Item 7 difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). B. Request for Modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses, which requires that the combined area dedicated to all secondary uses be limited to 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. The applicant is proposing a 100% residential building. The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. When considered within the context of the total Employment (E) District in the area of the P.D.P., allowing a 1.04 acre lot to develop as residential increases the percentage of secondary uses within the total E District by only .4%. "Total E District" was defined as the general area bounded by Prospect Road to the north, Drake Road to the south, Shields Street to the west and College Avenue to the east, not including property owned by Colorado State University. Please see attached the applicant's request for a Modification of Standard. 5. Findings of FactfConclusion In evaluating the request for the Prospect Station II Project Development Plan, P.D.P. #150021, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Employment District (E) of Article 4 - Districts, with the exception of the following Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2). D. The P.D.P. complies with a request for a Modification of Standard (Section 2.8) to allow a 100% residential development in the Employment District; in that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, Item # 7 Page 8 166 Agenda Item 7 feasible." The parking for the proposed development is located entirely behind the street -facing building. 3) 3.10.5 Character and Image Section 3.10.5(A) Articulation requires that "exterior building walls shall be subdivided and proportioned to human scale..." The proposed project provides exterior building articulation by bringing the middle sections of the building closer to the property line, and by separating the building into four distinct masses. Overhangs and accent trim elements provide additional architectural interest. Section 3.10.5(C) Materials and Colors requires exterior building material to be high quality "including, but not limited to, brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt -up concrete systems." The proposed building consists of brick, two colors of stucco, panel board and batten siding, and stone accents. 4. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project. A neighborhood meeting summary and a record of public comment regarding this P.D.P. is attached with this staff report. Comments from neighbors at the meeting primarily concerned the design of the sidewalk and any potential changes to traffic patterns on Prospect Road. Neighbors were supportive of the detached sidewalk design, and the applicant explained that the project would not change the traffic pattern on Prospect Road. 5. Compliance with Section 2.8 - Modification of Standards A. The applicant has requested a modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses. The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical Item # 7 Page 7 165 Agenda Item 7 Because the proposed building is less than 40 feet in height, shadow and view/visual analysis as outlined in Section 3.5.1(G) was not required. D. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation: 1) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was provided "in order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with" transportation level of service requirements. The City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer accepted the TIS and deemed the proposed site and facility design adequate to meet the City's level of service requirements. E. Division 3.8.30 - Multi -Family Dwelling Development Standards: 1) Section 3.8.30(F) Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings Section 3.8.30(F)(4) requires that entrances be clearly visible from streets and public areas. Connecting walkways, eaves, and landscaping clearly delineate building entrances for the proposed building. Section 3.8.30(F)(6) requires that multi -family dwellings be "articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay window and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human -scaled proportions." The proposed building provides fagade articulation with material changes, roof and eave variations, subdivision of building mass, balconies, and a distinct base element. F. Division 3.10 - Development Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone: 1) 3.10.3 Site Planning Sections 3.10.3(B) and (C) require a central feature, gathering place, and outdoor spaces adjacent to a transit station such as "courtyards, plazas, arcades, terraces, balconies and decks". The proposed project is providing a gathering place at the southeast corner of the property. Additionally, a gathering place is provided along the north side of the building with seating and landscaping. 2) 3.10.4 Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections Section 3.10.4(A) Streetscape requires formal streetscape improvements, including sidewalks, street trees, seating, and pedestrian light fixtures. The proposed project provides detached sidewalks along the entire building frontage that connect to the existing sidewalk network, consistent with the recently adopted Prospect Corridor Design Standards. Street trees, seating, and pedestrian lighting are also provided along Prospect Road. Section 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking requires that off-street parking be located "behind, above, within or below street -facing buildings to the maximum extent Item # 7 Page 6 164 Agenda Item 7 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires one bicycle parking space per bedroom, split 60%/40% between enclosed parking and fixed parking respectively. With 54 bedrooms proposed the project is required to provide a total of 54 bicycle parking spaces: 33 enclosed, and 21 fixed. The project is proposing to satisfy this requirement by providing 36 covered spaces within the breezeways of the building and 18 fixed spaces in bike racks at the perimeter of the building. The parking lot is screened by a 5 foot landscape setback as required in Section 3.2.2(J). The proposed project is located in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone as defined in Article 5. Section 3.2.2(I)(1)(a)(1) requires that multi- family dwellings within the TOD Overlay Zone provide .75 parking spaces for each one -bedroom dwelling unit and 1 parking space for each two bedroom dwelling unit. With 18 one -bedroom units and 18 two -bedroom units, the proposed project is required to provide a minimum of 32 parking spaces. A total of 43 parking spaces are proposed; 11 spaces are reserved for the existing Prospect Station I building. Prospect Station I satisfied their parking requirement with an off -site agreement on the subject site and, therefore, is required to reserve 11 spaces on the Prospect Station II site. The proposed building meets handicap parking requirements as outlined in Section 3.2.2(IQ(5) by providing two handicap -accessible parking spaces. 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting: The proposed exterior light fixtures are fully shielded concealing the light source with sharp cut-off capability as required in Sec. 3.2.4(D). B. Division 3.4 - Environmental. Natural Area. Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1) 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources: The existing building is not old enough to require historic review as required in Section 3.4.7. However, the ownership group plans to provide photographs of the existing building to be displayed near the proposed building's entries to document the contributions and significance of the existing Griffin office building. C. Division 3.5 - Building Standards: 1) 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility The building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale is similar to the existing Prospect Station I building to the east of the proposed building. Nearby properties range from single -story commercial buildings to two- and three-story institutional buildings. The Hilton Fort Collins is one -tenth of a mile from the proposed building. The proposed building, at three stories, is compatible with the mass and scale of other structures as required in Section 3.5.1(C). Item # 7 Page 5 163 Agenda Item 7 Prospect Station II complies with this standard by providing a gathering space along the building frontage on Prospect Street, and also by providing a gathering space behind the building. 5) Section 4.27(D)(7)(b) establishes 6 criteria for the definition of a privately owned park. The proposed project complies with the criteria in Section 4.27(D)(7)(b)(1-6) as follows: Section 4.27(D)(7)(b)(1) requires that development projects with a gross area of 2 acres or less provide a minimum of 6% of the gross site area for a park, central feature, or gathering space. Prospect Station II complies with this standard by providing a total of 3,220 square feet of gathering space on the 45,252 square foot site, or 7.1 % of the gross site area. The majority of the proposed gathering space is highly visible from Prospect Road, and sidewalk connections provide access to the additional gathering space in the rear of the building. The gathering space is identified as open to the public on the site plan. Various features including seating areas, a picnic table, a pergola, and a barbeque grill are provided. The gathering spaces will be privately owned and maintained by the developer The design of the gathering spaces does not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with the recreational use of the gathering spaces. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: Trees are planted in the parking lot interior and perimeter as required in Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(b). Section 3.2.1(E)(5) requires that 6% of the interior space of the parking lot be dedicated to landscaping. Prospect Station II complies with this standard by providing a total of 876 square feet of interior landscaping in the 13,816 square foot parking lot, or 6.3% of the parking lot area. The Prospect Station II landscape plan provides "full tree stocking" and street trees as required in Sec. 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) and (2). A detailed tree mitigation plan is provided with this P.D.P. in coordination with the City Forester. The City Forester is comfortable with finalizing details regarding tree mitigation, tree locations, sizes, and quantities at the time of Final Plan. Item # 7 Page 4 162 Agenda Item 7 The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Community Commercial (CC) Commercial, Institutional (CSU), Residential and Colorado State University (CSU) South Employment (E) Vacant (Colorado State University Research Foundation) West Employment (E) Institutional (Colorado State Division of Wildlife) East Community Commercial (CC) Mixed -use multi -family residential and commercial 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Employment (E): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.27(B) - Permitted Uses The proposed land use of multi -family dwellings is considered a secondary use in the Employment District, and is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.27(D) - Land Use Standards 1) Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses. This section requires that the combined total area of all secondary uses occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. The project is proposing a 100% residential use on the site, which does not comply with this standard. See Section 5 of this report for the applicant's request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2). 2) Section 4.27(D)(4) Dimensional Standards. This section requires that the maximum height of buildings shall be 4 stories. The proposed 3-story height of Prospect Station II complies with this standard. 3) Section 4.27(D)(5) Density and Intensity. This section requires all residential development in the E District to have an overall minimum average density of 7 dwelling units per net acre of residential land. Prospect Station II complies with this standard by providing a residential density of 34.6 dwelling units per acre. 4) Section 4.27(D)(7) Access to a park, central feature or gathering place. This section requires that 90% of the dwellings of developments containing a residential component "shall be located within 1,320 feet of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place." Item # 7 Page 3 161 Agenda Item 7 The P.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Employment District (E) of Article 4 - Districts, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2) that is proposed with this P.D.P. is approved. COMMENTS: Background: The subject property was annexed in 1965 through the Fourth College Annexation (Ordinance 42-1965, 729.46 acres) and is part of the Griffin Plaza subdivision. The site was subsequently developed as an office building with associated parking. The majority of the site is covered with the existing Griffin office building and an existing parking lot. There are also several large trees on the site. The existing building is currently vacant. Prospect Station 11- 303 W. Prospect Rd. Aerial Sib Map Item # 7 Page 2 160 Agenda Item 7 PROJECT NAME PROSPECT STATION II, #PDP150021 STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) and Modification of Standard for Prospect Station H. The proposed project is located on a 1.04 acre site at 303 West Prospect Road. The project is proposing a three story multi -family building containing 36 units and 54 bedrooms, with 18 one -bedroom and 18 two -bedroom units. The proposed 25,750 square foot building will be constructed of brick, stucco, board and batten, with architectural metal and stone accents. The proposed parking area will provide 43 parking spaces, 11 of which are reserved for the existing Prospect Station I building. The site is zoned Employment (E) in which multi -family dwellings are permitted subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80513 OWNER: Prospect Station, LLC 605 S. College Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: . Approval of Modification of Standard (Section 2.8) to Section 4.27(D)(2). • Approval of Prospect Station II Project Development Plan, PDP #150021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds that the Prospect Station II Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: Item # 7 Page 1 159