The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSAGE CREEK - PDP - 25-98B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSf HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPML.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 210 356 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1084 914 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1084 914 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.89 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 419 711 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1021 712 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1021 712 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.81 0.97 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1314 1286 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 186 193 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.79 0.79 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 146 152 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1236 1264 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 172 165 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.78 0.78 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.83 0.83 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.82 0.74 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 141 122 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ EB L 41 ------ 122 > 123 ------- 43.7 ------- 1.2 ----- E EB T 1 152 > 35.1 EB R 12 914 4.0 0.0 A WB L 18 141 > 141 29.5 0.4 D WB T 1 146 > 7.1 WB R 122 1084 3.7 0.4 A NB L 18 712 5.2 0.0 B 0.2 SB L 197 1021 4.4 0.8 A 0.9 Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPML.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek an elo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 8/1 9 Other Information........:am pm short long Two-way Stop -controlled Inters ion ----------------- ------ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI s 010 SU/RV I s ( o ) CVIs M PCEIs ------------ 1 2 < 0 N 15 378 20 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 1 2 < 0 N 170 600 75 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 ---------------- 0 > 1 1 35 1 10 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 15 1 105 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 HCS: unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAML.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 274 227 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1006 1062 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1006 1062 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.82 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 547 454 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 872 978 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 872 978 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.93 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1062 1060 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 261 262 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.92 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 239 240 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------'- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1042 1044 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 228 228 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.91 0.91 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.77 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 209 175 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) ------- (veh) ------- ----- (sec/veh) --------- -------- EB L ------ 69 ------ 175 ------ > 176 33.3 1.6 E EB T 1 240 > 27.4 EB R 18 1062 3.4 0.0 A WB L 29 209 > 210 20.0 0.4 C WB T 1 239 > 6.6 WB R 179 1006 4.4 0.7 A NB L 12 978 3.7 0.0 A 0.1 SB L 64 872 4.5 0.1 A 0.5 Intersection Delay = 2.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAML.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek/angelo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis .......... 8 10 99 Other Information........ am pm short long Two-way Stop -controlled In rsection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (o) SU/RVIs ($) CV,s (�) PCEIs ------------ 1 2 < 0 N 10 504 15 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 55 411 20 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 ---------------- 0 > 1 1 60 1 15 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 25 1 155 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-10-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------- Streets: (E-W) harmony (N-S) corbett Analyst: Matt File Name: HRCBPML.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-10-99 am pm Comment: short lon Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound -L T R I -L T R I -L T R L T R -- ---- ---- -- ---- ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes volumes Lane W ( f t ) RTOR Vols Lost Time 1 3 110 1595 12.0 12.0 1.00 3.00 1 225 12.0 0 3.00 1 3 1 185 1940 35 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 1 1 < 0 300 90 140 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 ----------------- Signal Operations 1 1 1 130 70 245 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds WB Left * * * SB Left Thru * * Thru Right g * * Right Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right * * WB Right Green 10.OA 4.OA 43.OP Green 29.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay ----- LOS --- Delay LOS ----- ----- EB L ---- 306 ------- 1770 ----- 0.379 ----- 0.610 10.1 B 14.7 B T 2515 5588 0.734 0.450 15.4 C R 712 1583 0.333 0.450 11.6 B WB L 375 1770 0.520 0.650 13.1 B 15.2 C T 2738 5588 0.820 0.490 15.5 C R 776 1583 0.048 0.490 8.6 B NB L 463 1403 0.682 0.330 21.5 C 20.2 C TR 525 1693 0.461 0.310 18.4 C SB L 205 621 0.668 0.330 24.1 C 15.8 C T 577 1863 0.128 0.310 16.0 C R 728 1583 0.354 0.460 11.4 B Intersection Delay = 15.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L ----------------------------------------------------------------------- = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.737 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-10-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --------------------------------------------------- ---- ------ Streets: (E-W) harmony (N-S) corbett Analyst: Matt File Name: HRCBAML.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-10-9 am m Comment: short long Eastbound - Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes Volumes Lane W ( f t ) RTOR VOls Lost Time 1 3 1 380 1480 240 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 1 3 1 120 1295 115 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 1 1 < 0 250 70 130 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 1 1 1 35 35 75 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1.00 3.00 3.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Le t f * * * NB Left EB Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 17.OA 4.OA 43.OP Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 5.0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combinatj --------------------------------------- Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 22.OA Yellow/AR 5.0 .on order: #1 #2 #3 #5 -------------------------------- Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 22.OA Yellow/AR 5.0 .on order: #1 #2 #3 #5 -------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS --- Delay ----- LOS --- EB ----- L ---- 499 ------- 1770 ----- 0.802 ----- 0.720 ----- 23.1 C 14.0 B T 2738 5588 0.626 0.490 12.4 B R 776 1583 0.326 0.490 10.1 B WB L 430 1770 0.293 0.680 6.1 B 12.9 B T 2515 5588 0.596 0.450 13.6 B R 712 1583 0.170 0.450 10.6 B NB L 407 1567 0.646 0.260 23.7 C 23.1 C TR 404 1681 0.523 0.240 22.3 C SB L 167 643 0.221 0.260 18.9 C 14.3 B T 447 1863 0.083 0.240 19.0 C R 728 1583 0.108 0.460 9.9 B Intersection Delay = 14.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Time/Cycle, L = 5.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.697 APPENDIX B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPMS.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 165 260 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1142 1022 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1142 1022 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.91 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 330 521 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1140 900 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1140 900 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.85 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1004 978 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 282 292 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.85 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 239 247 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 942 966 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 265 255 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.84 0.84 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.88 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.87 0.80 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 232 204 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ EB L 35 204 > 205 ------- 21.3 ------- 0.6 ----- D --------- EB T 1 247 > 18.8 EB R 6 1022 3.5 0.0 A WB L 12 232 > 233 16.4 0.0 C WB T 1 239 > 4.9 WB R 105 1142 3.5 0.2 A NB L 6 900 4.0 0.0 A 0.1 SB L 168 1140 3.7 0.5 A 0.8 Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPMS.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek/an elo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 8/10/99 Other Information ......... am pm short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersects ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI s ($) SU/RV's (96) CV's (o) PCEIs ------------ 1 2 < 0 N 5 303 10 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 145 435 60. .95 .95 .95' 0 1.10 --------------- 0 > 1 1 30 1 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 10 1 90 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 .2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 HCS: unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAMS.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 224 184 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1066 1117 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1066 1117 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.85 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 447 367 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987 1089 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 1089 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.95 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 860 858 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342 343 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 322 323 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 846 847 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 305 304 Major IT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.94 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.95 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.81 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 289 247 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 9515 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- EB L ------ 58 ------ 247 ------------- > 248 19.0 ------- 0.9 ----- C --------- EB T 1 323 > 17.6 EB R 6 1117 3.2 0.0 A WB L 12 289 > 291 12.9 0.0 C WB T 1 322 > 4.6 WB R 156 1066 4.0 0.5 A NB L 6 1089 3.3 0.0 A 0.0 SB L 52 987 3.9 0.0 A 0.4 Intersection Delay = 1.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAMS.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 --------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek/an elo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst. mjd Date of Analysis.......... /10/99 Other Information.........am pm shor long Two-way Stop -controlled I sect Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (o) SU/RV's M.) CV's M PCE's 1 2 < 0 N 5 414 10 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 45 333 15 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 0 > 1 50 1 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors 10 1 135 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 -------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-10-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------------------------------------------------- Streets: (E-W) harmony -- ------------------- (N-S) corbett Analyst: Matt File Name: HRCBPMS.HC9 Area a ther 8-10-99 am 0 Comment. short long --------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 0 2 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 2 0 ---- ---- ---- 1 0 1 ---- ---- ---- 0 0 0 Volumes 1290 190 135 1755 265 110 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds WB Left * * SB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 7.OA 62.OP Green 17.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB T ----------- ----- 2384 3725 0.598 ----- ----- --- ----- --- 0.640 7.1 B 6.8 B R 1013 1583 0.197 0.640 4.8 A WB L 275 1770 0.516 0.770 8.1 B 5.0 A T 2794 3725 0.694 0.750 4.7 A NB L 372 1770 0.751 0.210 29.6 D 25.9 D R 475 1583 0.244 0.300 17.1 C Intersection Delay = 7.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 4.0 sec Critical -----------------------=----------------------------------------------- v/c(x) = 0.706 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-10-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) harmony (N-S) corbett Analyst: Matt File Name: HRCBAMS.HC9 Area Type ter 8-10-99� pm Comment: short long ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 0 2 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 2 0 ---- ---- ---- 1 0 1 ---- ---- ---- 0 0 0 Volumes 1350 210 100 985 230 100 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds * Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 7.OA 63.OP Green 16.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ----------- EB T 2831 3725 ----- 0.527 ----- ----- --- 0.760 3.3 A ----- --- 3.1 A R 1203 1583 0.184 0.760 2.2 A WB L 141 210 0.745 0.670 19.7 C 6.9 B T 2422 3725 0.450 0.650 5.7 B NB L 354 1770 0.684 0.200 27.6 D 24.6 C R 459 1583 0.229 0.290 17.5 C Intersection Delay = 6.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 4.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.589 APPENDIX A TABLE 1 Short Range Peak Hour Operation Yvp r iq. ..)� y`yy"i{{ . i""h �AnNT'°d' j�.t. fr Harmony/Corbettt' x'54R.0 �a (signal) OVERALL 7 4 B B Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo (stop sign) EB LT/T C D EB RT A A WB LTfr C C WB RT A A NB LT A A SB LT A A OVERALL A A TABLE 2 Long Range Peak Hour Operation -r .� ffim"�Wmlm' MA ._ .e .'Y..- _.+s--a' .. :._. ..-" Harmony/Corbett (signal) OVERALL B C EB LT/T E E EB RT A A WB LT/T C D Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo (stop sign) WB RT A A NB LT A B SB LT A A OVERALL A A E i= 0 0 � o 0 Co 155/105 N m to r NOM 25/15 1 60M NOM i15/10 N o� C� U) o vo0) 115135 i. m n 1295/1940 Harmony ) 120/185 380/110 --/ 1480/1595 —� o� 24=25 C>r�0LO Timber Creek A AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles N LONG RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 L a N N R O Q ` `—135190 NOM j-1a10 ww f NOM ,n 515 0 Harmony Timber Creek 135a1290 — 21 a190 —\ 9a5in55 f—looms I �; 00 Mo N , AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles N SHORT RANGE TOTAL Figure 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1 co riocava�s�wa�vra CV) LO O • o TO: Jim Postle, The James Company 0 `n Darwin Horan, Writer Homes QEldon Ward, Cityscape urban Design o CD Terence Hoagland, Vignette Studios Uro City of Fort Collins rn o FROM: Matt Delich z DATE: August 10, 1999 w SDBJSCT: Harvest Park/Sage Creek Transportation Study - Response • Coo to staff comments (File: 9909ME01) w > O N Cr 0 0) co This memorandum responds to staff comments pertaining to the o "Harvest Park and Sage Creek Transportation Impact Study," April > a rn 1999. It specifically addresses the short range and long range zoperation of two intersections not included in the TIS. These are Ui o the Harmony/Corbett intersection and the Timberline/Timber = Creek/Angelo intersection. The traffic forecasts at these N intersections include background traffic from PVH South Campus, NHarmony Village, Celestica/Harmony Technology Park, Symbios Logic, and Preston Center. Figure 1 shows the site generated traffic at the subject intersections. Figure 2 shows the short range total peak hour traffic forecasts at the subject intersections with the site generated traffic from Harvest Park and Sage Creek. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at the subject intersections. In the short range future, these intersections will operate acceptably. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. Figure.3 shows the long range total peak hour traffic forecasts Wat the subject intersections with the site generated traffic from Harvest Park and Sage Creek. Table 2 shows the peak hour operation d i at the subject intersections. In the long range future, these ¢ intersections will operate acceptably. The minor street left turns w w from the Angelo leg will operate at level of service E. This type z of operation is normal at .stop sign controlled intersections along V z z arterial streets. Overall, this leg and the intersection operates J W acceptably. The Angelo leg will have no site generated traffic. W O Calculations forms are provided in Appendix B. O o a m ` z a 5 H LU as U i LL LL � a Q 5Q G LONG RANGE DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS Figure 1 OD LO o 00 cr) 0. 0 (j) 0 CD Er 0 o p 0 U � • X a z V a W W J ro W 0 > N Cr 0) 0 CD o a � z w W Z W 0 C7 = N ti N N W a Z z FE Z U Z _ Z J W W 0 0 a 0 � a Z z 1 a cc L U i LL LL a Qcc C H C TO: Jim Postle, The James Company Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design City of Fort Collins FROM: Matt Delich 4t<l O DATE: November 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Sage Creek - Addendum to the Harvest Park and Sage Creek Transportation Impact Study (File: 9909ME02) This addendum to the "Harvest Park and Sage Creek Transportation Impact Study," April 1999, addresses traffic related issues contained in a letter to Eldon Ward from Cain McNair dated October 11, 1999. The traffic related issues are numbered 1 and 3 in the cited letter. Figure 1 shows the expected daily traffic volumes on the various internal and external streets in the vicinity of Sage Creek. I have reviewed my traffic assignment and have considered future development to the west of Sage Creek. As indicated in current site plans, Sage Creek Road will be connected to future development to the west. It is assumed and expected that this future development would have a number of other street accesses to CR36 and Timberline Road. From available mapping, this future development covers approximately the same land area as Sage Creek. Therefore, the trip generation would likely be of the same magnitude as Sage Creek. In consideration of future trip attractions that would cause a person to access either Corbett Drive or CR9 via Sage Creek Road, it is estimated that 200-300 vehicles per day might be expected from/to this future development. If it were assumed that the same volume would occur in the other direction, then a maximum volume of 600 vehicles per day could be expected on Sage Creek Road. There would be some additional incidental traffic related to the houses that front on Sage Creek Road. This very conservatively high volume will remain less than 1000 vehicles per day. In my judgment, this segment of Sage Creek Road should be designated as a local street. It is my understanding that Sage Creek Road, between Corbett Drive and CR9, will be built to a connector cross section with a 42 foot width. In my analyses, I have forecasted volumes on this segment that are commensurate with a local street. The forecasted volumes are less than 1000 vehicles per day. In my judgment, the additional street width is neither necessary or desired. Experience tells me that providing additional width on local streets to accommodate bicycles often gets us nothing except higher speeds. Case in point is Whalers Way, which is a wide street with on -street parking and bike lanes. Granted, Whalers Way is designated as a collector street, but the adjacent land uses are largely residential with driveway access. Due to citizen complaints, a calming feature was installed at one end of the street. I would guess that speeds are still relatively high on the segment of Whalers Way to the east of the calming feature. I believe that Sage Creek Road, between Corbett Drive and CR9 will also have these higher speeds. In my judgment, the narrower cross section will have a traffic calming effect due to the intended "yield and pause" condition. coM@@ o urban design, inc. Please provide this information to the Hearing Officer Sincerely, g Ward, President ape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Jim Postle, the James Company Les Crawford, The Sear -Brown Group February 18, 2000 Ronald G. Fuchs, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ron; Coffin@@ o urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 E-mail: cityscapgfrii.com As requested on February 171", this letter is a revision to my earlier letter of November 30, 1999. These letters are intended to provide justification for Alternative Compliance to Land Use Code Section 3.6.3(F), regarding the limited number of street crossings of the.McClellands drainage channel, connecting Sage Creek and Harvest Park. Background events leading to this request include: A. At conceptual review (August 31, 1998), Staff indicated that Sage Creek should comply with City Standards, but did not request more than a single crossing of the McCllellands Channel. B. The direction the applicant received from City Planning, Storm Drainage, and Natural Resources Staff — as a result of a September 30, 1998 follow-up meeting - indicated that, "Except for the Corbett Drive extension, there will be no street or pedestrian crossings of the Channel." C. The May 27th City comments indicated that a strict interpretation of the Code would require four crossings of the channel, but that Staff would support a minimum of two street connections and two bike/pedestrian connections to the property, to the north, due to topographical conditions. D. The Harvest Park PDP — with the same associated Alternative Compliance Request — has been approved with the same two street connections indicated on the proposed Sage Creek PDP. As indicated in the Harvest Park request, "Since this drainage area will be rebuilt and enhanced into a natural area, City staff and both project developers have agreed that two full street connections and two additional pedestrian connections would be more appropriate I this locale. The combination of the street and pedestrian connections do allow full multi - modal connectivity between the developments as well as minimize impacts to the natural area. " The plan as proposed is justified for a number of reasons, including: I. The proposed plan provides access between the adjacent developments that is equal to that which would be provided by a plan that meets a more strict application of 3.6.3(F); with less disruption of the natural area along the drainageway. II. The Code indicates that, "In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct sub -arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers ............... within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile." The proposed plan accomplishes all these criteria. HIGH PROFILE, AvY DIMENSIONAL ,PHALT SHINGLES ULTERED STONE R BRICK FRONT ELEVATION 2-1/2 CAR GARAGE WITH SHOP HICsH PROFILE, VY DIMENSIONAL HALT SHINGLES TION LAP SIDING EKED STONE 3RICK FRONT ELEVATION SIDE LOAD GARAGE OPTION EXAMPLE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/09 = 1'-ou •OTHER ELEVATIONS MEETING L.U.G. REQUIREMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED. . 000Z Li PC LO 92 ref Pam 6MP*Vl3211\02LL\000L\ 9 Sage Creek Single Family Example INd A iwi ins �ii r •w y �i 1 ;�M�4 %if ! 1, nu►I.►►�► J / � ►�� ICJ F'o)e 14;-: l ci��t//,,Arr IVA rj .41-4 joil. . I - plavagorr. I - I I I I I I , 4 0 11 -!......... . ;., 0.4 ; It'll, 111 ::i.: - A i WHY/, t-71797-iial,019M -14 1. "kml �v� .rAaEs ^ � �un.�_Lruc-.�� 'Pa�c Examples of Surrounding Uses Homestead Single Family Preston Jr. High Country Ranch Multi -Family Wildwood Single Family y ItiAlPF v y ift Nit. VAN IN I IT Im - cg 1 'RENT!, 2 o al OCK 20 �a J t- TRACT p? OPEN SPACE SAGE CREEK ROAD (LOCAL' ',AU # ._ ----- (MINOR ARTERIAL? _ `_ _ ------ - _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfllllllllllllllilllli11111111111111fifi111tlflitl171111�IT-' PARKING COURT IANQSCAP£ CALCI ILATION. Block I I (Wle J INV* I.d_„e ae. i�51 Dlack t I (Cstl I LA% ImralK ma {TMI Block I? 9.39. lalaq� � A,IM C tys�1 pe lu W wZ J a r lw w m ¢ w a J WO w z ¢ J a �o f- a ¢ U 0 T/1 cr U Z ¢ a a _ C�i ape 4 tptp • r�-•...�� _ - — -` ' �L .- � . � ` � i - � w = � .a. .u• as .�. n:♦ .. •Iy ��r \� ► • ° �•• ram! 9 •. w t • 1 1, Apr• �,o" :. � ° � _ �,:r.` MR Pla- W �A!C • •� •+.ram �_ •. ! � �r � - jF .ram All - _ 'r � y �t3�� -; ��--•�'.�r�� ^�-- a WA t �N �Ip' .. ,;, • , �dU" solar � y�� !.. • • 1 a 1 es �iPr woo W. �a► lxti .=w ar :ate `• •�' cr w'..� �_ _ i� 1 ilk 6.A ' A�• . Liu �� •1. • '• • • • • '� • 0 rp ,. 41 tee a ai .� ,� ,�' �,. ►'r. J- �y r ••�y q P +•'"..Fv` Yidwi; ekl ^f _�1t o^ .G4' ' 3G�^ � ._i .� r . F �� ._.- "..', MEN ONE son r OVERALL LAND USE BREAKDOWN Is Yl. WM .AA XI .0 .C�yrya TL'C l M �'•it�OMQK" � o�i s�m,�ii� a��ii .Kc � �$ a.'s mu �e�nr �w�. our i+.ea n. >s .ar <aw.ms -..tmu. �. • i"a ..`. ,Il YIDIMIIY Yi .L �pn, ]t Kla.MS n4, .i Wean..M nMO.iD Vn.. �� .M v.. 1.Oe wwN tiYaYO im mcI , W , b u.. ..art Yal ona..n a umvYm.rt vuu.: anY � rr. w�w giwiucv.- m scra: f4N e+o.,o wn. _-_- nnlo ..,. wa Yarlr �war+.00n Y' NOTES: 1. AtlOWD NEKY+DORHOOD CENTER USES ARE 'O BE OFFICE. DAYCLARE OR OTr ER TYPE 1' I.SE. 2, STREET NAME$ ARE SUBJECT TO CONFIRIATIOJ BY '_ETA' 3 RInM DRIvEWAY PERMITS MA— H= CONSIDERED FCR LOTS - AT 51DE '..f' i COREETI DRIH_. (E_ LOPS I AN: OLOOC 1) to Arm Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 11 in order to facilitate cross movements between neighborhoods. D. The SAGE CREEK, Project Development Plan is compatible with the surrounding land uses. E. The SAGE CREEK, Project Development Plan will be required to meet Land Use Code Division 2.5 FINAL PLAN, Division 2.6 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, and, Division 2.7 BUILDING PERMITS. 6. RECOMMENDATION: A. Staff recommends approval of the request for alternative compliance to the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards Ordinance. B. Staff recommends approval of the SAGE CREEK, Project Development Plan, Current Planning File #25-988. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-9813 February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 10 1. Standard lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing six thousand [6,000] square feet or more). 2. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than six thousand [6,000] square feet). 3. Two-family dwellings. 4. Single-family attached dwellings. (d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than ninety (90) percent of the total number of dwelling units. If single-family detached dwellings are the only housing types included in the mix, then the difference between the average lot size for each type of single-family detached dwelling shall be at least two thousand (2,000) square feet. FINDING: This Project Development Plan is required to provide a minimum of three housing types based on fact that the project is more than 45 acres. The applicant more than satisfies this requirement by providing the following four housing types: (1) standard lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing 6000 s.f. or more), (2) small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than 6000 s.f.), (3) multi -family dwellings. 5. FINDINGS OF FACT/ CONCLUSION: A. The SAGE CREEK, Project Development Plan contains uses permitted in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to administrative review. B. The SAGE CREEK, Project Development Plan meets applicable standards as put forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, Section 3.6 — Transportation and Circulation, Division 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth Standards and Division 3.8 — Supplementary Regulations of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS with the exception of Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards. C. Staff finds that the proposed alternative compliance request to Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards is equal to or better than a plan, which complies with the land, use code. The purpose statement for this section of the land use code states, "This Section is intended to ensure that the local street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle. pedestrian and transit modes of travel." Because of the Natural Resources and Stormwater Departments need to minimize the number of crossings to satisfy their departmental concerns, and because the reduction in from four street crossings to two street crossings and two bike/pedestrian crossings allows the plan to continue to provide as safe, efficient, and convenient of network of connectivity as possible, staff finds that the alternative design accomplishes this purpose equally well as would a plan that complies with the standard. In addition to the two street crossings, the applicant is proposing to two additional pedestrian crossings over the McClelland Channel Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-9813 February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 9 FINDING: In accordance with Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Land Use Code, single-family detached and single-family attached dwellings are allowed in the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (LMN) subject to an administrative review with a Public Hearing as is the proposed neighborhood center. (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density. (a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre of residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less and located in the area defined as "infill area" need not comply with the requirement of this subparagraph (a). (b)The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be eight (8) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, except that affordable housing projects (whether approved pursuant to overall development plans or project development plans) containing ten (10) acres or less and located in the Infill Area may attain a maximum density, taken as a whole, of twelve (12) dwellings units per gross acre of residential land. (c)The maximum density of any phase in a multiple -phase development plan shall be twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. FINDING: The LMN zoning district requires a minimum overall average density of 5 dwelling units/net acre of residential land, and a maximum overall average density of 8 dwelling units/gross acre of residential land. The proposal meets the minimum net density with 6.03 units per acre and maximum gross density with 4.21 units per acre. Hence, this PDP conforms to all required minimum and maximum density requirements. (2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development, and a minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any such project development plan containing forty-five (45) acres or more. (b) Lot sizes and dimensions shall be varied for different housing types to avoid monotonous streetscapes. For example, larger housing types on larger lots are encouraged on corners. Smaller lots are encouraged adjacent to common open spaces. (c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement: Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 8 In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the Decision Maker shall also take into account whether the proposed plan minimized the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct sub -arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. It appears that there is little adverse effect by permitting alternative compliance since there is sufficient vehicular access and circulation and based upon the level of standards specified in the traffic study (attached to staff report). The Sage Creek PDP design minimizes impacts on the McClelland Channel (a natural area), provides two pedestrian/bike connections in addition to bike lanes provided on the connecting streets which fosters non -vehicular access. Further, the design provides for neighborhood continuity and connectivity with existing developing areas and provides street stubs for the future adjacent development of surrounding developments. A street stub is also provided to the west, which will allow for a future street to serve these lands. (Note that this same alternative compliance request was approved with the Harvest Park PDP on January 17, 2000.) (9) Division 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements FINDING: The Transportation Planning Department reviewed the traffic impact study and the development is well within the range anticipated of the overall traffic carrying capacity of the surrounding streets. (E) Division 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth Standards (10) Section 3.7.2. Contiguity FINDING: The SAGE CREEK, PDP development proposal is exempt from the applicable Contiguity standards, based on the exception of lands within Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan designation. 4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS. (E) Division 4.4 - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (11) Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (LMN) (B) Permitted Uses (2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review (a) Residential Uses. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-9813 February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 7 (F) Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. FINDING: Based upon the applicant's request of alternative compliance, the SAGE CREEK, PDP satisfies Section 3.6.3, which requires that street connections to surrounding properties are to be provided at intervals not to exceed 660 feet, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, or a natural area or feature. The applicant has provided a justification for the proposed alternative compliance request to section 3.6.3 (dated February 18, 2000) that is attached to this staff report. This request is to limit road connectivity to the north to two (2) streets rather than the required four (4). In addition, to the two (2) street connections, two (2) pedestrian connections are being provided. The Decision Maker is authorized to grant alternative compliance to this ordinance upon finding the alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of the section equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. The purpose statement for this section of the land use code states, "This Section is intended to ensure that the local street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel." Staff finds that the alternative design accomplishes this purpose equally well as would a plan that complies with the standard. Street connectivity is restricted to the north due to the McClelland Channel drainage system. The Natural Resources Department and the Stormwater Department considered four crossings infeasible in order to facilitate the needs of their respective departments. The north boundary's length would require four street connections across this channel to service undeveloped properties to the north (Harvest Park Project Development Plan, approved January 17, 2000, and under Final Compliance Review at this time). Because of the Natural Resources and Stormwater requests to minimize the number of crossings, the applicant proposes two street connections across the channel rather than four. In addition to the two street crossings, the applicant is proposing to two additional pedestrian crossings over the McClelland Channel in order to facilitate cross movements between neighborhoods. Hence, dispersions of pedestrian and vehicular movements are provided in this residential development at an average separation, which meets the intent of the Land Use Code. Residents will have the ability to access the schools and park via the existing and future local and arterial street system in developments to the north, east and west, as well as by future bicycle/pedestrian trails through open space areas in those developments. The proposed local street system consist of local streets to be accessed from Corbett Drive (a collector street) County Road 36 (an arterial street) and County Road 9 (an arterial street). Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 6 (1) Setback from Arterial Streets. The minimum setback of every residential building from any arterial street right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet. (2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. (3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. FINDING: The Sage CREEK, PDP Site Plan did not show and/or identify a minimum setback for every residential building from a public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way of fifteen (15) feet nor has it shown the required side yard setback of five feet and rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet as required per Section 3.5.2(D) of the LUC. The building setback will be enforced at the building permit stage. (E) Garage Doors. FINDING: As required, all street facing garage doors will be recessed behind either the front fagade of the living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least 6 feet by 8 feet in plan) by at least 4 feet, and no more than 50% of the ground floor street -facing facades will be comprised of garage doors. This will be enforced at the building permit stage. (D) Division 3.6 — Transportation and Circulation (6) Division 3.6.1 - Master Street Plan FINDING: The Master Street Plan identifies County Road 9 and County Road 36 adjacent to the site as arterial streets and Corbett Drive as a collector streets. The development plan complies with the Master Street Plan. (7) Division 3.6.2 — Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements FINDING: The proposed internal subdivision street system provides adequate circulation to carry the traffic within the development. The developer is required to provide improvements to the City's street system in accordance to the City's street grid system policy and Master Street Plan. All street improvements, including right-of-way widths and minimum cul-de-sac lengths, are in conformance with city standards based upon the Poudre Fire Authority and City of Fort Collins Engineering Department's review of the proposed Project Development Plan. Hence, the proposed internal street system provides adequate circulation for the anticipated traffic within the development. (8) Division 3.6.3 — Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (B) General Standard. (E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 5 (C) Division 3.5 - Building Standards (4) Division 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility (B) Architectural Character. (C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. (D) Building Orientation. (E) Privacy Considerations. (F) Building Materials. FINDING: The townhouse portion of this proposal complies with Section 3.5.1(D) Building orientation, since building orientation of the buildings allows residents to enter and exit the buildings directly to and from walkways without having to walk along or through parking lots. Further, Section 3.5.1 (F) Building materials is met since the proposed town homes will consist of the following building materials: * Townhomes, being 2-story structures with pitched roofs, approximately 36' in height. - Composition lap siding as the base material - heavy profile, heavy dimensional, asphalt shingles * Neighborhood center building, being 1-story structures with pitched roofs, approximately 24' in height. - composition lap siding as the base material - brick fascia as accent material - heavy profile, heavy dimensional, asphalt shingles The homes will be consistent with the size, scale, and materials of homes in surrounding neighborhoods in compliance with Sections 3.5.1(B) - 3.5.1(F) of the LUC. The Current Planning Department, prior to the issuance of building permits, will review the elevations for the townhouses. (5) 3.5.2 — Residential Building Standards (B) Detached Housing Model Variety FINDING: The SAGE CREEK, PDP Site Plan commits to providing at least four types of single family housing models, as required in Section 3.5.2(B)(1)-(3) of the LUC. The commitment states that typical elevations of the proposed models will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of any single family building permits. (D) Residential Building Setbacks. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 4 FINDING: The development proposal provides for an internal sidewalk network that includes detached walkways along the arterial, local, and connector streets. Primary pedestrian crossings will be defined with pavement treatment and striping different from that of the vehicular lanes. In accordance with the Land Use Code, onsite pedestrian systems provide directness, continuity, and safety and minimize the number of driveway and drive aisle crossings. Further, the developer proposes enhanced pedestrian refuges and crosswalks with all traffic circles. (K) Parking Lots — Required Number of Spaces for Type of Use. FINDING: the applicant provides off-street and garage spaces for the attached single-family dwelling units. The sufficient number of required on -site parking spaces for the detached single family portion of the project development will be enforced at the building permit stage. (3)Section 3.2.3. Solar Access, Orientation, Shading The SAGE CREEK, PDP satisfies Section 3.2.3(B) Solar -Oriented Residential Lots. One hundred ten (110) single-family lots in the Sage Creek development are subject to the City's adopted Solar Orientation Ordinance and a total of 97 of the lots meet the intent of and definitions in the ordinance. This equals 88%, which meets the requirement with a minimum of 65% of all single family lots comply with the ordinance. (B) Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards FINDING: The developer is required to provide improvements to McClelland Channel in accordance to city requirements. The Natural Resources Department requested that the developer minimize the number of crossings. The applicant proposes only two street connections across the channel and two additional pedestrian crossings over the McClelland Channel and would tie into the proposed improvements associated with the Harvest Park PDP (This proposal requires the approval of an alternative compliance request. See Section (8) of this staff report.) The applicant has also provided a 50' buffer adjacent to the McClelland Channel. Development activity within the buffer zone will be closely coordinated with staff and will consist mainly of four crossing (two (2) street and two (2) pedestrian) and to plant required landscaping. Sage Creek PDP McClelland Channel improvements, including vegetation of the channel, and, street and pedestrian corridor crossings are required to be in conformance with city standards. If this PDP application is approved, channel and site improvements will require additional review for Final Compliance Review. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 3 2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.2. Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings FINDING: The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for Type I development proposals; hence, a neighborhood meeting was not held to discuss the SAGE CREEK PDP residential project. 3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This SAGE CREEK, PDP proposal meets all applicable standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC, with the exception of the following: • Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels [a requested alternative compliance], Of specific note is Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, and Division 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth Standards. Further discussions of these particular standards follow. A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards (1) Division 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection (2) Street Trees FINDING: The proposed street tree planting is in accordance with Sections 3.2.1(D)(2)(a)(b), providing trees at spacing of generally 40' in 6' wide parkways (between curb and sidewalk) along Corbett Drive, County Road 36 and County Road 9, and generally 40' in 6' wide parkways (between curb and sidewalk) along the internal local and connector streets. The Sage Creek PDP meets the minimum species diversity and sizing requirements. (2) Division 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standards (5) Walkways. (a) Directness and continuity. (b) Street Crossings. (c) Direct On -site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. Sage Creek, Project Development Plan, File #25-98B February 28, 2000, Type 1 Administrative Hearing Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code L( UC), specifically: the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION, standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, Section 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, and Section 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, and the applicable district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS of the LUC (Division 4.4 LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District). This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code L( UC) and with the purpose of the LMN District as it is 56.91± acres in size and contains single family detached and attached dwelling units with a community neighborhood center and a neighborhood park. The property is bound by two arterial streets (County Road 9 to the east and County Road 36 to the south) and has a collector street (Corbett Drive) providing access to a junior high school, a future city park (Harmony Park), and surrounding single and multi -family residentially developed areas to the north. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the implementing developmental regulations contained in Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code (the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District). Further, the Sage Creek PDP request satisfies all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses from the proposed project development plan are as follows: N: RL — existing residential, schools, park lands (Wildwood, Preston Junior High — Traut Elementary); and, LMN — proposed Harvest Park Project Development Plan #25-98A E: FA-1 Larimer County — existing agriculture S: County FA 1 Zone — existing residential (The Homestead Subdivision) W: County FA 1 Zone — existing residential (Blehm Subdivision) The property was annexed into the City as part of the Ruff Annexation, September 15, 1998 ITEM NO. MEETING DATE 02/28/00 iiA STAFF Ronald G. Fuchs Citv of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: February 28, 2000 PROJECT: Sage Creek, Project Development Plan - #25-98B (Type I, Administrative Review in the Land Use Code) APPLICANT: Mr. Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: H.H. Investment Co., A Colorado General Partnership c/o Thomas Morroni PO Box 16383 Denver, CO 80216 DEVELOPER: Mr. Jim Postle The James Company 2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Sage Creek Project Development Plan, request is for a division of 56.91+ acres of land into two hundred thirty (230) residential dwelling units. The development will consist of one hundred ten (110) single family detached and one hundred twenty (120) attached single family dwelling units on lots ranging from13,971 square feet to 936 square feet. Sage Creek PDP includes a community neighborhood center and a neighborhood park. The property is west of County Road 9, north of County Road 36, south of East Harmony Road, and east of Timberline Road. The property is zoned Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N). RECOMMENDATION: Approval COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT