HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 21-95 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSVII. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the impacts of constructing Prospect
Park, a multi -use commercial development at the intersection
of Prospect Road and Shields Street in Fort Collins,
Colorado. As a result of the analysis, the following
conclusions were drawn:
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated
at the following three intersections: Prospect/Shields,
Shields/Stuart, Prospect/Stone Creek.
The traffic impact analyses were performed for the Years
1997 and 2010. Future background traffic conditions without
the project and total traffic conditions, with completion of
the proposed project, were evaluated.
Currently the intersection of Prospect/Shields is operating
at an unacceptable level of service during the evening peak
hour. For Year 1997 background traffic conditions,
Prospect/Shields would continue to operate at an
unacceptable level of service during the evening peak hour.
The results of the analyses indicate that for the short
term, Year 1997 conditions, after completion of the proposed
project, Prospect/Shields would continue to operate at a
poor level and the northbound traffic at Prospect/Stone
Creek would experience long delays.
The long term future traffic analyses indicate that for Year
20101 each of the study intersections would operate at
unacceptable levels of service.
Several improvements to the study intersections are
suggested to mitigate the impacts of future traffic growth.
If the intersection improvements are installed, each of the
study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of
service with the exception of Prospect/Shields during the
evening peak hour for Year 2010 without the Centre Avenue
extension and the northbound left -turn movement out of Stone
Creek at Prospect. However, long delays for left -turns out
of minor streets is typical of intersections of minor
streets with major roadways.
26
TABLE 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Prospect/Shields
(signalized)
Shields/Stuart
(signalized)
W/ SB RT
W/ SB RT + EB LT,T,RT
Prospect/Stone Creek
(stop -controlled)
NB LT
NB RT
WB LT
Peak Hour Level of Service
1997 2010 W/O 2010 W/
CENTRE CENTRE
AM PM AM PM AM PM
C D D E D D
10
F F F
A A A
D D D
0
D
C E
C D
F
F F
A
A A
D
D D
25
Effect of Improvement Measures
The implementation of the intersection improvements would
improve the levels of service at the study intersections.
Table 5 shows the resulting levels of service with
implementation of the suggested improvements.
As indicated in Table 5, for the Year 1997 scenarios, the
intersection of Prospect/Shields and Shields/Stuart would
operate acceptable levels of service. Under the Year 2010
with the Centre Avenue extension, a Level of Service D is
expected to be maintained. However, at Prospect/Shields,
without the extension of Centre, the evening level of
service is expected to drop below an acceptable level of
service.
At the intersection of Prospect/Stone Creek, the widening of
Stone Creek would allow for the northbound right -turns to
operate at an acceptable level of service. However, the
northbound left -turns would continue to experience long
delays. As mentioned earlier, this is typical of
intersections of minor streets/driveways with arterial
streets.
24
VII. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The traffic analysis described previously was used to
identify those intersections which are projected to operate
at unacceptable levels of service. This chapter describes
measures to improve the study intersections operation.
Proposed Improvements
Although all potential measures were considered in the
development of improvements, the analysis concentrated on
those which could be implemented utilizing the following
criteria: improvements within the existing roadway section,
improvements to the existing signal operations, and
improvements requiring right-of-way acquisition.
Improvements requiring the removal of existing structures
were not considered feasible.
The intersection modifications proposed to improve the
overall intersection operations to acceptable levels of
service are described below.
Prospect/Shields - Revision to the site plan such that
the Shields Street access would allow for a northbound left -
turn into the project site. This improvement would
eliminate the need for the northbound traffic to utilize the
intersection of Prospect/Shields. However, this
recommendation.requires further evaluation to determine if
stacking of northbound left -turns at the access drive would
interfere with the stacking of southbound left -turns at
Prospect/Hobbit.
Prospect/Shields - Reconfigure the northbound approach
to the intersection to allow for dual northbound left -turn
lanes. This would require additional right-of-way from the
proposed project and right-of-way from the properties on the
west side of Shields Street, north of Prospect.
Shields/Stuart - Acquire additional right-of-way to
allow for an exclusive southbound right -turn lane.
Additionally, for Year 2010 without the extension of Centre
Avenue, the west leg of the intersection would require
widening to allow for an exclusive eastbound left -turn lane,
a through lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane.
Prospect/Stone Creek - Widen Stone Creek to allow for
an exclusive northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive
right -turn lane.
23
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Peak Hour Level of Service
Background Total
AM PM AM PM
Prospect/Shields
(signalized) C E C E
Shields/Stuart
(signalized) B D C D
Prospect/Stone Creek
(stop -controlled)
NB LT/RT D D F F
WB LT C B D D
21
IVI. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Operational Analysis
19 Traffic analyses were completed for background traffic
(without project) and total traffic (with project)
conditions. Table 3 indicates the levels of service for
each of the study intersections for Year 1997 background and
total traffic conditions. Table 4 provides the levels of
service for Year 2010 conditions without and with the
extension of Centre Avenue.
As indicated in Table 3 it is expected that the
intersections of Shields/Stuart and Prospect/Stone Creek
would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service,
for Year 1997 background traffic conditions. Acceptable
conditions is typically defined as a level of service D or
better (LOS A, B, C, or D). However, the intersection of
Prospect/Shields, during the evening peak hour is expected
to operate with long overall delays, a LOS E. It should be
noted that it was assumed that a dual eastbound left -turn
would be present at this location by 1997.
Table 3 also indicates that under total traffic conditions,
with the project, the intersection of Prospect/Shields will
continue to operate at LOS E. Additionally, the northbound
traffic movements from Stone Creek onto Prospect are
expected to operate at a poor level of service. However,
this is typical of intersections of minor streets/driveways
with arterial streets.
The traffic impact analyses results for Year 2010 total
traffic conditions, depicted in Table 9, indicate that each
of the study intersections are expected to experience long
delays with Levels of Service E or F.
20
U
�W�
r 300 1.300)
115 �200)
—
r
o N
00
LO
Y
LLJ
W
U
UJI
Z
O
v)
N
PROSPECT RD
140 (205)225
((7803140 400
J5�
no
O-'O
O M
O
ID
O Mtn
N
NcN
vca v
O o O
L 35
5STUART
ST. j t►
20 N5�
155 (105�-h
40 110 -.
175 140
on go In
'n"Ln
r7on
n
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
All Volumes Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles
FIGURE 8
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 2010 WITH CENTER AVENUE
"r.
j
19
U
=mom
LO -N
v
010
0 N LO
4- 140 5
r 300 (1,300)
PROSPECT RD. � � �
1
— 225 0
MO
i 115 (200)
.
i 190
1,220 (915
I►
3250 190)
.� f I►
40 (653
905 �475
tn
N
255 275 -1
^ m
tn
v
N Ln
O"O
no N
Y
LLJ
W
C,
L'i
Z
C)
H
In
0
u)
W
o o ! 35 N5�
5STUART ST. i 15 0j 20
155 105� •� t r
40 �110
175 140
�U.,�
non
rD
.r
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
All Volumes Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles
FIGURE 7
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 2010 WITHOUT CENTER AVENUE
18
+- 265 1,165)
i 115 60)
1,090 (830 �-
40 (653
Ln in
00 N
o v
h
Y
LLJ
w
U
LJ
Z
O
r--
N
PROSPECT RD.
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
All Volumes Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles
FIGURE 6
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 1997
to � 4-125 (185)
205 695
-1 170 460
290 175
1� .� t �►
80 430 -.
235 260 —j Ln M
non
u7 �,n
Nrn a
�n
O
T
a
O ^ �n
O)vN
` W CuQ4o !_.35 (215)
STUART ST. - � 15 110
� � 20 13s
140 (95, .Itl.
40 110
155 125 -i 2
Ln
.-ate
U.) n
M LO n
n
17
V. FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The future total traffic projections reflect future traffic
conditions with the traffic from the proposed Prospect Park
project. The future total traffic projections were
developed for the following scenarios: Year 1997, Year 2010
without the extension of Centre Avenue, and Year 2010 with
the extension of Centre Avenue.
Total Traffic Year 1997
The site -generated traffic was combined with the background
traffic, shown earlier on Figure 3, to determine the total
projected traffic in the study area. The total peak hour
traffic for Year 1997 is illustrated on Figure 6.
Total Traffic Year 2010 Without Centre
Currently Centre Avenue terminates south of Prospect Road.
However, as the Centre for Advanced Technology develops, it
is planned that Centre Avenue would extend south and west to
connect with Shields Street at Raintree. The future traffic
for year 2010 was first projected without this extension.
The total traffic for Year 2010 without Centre was developed
by: factoring.existing traffic upward by 10 to 16 percent,
adding the traffic from nearby projects (discussed in
Chapter III), and adding the traffic from the proposed
project. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections
for Year 2010 without the Centre Avenue extension are shown
on Figure 7.
Total Traffic Year 2010 With Centre
The total traffic for Year 2010 with the future extension of
Centre Avenue were developed by: factoring existing traffic
upward by 10 to 16 percent, adding the traffic from nearby
projects (discussed in Chapter III), adding the traffic from
the proposed project, and modifying specific traffic
movements at the study intersections to reflect the
extension of Centre Avenue. The resulting peak hour total
traffic projections for Year 2010 with Centre Avenue are
depicted on Figure 8.
16
Traffic Assignment
Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed
trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The
site -generated trip assignments are shown on Figure 5.
wm
M=
FIGURE 4
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
13
IV. PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Trip Generation
Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report
entitled Trip Generation, revised 1991 and February 1995
update, were applied to the proposed land use in order to
estimate the daily, AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips for
the site. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle
movement from a point of origin to a point of destination.
Table 2 illustrates the projected daily, AM and PM peak hour
traffic volumes generated by the proposed project. It was
assumed that the first story of the two story
medical/office/retail building would be retail and the
second floor medical related offices.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
ITE
Land Use Units Code ADT
Drug Store 15 KSF 815 856
Office, 5.4 KSF 710 155
Drive -In Bank 7.2 KSF 912 1,910
Med Office 14.85KSF 720 507
Retail 14.85KSF 814 604
TOTAL 4,032
PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
in out tot in out total
52 44 96 33 33 66
18 2 20 4 18 22
45 35 80 151 163 314
31 9 40 18 43 61
46 49 95 42 31 73
192 139 331 248 288 536
Trip Distribution
The overall directional distribution of the site -generated
traffic was determined based on the location of the site
within the City of Fort Collins. The trip distribution used
in the analysis of this report are shown on Figure 4.
12
Lk.:..
U
w mw
In
Ln T
L 125 185
•- 265''(1,165)
PROSPECT RD. `°
•- 185 685
155 445
i" 20 (60)
1,070 (805 �
255
10 (303�
780 �370�105
0 0
225 245
0Nrn
N O rn
v •v
N M
N�U7
LO Ln
r,
0
Y
w
w
U
w
Z
O
N
0
n
u7
t\^ In
vLO
^0v
�N
u� o
L 35 (125)
T ST. STUAR.j
j
-- ,s „o
20 135
f-
130 (85///
.i t
40 (110)�
I►
1s5 125
NLOLO
NON
r) ,n r')
to
N
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
All Volumes Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles
FIGURE 3
BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 1997
11
and the Centre For Advanced Technology, Site Access Study,
prepared by Matt Delich, May 1994.
The Preserve is a residential development currently
being constructed to the west of Shields Street and north of
Drake Road. Traffic volume data for the Preserve was
obtained from the The Preserve, Site Access Study, prepared
by Matt Delich, March 1993.
The Fort Collins Senior Center is a recently completed
senior center located to the west of Shields Street and
north of Raintree Drive. Traffic volume data for the Senior
Center was obtained from the Fort Collins Senior Center,
Site Access Study, prepared by Matt Delich, October, 1992.
The Prospect II PUD is a residential development
located south of Prospect Road and west of Stone Creek,
adjacent to the proposed project. Traffic data for this
project was obtained from a memorandum from Matt Delich to
Rich Storck, April 5, 1994.
Background Traffic Year 1997
The peak hour background traffic for Year 1997 is depicted
on Figure 3. As mentioned above this was developed by
factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth in
the City of Fort Collins and adding the traffic from the
five nearby projects described above.
10
IIII. FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the
proposed Prospect Park project on the local traffic
conditions, future traffic volumes were first estimated for
the study area without the project. These future forecasts
reflect the growth that is expected from other specific
developments in the vicinity of the project and increases
�i due to overall growth in Fort Collins.. The future
U background traffic projections were determined for the Year
1997. In Chapter V, the future total traffic projections
are presented for Year 1997 short term, Year 2010 long range
without the extension of Centre Avenue, and Year 2010 with
the extension of Centre Avenue.
The growth reflected in Year 1997 Background Traffic is
based on two factors: citywide growth and development, and
traffic generated by specific projects located within, or in
the vicinity of, the study area.
Areawide Traffic Growth
Based upon recent historical traffic data, it was determined
that traffic within the study area has increased at a rate
of approximately 1.5 percent per year when looking at the
short term future. Assuming a completion date in 1997, the
existing traffic volumes were adjusted upward by 3 percent
to reflect this citywide growth.
Traffic From Nearby Projects
City of Fort Collins staff provided a list of projects near
the project site which could be completed within the short
term. A description of each of these projects is described
below.
Spring Creek Village PUD, is a proposed multi -use
development which would include: residential, supermarket,
retail and office uses. It would be located adjacent to
Shields Street at it's intersection with Stuart Street.
Traffic volume data related to this project was obtained
from a memorandum from Matt Delich.to Bill Albrecht, July
18, 1994.
The Windtrail projects, are residential uses proposed
to the east of Shields Street and south of Spring Creek.
I Traffic data for these projects was obtained from a
memorandum from Matt Delich to John McCoy, December 6, 1993,
trim .
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Peak Hour
Level of Service
AM PM
Prospect/Shields
(signalized)D E
Shields/Stuart
(signalized)
Existing B
W/ NB LT B B
Prospect/Stone Creek
(stop -controlled)
NB LT/RT A B
WB LT B A
KEY: The * denotes the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 1.2
and therefore the overall intersection delay cannot be
determined.
8
Intersection Level of Service Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to
describe the conditions of traffic flow, ranging from
excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at
LOS F. Level of service definitions are provided in
Appendix A. The City of Fort Collins standard for minimum
acceptable LOS is D.
The Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manual by
the Transportation Research Board in 1985, were used to
analyze the study intersections for each of the traffic
scenarios. The capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix
B. These techniques allow for the determination of the
intersection level of service based on congestion and delay
of each traffic movement.
Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service
Table I summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening
peak hour level of service at each of the three study
intersections. Under actual, existing conditions, two of
the three intersections are operating at an unacceptable
level of service. As indicated in the table, during the
evening peak hour the intersection of Prospect/Shields
currently operates at Level of Service E. At the
intersection of Shields/Stuart, the evening peak hour volume
to capacity ratio is greater than 1.2 and therefore the
overall intersection level of service cannot be determined.
If a northbound left -turn phase were installed at this
location, the intersection would operate at LOS B. It was
assumed that this improvement would be in place for each of
the future traffic scenarios analyzed in the traffic study.
U
=M�
o to n !. 122 178
237 (1,041) PROSPECT RD. �NI- '- 175 �649
8 (27) r ` 124 336
1.012 (671 , I► 231 (91 , t I►
4 (83 -j 739 Y
,Nv ^ 173 118 100N
v M N
N OIt1,
Of M
]e
LAJ
W
CC
U
f
W
N
Z
O
V)
p
N
V)
J
0
o�
n�
�v
to
co N
STUART ST. 1
124 (81)-# .I t
147 (115)-*
n N
N
w
"to
Ln
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
FIGURE 2 -
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
a
6
Year 1997 Background Conditions - The objective of
this phase of the analysis is to project future
traffic growth and operating conditions which
could be expected to result from local growth and
from related projects in the vicinity of the
project site which are either under construction,
approved for development or under review. The
future base traffic conditions will be developed
for the short term Year 1997.
Years 1997 and 2010 Total Traffic (Plus Project) -
This is an analysis of future traffic conditions
with traffic expected to be generated by the
proposed project added to the base traffic
forecasts, in order to identify impacts of the
proposed project on future traffic operating
conditions. This analysis will include the Year
2010 both with and without the extension of Centre
Avenue.
The study area to be examined in this traffic impact
analysis encompasses the intersections of: Prospect Road at
Shields Street, Prospect Road at Stone Creek, and Shields
Street at Stuart Street.
Organization of Report
The remainder of this report is divided into seven parts.
Chapter II presents an analysis of the existing street
system and traffic conditions for each of the study
intersections. Forecasts of background traffic for Year
1997 are provided in Chapter III. Traffic projections for
the proposed project are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V
presents the total future traffic projections for Years 1997
and 2010. The future intersection operating conditions are
presented in Chapter VI. Chapter VII discusses any
roadway/intersection improvements as necessary and feasible.
Chapter VIII provides a summary of the study results.
4
Colorado
MULBERRY ST.
Project
State
Site
University
PROSPECT RD.
STUART ST.
DRAKE RD.
-"HORSETOOTH RD.
HARMONY RD.
N
t
JK
S
ti
N
�
J
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric,
and control requirements associated with the proposed
development of Prospect Park, a multi -use commercial
development, at Prospect Road and Shields Street in Fort
Collins, Colorado. The site location is shown in Figure 1.
Project Description
The site is located at the southwest corner of Prospect Road
and Shields Street. The land for this development is
currently vacant. The proposed project would include the
following land use elements: a 15,000-square-foot .
drugstore with a drive-in window, a 5,400-square-foot office
building, a 7;200-square-foot drive-in bank, and a 29,700-
square-foot building which could be used as medical office,
office, and/or retail. It is anticipated that the proposed
project would be completed in Year 1997.
The proposed site plan allows for three. driveways to serve
the project. The access drive from Shields Street would be
restricted to right turns into and out of the site. Stone
Creek, an existing street boardering the western side of the
project site, would accommodate a full access drive allowing
for full traffic movements into and out of the site. The
access drive from Prospect Road would be limited to right
turns only.
Study Scope
The scope of this study was developed in conjunction with
the City of Fort Collins Transportation Department. The
base assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic
coverage of the study were all identified as part of the
study approach.
The study is directed at the analysis of future traffic
conditions after completion of the proposed project. As
directed by the City of Fort Collins, the following traffic
scenarios are analyzed in the study:
Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing
traffic conditions is intended to provide a basis
for the remainder of the study. The existing
conditions analysis includes an assessment of
traffic volumes and operating conditions at the
study intersections.
2
PROSPECT PARK
PROSPECT/SHIELDS
Fort Collins, Colorado
Traffic Impact Study
April, 1995
Prepared for:
Mr. Ed Mullaney
C/O Cushman and Wakefield, Inc.
410 17th Street, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
Prepared by:
D. Ruth Clear, P.E.
430 E. Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins Colorado 80524
(970) 416-0410
513mul.wps
Real Estate
March 20, 1995
Carlson s
Investment & Management LTD
1006 Spring Creek bane #12
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 224-2900
Mr. Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
City of Fort Collins
Post office Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Re: Mullaney Property
Dear Mr. Shepard:
Oil & Gas
5661�Z� �
I realize that you have already had the neighborhood
information meeting concerning this project. I was unable to
attend but still would like to comment.
You might be aware that I own commercial property just down
the street from this proposed.PUD. I am by no means in favor of
no growth in our city, however, I hate to see Shields Street
turned into another College Avenue. By this comment, I am
referring to the amount of traffic congestion and almost
exclusive commercial use on both sides of the street.
There has already been a new retail/grocery store/ office
complex that has been approved for across the street. I feel
this complex will actually help my retail area (Spring Creek
Plaza), but once again I feel that development of the Mullaney
Property into yet more commercial is overkill in this area.
Since ly,
Dale R. Carlson
General. Partner,
kr
30. I just want to go on record that some of the neighborhood
folks here tonight may not realize who hired these
consultants. The developer hired the consultants and they
work for him. They do not work for the City and do not
represent the public interest. The City Planning Department
should do a better job of properly introducing all the
players at the beginning of the meeting so it is clear who
represents what interest. The lack of proper introductions
causes confusion.
31. Would it be possible for Ed Mullaney to pay for a third
crosswalk guard due to all the children that would be
crossing new driveway on Shields Street.
A. RESPONSE FROM DEVELOPER: This will be considered.
32. What will happen to the wetland area?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: The city owns the easement for
the wetlands as part of a larger east/west drainage system
and the wetlands will be preserved.
33. I want to express my appreciation for the traffic
consultants efforts here to night. They have done a great
job with lots of good information.
34. The developer should know that the wetlands should not be
used as a storm sewer. Runoff from the parking lot should
not be discharged directly into the wetlands.
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: We will design the storm drainage
system in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater
Utility.
0
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: We can have the buses pull into a
deceleration lane and travel further south to get away from
the intersection before arriving at a dead stop at their bus
stop. We need to coordinate with Transfort on this idea.
25. A signal at Prospect and Stone Creek Drive (west edge of the
property and shared with apartments) is not warranted.
26. Who will pay.for the oversizing improvements?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: Mr. Mullaney will be donating 18
feet of his property along Shields Street for an easement,
and that is property he can not use. Also, the City has a
street oversizing fund that will cover that portion of the
public improvements not required of the developer. It is
our understanding that the public improvements along
Prospect are now complete.
27. Even after all your recent improvements to the intersection
at Shields and Prospect, it still went from a level "D" to a
level "E" during the afternoon rush hour?
A. RESPONSE FROM CITY: Yes, it did. Keep in mind that there
is a substantial amount of new growth in Ft. Collins to the
southwest which uses Shields to get to C.S.U. and other
employers in downtown.
28. I feel Transfort should travel further south to Stuart
Street before stopping instead of stopping so close to the
intersection of Prospect and Shields.
A. RESPONSE FROM CITY: A bus stop can be moved, easily, and
independent of a P.U.D. The issue will be how the transit
route is affected in terms of lining up with the northbound
stop. Usually, both the northbound and southbound stops are
across the street from each other. Moving the southbound
stop may have to be matched by moving the northbound stop.
Also, we must look at how this affects transfers to the
Prospect route if there is a crossing of routes.
29. I highly oppose a left turn lane from Shields Street into
the site.
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: This is a fair comment. The
purpose of proposing this drive cut would be to reduce the
potential number of trips from having to use the
intersection to make a left turn to gain sole access from
Prospect Road. A left -in off Shields would siphon off some
of these turn movements and help relieve the congestion at
the intersection. The city will install a median at Shields
Street to control the turns.
5
12. Please note the height of the drugstore will be 20 feet and
the building will be lower than Shields Street.
13. I would like to see an elevation map taken from Shields
Street.
14. How much fill will be placed on this site?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: Possibly 6 to 7 feet of fill will
be necessary to obtain positive drainage. Most of this fill
will be in the northeast corner of the site, close to the
intersection. The site will slope to the south for drainage
and the site levels out with Prospect Road to the west.
15. I live across the street from where the proposed drugstore
will be built and I'm concerned about the lighting that will
occur all night long.
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: We are sensitive to lighting
concerns. Lighting specifications on a P.U.D. are usually
addressed at Final.
RESPONSE FROM CITY: By way of example, look at the lighting
out at Sam's Club along the perimeter. This is low level
parking lot lighting designed to help buffer Fairway
Estates. At the same time, notice the level of street
lighting on Boardwalk, which is a collector street.
Arterials and collector streets require substantially higher
levels of illumination than do commercial parking lots due
to traffic levels. Sam's Club has parking lot lighting that
is reduced in height and directed downward. In other words,
you may find that the existing public street lighting on
Prospect and Shields is brighter and higher than the private
commercial parking lot lighting.
16. Yes, but it's not just the parking lot lighting I'm
concerned about, it's also the lights from cars that will
glare in one's windows.
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: This is a good comment. The cars
parked facing Prospect will be lower than the street level
on the eastern part of the site. On the western part of the
site, the landscaping may have to be enhanced to screen
headlights. The landscape plan will be designed to minimize
headlight glare.
17. A traffic count was done at Prospect and Shields during the
peak hours, 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:30 to 5:30 PM. During the
morning the level of service is at "D" and during the
evening the level of service is at "E". All the surrounding
areas and pending developments were taken into consideration
as background for this study.
3
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: This project will have to meet
ADA codes before any building permits will be issued. There
may be some sidewalk connections that do not meet ADA but
alternative routes will exist. There is no intention to not
fully comply with ADA.
6. Handicap people might arrive by bus. Is there a way for
them to enter the project once off the bus?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: We haven't quite decided where
the buses will have their bus stops yet, but this will be
addressed. We are discussing relocation of the southbound
bus stop with the City but nothing has been decided at this
Preliminary stage.
7. Do you think the architectural design of this project will
be too inviting to crime and juveniles hanging out there at
night? Are there too many hidden spots?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: There are ways to help deter them
from gathering here at night and one way is appropriate
lighting.
8. What will be the hours of operation for the services here?
Residents living on the north side of Prospect Road would
not appreciate a 24-hour service of operation.
A. RESPONSE FROM DEVELOPER: As developers, we are not
anticipating any tenants needing a 24-hour operation. We
respect the concern over not wanting a 24-hour business and
would be willing to limit our tenants to specific hours.
9. Can there be in the P.U.D. something written to where no
liquor licenses will be sold and no 24-hour operations will
be considered on this site?
A. RESPONSE FROM DEVELOPER: We might want to have a deli on
the site that can sell wine and beer possibly in a sit-down
atmosphere. As landlords, we do not desire to rent to a
liquor store or a bar.
10. Would you agree to place covenants on the property?
A. RESPONSE FROM DEVELOPER: Yes.
11. Will my view of the foothills be obstructed as I drive by on
Shields Street?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: Yes it will to some extent,
however, you should be able to see the foothills when you
are past one of the proposed buildings, before you get to
another one.
r
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Prospect Park
DATE: May 25, 1995
APPLICANT: Mullaney Property, Edward Mullaney
CONSULTANTS: Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates
Becky Spears, Aller-Lingle Architects
Ruth Clear, Traffic Consultant
PLANNER: Ted Shepard
OTHER STAFF: Tom Vosburg, Transportation Planner
Teresa Lucero, City Planner
The applicants, The Mullaney Family, are proposing a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.) for a mix of retail and office uses on 6.7
acres. As proposed, the anchor tenant would be Payless Drugstore
in a 15,000 sq. ft. building. Other proposed uses are a two-
story medical office, a two-story bank, and multi -tenant retail
building. The developer's presentation included a discussion of
the site plan, transportation, and architecture.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. Land uses are the same as last meeting we attended with the
addition of one other triangular building added in the
southwest corner. This building would be an office.
2. The sidewalks along Shields Street will be widened to 8
feet.
3. There will be pedestrian bike paths all along the project
and pedestrian walkways within the project to reach all the
buildings. Please note the sidewalk on the south along the
edge of the drainage easement.
4. Will there be stop signs placed inside the project?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: Not initially. They will be
installed by the stores if necessary later. All signs are
regulated by the Sign Code and must be reviewed before a
sign permit is issued.
5. Will there be handicap access to the sidewalks?
1
34. The stores at.the corner of Stuart and Shields, Spring
Creek, are not desirable looking. However, Spring Creek
Medical Center area is nicely done.
35. Will the developer be able to donate some property for bus
pull-outs? Can the City flex its standards to increase the
length of the pullout, so stalled cars have a place to get
out of the way.
36. Scotch Pines is 15 - 20 acres and no comparison in scale,
but good comparison for residential character.
37.. Could you house the bank and all under one roof?
A. We thought breaking up the mass with three buildings
would be more appropriate than one large building.
38. If the Ponds at overland Trail is developed, this will
impact traffic in this area at Shields and Prospect even
more. All those folks will use Prospect Road, too, and the
congestion will be even worse.
39. Can a bridge be constructed, jumping the drainage area, for
cars and pedestrians?
A. A vehicular bridge over the drainage area to the south
would be very expensive. A bridge for pedestrians,
however, possibly can be considered.
40. Are people going to want to go in either direction crossing
Shields and having cross traffic from the Albrecht parcel to
the Mullaney parcel?
A. The traffic study will look at this by analyzing the
operations of the proposed access on Shields.
41. The existing traffic control box at the southwest corner of
Prospect hinders the vision of pedestrians and adds visual
clutter.
42. The City Police need to cruise Shields Street area more for
speeding cars.
5
24. We are very concerned about the height of this whole
project.
25. Can some computer graphics be done to illustrate the
proposed structures for us? Since there will be some fill,
it would be interesting to see what a two-story structure
looks like on the property.
26. I am concerned about the lighting, sidewalks and bike
accesses in this area. These three things are important for
neighborhood compatibility.
A. We agree and will address these issues.
27. Could there be an exit at Heatheridge, or an access to the
west if possible and could you connect the bike paths
together?
A. Good comment! A bike connection to the west will be
explored, but vehicular access to Heatheridge is not
possible.
28. The real problem to this project will be the exits and
accesses.
A. A traffic study will help us analyze the operations of
the proposed access points. Safety is an important
issue here including safety of pedestrians and people
on bike paths.
29. I would like a well lit, easy access and pleasant looking
project to be built.
30. I.have had to wait through several light changes at the
corner of Prospect and Shields streets. The left turn cycle
for westbound Prospect needs to be longer.
31. The roadway striping at the intersection seem inconsistent
with what cars need to do. The striping is awkward for
drivers making the double -left turn.
32. A bus pull-out is warranted off of Shields south of
Prospect. Presently, the bus stops in the travel lane.
This causes congestion and a pull-out is needed.
33. I live on the north side of Prospect, Road. Presently, it is
difficult to turn into my property due to the left -turn
stacking lane for eastbound Prospect and there is two-way
traffic in front of my house.
4
built on this project. Another neighborhood meeting is
A good idea.
14. Will your traffic study take into consideration other nearby
projects?
A. Yes, it will.
15. The plan proposes a curb cut on Shields for right-in/right-
out and left -in turns. I am concerned about northbound
Shields left -in. Will it conflict with left turn stacking
lanes for northbound Shields to westbound Prospect?
A. This will be considered in the traffic study.
16. I'm concerned about the proposed left -in curb cuts and
children and pedestrians walking along Shields having to
cross another crosswalk type of situation.
17. The height of the bank building (two-story) does concern me.
18. Cars in the parking lot areas will be placed at a low level
in order to screen them somewhat from view.
19. Can we, as neighbors, get together and change the proposed
use for this project?
A. We would like to develop an office/retail area which
will serve the neighborhood. We are not trying to find
uses that will attract customers from across town.
20. If the traffic impact is not solvable, what will happen?
A. The traffic impact must be mitigated or the project
will be denied. (For example, the Albertson's proposal
died due, partially, to access & traffic issues.)
21. Can the building structures be limited.to single -story in
size?
A. Keep in mind that many residences are two-story and
there are many attractive two-story commercial
buildings.
22. A two-story structure would really limit the view from my
house.
23. Can a brick, one-story strip center be constructed there,
similar to the Toddy's area?
A. We would like to use brick, also.
J
6. I'm very concerned about any 24 hour operation in this
development. Is the P.U.D. written so 24 hour services
cannot go in there?
A. Payless Drugstore is considering the hours of operation
to be 7:00 AM to 6:00 Pm. The developer is also
concerned about the hours of operation.
7. Who owns the wetlands?
A. The City's Stormwater Utility does.
S. What are you going to do with the piping, i.e. the storm
sewer on Prospect?
A. We're going to leave it. It was installed under the
ground with last year's Prospect project.
9. I'm concerned about the quality of tenants/clients you allow
in there.
A. Good comment! We are going to limit retail. For
example, we are not allowing fast food/drive-thru
restaurants.
10. Will this proposed project add an extra burden on the
drainage channel and its capacity?
A. No, the channel was designed with the assumption that
this property would be developed.
11. How much more fill is going to be placed on this site?
A. This area has to be filled to.5,016 feet (mean sea
level). The low point for stormwater discharge is at
elevation 5,016. The low point for the site is at the
extreme northeast corner of the site which is at 5,013.
Therefore, a minimum of 3 feet is required for positive
drainage.
12. Is this whole area crisscrossed with utility lines?
A. No, it is not.
13. I definitely think another neighborhood meeting is
warranted. The aesthetics of the rear of these proposed
buildings and their trash enclosures are also important to
US.
A. Yes, it is. We would like to get further input from
you on the type of structures you would like to see
2
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: The Mullaney Property - SWC Prospect/Shields
DATE: March 9, 1995
APPLICANT: Mullaney Family
CONSULTANT: Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates
PLANNER: Ted Shepard
The applicants, The Mullaney Family, are proposing a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.) for a mix of retail and office uses on 6.7
acres. As proposed, the anchor tenant would be a 15,000 square
foot.drugstore. Other proposed uses are a two-story medical
office, a two-story bank, and multi -tenant retail building.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. Traffic is the number one problem. I'd like to see a low
impact development go in here.
2. The geese are now driven down by the drainage area.
3. Is there an impact to the wetlands due to sediment from
street sanding? Are there impacts from oil and gas residue?
A. The City's Stormwater Utility goes into the drainage
channels and wetland areas every five years and cleans
out the sediment. To the best of our knowledge,.
impacts from oil & gas residue are negligible.
4. How many parking spaces are planned for this project?
A. 180 - 200 parking spaces are planned.
5. I live on the north side of Prospect and cannot turn left to
go east at 8:00 AM. It's too difficult.
1
--
BUSINESS
SERVICE USES
POINT CHART E
For All Criteria
Applicable Criteria Only ,
-- - Criterion, ._ -_. _ ._ __..-
Is
the
Criterion
Applicable
Yes No
I II III . IV
Circle
-- the --
Correct Score
Multiplier
-- -- ---
Points
Earned
Ixll
Maximum
Applicable
Points
- —
a. Transit Route
DX
x
2
0
__2___'
--q_y=---
b. South College Corridor
X
X
20
0
4
1 S
8
c. Part of Center
X
IX
2
g
3
Q
6
d. Two Acres or More
X
X
0
3
6
6
e. Mixed -Use
X
o2
0
3
G
6
f. Joint Parking
0
1
2
0
3
O
6
g, Energy Conservation
X
1
2
3
4 0
1 2
8
h, Contiguity
()X
X
2
0
5
10
10
i. Historic Preservation
I
1
2
0
2
—
.-
1.
1
2
0
k•
1
2
0
I.
L
1
2
0
Totals 31i 5y
v vl
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII (03
Vll
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
- 73 -
�i� - - • • i I i V • 4/.
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE_ CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the cntenon
applicab(e9
- a
.5 s a
a �
s
Will the cmen
be satisleV
If no, please explain
Yes No
Al.
COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1
Solar Orientation
I I
I I
1.2
Comprehensive Plan
✓
;;:
1.3
Wildlife Habitat
1.4
Mineral Depcsit
1..5
Ecclocically Sensitive Areas
reserved
I reserved
I I
I
Te Lands of Acricultural Imoortance
I I
1.7
Enercv Conservation
I I
f '✓
1.8
Air Qualitv
I . I I
✓
1.9
Water Quality
I ✓I I
I I
SEf Gaao i>raiJ nF A/i�PeV AL
1.10
Sewace and Wastes
✓ ! I I
✓ I I
1.11
Water Conservation✓�
I
✓
1..12
Residential Density
A 2.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIAI
I
2.1
Vehicular. Pedestrian. Bike Transoonation
I I I
I ✓ 1Sf-rQVD1T1drj
2.2
9uiidine Placement and Orientation
✓I I I
✓ I
2.3
Natural Features
(✓I I I
( ✓ IS£f
r�tin >e , nC APPQdyAL
2.4
Venlcular Circulation and Parking
2.5
Emergency Access _
✓
2.6
Fecestrian Circulation
2.7
Architecture
I I I I
d
2.8
Building Helcnt and Views
2.9
Shading
2.10
Sclar Access
I I
I
2.11
Historic Resources
I I
I
2.12
Setbacks
,/I I I
2.13
L=_ndscace
I
I
2.'14
Sicns
i I
.i SACIC r-omorrIO4VAk
2.15
Site Lighting
e )r V Al-
2.16
Noise and Vibration
2.17
Glare or Heat
2.18
Hazardous Materials
A 3.
ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1
Utility Capacity
3.2
Design Standards
3.3
Water Hazards
3.4
Geologic Hazards
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised h 1994
U5�
-61-
Ripley Associates
Planning Objectives - Prospect Pi X.D.
Page 2
City Land Use Policies that support the proposed development include:
63. Neighborhood service centers should locate within walking distance of
existing or planned residential areas.
64. Alternative transportation modes such as pedestrian and bike access
shall be planned ....... ,
65. Neighborhood service centers should locate in areas served by existing
water and sewer facilities ....
67. Only neighborhood scale service centers should locate in residential
neighborhoods.
We believe the proposed Prospect Park P.U.D. would be an attractive addition
to the neighborhood providing needed goods and services. Thank you for your
consideration and we look forward to working with you throughout the
development review process.
Sincerely,
RIPLEY ASSOCIATES
Linda Ripley
Principal
i
April 24, 1995
Planning and Zoning Board Members
C/O Ted Shepard
Project Planner
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Planning Objectives for Prospect Park Preliminary P.U.D.
Prospect Park is a proposed commercial center to be located southwest of the
intersection of Prospect Road and Shields Street. The center as planned,
would include a bank, a 30,000 square foot professional office building with
retail on the first level, a 15,000 square foot drug store and a 5,000 square
foot office building.
The 7.10 acre site is bordered on the north by single family residential,
Landmark Apartments are located to the east, a stormwater regional drainage
facility occupies approximately two acres of the site and extends further south
creating an open space between this project and Northwoods Apartments.
Stone Creek Apartments are located to the west. The project scores 74% on
the Business Service Point Chart E, gaining points for being on a transit route,
locating outside of the South College Avenue corridor, being larger than two
acres, creating mixed use and joint parking opportunities, and for being
contiguous to existing urban development.
The applicant has met several times with representatives of the
Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association informally and has also held one
official neighborhood meeting. The land plan and particularly the land uses
were developed in direct response to neighborhood input.
Specific planning objectives for the project include:
■ Selecting' land uses that the neighborhood can support.
■ Creating a pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern that is safe,
convenient and produces the least negative impact on the
Prospect/Shields intersection.
■ Creating buildings that relate to each other by using consistent building
materials, colors and similar architectural detailing.
■ Creating attractive streetscapes by designing parking facilities 3-4 feet
below street level so that parked cars are screened from view and by
providing street trees and other plantings designed to enhance the visual
quality of the neighborhood.
RIPLEY ASSOCIATES
Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
Planning
223 Jefferson Street
Suite A
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
PHONE (303) 224.5828
FAX (303) 224-2956
DRUG STORE ORILERTEDILAL,TETAI�
e ELEVATION FROM FR05PECT STREET
0
u
DRUG STORE
N.Imam•ORTH ELEVATION
r
OFICEmEDILALiTTETAIL
N.Imam•ORTH ELEVATION
r
DR STORE BANK
eWEST ELEVATION n NORTH ELEVATION
.Ic-a' I . Im.,m.
��`�—�nnnrinn•n,.-
1 .1 � 1�1 11�7N1
IOIWIN II MINDI�P■_I_IfICI■
.LL.rtaI..LEa�L
,PILEALWrt
ORW STORE
/1 ELEVATION FROM SHIELDS 5TREET
�I. , Im.m.
IN
PROSPECT
PARK
PRELIMINARI BLILDING ELEVATIONS
RIPLEI' ASSOCIATES
a ®
51JpMITTAL PATE ARIL 14. 1995
(LL6D.Lf1CL6
AXXI CT6 V
RCVISONS
san�cauin rtrt ^e�00•maa
Iw�l trl-ima
aAAnDWG SM1Ri•
o�
'-24 rnj
SU.LC• 1' - 20
MA By, m On,p3
naFm dlaWX en Rc5 J� lJ�
No Text
11112IRR M1:3 +IRA
IIIt•` 1110501' HE
•
11
��
�r I\nnll� Il�ull^I
1:
NMI loll
....� some
on
.��. ■....- .•
L7
.:•.iD
�_
"
reod 1 11
I G
■0'■11■�l
WIIiAlild�i�i�l���1�1�L �ImillnilL7ii'n
i
� :II: `""'�.............. �O Ills u.._auun� 1_iimn.WIN'
l .__main
�...... I
.cis.'
Em
IWO
MOSINEE
gpi
k-R.-M
.unnuy..nnn.�mnnmunrauumuln6C n.n"•�Iu..�S.l.. r:lTl 3 �'1,�m
.W.
VAPOR
"—'=III:■��
n= =■ IIII�! a
II■11=__
- B !II III 111 en
III.
-IIIIIIII .
■■ I.��� III IIIIIIIIII 111
ifir
9 IIIIIIIIII IIIII
Ila
:I
IIII
1.
1.�.E r -- �—
�_�u.: Idi110 L�. Cn
�Ill�p:l 1_�Illlnl
.e ems:
II • �I 1- 71.1■11:
_ IIII11111 G..�
9111.1.1111
0 II ■11 a I11111111111
.. J
�II■�... r moms..
rr l trrmul MEMO.
Iwo
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Prospect Park Preliminary P.U.D., 21-
95, subject to the following conditions:
1. Flush wall signs are not granted an expression of
approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of
Final P.U.D., additional information and detail shall be
provided in order to evaluate flush wall signs by All
Development Criterion A-2.14.
2. Site lighting is not granted an expression of approval
with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final
P.U.D., additional information and detail shall be
provided, including but not limited to, type, number, and
location of both pole and building -mounted outdoor light
fixtures, type of light source, wattage, and pole height.
Site lighting is to be reviewed by All Development
Criterion A-2.15.
3. Wetland protection measures, including but not limited
to, stormwater filtration/pre-treatment methods and
velocity dissipation facilities are not granted an
expression of approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. At
the time of Final P.U.D., additional information
regarding wetland protection measures shall be provided.
Such measures shall include aesthetic considerations and
complement the natural character of the wetland area.
Wetland protection measures to be reviewed by All
Development Criteria A-1.9 and A-2.3.
4. The proposed left -in turn movement at the Shields Street
curb cut is not granted an expression of approval with
this Preliminary P.U.D. A request for a left -in turn
movement must be accompanied by further information and
will be evaluated by All Development Criterion A-2.1 at
the time of Final P.U.D.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
Staff approves of the Shields Street curb cut being limited to
right-in/right-out turns. Staff is concerned, however, of
introducing left -in turns off northbound Shields due to the lack of
stacking space in the continuous left turn lane. There is a
concern that there may be "interlocking lefts" as southbound cars
desiring to turn left into Hobbit Drive (Landmark Apartments)
compete for space. Also, there is a concern that the stacking of
left turning vehicles going from northbound Shields to westbound
Prospect is very long and may stack back past the proposed right-
in/right-out.
The applicant desires to pursue the left -in possibility on the
basis that allowing left -in turns will actually relieve congestion
at the intersection by not forcing all customers to use the
Prospect Road/Stone Creek access. Staff has provided direction to
the applicant that there may be a design solution that merits
consideration. Such a design has not been re -submitted to the
Transportation Department and All Development Criterion A-2.1
(Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation) cannot be satisfied if
the P.U.D. includes the Shields Street left -in turn. Therefore, in
order to not grant an expression of approval at Preliminary P.U.D.,
Staff recommends the following condition of approval:
The proposed left -in turn movement at the Shields Street curb
cut is not granted an expression of Preliminary approval. A
request for a left -in turn movement must be accompanied by
further information and will be evaluated, by All Development
Criterion A-2.1 at the time of Final P.U.D.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
A. The Preliminary P.U.D. exceeds the required minimum score on
the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.
B. The P.U.D. is sensitive to and maintains the character of the
existing neighborhood.
C. The P.U.D. does not encroach into the wetlands.
D. The design promotes bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel.
E. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the
L.D.G.S. with the exceptions as noted in the conditions of
approval.
F. The All Development Criteria which are the subject of the four
conditions of approval are appropriately reviewed with greater
scrutiny at the time of Final P.U.D.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
G. Site Lighting
At Preliminary, there is insufficient information by which to
evaluate this All Development Criterion A-2.15. Site lighting was
an issue raised at the neighborhood meetings. In order to not
grant an expression of approval, and to request additional
information at Final, Staff recommends the following condition:
Site Lighting is not granted an expression of approval with
this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final P.U.D.,
additional information and detail shall be provided including,
but not limited to, type, number and location of both pole and
building -mounted outdoor light fixtures, type of light source,
wattage, and pole height.
5. Resource Protection:
The City purchased an easement for the existing wetlands as part of
a storm drainage capital improvement project within the Canal
Importation Basin. These wetlands are located at the southern edge
of the property, south of the eight foot wide path. At the
Preliminary P.U.D., the applicant has indicated that these wetlands
will be protected from adverse impacts resulting from stormwater
runoff. All Development Criteria A-1.9 (Water Quality) and A-2.3
(Natural Features) requires that these wetlands be protected.
The applicant has provided information indicating, in preliminary
form, that these wetlands will indeed be protected. At the
preliminary stage, this information is considered appropriate.
However, in order to not grant an expression of approval, Staff
recommends the following condition of approval:
Wetland protection measures, including but not limited to,
stormwater filtration/pre-treatment methods and velocity
dissipation facilities are not granted an expression of
approval. At the time of Final, information regarding wetland
protection measures shall be provided. Such measures must
include aesthetic considerations and complement the natural
character of the wetland area.
6. Transportation:
Primary vehicular access is gained from Prospect Road at a private
shared access drive with Stone Creek Apartments. This intersection
will allow full turning movements. Between Payless and the multi-
use building, there will be a right-in/right-out intersection.
On Shields Street, there is a right-in/right-out intersection south
of Payless. The applicant desires to upgrade this intersection to
allow left -in turn movements.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
The path will also provide a recreational amenity as a place to
view the wetlands. Three pedestrian cross -walks will connect this
path to the two larger buildings. This path will be detached from
the parked cars.
Other connections are provided through the bank pad, and two paths
are provided from Prospect Road. A strong pedestrian linkage is
established by a crosswalk, with landscaping, between Payless and
the multi -use building.
D. Drive -Up Facilities
Payless Drugstore and the Bank Building feature drive -up
facilities. While Staff generally finds drive -up facilities
somewhat difficult to mitigate, these windows lessen the need for
additional parking stalls. Since the P.U.D. is at the very low end
for retail parking ratios, which is considered desirable, the
inclusion of drive -up windows is found to be an acceptable trade-
off. The Payless Drugstore drive -up window will be slightly below
street level. Grade separation and landscaping will help buffer
this hard surface area.
E. Architecture
The three main buildings will be of a unified design using similar
forms, materials, and color. These buildings will feature a mix of
concrete block (split -face and ground -face) and pre -finished
standing seam metal roofing. Payless Drugstore will feature
parapet screen walls for the rooftop mechanical equipment. The
multi -use building features significant glass areas for the retail
and office users.
The architectural elevations are in a preliminary form. More
detail will be provided at the time of Final P.U.D.
F. Signage
The site is located within the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. The Board, therefore, is allowed to evaluate the
location of the proposed flush wall signs. At Preliminary, flush
wall signs and signage bands are proposed for the Payless Drugstore
and multi -use building which, due to a lack of detail, may not
satisfy All Development Criterion A-2.14. Since more detail will
be provided at Final, Staff recommends the following condition of
approval:
Flush wall signs are not granted an expression of approval
with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final P.U.D.,
additional information and detail shall be provided in order
to evaluate flush wall signs by All Development Criterion A-
2.14.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
neighborhood suggests that this bus stop be moved further south and
be provided with its own pull-out bay.
Resolution: Transportation Department is investigating the impact
on the efficiency of the route by moving the bus stop. The
developer has committed to providing the necessary additional
right-of-way should the bus bay be desired. Moving the bus stop
south can be accomplished independent of the P.U.D.
In conclusion, on a preliminary basis, the P.U.D. is found to be
compatible with the neighborhood. While issues remain,
particularly with the actual design of the stormwater filtration
and dissipation system, the P.U.D. is sensitive to and maintains
the character of the existing neighborhood.
4. Design•
The land uses have been selected to provide retail and commercial
services for the surrounding residential population. The anchor
tenant, Payless Drugstore, is located approximately half -way
between the two King Soopers stores at Cedarwood Plaza and South
College Avenue. Consequently, the project is being designed as a
neighborhood business service center. (It will be recalled that
Spring Creek P.U.D. across the street has a preliminary approval
for a grocery store as the anchor tenant.) The following design
elements are featured in the Preliminary P.U.D.:
A. Building Layout
The buildings are separate to reduce the impacts associated with
mass and scale. This separation contributes to a relatively open
character affording views to the wetlands.
B. Multi -Use Building
The center building is two story and will feature retail on the
first floor and office on the second floor. Restaurant space is
being provided on the southern part of the building to take
advantage of the pedestrian/plaza space. The building is
surrounded by a partially covered pedestrian arcade.
C. Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections
In order to take advantage of the proximity to the surrounding
population, a series of sidewalk connections into the project are
provided. The primary path is an eight foot wide, detached
sidewalk running the entire length on the southern edge of the
project. This path is intended to encourage east -west travel since
the site is between Landmark Apartments and Stone Creek Apartments.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Resolution: There is no encroachment into the wetlands. The
wetlands are protected by an easement obtained by the City from the
developer in order to complete the Canal Importation Basin drainage
project. There is a meandering eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian
path at the north edge of the easement to promote alternative modes
of transit to the site. This sidewalk is located upland of the
actual wetlands on level ground.
As part of the Utility Plan review, the developer will be required
to pre -treat stormwater runoff so that oil, gas, and sediment can
settle out and not be carried into the wetland. Direction has been
given to the engineering consultant as to best management practice
to accomplish a pre-treatment filtering system. This will likely
consist of two dissipation points designed to reduce the velocities
of storm flows as they leave the storm sewer pipes.
A transition area between the parking lot and wetlands has been
obtained by the City and cannot be developed, except for a path.
This transition area will allow native plant materials to be
planted to further buffer the development (hard edge) from the
wetlands (soft edge).
D. 24-Hour Operation
The neighborhood is very clear that the P.U.D. not feature land
uses with 24-hour operations.
Resolution: The developer has committed to not allowing a 24-hour
operation within this center. This commitment will be made a part
of any Final P.U.D. and be enforceable by the City's Zoning
Department.
E. Height and Views
Presently, in an undeveloped condition, the site provides the
intersection with an open view to south and west, including a view
of Long's Peak. While recognizing that the City will not purchase
the property for open space, the concern, nonetheless, is to
maintain a degree of openness.
Resolution: The building closest to the intersection will be one-
story with a height of 20 feet. Parapet screen walls will hide
mechanical equipment. The buildings are separated so that there is
space to view the wetlands.
F. Location of Shields Street Bus Stop
Presently, the southbound bus stops in the right through lane on
Shields, just south of the intersection with Prospect. The
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
e. Containing two or more significant uses (retail and office).
h. Having at least one -sixth of its boundary contiguous to
existing urban development.
Based on the performance on the Business Service Uses Point Chart,
the proposed land uses are appropriate at this location.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Two neighborhood information meetings were held to discuss this
proposal. Minutes to both these meetings are attached. The
compatibility issues, and the status of their resolution, are
briefly summarized as follows:
A. Land Use
The proposed land uses are considered acceptable. The neighborhood
has made it clear that a large multi -family project, fast food
restaurant, or convenience store with gas sales would not be
desirable.
Resolution: The developer has not included these uses in the
P.U.D.
B. Traffic
Most of the discussion revolved around the proposed left -in off
northbound Shields Street. This access is controversial.
Residents living along Prospect Road north of the site support the
left -in since it will siphon off left turn movements from the
intersection thereby relieving congestion. On the other hand,
introducing another left turn on Shields, between Prospect and
Hobbit is considered by many in the neighborhood as a retrofit that
will not work.
Resolution: Transportation Staff is working with the developer's
traffic consultant on finding a way to make this left -in workable.
If the left -in cannot operate safely, if left -out exits cannot be
controlled, if there is not enough stacking for left turns into
Hobbit, then it will not be allowed. The status of the left -in is
that it needs further study and should not be considered as part of
the Preliminary P.U.D.
C. wetlands
There is a concern that the P.U.D. maintain the integrity and
viability of the wetlands. Stormwater runoff should be treated or
filtered so that oil and gas and sediment do not impact the
wetland. Development should not encroach into the wetland.
Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary, #21-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background-
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L; Existing residential and business (Camera Corner)
S: R-P; Existing multi -family (Northwoods Apartments)
E: R-P; Existing multi -family (Landmark Apartments)
W: R-P; Existing and proposed multi family (Stone Creek Apts
The property has not been part of any previous development
proposals. A City Storm Drainage Improvement Project, including a
new bridge at Shields Street, has recently been completed on the
southern portion of the site. The intersection of Prospect and
Shields was reconstructed in 1994 as part of the Choices 195
capital improvement project. Prospect Road was widened from
Shields Street to Taft Hill Road in 1993, also part of a Choices
195 project.
2. Land Use:
A. All Development Criteria
The P.U.D. was evaluated by the All Development Criteria of the
L.D.G.S. All Development Criteria A-1.9 (Water Quality), A-2.1
(Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation), A-2.3 (Natural
Features), A-2.14 (Signs) and A-2.15 (Site Lighting) are not fully
satisfied at this time due to the preliminary nature of the
submittal. As a result, four conditions of approval are
recommended in order to not grant an expression of Preliminary
approval and to request further information at the time Final.
These conditions are more fully discussed under their respective
subsections.
B. Variable Criteria
The proposed commercial development has been evaluated by the
criteria of the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.
The P.U.D. earns a score of 63% which exceeds the required minimum
score of 50%. Points were awarded for the following criteria:
a. Being contiguous to an existing transit route.
b. Being located outside the South College Avenue Corridor.
d. Having at least two acres of land.
ITEM NO. 1 R
MEETING DATE 6/26/95
STAFF Ted Shepard
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Prospect Park Preliminary P.U.D., #21-95
APPLICANT: Mr. Ed Mullaney
c/o Linda Ripley
Ripley Associates
223 Jefferson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Mrs. Ruth Ann Mullaney
2422 South Downing Street
Denver, CO 80202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Preliminary P.U.D. for a commercial
development at the southwest corner of Prospect Road and Shields
Street. The proposed uses are divided among four buildings which
include a one-story, 15,000 square foot drugstore, a two-story,
29,700 square foot multi -use building (retail, restaurant, office,
medical), a two-story, 10,200 square foot bank, and a one-story,
5,400 square foot office/daycare building. Total square footage is
60,300 square feet. The property is 7.1 acres and zoned R-P,
Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The project is appropriate for a Preliminary P.U.D. with the
conditions of approval recommended by Staff. The four conditions
of approval are designed to not grant an expression of approval in
order to request more information for further evaluation of
specific portions of the submittal at the time of Final P.U.D.
The project exceeds the required minimum score on the Business
Service Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The land uses are found
to be compatible with the surrounding area. The wetlands will be
protected. The P.U.D. is an infill project designed to serve the
immediate surrounding residents and pass -by traffic.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to
develop a detailed description of the existing conditions on
and near the project site. The assessment of conditions
relevant to this study include land use, streets, traffic
volumes, and operating conditions on the street system.
Existing Street System
Prospect Road is an east/west arterial street. Prospect
Road is currently striped to accommodate four travel lanes,
two in each direction. There are bike lanes on both the
north and south side of Prospect Road. The speed limit is
currently posted at 35 mph. The intersection of Prospect
Road and Shields Street is signalized. The T-intersection
of Prospect Road and Stone Creek is stop -controlled, with
the stop on Stone Creek. The adjacent land use is
predominantly residential with one commercial use the
intersection of Prospect/Shields.
Shields Street is an north/south arterial street. Shields
Street is striped to accommodate four travel lanes. Bike
lanes are provided on both sides of Shields Street. The
speed limit is currently posted at 35 mph. The intersection
of Shields Street with Stuart Street is signalized. The
adjacent land use is residential and some vacant property.
Stone Creek is a north/south road which serves the Stone
Creek apartments and would provide access into the project
site.. Currently this is an unmarked two lane road. The
land use adjacent to Stone Creek is residential and
undeveloped properties.
Stuart Street is a east/west collector road. Stuart Street
is striped to accommodate two travel lanes. Bike lanes are
provided on both sides of Stuart Street. The speed limit is
posted at 25 mph. The adjacent land use is predominantly
residential with some commercial at the intersection of
Stuart/Shields.
Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were conducted
at each of the three study intersections during April, 1995.
The existing peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in
Figure 2.
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2010 WITHOUT AND WITH CENTRE
Prospect/Shields
(signalized)
Shields/Stuart
(signalized)
Prospect/Stone Creek
(stop -controlled)
NB LT/RT
WB LT
Peak Hour Level of Service
W/O Centre W/ Centre
AM PM AM PM
D F* D F*
C
F
D
E
F
D
C F
F F
D D
KEY: F* indicates that the volume to capacity ratio is
greater than 1.2 and therefore the overall delay and overall
level of service cannot be determined.
22
U
�M�
PROSPECT RD. 96 (t37)
19 25 - 1►
29 �37 -1
� n
Lo Lo
n n
Y
W
W
CC
U
LLJ
Z
0
U—
� 96 (137)
35 72 � 1►
19 25
N
n
�n
n
LEGEND:
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
I FIGURE 5
Project
Site
STUART ST.
SITE —GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
M
Ln n
N n
w
Of 01
r
19
35 (72):
.I
28 58 -.
7 1 4 -i
a
n
m
Ln
co v
cn
�l
35 (72) - t
n
v
00
N
15
18. The purpose of the analysis is to find ways to reduce
congestion at the intersection, especially during the P.M.
peak. One way to do this is to provide a left turn into the
site from Shields, between Prospect and Hobbit. In
addition, making the northbound Shields to westbound
Prospect a double left instead of just a single left would
increase the efficiency during the left turn green phase.
These two measures could improve the intersection so it
climbs back up to level of service "D".
19. Ms. Clear's presentation was very good and enlightening. We
appreciate that. My question is how does the proposal
impact turn movements at Hobbit?
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: I calculate that there is a nine
car gap between the proposed left turn and existing Hobbit.
This should be sufficient so you don't have "interlocking
lefts" competing for space in the same left turn lane.
20. As mentioned at the last meeting, the proposal to introduce
a left turn off Shields must consider the number of children
using the sidewalk to get to Bennett Elementary.
A. RESPONSE FROM CONSULTANT: We are aware that the sidewalk is
heavily used during the school year.
21. What does the City think about this left turn off Shields?
A. RESPONSE FROM CITY: We think it raises a lot of issues and
that it needs more study. We are not in a position to
approve it at this time. For example, a northbound double
left on Shields may require shifting the southbound lanes to
the west to make room. This is where Council decided not to
build a right -turn lane.
22. As a property owner on the west side
is my belief that the land purchased
for a right -turn lane only, not for
have to look at the language of the
I do not recall the land being able
the southbound lanes further west.
23. I live on the north side of Prospect
a left -in turn off Shields to serve
place fewer vehicles in front of my
of Shields Street, it
for right-of-way was
anything else. I would
acquisition/easement but
to be used just to move
Road. I fully support
the project. This will
house.
24. What can be done to get vehicles out of the line of traffic
when buses are stopped on Shields Street by this project?
The double left turn seems to push left turning vehicles
directly into the parked bus. This is dangerous.
4