HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOSTON CHICKEN PUD PRELIMINARY - 79 93 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYleft -turn lane will be full of vehicles to and through the
Godfathers Pizza access location. The left -turn entrances and
exits that would use this access have an alternative access.
Existing geometry at the other key intersections is adequate
considering the long range peak hour traffic projections.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Based upon these analyses, the following is concluded:
- The proposed Boston Chicken Site, with two restaurants, is
feasible from a traffic engineering perspective. These proposed
uses will generate approximately 3100 trip ends per day. A portion
of these trip ends are from pass -by traffic that will already be
on the area street system.
- Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometrics,
the Lemay/Riverside and Lemay/Elizabeth signalized intersections
operate acceptably.. The stop sign controlled Lemay/Pennock
intersection operates unacceptably for left -turn exits. Left -turns
from the Godfathers Pizza driveway operate unacceptably during the
peak hours.
By 1995, given development of the Boston Chicken Restaurant
on this site and an increase. in background traffic, the
Lemay/Riverside and Lemay/Elizabeth signalized intersections will
operate acceptably with the existing laneage configuration. The
Lemay/Pennock intersection will operate unacceptably with stop sign
control. Operation at all intersections is not significantly
different than the current operation. Provision of the
Pennock/Laurel connection minimally changes the operation at some
of the key intersections. If a signal is installed at the
Lemay/Pennock intersection, it will operate acceptably.
Based upon short or long range peak hour traffic
projections, a signal is not warranted at the Lemay/Pennock
intersection. However, other signal warrants may be met.
Conditions at this intersection should be monitored regularly to
evaluate signal warrants. A signal at this intersection will not
negatively impact signal progression on Lemay Avenue.
- �By 2015 with the projected traffic volumes, the signalized
intersections will operate acceptably. Operation of left turns at
the stop sign controlled intersections is at level of service E and
F. This operation is not significantly different than the short
range operation. If a signal is installed at the Lemay/Pennock
intersection, it will operate acceptably.
bs"`\
Table 5
Long Range Peak Hour Operation
(With Laurel Street Connection)
Intersection
Lemay/Riverside (signal)
Lemay/Right-in/right-out (stop sign)
EB RT
Lemay/Pennock (stop sign)
r: EB LT
EB T
EB RT
WB LT
WB T
4_ WB RT
SB LT
NB LT
Lemay/Pennock (signal)
r Lemay/Godfathers (stop sign)
*`= WB LT
'£ WB RT
SB LT
Lemay/Elizabeth (signal)
Level of Service
Noon PM
C C
A A
E. F
E E
A A
F F
E E
A A
A A
C D
B C
E E
A A
A A
B C
0
w
Table 4
Short Range Peak Hour Operation
(With Laurel Street Connection)
Intersection
Lemay/Riverside (signal)
Lemay/Right-in/right-out (stop sign)
EB RT
Lemay/Pennock (stop sign)
EB LT
EB T
EB RT
WB LT
WB T
WB RT
SB LT -
NB LT
Lemay/Pennock (signal)
Lemay/Godfathers (stop sign)
WB LT
WB RT
SB LT
Lemay/Elizabeth (signal)
Level of Service
Noon PM
B C
A
E
E
A
E
E
A
A
B
E
A
A
B
A
E
E
A
F
E
A
A
D
iJ,
E
A
C
k�
Table 3
Short Range Peak Hour Operation
(Existing System)
Level
of Service
Intersection
Noon
PM
Lemay/Riverside (signal)
B
C
Lemay/Right-in/right-out (stop sign)
EB RT
A
A
Lemay/Pennock (stop sign)
EB LT
E
E
EB T
E
E
EB RT
A
A
WB LT
F
F
WB T
E
E
WB RT
A
A
SB LT
A
A
NB LT
B
D
Lemay/Pennock (signal)
B
B
Lemay/Godfathers (stop sign)
WB LT
E
E
WB RT
A
A
SB LT
A
A
Le may/Elizabeth (signal)
B
O
�' J
El
intersection, it will
analyses indicate that
selected minor street
Pennock Place traffic.
likely "attract" trips. However, operations
there will be sufficient capacity within the
green time to accommodate an increase in the
The above conclusion is based upon the available traffic
projections for this area of Fort Collins. If conditions change,
then this conclusion should be re-evaluated.
Operation Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed on the key intersections in
this area for both the short range (1995) and long range (2015)
traffic conditions.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key
intersections operate in the short range future as indicated in
Table 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix F. This
assumes the existing street system. Operation at the key
intersections is not significantly different than that shown in
Table 1. With a signal at the Lemay/Pennock intersection, the
operation will be at level of service B during both analyzed peak
hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the key
intersections operate in the short range future as indicated in
Table 4. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix G. This
assumes a street system "with the Pennock/Laurel connection.
Comparing Table 4 to Table 3 indicates that the operation does not
change significantly. Operation at the Lemay/Elizabeth signalized
intersection, and the Lemay/Pennock and Lemay/Godfathers stop sign
controlled intersections improves slightly with the Pennock/Laurel
connection. However, this improvement in operation is minimal.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key
intersections operate in the long range future as indicated in
Table 5. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix H. This
assumes a street system with the Pennock/Laurel connection.
Comparing Table 6 to Table 4 indicates that the operation does not
change significantly.
The long range geometry at the key site intersections was
evaluated using criteria in "Intersection Channelization Design
Guide," NCHRP 279, TRB, November 1985. With signalization at the
Lemay/Pennock intersection, the geometry shown in Figure 12 is
recommended. This recommendation is also in consideration of
preserving as many of the "on -site trees as is practical. The
geometrics in the short range are not significantly different than
that shown in Figure 12. During the peak hours, the northbound
left turns on Lemay Avenue will cause the existing access to
function as a right-in/right-out. There may be times when this
8
V
N
0
E
i
L N
Q� Cl
Cn
C +
II
PENNOCK W I I 10o'
These lanes should
extend to curb cut ° r"
for shopping. center —�
(t140'). +
0
}o
r�
Q
W
_ 11�
During the peak hours, T
this access will functionally
be right —in right —out.
Site ;
GODFATHER'S
PIZZA
LONG RANGE GEOMETRY
Figure 12
M;
0
LnL0
,:, � �
R��
�Ilro
�\¢
� S\�
71f.
S
o
MLO
tf]
to
Ln
\�
q
to
"I to
to Ln
120/120 --�
N
CD v LO
\
tq m to
PENNOCK
35/25
5/5 —
235/215
f
LO
tT
t7
\
t7
LO
Qf
50/55
+ 5/5
60/55
A&
N
LO
r,to to
��
Site
oLO
, ,,
(V �
6
n
t0
\O
N
N c:) — 45/20
r— 20/10
} Co
" M \
O '
'. W
J '-
0
N
LO
Ln to
'• ��
--120/120
+—110/200 ELI;
85/75 - / }
95/85 - o 0 0
O r'�
100/85
� o
LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FATHER'S
PIZZA
NOON / PM
Rounded to nearest
b Vehicles
Figure 11
Lno
\L0
o �.
0
to
MLO to
Ln
O�
t`
O\M
1 7 O
t0 25
C-4 1,
i
120/120
f
\
u.,
co
LO
N
Ln
�— 3Y45
to
� 5 5
PENNOCK +
35/40 .
35/25--/
5/5 —"
235/215 —�
to o o /
Site �
f\ �
tOtqq
O O
im
25/5
r— 10/5 GODFATHER'S
PIZZA
>-
{
"'
Z71C
LO
W�
0
M
r�
Ln to
105/105
LO Q' °O
+ 105/80
J
+
r-155/190 ELIZABETH
70/65 - Y
� } I
85/75 -
s0/75--,
in un
o`z NOON / PM
r- o Rounded to nearest
5 Vehicles
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
(WITH LAUREL STREET CONNECTION) Figure 10
o�'
Y
"�^
N
_
,,ON,
+
-%-,,
L95
7' io
3S/
0
1 ?O6S
S
to
"' }
Ln 00
CD
Lno
tom
��
N 1�
\
120/120 —,Cn
f
C
LO
0
Ln
N
L.345
Ln rri o
r)mv
�-5 5
35/40
PENNOCK +
`+f
35/25�
r
I
.7—".
5/5 —
265/230—�
o 0 0
N
Site
�- i00
Ln
r
t
\o
o�
_ Ln
25/5
11/5 GODFATHER'S
f PIZZA
>'
�o
�N
0
o
105/105
Coto
O1 "' aO
r- 105/80
+-155/190
ELIZABETH
110/95 —� }
85/75 0 0 Ln
NOON / PM
o r- Rounded to nearest
00 5 Vehicles
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
(EXISTING STREET SYSTEM) Figure 9
Trip Assignment
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are
expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are
the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 9 shows the
noon and afternoon peak hour assignments of the Boston Chicken
Restaurant generated traffic in the short range future (1995) with
the existing street system scenario. Background traffic for 1995
was determined by factoring the 1993 traffic by 1-2 percent per
year, based upon increases shown in historic count data. Figure
10 shows the noon and afternoon peak hour assignments of the Boston
Chicken Restaurant generated traffic in the short. range future
(1995) with the Laurel Street connection.
Figure 11 shows the noon and afternoon peak hour assignments
of both restaurant uses on the Boston Chicken Site in the long
range future (2015). This assignment assumes that the Laurel
Street connection has been made. Background traffic for the year
2015 was determined based upon review of the cited Family Care
Center traffic study. Recent traffic assignments done by the City
indicated year 2010 traffic volumes on Lemay Avenue near Riverside
at 30,400 vehicles per day. This assignment assumed completion of
the Timberline Road crossing of the Cache LaPoudre River by the
year 2010. These daily volumes were used as guides to determine
the long range future peak hour volumes.
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS
Signal Warrants
As a matter of ,policy, traffic signals are not installed at
any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. However, it is possible to
determine whether traffic signal warrants are likely to be met
based upon projected traffic and utilizing the chart shown in
Appendix D. Using the peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figures
9, 10, or 11, it is not likely that a new traffic signal will be
warranted at the Lemay/Pennock intersection.
As was shown earlier in this report, current operation for
the Pennock left -turn exit is unacceptable with stop sign control.
However, unacceptable operation does not create a warrant for
signalization. There may come a time in the future when a signal
is warranted at this location due to delay, accidents, etc., but
it is difficult to predict these warrants. Preliminary signal
progression studies, provided in Appendix E, indicate that a signal
can be placed at the Lemay/Pennock intersection with little impact
to the Lemay Avenue progression, if the progressed speed is low
(30-35mph). If a signal is placed at the Lemay/Pennock
7
4V
Estimate the trip generation rate as is currently done and
determine the total number of tri.ps forecast to occur, based
on the,size of the development.
Estimate the percentage of pass -by trips, and split the total
number of trips into two components, one for pass -by trips and
one for new trips.
Estimate the trip distributions for the two individual
components. The distribution of pass -by trips must reflect
the predominant commuting directions on adjacent and nearby
roadway facilities. Most peak period pass -by trips are an
intermediate link in a work trip.
- Conduct two separate trip assignments, one for pass -by trips
and one for new trips. The distribution for pass -by trips
will require that trips be subtracted from some intersection
approaches and added back to others. Typically, this will
Involve reducing through -roadway volumes and increasing
certain turning movements.
- Combine the assigned trips to yield the total link loadings,
and proceed with capacity analysis as normally done.
Street System
Two street systems were analyzed in this study. The first
system was the existing system which included the intersections
shown in Figure 2.
A proposal in the "Eastside Neighborhood Plan" suggests that
a street connection between Pennock Place and Laurel Street be made
along the rear of the Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center. While
alignment and availability of right-of-way are uncertain, it would
likely approximate the location shown in Figure 3. With this
street system, access would still occur via Lemay Avenue and
Riverside Avenue, but also. via this suggested Pennock/Laurel
connection. This connection would primarily be used by residents
of the Eastside Neighborhood, who would find it easier to access
the Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center via this route.
While, either of these street systems does not significantly
affect the distribution of traffic from/to the Boston Chicken Site,
they do have a bearing on the background traffic. The background
traffic assumptions for this study were taken from information
contained in the "Family Care Center Site Access Study," March
1992. Since the timing of the Laurel Street connection is not
known, two short range traffic forecasts were prepared. It was
assumed that the Laurel Street connection would be made by the long
range future, therefore, one long range traffic forecast was
prepared.
C.1
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Figure 8
Chicken Restaurant is more family oriented. The time taken to eat
a meal is generally longer than in typical fast food restaurants.
The number of evening meal customers are generally higher than a
typical fast food restaurant. Trip generation was adjusted to
reflect this higher use during the afternoon peak hour. Table 2
shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis
for the newly proposed uses. The noon and afternoon peak hours
were selected as the critical analysis periods. These periods best
represent the peaks of the proposed uses and the peak hours of the
adjacent streets.
Trip Distribution
Directional distributions were determined for the Boston
Chicken Site. This distribution used residential use (dwelling
units) and commercial use as the attraction variable in the gravity
model. Future year dwelling units and employment data was obtained
from data supplied by the Fort Collins Planning Department. The
trip distribution is shown in Figure 8.
Several land use generators such as shopping centers, drive-
in (fast food) restaurants, service, stations, convenience markets,
and other support services (banks, etc.) capture trips from the
normal traffic passing -by the site. For many of these trips, the
stop at the site is a secondary part of a linked trip such as from
work to shopping center to home. In all of these cases, the
driveway volumes at the site are higher than the actual amount of
traffic added.to the adjacent street system, since some of the site
generated traffic was already counted in the adjacent street
traffic. Pass -by assumptions were:
- Fast Food - 60%
40%, due to the
- The directional
(The pass -by factor
nature of the Boston
split was based upon
was scaled back to
Chicken operation.)'
the current counts.
The procedure used to account for both pass -by traffic and
primary destination traffic is as follows:
'This pass -by factor was obtained by averaging pass -by factors
from the following sources:
1. Transportation Engineering Design Standards, City of Lakewood,
June 1985.
2. Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates, FHWA/
USDOT, January 1985.
3. "A Methodology for Consideration of Pass -by Trips in Traffic
Impact Analyses for Shopping Centers," Smith, S., ITE Journal,
August 1986, Pg.37.
4. Trip Generation, 4th Edition, ITE, 1967.
5
R
PENNOCK
PLACE
0
p
I
Vet Clinic
I
_--J
(LBOSTO:NCK
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
(Assumed as
fast food restaurant)
602
r---.-----1
Lr Godfather's Pizza
L�
I&
N
NO SCALE
i
SITE PLAN
Figure 7
Sight Distance Constraint
The driveway to/from the Godfathers Pizza Restaurant is a
full -turn intersection. In front of the restaurant, there is a
"vault" that is between the curb and the sidewalk approximately 60
feet south of the driveway. This vault is 3-4 feet wide and
approximately 4 feet high. This vault causes a sight distance
constraint for vehicles attempting to exit this driveway. Based
upon available aerial photography, the sight distance to the right
northbound lane is approximately 240 feet and the sight distance
to the left northbound lane is approximately 320 feet. The sight
distance for the posted 35 mph street should be 350 feet.
Therefore, the available sight distance is substandard.. It appears
that the only remedy for this problem is to bury the vault deep
enough to allow a proper sight line.
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Boston Chicken Site is a 2.3 acre parcel proposed for two
restaurants. There is a Godfathers Pizza Restaurant south of this
site. The existing restaurant has a single curb cut access to
Lemay Avenue. Figure 7 shows a schematic of the site plan.
According to this plan, there will be an access to Lemay Avenue
across from Pennock Place. There will be an interior circulation
system providing a connection between the two Lemay Avenue accesses
and an access to private land to the east. It is expected that
the east access will have nominal traffic volumes.
It is expected that
built in 1994. Therefore,
analysis year. The other
restaurant. This user is
this use was assumed to
analysis.
Trip Generation
the Boston Chicken Restaurant will be
1995 was used as the short range future
restaurant is assumed to be a fast food
not definite at this time. Therefore,
be in place in the long range future
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a
development such as this upon the existing and proposed street
system. A compilation of trip generation information was prepared
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and is presented in
Trip Generation, 5th Edition. This document was used to project
trips that would be generated by the proposed uses at this site.
The use selected from Trip Generation was fast food restaurant with
a drive -through. In addition, the Boston Chicken staff was
contacted to determine whether the ITE generation factors should
be tempered due to this use. The Boston Chicken Restaurant is a
sit-down/drive-through restaurant. However, a typical order will
be higher in price than a typical fast food restaurant. The Boston
4
Table 1
1993 Operation at Key Intersections
Level of Service
Intersection Noon PM
>.. Le•may/Riverside (signal) B C
Lemay/Right-in/right-out (stop sign)
EB RT A A
is
Lemay/Pennock (stop sign)
EB LT E E
µ€ EB RT A A
NB LT B C
Lemay/Godfathers (stop sign)
WB LT E E
`. WB RT A A
SB LT A A
:. Lemay/Elizabeth (signal) B B
Table
2
Trip Generation
Daily
Noon
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Boston Chicken Restaurant
1520
74
70
92
84
s: ".
3.0 KSF
Fast Food Restaurant
1580
77
74
47
44
2.5 KSF
ri
Total
3100
151
144
139
128
N�
cn
t0
Ncm; N
�to� t
00
cn
04 C14
M
to N
N 1l-
Right -in / Right -out 1
ILLEGAL co
120/119 N
TURNS v�
�m ILLEGAL
o . TURNS
PENNOCK
34/21 --�f
263/230 —�
) f
M M
N 0�0
0M
a
00
N 1l
M
\
co
CD M 24/4
10/3
^
M
99/95
97/76
+--149/181
83/71
89/92
Lon W
Lo
aoo^
^Do
GODFATHER'S
PIZZA
ELIZABETH
NOON / PM
[A,
CURRENT BALANCED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
�(
cc
N .} N
88 1989 N
�9e�S
2 srs�\� r\8p�39
t 30 �2ar rlily
to to to MM
N �
Right -in / Ri ht-out
��
ILLEGAL 127/�10606 —�
TURNS
) C
�Go ILLEGAL
M o TURNS
PENNOCK 1
1 34/21� }
263/23000
00 M
c� N tl
� 1993
00
c 24/4
% 10/3 GODFATHER'S
0
1989
to Irnt �91/89
co w — 91/71
f--136/1" ELIZABETH
93/78 --"e
) + I
78/66 -
81 /82 --�
rn Co o
Lo
N LO
rlom
rl
NOON / PM
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS Figure 5
/0 fV CV
C
6S2j N
S
rn r
9526J cn
9, 1
s?S
�� 09g9
��J
rn �798
co
9cn
o
N CV
CD Q7
07 O
c:) cn
0
O 01
337� 3 (1989) 302� 6 (1989)
2874 (1989) � 3370 (1989)
rn
RECENT WEEKDAY TRAFFIC
Figure 4
1
iExisting Traffic
1 Daily traffic flow is shown in Figure 4. These are machine
counted volumes conducted by the City of Fort Collins in 1989 and
1992.
In addition to the daily count data, noon and afternoon peak
hour traffic data was obtained in September' 1989 at the
Lemay/Riverside and Lemay/Elizabeth intersections by the City of
Fort Collins. Noon and afternoon peak hour. traffic counts were
performed in November, 1990 at the Lemay/Pennock intersection and
at at the limited turn intersection to the shopping center from Lemay.
1 Noon and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the
Lemay/Pennock intersection and the Lemay/Godfathers driveway
intersection in November 1993. The latest noon and afternoon peak
hour turning movements are shown in Figure 5. Raw traffic data is
presented in Appendix A. Since the peak hour counts at various
intersections are for multiple year, counts at the various
intersections were balanced using the most recent data as the base
condition. These noon and afternoon peak hour volumes are shown
in Figure 6.
Existing Operation
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 and the existing
geometrics, the intersections operate as ind-icated in Table 1.
Appendix B describes level of service for signalized and
unsignalized intersections 'as provided in the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in
Appendix C. During the analyzed peak hours (noon and afternoon),
the Lemay/Riverside and Lemay/Elizabeth intersections operate at
acceptable levels of service. Acceptable level of service is
defined as level of service D or better.
The Lemay/Pennock intersection operates in the unacceptable
category for left -turn exits from Pennock. During the traffic
counting, it was noted that the delays to left -turning exits from
Pennock were significant. Some delays were greater than 50 seconds
at the noon and afternoon peak hours. The low number of counted
left turns (34 in the noon peak hour and 21 in the afternoon peak
hour) probably reflects the length of this delay. It is likely
that most persons who are familiar with the shopping center and
who desire to travel north on Lemay or east/west on Riverside, do
not exit at Pennock. The northbound left turns on Lemay to'Pennock
also experience some delay even though operational analyses
indicated acceptably operation. It was noted that the left -turn
queue often extends to 5-7 car lengths waiting for an acceptable
gap in the southbound traffic. This length of queue is substantial
for a major street left turn.
CA
w
Wfir- , '` \ ``
emi e
,DIsposa
S T ULBERRY i ET. •
cc
An
N LAUREL IrREEL
PROPOSED
.: :STREET C7
- ;CONNECTION —�
� r
t: COST. ST LAUREL
T ELEMENTARY
I CD
SCHOOL
3E7 ST
'
•s r ■ ■ ■ e •■ � j
Scale: 1" : 400'.
LAUREL STREET / PENNOCK PLACE
STREET CONNECTION
Figure 3
PRIMARY STREETS
Figure 2
)1
N� Y.
goo n
�25 j
0
5 4
I
z•Golf Course
Gidding
s
TIM
31
.3 6[
3
32 3
4 5
•
523 lid•II X All
)96 .1 _j to
j AT
149-94
r
fillSubsta
5
4 3
I r I -
a . r . a North Yard DO. k 011C �v
JJll Junction!
Refin ty j
V ILL tI
J &
410 t�� 0 )%fvntown :Shmard JC
7.
EM11 [1-]1Jf 01-11k. FA Collins
A!irpark T% Gravel Pit COLORADO
7TT
-T-11 1E
Rosel�wn J
. . . . . . . . . .
RT St W� "U CeT 4rrowhead _-A
IV
T-7
/5PO
"TT'If --- I_ j 156
_J
11k IM
M 4954
�AD
0* ""C H
Downtown
Collins
ark '
-jtj
A 11 J t.11p JI.- __JL 0 Boston Chicken Site..
_11, IT .11 __][, N� I =��_
MA Dt II 17. 16
IN
JNIV it 11-ir
]EPEIf I. 4 Rosp
'9.Z 'Grave! Pit
1! JoLI-714uT
A
]fJ'7
Radio
J(j o0o 0 WTo is
R
Theat
0
%
A
23# �._T 7 - II a 19 2
Ir. 21
H
C(Z)
II
Al
rake.,
4 487
i 'JL
f Tea I= BM 1486
Z�r 7 '5%•
IL
'p, 2� H*
26 jak;zlc
0
0111 4t
9
kj
C,nl
LMM
NO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
Figure 1
I1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of the Boston Chicken Site is shown in Figure 1.
Since the impact in the short range, as well as, the long range is
of concern, it is important that a thorough understanding of the
existing conditions be presented.
r
Land Use
The adjacent land uses near the Boston Chicken Site are as
follows: 1) to the west is the commercial area known as the
Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center.; 2) to the north is a veterinary
clinic, auto oriented retail, and vacant land; 3) to the east are
low intensity commercial uses (print shop, church, medical use,
auction building,); and 4) to the south is a restaurant (Godfathers
Pizza). The topography in the area increases in elevation to the
south.
' Roads
The primary streets near the Boston Chicken Site are shown in
Figure.2. Lemay Avenue borders the site on the west. It is a
north -south street designated as an arterial on the Fort Collins
Master Street Plan. Its existing cross section has two 11-12 foot
lanes in each direction. A center turn lane
exists in the painted
median. The posted speed limit
is 35 mph on
Lemay Avenue in this
area. Currently, intersections
along the
northern end of Lemay
Avenue are signalized at Mulberry
Street (SH
14), Riverside Avenue,
El.i.zabeth Street, Doctors Lane,
Robertson
Street; and Prospect
Street.
Riverside Avenue borders the Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center
on the north. It is a diagonal street designated as an arterial
on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Riverside Avenue is a four
I lane street both east and west of Lemay Avenue. There are turn
lanes at signalized intersections. The posted speed on Riverside
Avenue is 35 mph.
Pennock Place is a two lane street currently ending in a cul-
de-sac 650 feet west of Lemay. It has stop sign control at Lemay
Avenue. It is designated a local street with no posted speed
limit. �Unposted streets are assumed to have a speed limit of 25
mph. It is intended that Pennock Place be connected to Laurel
Street in the future as shown in Figure 3.
t a 10
I. INTRODUCTION
B C Colorado, Inc. is proposing to locate a Boston Chicken
Restaurant on the east side of Lemay Avenue across from Pennock
Place in Fort Collins. In addition to the Boston Chicken
Restaurant, it is expected that another restaurant would also be
on the south portion of this parcel. In this traffic study, this
development proposal will be referred to as the Boston Chicken
Site. This study addresses the traffic impacts at two levels of
development: 1) development of the Boston Chicken Restaurant only
by 1995; and 2) full development of the Boston Chicken Site in 20+
years (2015).
During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made
with the project planning consultant (Edward G. Zdenek), and the
Fort Collins Transportation Division. This study conforms with
typical traffic impact study guidelines. The study involved the
following steps:
Collect physical, traffic and development data;
Perform trip generation, trip distribution and trip
assignment;
Determine peak hour traffic volumes;
Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on
key intersection;
Analyze signal warrants;
Analyze signal progression;
Analyze potential changes in accidents and safety
considerations.
In January 1991, a traffic study was submitted related to the
expansion of the Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center. This shopping
center is located at the Lemay/Riverside intersection (north of
Pennock Place). It includes Albertson's-grocery store, Long's
Drugs, and other commercial/retail uses. The expansion proposal
included a fast food restaurant located in the Riverside Junction
Center, and a sit-down restaurant, convenience store, gas store,
and car wash located north of Albertson's. None of the land uses
included in that study were implemented. In March 1992, a traffic
study was submitted for "Family Care Center," located within the
Riverside Junction Center. The Riverside Junction Center is
located south of Pennock Place, but is considered to be part of the
Riverside/Lemay Shopping Center. The Family Care Center was
implemented in the past year. The traffic study for the Boston
Chicken Site will reference pertinent parts of these earlier
traffic studies.
a
BOSTON CHICKEN SITE
SITE ACCESS STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DECEMBER .1993
Prepared for:
B C Colorado, Inc.
9034 East Easter Place, Suite 100
Englewood, CO 80112
Prepared by:
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
3413 Banyan Avenue
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 303-669-2061