HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 20-87A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 14
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF June 27,19W
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Junior High School 1990 - Site Development Plan - Special Review
#20-87A
APPLICANT: Poudre School District OWNER: Same
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT PLANNER: Joe Frank
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for a junior high school on
approximately 20 acres, located on the west side of Seneca Street, north of
Regency Drive, and zoned rlp, low density planned residential.
RECOMMENDATION: That the
Planning and Zoning Board review the
pro-
posal and convey
to the School
District that serious concerns exist about
the
adequacy of the
transportation
system to service the proposed junior
high
school. And urge
the School District
to join with the City to develop a
long
lasting agreement
which offers
solutions to problems such as these and others
that arise during
the planning
and development of school sites within
the
community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Board is providing com-
ments to the School District in regard to the site location and site development
plan for a new junior high school. The project is required to follow the City's
formal review processes in accordance with C.R.S. 31-23-209 and C.R.S.
22-32-124. These Statutes extend to the City the right of review, comment, and
to make findings of fact as to the location, character and extent of the
proposed junior high school relative to the adopted Master Plan of the City.
The Staff believes that the impacts of the school site at this location have not
been adequately addressed. The subject site does not have adequate access,
off -streets or sidewalks to accommodate the proposed level of student and
vehicular activity that would be generated by a junior high school at the
proposed location. A lasting, mutually satisfying agreement needs to be
developed between the School District and the City which anticipates these
issues and offers efficient and economic solutions.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Ip 0
Junior High Schoo1�1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Backsround:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; elementary school under construction (Johnson Elementary School)
S: RLP; vacant (proposed single family residences in the Regency PUD)
E: RLP; farmland (proposed residential uses in the Villages at Harmony
West)
W: RLP; vacant
The subject property was part of a larger development known as the Villages
at Harmony West PUD. The site was originally planned for patio homes and
multiple family units, but that phase of the overall preliminary plan expired a
few years ago. The property is zoned RLP, low density planned residential
with the condition that any development occur only as a PUD.
On May 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Master Plan for
the entire 30 acre site which also consisted of a site development plan for the
elementary school (Johnson). The Planning and Zoning Board indicated to the
School Board that the locations of the two schools were appropriate. However,
at that time the Planning and Zoning Board and Staff expressed considerable
concern regarding the need for the School District to more fully consider
additional access and future street improvements which would be necessary to
accommodate the expected traffic generated by the proposed junior high school.
Furthermore, these issues were to be resolved during the detailed planning
phase (site development plan) of the junior high school. These concerns are
more fully addressed in the "traffic" section of this report.
2. City's Right of Review
State Statutes provide two specific references to the City's right of review in
the planning and location of school sites, as follows:
Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. as amended, addresses the right of the school
district to construct schools within a municipality and speaks to the extent
to which the municipality may control the location or manner of
construction of such schools. The statute (see attached) specifically limits
the municipalities' participation in the process to a limited right of review
and appeal to the Board of Education.
ii. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. (attached) provides that no public building shall be
constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character and extent
thereof has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Junior High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 3
Under Section 31-23-209 C.R.S. the Planning and Zoning Board is obligated to
make finding as to the location, character and extent of the public building
and structure relative to the adopted Master Plan of the City. Such findings
are made in order that the proposed site and structures shall conform to the
adopted plan of the community.
In addition, Section 22-32-124 C.R.S. calls for the Planning and Zoning Board
to review and comment upon the site development plan for the proposed school
site and, if it desires, "request a public hearing before the board of education
relating to the proposed site location or site development plan" prior to any
construction of structures or buildings. In addition, the Board may review the
details of the site development plan itself. Lastly, staff believes that the School
District is responsible for any impact fees or public improvements to the extent
reasonably necessary to offset the impact of the new school, including, but not
limited to, development fees, street and utility requirements, and off -site
improvements.
We view these laws as both compatible and complimentary. Both statutes
clearly extend to the City the opportunity to review, comment and making
finding upon the site development plan prior to construction of any structure
thereon.
Consequently, the City cannot apply the requirements and criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System in their review of the proposed junior high
school. Furthermore, the City's Division of Building Inspection will not be
issuing permits for construction but will be available for inspection at the
request of the Division of Labor and will apply the standards of the Industrial
Commission of Colorado in its inspection of the school. Some additional items
which the School District is considered not responsible for include plan
processing fees, building permit fees, zoning requirements, subdivision, storm
drainage requirements, building codes and submittal of a Development Agree-
ment.
As mentioned above, the Planning and Zoning Board has approved the location
of the junior high school. However, the Board may still review the details of
the site development plan as to its character and extent of impact on surround-
ing properties and public services and facilities.
3. Land Use
Public schools are considered to be an appropriate use in the RLP, low density
planned residential district. The proposed junior high school is compatible
with existing and future residential land uses in the area.
Junior High School i990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 4
4. Design
The school will be approximately 111,000 square feet in floor area and will
accommodate approximately 750 students. Approximately 100 parking spaces
have been provided for employee and visitor usage. Separate auto and bus
drop-off lanes have been provided. Public sidewalks have been installed along
Seneca Street. In addition, sidewalks are being provided between the street and
building at various locations throughout the site.
The junior high school will be one-story, or approximately 15 feet in height,
with the exception of the gymnasium, which will be approximately 30 feet in
height. The exterior materials of the structure will be brick and block
masonry in two -tones. The masonry will be predominantly red and buff col-
ored.
Between the elementary and junior high schools, are planned open areas to be
used for soccer, football and baseball fields. Landscaping is being provided
along Seneca Street and interior to the site. A six foot high security fence
will be provided along the west property line.
The staff believes that the design as proposed is of high quality, is compatible
with the new elementary school, and will set a good example for future devel-
opment in the area.
5. Traffic Concerns
Traffic Study
As part of the "master plan" that was reviewed in 1987, the School District
prepared a Traffic Study (see attached), that analyzed the impact of the
combined elementary/junior high school site. Some general conclusions of the
study are as follows:
Approximately 1600 trips per day will be generated for the 180 day school
year (September - May).
ii. Some improvements at the Shields/Harmony intersection are warranted to
improve the flow of traffic.
iii. In the short term, access to the school sites from Seneca Street via
Regency Drive and Wakerobin Lane will be adequate. In the long term,
the connection of Seneca to Horsetooth Road and the construction of
Troutman Parkway between Seneca and Shields will provide "excellent"
access to the site.
0
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 5
iv. In the long term, signals will be required at the intersections of
Horsetooth/Seneca and Troutman/Shields.
The School District has constructed Seneca Street to collector standards as it
abuts the school sites; Regency Drive to collector standards between Seneca
Street and Wakerobin Lane, and; Wakerobin Lane to local street standards
between Regency and the existing portions of Wakerobin Lane. In addition,
the property owners south of the school site have constructed Regency Drive
between Wakerobin Lane and Harmony Road to collector street standards.
Analysis
During the consideration of the Master Plan and site development plan for the
elementary school site, the staff and Board expressed concern regarding
vehicular and pedestrian access to the future junior high school. While the
improvements to Seneca St., Wakerobin Lane, and Regency Drive were adequate
to handle the short term requirements of the elementary school, the Board and
staff recognized that additional study was needed to determine the traffic
impacts of the future junior high school. The demands of a junior high school
are much different and much more intensive than those of an elementary
school.
Subsequently, the Staff's of both the City and School District met on several
occasions to discuss these issues. However, no satisfactory agreement has been
arrived at. Rather, the following concerns remain unresolved:
a. Access. The staff does not agree with the findings of the Traffic Study
that adequate access to the junior high school can be provided from Shields
Street via only Wakerobin Lane and Regency Drive. Furthermore, the staff
does not agree with the study when it indicates that access from Horsetooth
Road via Seneca Street "is least acceptable considering street construction,
anticipated school service area and ease of access".
In our evaluation of the operation of the proposed junior high school, Wakero-
bin Lane and Regency Drive alone will not provide efficient nor safe access -
way to the school site. In reviewing the 1990 service areas for the junior high
school, approximately 70 - 75% of the driving, walking and bicycling traffic
will be generated from destinations north, northeast and northwest of the
school site. Students living within 1.5 miles of the school will be required to
walk, bicycle or be transported to school by private automobiles. Students living
outside of this area will be bused. This traffic will use Shields Street as the
major route to the junior high school.
Wakerobin Lane is located approximately 4000 feet south of the Horsetooth
Road and is an inconvenient and protracted route to the school site. Wakerobin
Lane was planned and designed as a local residential street providing driveway
entrances to abutting homes and residences. Wakerobin Lane was never
intended to serve the more intensive traffic carrying and
Junior High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 6
bicycle/walking function that the School District is now proposing.
In addition, extensive portions of Shields Street between Wakerobin Lane and
Horsetooth Road are not fully improved to arterial standards and do not have
adequate bicycle or pedestrian facilities to reasonably and safely accommodate
the traffic generated by the junior high school.
Therefore, the impacts of allowing the junior high school to be completed
without adequate access are:
i. A large portion of the student and bicycling population will have no other
alternative than to travel to and from school on unimproved routes.
ii. As a result, a larger number of students will be transported to school in
private automobiles beyond that normally expected of junior high schools;
iii. And, as past experience has shown, parents will be very concerned about
who is responsible for providing a safe route to school and the City and
the School District will end up in the center of the controversy.
The staff realizes that the properties surrounding the proposed school sites will
eventually develop and that the School District should not be burdened with
constructing the entire neighborhood street system. However, the School
District has responsibility for assuring that students, faculty and parents have a
safe way to school. Likewise, the City recognizes its responsibility to assure
that its public facilities are adequate and safe to sustain the new schools
within fiscal, planning and time constraints.
Other alternative accessways have been identified which could provide relief,
for instance, the City's Master Street Plan indicates the future extension of
Seneca Street to Horsetooth Road, and; the extension of Troutman Parkway
between Shields Street and Seneca Street. These streets have been planned and
designed as collector streets and are intended to filter traffic and pedestrians
from abutting local residential streets and conduct this traffic to arterials or to
local generators such as schools and parks. The installation of either of these
road improvements needs to be given further consideration by both the City
and the School District as part of the development of the junior high school.
These issues need to be resolved at this stage of the planning process rather
than waiting until problems occur for either the City or the School District.
b. Off -site street improvements. Extensive portions of the surrounding street
system are missing necessary improvements including adequate street width;
pavement thickness; sidewalks, and; bicycle lanes. In order to fully analyze
the needed improvements in the area to accommodate the proposed junior high
school the following additional information is needed:
Junior High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 7
i. Soils test on Shields Street from Wakerobin Lane to Horsetooth Road to
check for material thickness and structural strength.
ii. A recommendation from an engineering consultant on improvements needed
to carry additional traffic loading on Shields Street using 20 year design
lif e.
iii. Bus operation data i.e., number of buses each day with times and bus
routes anticipated.
This information has not been forthcoming. The staff believes that the full
impact of constructing the junior high without the provision of necessary
facilities is not fully understood. Without adequate and safe facilities, serious
safety problems will occur. Complete and adequate documentation has not been
provided to determine the extent of needed improvements, if any, to safely and
conveniently handle bus and vehicle traffic. And again, these issues need to be
resolved through a cooperative effort between the City and the School District
before construction of the junior high commences.
RECOMMENDATION
The construction of safe, economic, efficient and appropriately located public
schools are desires of both the School District and the City. Likewise, the City
and the School District share mutual goals of assuring that its public services
and facilities are adequate to serve the needs of its users.
The demand for more educational services and facilities is likely to increase as
our urban area expands, population increases, old facilities become outmoded
and public expectations rise. With the increasing demands placed upon public
budgets, intelligent planning of schools is essential. The partnership between the
District and the City grows more critical with each new student and each new
school.
These desires and goals have not been realized in the proposed junior high
school. Rather, serious access problems and street improvement issues remain
unresolved: A satisfactory agreement has not been achieved.
Clearly, the problems encountered with this school are not new but rather had
been identified during the planning process for other schools in the community.
And if these issues remain unsolved, same or similar problems are likely to
occur in the future. The staff believes that a lasting, mutually satisfying
agreement which anticipates and offers solutions to these issues needs to be
developed between the District and the City.
The Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board convey to the
School District the access, off -site improvements and sidewalks concerns
described herein. And, urge the School Board to join with the City to develop
No Text
ITEM POUDRE R-1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
1990
NUMBER 20-87A
a
N
00
�O
N
M
0�
O
N
M
N
r
M
E�a��h �' i� man ��o
a 0 �.cc o w .� ... o y y 0 U E a cd •� w a a� ... Rs U •>�
4.
C cc
+�.C.�
be (a a .., ,, >� c cc' .,
O R3 U O O y 0 a O' rw, �' 0 '" $ O 0 .. C y O U
U R3 p O CV ;r 0 M ,� ' p E E . y Da p U 0 'y ° .d ep " > > ~ Rs O
c Q a ai E'o u a 0 c `c c o^. c �a ° a
0y`"c a �aaEoa �.-caa ,^-v U 0cc toa� .y—Z
U.
CO ERS y O .� >+'�' H O O -- 0 rI� rn Q 0 -. 'O '+ w 0 O U ...
H�0�0.O>,U�U •� {ramAbpOO s•v 0.0 c.
D E O ^' '_'
UOGn
U O y CC— y W ' n � � a' Wr.'D ."y i� �' �
m U H ri twa �Q w, O '� U ; .y r- N > p ° U epa 'Q�- .y H ;� Q O CO-3 "3 R
��C QG06 y°� ° o vE�'a>''wo — all'.ao`a
RS 0
" w C y O a. 0 U.- � 'E 0> w Q b ;; U F .� 0 eC ., Cd U rA � •'" � � c
t0.' 0 N Cip eeS r O°D 0.— .-+ 0 .d N p•. a y •^' >, 3 N
3`t0_00� ci .ca��w, Fawn �acEo.e•..y� ri u�'_.c
r H 0 -= CL cc = `•' 3 Rs "" v, 0 '^' 0 c� a Rs 0 a O ed Rs 0 0 +••' 'O .., :. O M
C 0 .� : Q a a N O O CSC .+ A O p ,� W 'v�
0 S. 0 O 00 rn ... eo cc s. rn •O O 4 U_ 0 v O
O «�+ E 0 �l C i" 0 rn 0 v0i Rs «�" V " O ,.� !' Rs . O 0 G, ;? '«. 4
m O �+ .0 +"' j'' .yn .y. R3 a' m RS C E Vl In ,0 ,O' p 0 0 S'.. C O U c
C y O a 0 EEOK.oOEUh �
p R3 O cd U �ev'ab Ea C7 0��04R,t '�'OO-
6� to
Y °N�cc>,Evmcn.1•0
�� :�.¢Oa O tU�
wO o � wN-0° O Q -Ra= •a
o0 N> w .— 0 >, 0rA 0r a ORO00 r. Eccw ~'y00n.0
14
O "
0CMM0 en 00000> .OK O
'
cic= •C •v6
•.
.O O° O O y a
>,w N D.b r - " O
Oo 0
N ry, S. >,= C O 'v > C1 Q A > b at
o °' ° ;; >
>' N 0 w O
E RS > U �„C. '+ > r C
0 E� ° 0 ,0 .O O. V r,.,n U .6' ER g. U
cc cc
3 00 A cc 0 w
c. w > ° ,r c� .. "d p "
C O O° 0 O p p V! O= VI
Ow= t0 u. O -0 m ++ •b V C C � .. � ° h O
C>
• ° a o a o a y o E> 8 c
a0. E'3 c y 0 a o Rs �•�
H ODD
CA E
-
rA
O
y
��o"��c��m335a-
aa.c� a E.2.�.. a rA w 0 cc o
pGi�p �•+ r'"' ,0„ •-• • � � . •`�• 3 C
= -O7 - > rr 0
Cs- w U.- R y 0 > >+= *1 0 = O'..t
N �U a 0 i�'b U O
U 0'C 0
cc00a,EAwGo°owa°o°ow.°,�Ecae
0o vC OE>
N O OC C mao
h O y S O O
q•> ` 0-
en 0MM wr-
en
a
_o cc. o b
O � •C C 7 N
h R U y
ca`�3'sZ�
u c �
e E .0
aN
ep,
C: cc>��.��
cc "'C 0 0 « U
C ; O ,_ _C z
>
s;o
o . C
'
C •° E 5
T�
ot'�a,oW.00
= c e E
>
w
U
y o °°-• c
C 0
fyil
� jr 0 cc j� •7
`9
O E'l0 O
0 h ee
a
y
ago�R
Iui
7
.N>�y�T
C4wa�do
to
N C
U en'oo >
p
O i.�. 0 0 0. G RS h RS y RS _
0
aE 'hC,CC 0
� '..0o000bo.O H O
R'd
Ot°0a0 co
Ct °
O��apz.F��ea°atc
c b Wawe0
00 R3 W RS "O' O 0 C
r 0 0 O C .O 0. u, 0
a O ._+ ►. ..
�'
a"d3a
O0'v>, a�0icsc
Eao•-.��o�,�Nyow
E V1 'y h •� C
•' rI� "� O 'v, .a C O 0 C C .c
O~ y O y 0 0 ,,.., O R
a�`'tiRsEE"bELLO^�
r U C C O'0 O U C
R1 U. 'G In"'. 'd U vi 'n
... a.., p� y «+ y RS..N.
Q rA D U h 00 4-o O b ~^
Z EoEOOpa��"oy -...3
N 0 0 O Ur"'�'G
r O O v, oD > 0 Q :. O
N�aE�c°EEB�°�
r �,���;'�a• EaR7.2
oRs.E0mzC0a0
a EEEam2o.,.0a,
r
N
M
N
N
[
R
r
r
�O
r
Itt
cq
N
M
N
N
y U u w ""' A 1.. V)
w OC+.p�pw'Gp iy Oi ° O �-�►.i O ►� ei O O Q� Y >:o
N o U R [ _H S.
y • cc i� U '' }' r`ni7 U Op ..[ w t.
U U '> � ,� � 3 O � R rn >, � Cp
CL �., U ..� >, R p, u� U. U o U U O U R C R
O O y n O Q U R 7 b '= G C ` ayui y y a °�' m r^ C iR 7 b c, w0 ° U L
O H C U U N aa`� c° >� o w >," In C ' � N Qp
O R � ^d a, •t+^- � � � � � N � ' C r' cc :3 � ^ � C ' ^ � � � C�,„ O
N -u o$, w C U �. U? V Ga 'O U y o-'Up R h-�•d R >+p U
lu ai w O O U N �p 6 O .. L H E Q U o• ., C �'" �. CL C
V N 'b � cc' •� .� >� ��„ U U w y
yU�_woO QN. „oNuv y�onpc,>,Rm CO Ro
U t-n u o u[ [°�R yoaOUc�aaoCUv„i
[
R i7a M wu G N aO yU ¢ °V°O 'O Ocs
c + C3
R N C UC RCL [O wR [n .~ co. C U
v'i y �' w [ > by C b aj 'n •p r 7 ass U '� e`a �- ao
O [ R F R >, .
ap R O rA
U [U ti. O R ap CL w0;,
b
E 00
d if �. •..
n+ O C+0—
a S LaU G E
�:c.Ua�ba.3RCR
�=w°v��°c �o u E °ors zt�; c'o b=� Owl
.�+.2 ., °c° wR
-
oo� O oQ—U"a-^����E O p U rn •.w_,
U '' C '� ° e U W-o ' .2 .b O 'v �' O> U.� p O G
c. w y� 0 Q U >. —" N �+ c0� U 'C � y«y. �, to w O wca
00- as N p 00 O .0 U [ b OD w. .
Oar U 3 C.0 R o a� 00 3 O•o^-'H v'`° �,�" p [ C °' ,� ° L � = to
o ° ° °.�o.; >,.o�.0 o �w� a �•Emr,oc �o> o �w °... y,° uti [ n
'C O C t. y > y U^' R ° °a o a� `' d pcw d C
p y[ y•.» [ y O_ U Cco, a �v o-00•-U y ac y O O•.. .. 3 rn O 4,
UU... c OUC>:w Uc«.UU U 4 a Uo°> �, Cam, 3 p 3
may'~ o'oR�,��oC.OoyR oo a� 'C ��>ao.;°�; ���y-O�. °„
�.. a�i • U p ° a [ R C C y °� Q '- fs, ¢ N .? a U a a> U R [ `+ '•- vUi ;: 'o
� � � ' U 0 � >, � • ° co � � .� ,..a .. o > ° ry � o � A U ^ ,� cn
O `w�00
.ca
C C1 ar-; ti o Q cl
N N = d o o cNa N 3 O U C y H cn w 0 0
U U ►• C E- U v o E U U 4 U'�
y y= U= U ^C" ... w t. U U wU er N N N ?' O A y C oui ie " N^ 'C U .3C y R CL - uUi o
U «+ G 'b U R U R M M u 0, 'a ca M
'p R U y - ^.... . �, w [ p7 I O >. r` 'O U y .a' v ti R . �" �••. y... O o — w
w ebv 0 C Q x w U
R O ♦. •.. c.,., O O 0000 C O O. as c0 O
IN
as >
um .,U!. aUs
7
0 `°' O O-- O p
o n i- > > yO3$4S.M. t�OUS U.caynO '�d«. �U[U
GQ
O >:o
C COR G p ap Uco"oooU -aoooooppz�� QGw[Uvi y.wRUR
".CwFo
O�b b 4-1 by �R U_
"�y . �• y O i-.Cap U"O
O 0Oy�R >�p-x UOp[E o"a
41 o„opy[o—[aC°o`C.0 a06
0�[ (A U=H~U n
'•wU o[ O .b + L[
O Co
00
..°_R °cO� >
I. r:4.w"UC O C..�>
wOo
> yU�%u.0r..v•Zn
UriCyp yO
° Ca U0.0'O y [tipCRbb UU^ 00
00
3
'Li U CL 0 O Op O • �-„ '� .O. y H �"+ .C+ [ Cr U ..�. "G 'b . C w w0 o
moo. �'c C ai d ° ce- � 0, cts b c��' o 3'- +'-o ~+��° � a a� � �
U w 'li _U U O C Qr > cn C. R i , [ -• R
N a O w+C[ .'0wO. U[U .•' •w"7 '[v..' >�tipUp •'R°U '.Q6. CAbO4... lawR+r ._yOR UU C~�' rotQ�i 'dQ .y.. ",Cy .LRRy om•Vv.»i •'-'""' ..Uy..
+°
UbU.W R UVo� 4=wRc...rO�cflU.n",vOyO ..b0
��[3..,'U[UtiO.�.
''.wO
M"°' o O R on 0.0 o
0 a= ,- O p U
a.b Cy O v�RCOp"�O RU CO O QN o>
00 R
4u0 cO rL W o c Q :.0. >,O 0U 0, C
O. 0 UA U ° A O0R bp... wu o N'O a w w R.-CL
U":[ (A U U op C7�R OO CL RO CLw O
CR °� R
CO O O
en cc C [ O [CoUpYuOUURdU
4. C[g�, i.w00 R p (A
0 O vLGn a U >+— O U R OGm U CA [
o Owa[ O w ry OR [p o fO op 1'w`Uy3•y..R o>, RU w� oOUC,L
cd
[ [
cqs
�«+.0at. '°� w
� p O°p°o o� ab0
R ^
u .0 Uy° U Cd "�OyU '+OO O F.2 ,Z O ZyC U C 0
Cj O CCVC_O to b 7
p� i °~ y w[ fl U cc OJ.' cc b3+.
woGe[R
m>U >, UO ."'C Q U R
['OyO
Oo pUC000C p"O.w ° U 0) U.
. O O O �U O O U
COcOO UO-0. R ow y . RU •. - OyU HOwU.0eoy..
..+
1988 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND
1920 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
SITE ACCESS STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 1 t,8 6
Prepared for:
Poudre School District F'-1
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Col 1 i n=., Colorado 80521
Prepared by:
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
3413 Banyan Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Phone 03-66 -'2061
j�
EXECUTIVE SUHHARY
The 1982 Elementary School and 1 ' O junior High School,
located west of Shield=. Street and south of Hor_.etooth Road
in Fart Coll i n_., Colorado, is proposed to be an i n=.t i tut i onal
development. This stud:` involved the steps of trip
generation, distribution and assignment.; traffic projection;
capacity analysis; traffic signal warrant analysis; traffic
'signal progression a.na.ly is; and accident analysis as set
forth in the C:i ty'- Traffic Impact Study Gu i del i ne=..
This study assessed the impacts of two proposed school
sites on the existing street system in Moth I M0 and 2006.
However, it should be pointed out that the long range
y ge
a.na.lyses assumed that other nearby developments would also be
in place in the general vicinity of the proposed schools. it
is folly to look: at a. single development without considering
the interaction of other land uses in the area.
tAs
a. result of this analysis, the following is.
concluded:
'
- The development of the 128E Elementary School and
I FTO junior High School as proposed is feasiblefrom a.
traffic engineering standpoint with specific improvements in
the area. Full development_ of the =_.chord sites as proposed
'
wi 1 1 generate approximately 1600 vehicle trips per day for.
the 180 day school year <September - Hay).
'
- Current operation of the Horse tooth:`"Sh i e 1 d=.
intersection is in the level of service h category during
both peak: hours with signal control, The four way stop sign
1
controlled intersection of Ha.r•monx/Shields oper•.ates at level
of service D. However, this can be improved with the
addition of both approach and exit lanes. This level of
service D operation is unacceptable according to the C: i ty"
'
own evaluation cr i ter i a.. Traffic signals ma.::: be warranted
now. Signals would improve operation to acceptable levels.
'
Operation can also be improvedtoacceptable levels
r• impov i ng this intersection to either :=Xmil or �lX4 stopsign
_b.r:
intersection. It is recommended that one of these
alternatives be pursued by the City immediately to bring
operations to acceptable levels.
— Access from the three principal arterials,
Hor=_.e tooth , Shields, and Harmony was evaluated in the short
range future. It is recommended that access to the school
sites be from Shield=. Street via. either Troutman Parkway or
'
Wa.kerobin Lane. fine=s from Horsetooth Road via. Seneca.
StreetStreetor Harmony Road viaRegency and Seneca Streets are the
least acceptable access solutions considering street
construction, anticipated school service area, and ease of
1 0 6
1
- GeveI opment of the school s in the short range future
_a.n be handled can the street system t.�O th some improvements..
'
These include provision of access to the school sites from
Shields. Street. This access. can be accomplished via. either
Troutman Parkway or lJa.k::er•ob i n Lane. Both routes have
advantages and disadvantages. From a. traffic operational
viewpoint, both a,cces.ses operate simila.r1:*-. H s.iona.l is.
1 i H::e 1 y to be t:!,larran ted at the Harmon-.,, Sh i e 1 ds intersection by
ram, or before based upon background traffic (other than site
(school) traffic). All s.i gn.al i zed intersections operate
accep tabl :Y in the Short range future.
- (.0i th full development of the school sites, in the long
range future, signals be viarr•a.nted at the 'shields::'
Troutman and Hor•s.e tooth/Seneca. intersections. Th i s. a.s•sumes.
full development of the 'erection in vh i ch the school sites a.re
contained. These streets a.re classified as col 1 ectors ,
- All the si anal i zed intersections anal ;•zed operate
a.ccepta.bl ;• in the peak: hours in the long range future t-,ii th
the +our lane crass section on Horse tooth , Shields., and
Harmon-.,, .
- Park: i ng surveyed a.t .a.n e:>:: i s.t i nq Fort Collins.
ci :i un i or high school f comparable size. At the e:>c i st i n Q
school , 85 spaces Appeased to adequate. Approx ima.te l ::.
1
-85
spaces should be provided at the proposed .iun i or high drool
unless. additional -data indicates a. significant difference.
- I:,lith goad design of the .aforementioned geometric
improvements to the various intersections, the accident rate
should be at acceptable levels for urban condition-=_..
I
11
I
1. INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study addresses the capacity,
geometric, and control requirements at and near a. proposed
elementary ._.chard and junior high school development located
I.,:les.t of Shields Street, between Horsetooth and Harmony Ro.a.ds
in Fort Collins., Colorado. The location of the proposed
development is shown in Figure 1.
During the course e of this analysis, numerous contacts
were made with the project engineering/planning consultants,
Foudr•e School District Staff, and City Traffic Engineering
Department. The study conforms to the format set forth by
the Transportation Services. Unit of the City of Fort Collins.
The study involved the following steps-
- Collect phy'si ca.l , traffic, and development data.
- Per•i ,rm trip generation, trip distribution, and trip
assignment.
- Project tr•a.ffi c growth.
- Determine peak hour traffic volumes.
- Conduct capacity and operational level of service
analyses on key intersections.
- Analyze signal warrants a. n d signal progression.
- Accident analysis.
II. EXISTING C:ONDITION
The site of the I = S Elementary School and 1?0 Junior
High School, as shown in Figure 1, is in a. mixed -use area.
To the northwest, it is hounded by an existing s.i ngl e family
subdivision known as Imperial Estates. There is large lot
residential uses north of the school sites. Tothe west,
south, and east, it is bounded by land which is either vacant
or in agricultural use. There are scattered residences in
this area. To the east across Shie 1 d Street,
family residential subdivision. The square mile in which the
school sites are contained is •a. developing area of Fart
Collins and is expected to change in character over the next
few years. The topography in the area is essentially flat,
The major intersections in the area. are Sh i e 1 d _.'
Horsetooth and Shields/Harmony, .a. half mile northeast and
southeast of this site, respectively. Harmony, Horsetooth
a. n d Shields a. r e classified as arterialswith the following
geomet.r i cs in this area:
- Harmony Road - two lanes west of Shields and two-four
lanes east of Shields.
- Horsetooth Road - four lanes east of Shield_ and two
lanes erae=.t of 'shields with some provision for
a.ux i 1 i ary turn lanes
1
Ci
11
� I
. 41,
t ti 1
FFL-jLac�oo❑
Couorse"r , r r,
:aaooaoIJ
OO_ ❑❑❑�❑❑(
®ir..
JRr��❑0
Sewage
.. '� Disposal15/0
,Air
=t_
[gy[�pp
_
�`,
o
B M 4954
�.
❑❑L�❑❑111011011
0
� 1 ,
-
�_
tkaDv TE j ''I� !�
UNIVER
�❑��'iCE�
�❑��O
� „�
Hos
o
IrrjjlI(( II11
J
_ I — �, O �n
0❑11�,
r,�� I��
I( ��
P rl DC `
l v 1
y
x
l0 oIJU•
]�rL�InOLJ�gOD�
"• r
ti �) . 1 •
Z 64
�pp III- i /544
-
r
' F
J
117
Hughes _
Stadium
�L
_ fi
~^`'rr ((
�I
r,r--- -�•'
U
cive
�Theat ��o�
Gravel; —
,Drive-i�
���C
Lt=
Pit
Theatpr
n�
q�
v
71
I Drakes
1puQ
; j U
1 �, _—&
i� 11 ;
z•
��O�i���
�Yr
L-----------
?�r-
- --
' r. Gravel
it Pits
r
I I Omega
`-==i--�c����.
., ELT :-
•
�'I
5082
1549
Dry
Lake C.� ''
_%fir_`-' ••I•
,, _1 499/ s?r
'Gravel
• Pit
•I
Me Clellands
r�
Hat mom•
••}
Cem
SC OOL S
TES
'
504
i
/5145000'..__.� ---- -
..
i '� ;f•-.
49/6
1498
I SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1
Shields Street - two lanes (one lane in each
direction) tlii th a.axi 1 iary turn lane_. at some
locations. There is some w i den i ng for one half mi 1 e
north of Harmon- Road.
' The Sh i e l d_"-.Horse tooth intersection via.=. recently �_. i gn.al i zed.
Other street=in the area have stop sign control speed
1 imi t=_. on the arterial streets are 45-50 mph.
Ex e.tino Traffic
' Da i t t r .a. f f i c f l at: ;j i =. •__. h c, !.j n i n F i cl u r e 2. These volumes•
are directional , machine -counted approach of ume = conducted
by the Colorado Department of Hi c1ht,,i.a... _. in September- 1'=83, and
by the City of Fart Col l in= in September
In addition to the daily count data, peak hour- turning
ovement_• vlere obtainedat Shield_.'��Hor=etooth in Hu _• ut t;
nd at Sh i e l d_./Harmony i n Aucau _•t 1'-r5. B.a._.ed upon Mh i .to ric
lunt inform•a.tion, Summer• counts- ar•e aener••aI ly 15 percent
lec= than t1:i i n ter• counts du=_ to -school (pa.r t i cu l a•r• l x CS ) not
' being in session . Therefore, far analysis purposes.. it is
appr„pr i a•te that the ^h i e l ds, Ha.rmon-, count be factored by
1.15. The 1985 counts. there further factored try. 1.0:3 to
1 reflect 1 -86 conditions. Thee +actored counts are shotl:in in
Figure 3. A-1 1 r•a.t!i traffic count data. is provided in Appendix
A.
' E::::i•_.tina Operation
Using the traffic volumes shoi;.in in Figure = a.nd the
e::%-isting geometric=_., the signalized intersection of Shields
.a.nd H, arse ta,_,th operates at level of •=er,.+ice H in both peak:
hours. The Sh i el ds.:'Troutman intersection operates accepta.bl :,:
tj. i th stop sign control and the existing geome tr• i cs.. The
Sh i e 1 d_•: *H.a.r•mony intersection operates un•a.ccep t.a.bl for all
movements v:ii th stop sign control. In the morning and
' .afternoon peak: hours, it is. at level of service D (cr i t i ca.l
slim of all legs is 1231 in the morn i ncl and 1 017 in the
afternoon). Appendix B describes. level of service for.
' unai gn.a.l i zed and signalized intersections as defined i n the
1' ;5 Hi ghtlia.;. C.a.Ga.c i ty t1•an1i•a.l i_al cul •a.t i can form=. .a.r•e provided
in Appendix x C. By definition of the Ci t-y of For t Co 1 ins,
acceptable operation i = level of sere i ce C or .above . Oper•a.-
tion at the signal ized inter=•ection i= cc,n=.idered to be
.acceptable inmost urban situations.. Oper••at i on at the
hield_.: H.a.rman:r inter_.ectic,n can be Impraved i:.iith 4-tlda.::: _•tc+p
cont_r•oI by .addi ng •addi t i on.a.l 1 ane=• on e i they Ha.r•mon;. orShields or- both. The additional lanes t:,loul d need to be both
.approach lanes and exit lanes. This would make it e i Cher .a.
lane by 4 lane, or 4 lane b:r 4 lane intersection. Accord i nQ
to signal via.r•r.a.nt•_ presented in Appendix D, signals may be
F
0
0
Ln
C.R. No. 38E
0
9
Z— HORSETOOTH
454 8
O
6'
J
_J
H
LL
Q
F-
HARMONY 3-
4
N
RECENT DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS
FIGURE 2
r�-
�o�
,�-94/1135
101
32 / to 3
rl
HORSETOOTH
I7/Z3
r Ln
Go
Tt
c+l p
40/ 30
15/ I O
TROUTMAN
� I
W LnO
_\
N �O
tP
do
�r
r
—I �-- (o fo/ 137
--44/55
HARMONY
Z 43/ 132 —+►
—� LD
AM/PM
Q
N
1986 PEAK HOUR COUNTS FIGURE 3
1
n
I�
t
1Aj.:.rranted vihen cons i der i nq current traff i c vol limes. Hok.,lever
the geometr i s improvements. de=_.cr• i bed abovei l l imFr i:,.i � ov e
oper•at i on =•uff i c i en t l; un t i l f i nal geome tr i s =. can be con-
=_.tr•uc ted i n th i s i n ter -sec t i on so that temporary s. i final i zat i on
i s not necess.a.ry,
III. PROPOSED DE'.-'ELOPMEPdT
The 1788 Elementary h_-1 a:. ,� School .rid 1'?'?ii Junior High school
i .9. proposed institutional development vjest of '_shields
cStreet and .a. half mi le south of Hor_.etooth Road. A schematic
of the s.i to plan •=ho1.!:1i ng the location and 1 i ke 1 .a.cr_es.s
points is provided in Figure 4. The elementary school is
scheduled to be occupied by 11';"18 a.nd the junior high school
is scheduled to be occupied by 1'p'-'n . As stated earlier, the
land surrounding these si te•=_. is. developing .a.nd, •a.= such, many
of the streets -are not completed.
F1 d. Access from the arterial
street system 11 be ev.:k'Ilia.ted based upon oper•a.tion and e.a.s.e
of a.cce•_._. based upon the proposed ser-.:) j ce areas of these
s. c h o o 1 •-.. Traffic i o n a. l 1:-:1 a. r r •a. n t s will be examined -as a.
matter of cour -.e, Geometric requirements of on —site streets.
v,i 1 1 a.l so be addressed.
In order to comprehensively assess. the impacts to the
various streets and the key intersections., it is necessary to
include traffic from uses. vih i ch are likely to exist in the
area. Thist.,.jould include the land primarily t!.iithin this.
'=,Frtion =ur-rounding these school site_. As. stated earlier-,
this land is currentl:� in fairl-y lov! intensity uses. _ince
no land use change proposals have been put forvj.a.r•d +or this
1 and to date, it l;:l.a,s assumed to remain in the existing use
for the short range c::3-5 ye.a.rs? analysis. Hotmever, for the
long range year 22006? , it vla=_• assumed that these properties
t:�f iu 1 d be developed oped as indicated i ca.t_ed on the Fort CollinsZoning
[.'ap
Trip Generation
Trip gener•a.tion is irnportan t in cons ider inq the impact
of a. development such as• this upon the e- istino street
s. =•tem. H romp i l at i can of tr• i p gener•a.t i on i nform•a.t i on L,,ias
prepared by the Insti tote of Tra.n_.portat ion Engineer•=. in
1'=77 i, upd.a.ted i n 1'?,33, and t.,las used to pro jec t tr• i ps that
1.!:louI d be generated b;• the proposed el ementary school use at
t h i iS s•i te, -as vie I l a.s•, the •a.dja.cent developments. The junior
h i oh school use i s not addressed i n the Tr- i p Gener•a.t i on
P-Ia.nual . Therefore. tra.ff i c obs.erva.t i ons. and counts. l,aere
performed on October 18, 1986 at Bol tz Junior Hi qh School in
Fart C:ollins. Boltz J.H.S. h.a,s. '?na students t�,lhich is
comparable to the expected ='nn student_s at the proposed
,junior high school. P'la.nual traffic counts were performed
from : 15 AN to E: 15 r d''1 ::morning peak hour of the school) and
t
Q
1 N
1
1 HORSETOOTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Q�
VI
w
w' o
N : ..I
W
1 N
ELEMENTARY ~ - ' •
SCHOOL 1 ••�
1988 1 .
1 ` • _ _ _ TROUTMAN
JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL i990
� �AKEROB
10
OV
0.0 }
�Z
W
a
m HARMONY
LEGEND
'- EXISTING STREETS
• • • - • PROPOSED STREETS
SITE PLAN SCHEMATIC FIGURE 4
1
f�
1
1
from 2:15 PH to 3: 15 PH (afternoon peak hour of the school).
.
Both automobiles and school buses were counted. From these
count_., +a.ctor_ were developed to project trips that would be
generated by the proposed .junior high schonl use. Table 1
shows the expected trip generation for the school sites on .a,
daily and peak hour basis. The analyses .assumed no publ i c
transit or r i des.har i ng for the school generated trips except
for school buses which are reflected in the tr• i p generation
factors. As the residential area around the school sites
fills i n , the number of walk: trips will l i k::e l y increase.
At .a• typical elementary or junior high school, the
morning peak hour of the generator corresponds to the peak:
hour of the street. However, in the afternoon, the peak hour
of the generator is not usually the peak hour of the street.
For analysis purposes, the peak hour•s used were 7:15 AM to
8:15 AM and 2:15 PH to 2:15 PH. Ample daily traffic counts
ex i __.t to determine what percent of the daily traffic occurs
at any hour of the day. In addition, recent daily traffic
counts at key intersections were Used to determine the
background traffic in mid -afternoon on .a. typical weekday. it
is also noted that the school trips would occur only during a.
180 day school year. Typ i ca.l 1 y, this is from September to
Hay with some '=p i 1 1 over to the last week ► n August and the
first week in _Tune.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The directional distribution of generated trips from the
school sites was determined based upon the anticipated drool
service area as described by Poudre School District Staff and
the area road system.
In the short range future I F?'0 w , the e 1 emen tr•a.y school
service area is assumed to be as shown in Figure 5. Host
(estimated at . „0 ) children attending this elementary school
wi 1 l come from the north (Wagon Wheel, Pos.sborough, and
Imperial Estates). In the long range future (2006) , the
elementary school service area is assumed to be as shown in
Figure 6. The major difference being el imi na.t i on of the a.re.a
west of Taft Hill Road. However, it is important to note
that the Section in which the school is located wi 1 1 1 i ke 1 y
have a. significant residential population, possibly fi l led
with residential use... At this time, a. significant portion
of the students. attending this school will s.ti l l come from
the north. However, this is 1 i ke 1 to � decrease to 30-35
percent.. The remainder (65- 0 percent) will consist of
children living in this_. Section, within 1/2 mile of the
school. This is generally considered to be within walking
distance. -
The junior high school is assumed to have the same
service area in bath the short and long range future_.. This
4
n
Table 1
Trip Generation
U a. i 1 Y
Land Use Trips
Elementary School 551
540 students
junior High School 108?
+'[III student=.
Total 1640
H.H. Peak:
Trip= Trip=
i n out
5 =' 27
P.H. Peak
Trip=. Trip=.
i n out
22 =_
1 1 ?
to
63
90
176
i�
117
85
128,
1
u
n
1
L�I
' ASSUMED SHORT RANGE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICE AREA FIGURE 5
9 •
F
1
ASSUMED LONG RANGE
' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICE AREA FIGURE 6
1
I
11
11
assumed service area is =.hQi.,.in in Figure .. Wh j 1 e the service
•a.r•e•a. is not anticipated to change over time, the tri p distri-
bution will, since the south portion of the service •a.r'ea i
not .a.=_• developed as the north portion. As residential
development occurs to the south, travel to/from the .junior
high school will change. Given the above service .a,r•eas for
each school and the anticipated residential growth wi th i n
those service areas, the trip distributions used are shown in
Figure 8.
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed
trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The
assigned trip=. are the resultant of the trip distribution
process. Figure 9 shows the peak hour trip assignment with
background traffic reflecting the short range future (1;FO)
conditions. I.:.Ih i l e this assignment does have .a. year
associated lri._I,ted with it, the year Is only used to derive
background traffic, which can change the overall volumes.
However, the assignment of site generated traffic will remain
constant.
Traffic Projection=.
Traffic volumes are projected for various streets wi th i r
the City of Fort Collins utilizing a. tool known as the
gravity model which considers future land use, population,
and employment locations. For. 20 year projection_. (year
006) this gravity model output is the usual source for
projections used in traffic impact studies. However, the
last Traffic Flow Map provides projections for the year 2000
Therefore, an estimation was made of traffic in this •a.rea by
the year 2006 using the latest Traffic Flow Map and the
knowledge of what has been occurring and what is expected to
occur in this area. of Fort C:ol l i ns. Figure 10 shows the
expected average da.il::. traffic (ADT) for bath Horsetooth,
Taft Hill, Harmony, and Shields near this site in the year
1P90. Figure 11 shows the expected average daily traffic in
the •__..a,me .a.r•ea in the year 2006. Figure 12 shows the peak
hour traffic for the streets in this area in the year 2006
with full development of both school sites and full
development of the Section as might be expected according to
the Fort Collins Zoning Map.
Signal Warrants
As a matter of policy of the City of Fort Collins,
traffic signals are not I n_.t.a.l 1 ed 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 warrantswill be met based upon
estimated ADT and utilizing a chart shown in Appendix: D or
the peat; hour signal warrants also provided in Appendix D.
1
5
F
F1
1
' ASSUMED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
' SERVICE AREA FIGURE 7
0
HORSETOOTH
TROUTMAN
-3 ,�
I
�
f- ►13/ 314
50/79
1
�
3t31/2(00�
40/ 34 �\
N
G
J
W
U1
=
42,/517/1
0
I
�- -7 4/ 15 3
55/ tOZ
HARMONY /r
/�
Ito/I�
Z�2/148-�
35/ Z I
- 6`
Q
N
AM/PM
1990 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 9
0
0
10,000
0
O
-9 14,000
HORSETOOTH
O
to
O
G
O
J
W
co
SITE TROUTMAN
0
0
0
5,500
!boo
HARMONY O
0
0
0
Q
N
1990 DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
FIGURE 10
g
°O:�lj
IZ 000 1-7000 ol
000
HORSETOOTH
N
O�
O
a O
U O
Uj
J
OO
W
N
J
N 4,000-
3,000-
O
O
=
5,000
4, 000
o
a
SITE
TROUT AN
t-
O
�0 0 0
10,000
1s,000
HARMONY
0
0
L
2006 DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FIGURE 11
•
•
000
Otj L0 !� ZO/ZO
500/ (0S0
ZO/Zo-1 � I r
1000/500 —�-
ZO/ZO O 0 0
000
�Ln0
U
w
Z
W
N
TROUTMAN
HARMONY
AM/PM
d
(3J)
-90
O��
00
ISO/ Z4S
350/49 S
140/ 140
IIO/-75
} HORSETOOTH
500/410
I
Ln
ENO
00
O�
N
G
O
0
J
W
0-90
Ll�--S
=
O
�0(
`�IOo/50
t— 40/ ZO
30/ zo
120/ ao --Ooo,
5 0/ 50
ZO/20 —�
000 0
O� O
9
LLn
O
too/ 150
I
z2o/ 2LO
ISO/ ZZO
fJ
30/ 35
) I
(
Z775 / 240-4—
as 65 —�
,11 O
O cQ
r0�
L�
2006 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 12
0 •
11
1
11
11
I
Utilizing this appendix and the volumes shown in Figures
and 10, signals wi I l not likely be warranted at any of the
possible a.cce_.s locations to the school sites in the short
range future. It is l i kel that signals would be warranted
at the Shields/Harmony intersection. Based upon volumes
shown in Figure=. 11 and 12, signals are likely to be
warranted at the Shields/Troutman and Horse tooth,' Seneca.
intersections in the long range future. These warrants are
l i kel y to be met due to background traffic rather than school
related traffic since Troutman and Seneca are collector level
streets.
Signal Progression
Signal progression was evaluated prior to intersection
operational analysis to determine whether the signals would
fit into progression schemes. In addition, the progression
scheme could be used in evaluating operation on a. stop sign
controlled street with the major street having platoon flaw.
This analysis technique is described in the 1?85 Highway
i_apaci t,Y Manual .
The technique used in the signal progression analysis
was a. computer program called Signal Progression Analysis
(SPAN) prepared by the University of Florida Transportation
Research Center. Its main function include:
- Interactive entry of arterial system data..
- Display a. time location diagram which provides
graphical representation of the qua.l i ty of arterial
progression.
- Printing of a. time -space diagram to show the qu•a.l i t y
of progression.
- Optimization of signal offsets for• arterial pro-
gression.
The program inputs are:
- Inter=.ection location
- Cycle length
- Phasing
- Offsets
- Speed
' An:: or all of these inputs can be changed iteratively in
achieving the optimal progression.
Shields Street data for existing and anticipated signals.
' to the north were used in evaluating progression along
Shields. The evaluation was made with a. signal at Richmond
based upon the I,.li l l iams.burg PUD Site Access Study. The
signal progression on Shields Street was analyzed based upon
the following cr i ter i a:
6
- Cycle 1 enath of 80-12Ci seconds.
Posted speed of 35 mph .
- Fla.inl ine (Shields) G/C: Ratio
Drake li:'' C = 0.30
St,,, a. l 1 ot,,i G,." C: = 0 . 6 0
R i c h m o n d G,,,* '= 0,? 0
Hor=.etooth G/C: = 0.30
Troutman G/C: = 0.60
HaC: Harmony G/= 0.40
- -
Green time on the cross street is greater than the
pedestrian crossing time of the mainline at 4 feet
per second.
' — Achieve the largest bands:%i i dth possible along Shields.
A number of cycle lengths t,.lere examined. H cycle length
' of 100 Seconds and a, travel _.peed of 35 mph i..)er•e selected .a._.
the best to meet the above cr i ter i a.. Figure 1:3 shot,,is the
progression analysis for Shields 'street t,-jith Richmond
si gna.l i zed. A bandwidth of 27 seconds is. possible in the
northbound thbound direction a.nd 30 seconds in the •aou thbound
direction.
Hor _.e tooth Road data for existing and expected sicinals
viere obtained from the l,Ji 1 l i amsbur•g PUD Site Access. Study,
dated September 1986. The signal progression on Hor _•e tooth
Road t,,la.s anal ;,'zed based upon the fol 1 ot,•)i ng cr i ter i a:
' - Cycle length of 80-12 0 seconds.
- Posted _.peed of 35-40 mph .
' - Ha.i n 1 i ne ( Horse tooth) G::'C: Ratio
Col 1 e fie G,,"C = 0.28
Meadovil ark G._C = 0.60
Shield_. G;'C 0.30
Ri chmond G./C 0.70
' Seneca. G::'C 0.70
Taft Hill G. 'C = 0.50
- Green time on the cross Street is greater than the
pedestrian crossing time of the ma.i nl i ne at 4 feet
per. second.-
Achieve the largest bandwidth possible along
Hor _.e tooth .
A number of c:rc 1 e lengths and speeds were examined. A
cycl e 1 ength of 100 seconds a.nd a. travel -speed of 35 and 40
mph t,:ier•e selected a.s the best to meet the above cr• i ter i a .
' Figure 14 sho!,is the progression analysis for Hor _.etooth Road.
A bandU:li dth of 15 seconds is possible in each direction.
The above progression analyses are presented to hot,,,
that signals can fit along Shields and He �r.s.e tooth and to
provide data for the platoon analysis. De=_.i fin pr•ogressi on
' anal ysi=-. must be conducted on a. regular basis reflecting
change in 1-and use, _.peed, and other variables.
C
ARTERIAL PROGRESSION DEGIGN
P,UN2
ROUTE: SHIELDS
INTERSECTIONS: 6 CYCLE LENGTH:
100 SYSTEM OFFSET: 0
SANDIJI DTH LEFT: 30 Sec. P, I GHT : 27
See. PERFORMANCE INDEX: 32
EFFICIENCY: 287 ATTAINABILITY: 101 INTEP.FERENCE:
20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N0.
.........TIME -LOCATION) DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE
SPEED
RIGHTBOUND
... READ DOWN) LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT RIGHT
1
xxxxxxxX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2110
0
35 35
2
Xxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXX 3170
2110
35 35
3
xxxxxxxXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 510
3170
35 35
4
XXxxxxxxxxxx 23TO
510
35 35
5
X
XXXXXXY.XXXXXXXX 2380
2370
35 35
6
XXXXXxxxx XXXXXXxxxxxxxXx.XXXX 0
2380
35 35
NO.
OFFSET .........TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM..........
PHASE
LENGTHS
LEFTBOUND ... READ UP 1 2
3 4
5 6 7 E
1
20 Xxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 40 60
2
60
XXXXXXN.XXXXXXXXX 60 40
3
27 xxxxxxxxxX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30 70
4
5 xxxxx
XXXXXXX 70 30
5
60 XXXXX
XXXX(XXXXXX 60 40
6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 XxxxxxxxxX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30 70
TIME SPACE DIAGRAM
ROUTE: SHIELDS
COUMENT : RU'J2
CYCLE LENGTH 100 SECONDS: SCALE IINCH=40% OF CYCLE: 1 LINE= 264 FT
#M#ii!i!�;iF%iF if i!iE+f�k M#i*iFi!Yih ikk#1Fi!icM%#i�iF#iF 1f �iF iif�i*lf#FNif%ii ifiii!�kl!1f 1Ei***kit iEiif K!!ii�if iF iF iE#
iiA1R MbIKk - —-Axxx),Xxmx;fxxxxx- xx�tx x xxxxxxxxx
TROUTMAM xxxxxx)"),9<-- — — -- xxx`cxxxxrx --- — . -- xXXX.)" cxxxx
NORSE'Fwo,i`N—--xxxxxxxxxxxxXxxx . -• -yxxxxxxxxxxyxxxxx �cx xxxxrx —
Rlf? —xxxxxxx--
SVALLOW xxxxxxxxxx-- --.. _ _ XXXYXXXXXX.. XXXXXXXXXX - -
D R A K Xxx. - XXxXXxXXXXXXXXXXX - xXXXXXXXxXXxXxxxx - -- - XXXXXXXXXX -
SHIELDS SIGNAL PROGRESSION
FIGURE 13
RLRJ 1 •
ROUTE? HORSET*
INTERSECTIONSt 7 CYCLE LENGTHt 100 SYSTEM OFFSETt 0
BANDWIDTH LEFT? 15 9ec RIGHTI 15 96C PERFORMANCE INDEX? 26
EFFICIENCYe 15 % ATTAINABILITYt 60 INTERFERENCEt 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. .........TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE SPEED
RIGHTBOUJD ... READ DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
1 Xxxx XXxxxxxxxxXXXXXxxxxxxxxxX 500 0 35 35
2 XXXXXX 1290 500 35 35
3 XXXx Xxxxxxxxxx.xx 3500 1280 40 35
4 Xxxxxxx XXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 670 3500 40 40
5 XXXXXXXXXXXX f010 670 40 40
6 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3600 1010 40 40
7 Xx.XXXXxxx XXXXXXXXXXX 0 3600 40 40
1.10. OFFSET .........TIME -LOCATION) DIAGRAM.......... PHASE LENGTHS
LEFTBOUND ... READ UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 !0 XXxxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 28 72
2 7 XXXXXx 85 15
3 45 XYXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 60 40
4 10 XXXXXXXX XxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30 70
5 0 XXXXXXXx XXXX 70 30
6 SO XXXXXXXXXXX X 70 30
7 2 X XXXXXXXXXXXXY.XXXXXX 50 50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIPIE SPACE DIAGRAM
ROUTEt HOP.SETOOTH
COPRiENT; RUII1
CYC LENGTH 100 SECONDS1 SCALE (INCH=40% OF CYCLE? 1 LINE= 264 FT
IEMY .IR�♦:i*{?x liM#iF***■•rF■tFi!IF#NIfN#If*iEfiF*llfi!MMk•R?F4k►M#Nf iFM i!if if x{t lir *NiMi!?FYMiY�1i 1F 1�MMi!#
COLLEC <xx — YXX)txxxxxxxxYxxkxx-----•-•-- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XYXXY.XXXXXXXYXX—
MAGON •.x - - - . _-_.. xxxx....-..----- -Ma ..........-...XXx ._.... _ __._.. YX
WA00W -XRWx-xxxx* - ------XXX-YXx.Cxxx-------.--..... _....... xxxxxxx-Yxx— --------
�jN1EL x-------X)OW-XXXXX XXXXXxx • - - - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx- -----xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TaFT- N
- - - XXXXXxx _..... _._ ..... xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx--..-'...---
C.
Io
--xxxXxXX)(X X •. -- ----XXXXXXXXXXX-
HORStL
'�S*V���MYMMYMMMkNi1fMIFNMNMffk4M7F1tiFlFiIMMMfkMIFMkfIMRMIFMifMMi!!1!
SIGNAL PROGRESSION
I' FIGURE 14
L
7
1
operations Analysis
Capacity analyses t,iere performed on key intersections to
determine hot.,.) each t,,lould operate in 15-PO t,•ii th full
development of Moth the elementary and junior high schools.
Operations anal y ses 4%ier•e also performed on key intersections
for ,ear 2006 traffic and fu 1 1 development of the school
s. i tes., as. t,,te 1 1 as other assumed development in the area.
In the short range future (1 ,90), i t is. 1 ik:ely that the
schools 4di 1 1 be developed, but it is not 1 i kel y that the
surround i ng r•es. i dent i al area v.l i 1 1 be dove l oped. This
assumption is made because no active development proposals
ex i s.t for the vacant 1 and vi j thin this Section . Therefore,
the question is. raised — hot,:+ t,:)i 11 these school s.i tes be
accessed from the a.r•ter• i a.l road system prior to development
of the collector and local street ne tt,:tork: t,:t i thin this.
Sect i on . Access can be via Shields Street H-r•rrtort: �. 4
Road. or,
Hor-se tooth Road. Access from Horse tooth Road t,,lou l d require
that Senec•a. Street be constructed from Hor•_.etooth to the
school sites.. This v!oul d involve over 1/2 mi 1 e of street
construct i on . This t,•loul d provide a good route for 80 percent
of the elementary =-tudents and about 25 percent of the :junior
h i ah students. Access. via. Shields. Street could be via.
Troutman Par•k:t,,tay or t4a.k:erobi n Lane. Either of these streets
t;,till operate similarly t,,tjth stop sign control .a.t Shields
Street in the short ranee future. This t.,,toul d provide a. good
route for 40 percent of the el ementa.r,., students and about .60
percent of the .junior high students.. Access. via. Harmony Road
viou 1 d provide the least acceptable route due to its
remoteness from the majority of the population in the short
range service area.. From a. numbers v i et.-vo i n t, it is
concluded that the short range access should be from Shields
Street. As development occurs in the area,, ether =.treets
t:,.ti l 1 be constructed t:.:th i ch t„ti t 1 provide additional a.cce=.s from
all the arterials. around this Section.
From an operational point of v i et;,t, it makes 1 i th e
difference t:,,thtet-her• the school sites are accessed via. Troutman
or i:,lakerobin. Both +,,till operate similarl-y at the Shields
Street intersection !,,t i th stop sign control. This operation
is shot,,tn in Figure 15. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix E. As mentioned e.a.r 1 i er• , the morning peak houranalysiscorresponds to the peak: hour of the street, since
the morning peak hour of the generator and the morning peak:
hour of the street are i den t i ca.l . Hot.,,tever• , the afternoon
peak hour, analysis corr•es.ponds to a rrti d—af terrnoon traffic
volumes on the street. Both elementary and Junior h i cih
schools exhibit very little traffic ac t i i ty be tt:.teen 4:30 and
5::30 PI-1 on a tarp i ci.1 v.jeek•da.v. Traffic activity related to
the school t::t j 1 1 on l y occur- dur i ng the 180 da.:;., school year .
During the -summer , tra.ff i c t,,ti 1 1 operate as though the school s
did not ex i s.t.. Both signalized intersections (Harmony/
Shields and Hor•setooth/Sh i el ds.) t,,ti 1 1 operate acceptably.
e.
ELEM• ARY Q •JUNIOR HIGH
N
ELEMENTARY
2006
WITHIQ
SECT ION
45
JUNIOR HIGH
15
S0 o ZS%
�� WITHItiI
SECT ION
Rio
30%
ZS'/o
H
TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 8
•
n
CS
0
•
1990 PEAK HOUR OPERATION FIGURE 15
Left -turn ex ts. from the school access road (Troutman or•
I.Oa.k:erobi n;v. ) )i 1 1 e::.cper i ence some del .ay dur i no the morning peak:
hour-. These delays can be confined to a. single left -turn
lane if au:; i 1 i a.r::: lanes. are provided. Based upon 1 imi ted
research conducted re 1 at i ng left -turn delay to level of
service (res.erve ca.pac i ty) at stop sign control led
intersections, the range of expected delay is. 8-14 seconds,
per, approach veh i c 1 e . A brief documentation of that research
is presented in Appendix F. If good progression is
maintained on 'shield•_. Street, similar to that indicated in
Figure 13, level of service C is attainable for these left
turns.. This conclusion is drauan using the platoon f l ov)
ana.1 .,:s i s de scr i bed i n the 1'85 H i ght i-ay Capac i ty t-9a.nua I . The
de 1 a.y per approach veh. i c 1 e for level of service C conditions
wi th stop sign control is. projected to be from 5-10 s•econds•.
For the short range future, tt;.jo travel lanes are needed
for- the school access road (Troutman or. t!.Iakerobin?, except
for the vii den i ng recommended at the Shields Street inter -
'Sec t i on . I t i s, hoviever , the pol i cy of the C i ty of For t
Col 1 i ns. to require :-k developer to construct a. full t,ai dth
street. The LJaker•obin Lane route viould require construction
of 1600 feet of primarily local streets vji th a.ppro:,.ima.tel y:
1 000 feet of collector ( Seneca.) . The Troutman Parkway route
t,.lou l d require construction of approximately 2200 feet of
collector ('Troutman -and Seneca). The tt,:io lane portion of
Shields. 'street (roughly bett�,jeen Horsetooth and Tr•outma.n) can
handle the anticipated volumes from an operational i et�ipo i n t.
Hot --,,ever, this section of roadviay has numerous patches and
should be evaluated for structural integrity given the
current traffic. If it remains a. tv.io lane rural cross
section for 5 or, so years., it is recommended that adequate
6 feet) s.houlders be added. The ultimate solution for
Shields. Street is to construct it to its anticipated four
lane cross section.
Each of these alternative access =.tree tg (Ja.k:erob i n
or Troutman, has. specific advantages to the School District.
The t:Ja.kerob i n Lane al ternat i -.Je provides a. paved street for
app -ox ima.tel y 0. 15 miles -and a. completed bridge overthe
Pleasant Valley & Lake Ditch. Hot,,ie er• , the bridge is not
paved. t,Jakerobi n i nter-sec t_ tji th Sh i el ds Street at a. pal nt
t,.jhere Shields Street is constructed to i its. fu 1 1 curb -to -curb
ar ter i al w i dth . I f t,Jakerob i n Lane i =_. ex, tended to the v: est
a.l ong t,,O th other ant i c i pa.ted street al i gnments i n the area, a.
total of 2600 lineal feet of street must be constructed in
order- to serve both school si tes•.
The Troutman Pa.rkvia.y alternative intersects t,,O th Shields.
Street approximately 0.3 miles north of t:Ja.k:er•obin Lane. At
this. location. Shields. Street is, constructed to its fu l l
width on the east side, but on the t,ie t it cons.is.ts of a.
rural cross section. Troutman tma.n Parki,:iax is completed on the
east side of Shields to the railroad tracks.. It is the
9
I
1
1
intent of the City of Fort Col 1 i n=• that Troutman Pa.rkv:iay v:ii 1 1
some day have an at-cir•ade r.ai 1 crossing. In order to gain
access to these school sites via this route, approximately
2800 lineal feet of street must be constructed. Since in the
port range, most of the students t:,:ji l l live north and
northeast of the school si tes, the Troutman Parkv.iay route
t,ji 1 1 decrease the total travel di stance by a.ppr•ox imatel:-,e 0.=;
mi 1 e'a. This t-ai I I have a. corresponding savings in travel time
depending upon the speeds involved.
Ca.pac i ty anal y_•es. vaere al so conduc t e d u t i I i z i nq the , ear
006 traffic as shovin in Figure 12. The results of these
anal ;.=_•es are shov:in in Figure 16. Backup calculation farms
are provided in Appendix G. This analysis assumes that
Harmon:),,, Horsetooth, Shields and Taft Hill are constructed to
at 1 ea._.t four- lane cross sections. The operation of the
Sh i e l d_./Hors•e tooth and Sh i e l d_•:,"Ha.rmony intersections are in
the acceptable categories -as indicated in Figure 16. It is
expected that the Shi el ds,,"Troutman and Hor•_•etooth:''=;eneca
intersection tj:li l l provide the major access routes for trips
originating within the Section or- accessing the school sites.
These intersections are expected to be signalized in the long
range future. These intersections v.!i l l also operate
acceptably .as indicated in Figure 16.
In the long_ range future, all on -site local =.treets
should have one travel lane in each direction. Both Troutman
Parkvtay and Seneca Street a.re expected to be collectors and,
as such, should have one travel lane in each direction and a.
center left -turn lane. The expected cr•os =. section of the
collectors (Troutman and Seneca) vai 11 be as indicated in
Figure 1 (from Design Criteria and Standards for Streets,
City of Fort C:ol 1 i n=.) .
Accident Analysis
The geometric changes at all the analyzed inter -sections
should reduce the accident rate. The a.ux i 1 i a.ry lanes.
d i •cu =•ed above should remove right -turning and left -turning
vehicles from the through traffic stream and thus el imi nate
the 1 i ke 1 i hood of rear end accidents.
Pa.r•k i nq Anal ;• _•i
The City of Fort C:ol 1 ins expressed concern regarding the
provision of adequate parking at the school site,
particularly the junior high school. During the traffic
counting, par -king inventor)-1 and parking observations v:ier•e
also conducted at Boltz junior High School. At Boltz .1.H.S. ,
there are 63 on -site parking _.paces in front of the building.
There is also a. large unstr• i ped parking lot in the rear of
the bu i 1 di ng. On the observation day, there viere 51 vehicles
10
a]
Fi
� I
1
• • Q
N
1 2006 PEAK HOUR OPERATION FIGURE 16
•
0
RECOMMENDED TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
z
H
a
U
Q
z
P,
50}
a
13'
68' RIGHT OF WAY
COLLECTOR
O
z
H
04
K4
U
A
z
(BIKE LANES$ NO PARKING)
INTERSECTION/TURN LANE
TROUTMAN AND SENECA
CROSS SECTION
Im
FIGURE 17
F1
I
1
1
J
I
in the front lot and 19 vehicles. in the back lot in the
morning shortly after the morning be 1 1 rang. Cur i ng traffic
counting, three vehicles. viere obServed to have parked and
mowed vO thin the counting period. t4umerou _. vehicles pulled
up to the curb to discharge passenger's., but did not engage in
an Act of parking. Parking i _. defined as stopping And
exiting the vehicle. Prior to the afternoon traffic count,
56 vehicles. viere in the front lot And 21 vehicles vlere in the
rear 1 of . Four vehicles t,Jere in parking spaces. t,.� i th drivers
via. i t i ng. These .a.r•e not included in the 56 vehicles in the
front 1 of . There viere Also 5 vehicles. ° _.t.a.nd i ng" along the
curb vtai t i ng to pick: up student-S. At Boltz J.H.S., it
a.ppea.rs that there i s. an excess of park i ng =_.paces.. The
h i ghe_.t number, of vehicle_ parked i.�,iR 77. i:Oh i 1 e one school
observa.t. i on does not adequately dra.t,,i firm conclusions, it
a.ppea.rs. that 85 park i nq space (5 plus 1Ci':? should be
adequate at a. .junior high school vji th an enrollment of ?00
This e-stimate -should be a.d:jus.ted if data from other schools
indicates a. _. i gn i f i cant difference in parking requirements.
I t,, . CONCLUS 1 CiNS
This study assessed the impacts of tt,,io proposed school
=-.i te_. on the ex i =-.t i ng street =, stem in both 1'=-'0 and 2,006.
Hok-%lever, it should be pointed out that the long range
a.na.1 y•_.es. Assumed that other nearby developments. t.,.ioul d al _.o be
in place in the general vicinity of the proposed school_. It
is folly to lank At .a. single development iv-fl thout consi der i ng
the interaction of other land uses. in the Area.
As a. res-ult of this. Analysis, the fol lc,vijng is
concluded:
- The development of the 1 ?88 Elementary School and
1 ="PO Junior High School as proposed is feasible from .a
traffic enoineering standpoint with specific improvement- in
the Area.. Full development of the school s.i tes. As proposed
to i l l generate .a.ppr•ox j ma to l y 1 600 vehicle trips per day for.
the 1880 day school year (September
- Current operation of the Horse toot_h.•''_h i e 1 d_.
intersection is in the level of -service A category during
both peak hour•s t..)i th signal control. The four t,:tay stop sign
controlled intersection of Harmony/Shields operates. at level
of service U. Hot -,.)ever, this can be improved with the
Addition of both approach and exit lanes. Th i _. level of
service D operation is unacceptable according to the City'_
c �t,:jn evaluation cr i ter i a.. Traffic s.i gna.l s. may be t,.!arra.nted
not,:l. Signals would improve operation to acceptable levels.
Clpera.t i on can also be improved to acceptable 1 eve 1 _ by
improving this intersection to either a 2'X4 or 4X4 stop sign
controlled intersection. It is recommended that one of these
F1
11
•
alternatives be pursued by the City immediately to bring
operations to acceptable levels.
- Access from the three principal arterials,
Hor•se tooth , Shields, and Harmony was evaluated in the short
range future. It is recommended that access to the school
sites be from Shields Street via either Troutman Parkway or
Wa.kerob i n Lane. Access from Horse tooth Road via. '=enec.a.
' Street or Harmony Road via Regency and Seneca Streets are the
least acceptable access solutions considering street
construction, anticipated school service area, and ease of
- Development of the schools in the short range future
can be handled on the street system with some improvements.
These include provision of access to the school sites from
Shields Street. This a.ccess can be accomplished via. either
Troutman Parkway or I,:I.aker•ob i n Lane. Both routes have
advantages. .and disadvantages. From a traffic operational
viewpoint, both accesses operate similarly. A signal is.
likely to be warranted at the Harmony/Shields intersection by
1 iK or before based upon background traffic (other than site
(school) traffic). All signalized intersections will operate
acceptably in the short range future.
' - With full development of the school sites in the long
range future, signals will be warranted at the 'shields..:'
Troutman and Horsetooth/Senec•a intersections. This. assumes
1 fu 1 1 development of the Section in which the school sites are
contained. These streets are classified as collectors.
- All the signalized intersections .analyzed operate
' acceptably in the peak: hours in the long range future with
the four lane cross section on Horsetooth, Shields, and
Harmony.
' - Parking w a. _. surveyed at an existing Fort Collins
junior high school of comparable size. At the existing
school, 85 spaces appeared to adequate. Approximately 85
' spaces should be provided at the proposed .junior high school
unless additional data indicates a. significant difference.
' - With goad design of the aforementioned geometric
improvements to the various intersections•, the accident rate
should be at acceptable levels for urban conditions.
1 12