HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL AT THE MARKET PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 21-89F - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 3
MEETING DATE 3/2 /$ 94
STAFF Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Taco Bell at The Market Place P.U.D., Amended
Preliminary and Final, #21-89F
APPLICANT: Taco Bell Corporation
c/o Architecture One
150 East 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
OWNER: Taco Bell Corporation
10065 East Harvard Place
Denver, CO 80231
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Preliminary and Final P.U.D. for a 1,986
square foot -fast food restaurant, with drive-thru lane, located on
a .80 acre pad site within The Market Place P.U.D. The parcel is
located on the east side of the 4100 block of South College Avenue,
in front of Hobby Lobby, between Boardwalk Drive and Troutman
Parkway. Both the pad site and entire shopping center are zoned
h-b, Highway Business.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Pad site "A" was formerly approved for an Italian Oven standard
restaurant. A fast-food restaurant, with drive-thru, is considered
a complementary use within a community/regional shopping center.
The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria and the Auto
Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.
Architectural character and landscaping blend with the center and
mitigate the impacts of the drive-thru lane. A condition of
approval is recommended regarding broadening the scope of the
traffic study to address the Level of Service at College and
Troutman intersection. A second condition of approval is
recommended regarding the timely filing Utility Plans and
Development Agreement.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
•
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, W21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: h-b; Retail (Best Buy)
S: h-b; Fast -Food (Burger King at The Marketplace P.U.D.)
E: h-b; Retail (Hobby Lobby at The Marketplace P.U.D.)
W: H-B; Retail (McFrugals at Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza)
The subject site is platted as Lot 3 and designated as a shopping
center pad site "A" of The Market Place P.U.D., approved in 1989.
The Market Place P.U.D. is a Community/Regional Shopping Center.
Burger King was approved as a pad site "B" in 1989.
Lot 3 was granted Preliminary P.U.D. approval in 1990 for Checker
Auto which never advanced to the Final stage. In 1992, Italian
Oven P.U.D. (4,650 square foot standard restaurant) was granted
Final approval but never proceeded to the building permit stage.
2. Land Use:
As mentioned, the parcel is designated as pad site "A" on The
Market Place P.U.D. This pad site was identified on the P.U.D. as
support retail for the Community/Regional Shopping Center. The
definition of a community/regional shopping center states, in
part,:
"... The center also includes associated support shops which
provide a variety of shopping goods including general
merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, as well as a variety
of services, and perhaps entertainment and recreational
facilities."
The request for a fast food restaurant, with drive-thru, is found
to be a complementary use for the center.
The request for a fast-food restaurant with, drive-thru lane, was
reviewed by the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart of
the L.D.G.S. The project earned a score of 56% which exceeds the
required minimum of 50%.
Points were awarded for being located other than at the
intersection of two arterial streets, being part of a community/
regional shopping center, taking primary access from a non -arterial
street, and having direct vehicular and pedestrian access between
•
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
on -site parking areas and adjacent off -site parking areas.
Finally, points were awarded for being contiguous to existing urban
development. The score on the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial
Point Chart supports a fast-food restaurant at this location.
3. Design:
There are two primary design features associated with this P.U.D.,
architectural compatibility and mitigation of drive-thru lane.
A. Architectural Compatibility
The building will feature split face, painted, concrete block to
match the balance of The Market Place P.U.D. Not only does this
complement the center, but also matches the exterior material for
both Best Buy and Fountainhead Retail Center located to the north.
The west, south, and north elevations will also feature white
synthetic stucco arches for corporate identification as well as a
contrast to the block. Synthetic stucco is used throughout the
center. The roof will be standing seam metal, colored blue, to
match the roof on Burger King. Blue is an approved accent color
and is used for horizontal striping throughout the center.
B. The drive-thru lane is mitigated by a combination of existing
and proposed landscaping. Unlike Burger King, the menu board is on
the east side of the parcel, well -screened from College Avenue.
Existing perimeter landscaping will be enhanced with evergreen
shrubs, particularly where cars in the drive-thru lane will face
College. Shade trees and ornamental trees are added to the
interior and foundation shrubs are placed along the west and south
elevations.
4. Transportation:
A traffic impact analysis was prepared to address the concerns of
adding a fast food drive-thru restaurant to the existing shopping
center. The issues revolve around two concerns: traffic generation
and parking capacity.
A. Traffic Generation
The traffic study examines both weekday and Saturday peak times.
Also, trip generation data was derived from the specific operations
of existing Taco Bell restaurants rather than sole reliance on data
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These data
indicate that Taco Bell restaurants are busier than ITE trip
•
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
generation rates. In addition, a Taco Bell generates higher rates
than previous proposed uses on pad "A" (standard restaurant and
retail).
The key intersection is College Avenue (major arterial) and
Troutman Parkway (collector). This intersection serves the primary
access drives for both The Market Place and Pavilion shopping
centers. The traffic study concludes that with a "single east -west
phase" this signalized intersection does not allow enough time for
westbound left turns to clear in a given cycle. This causes cars
to stack back to the east and block the two access drives to the
two shopping centers. As a result, during the Saturday noon peak,
the Level of Service at College/Troutman is category "F" which is
considered unacceptable by the standards of the City's
Transportation Department. During the weekday peaks, this
intersection operates at Level of Service D or better, a condition
which is considered acceptable.
The traffic study recommends separate left turn phases be added to
east/west movements on Troutman. This will allow the left turn
queues on Troutman to clear before the permitted phase turns green.
If problems persist, the traffic study recommends that the City
consider double left turn lanes on westbound Troutman approaching
College Avenue.
In a follow-up memo, the traffic study indicates that these
suggested improvements can be accommodated by re -striping with no
need to physically widen the roadway. The width of Troutman
Parkway, east of College Avenue, is 68-70 feet. This width will
allow "back to back" left turn lanes that will eliminate the
conflicts and provide considerably more storage for left turns.
This geometric improvement will also work should the City decide to
modify the College/Troutman intersection to allow double westbound
left -turn lanes.
The follow-up traffic study also indicates that the operation at
College/Troutman intersection will improve once J.F.K. Parkway is
extended south to Harmony Road. This will provide an alternative
to southbound College Avenue.
In reviewing the two traffic studies, the Transportation Department
has acknowledged that the condition of Level of Service "F", during
the Saturday noon peak, occurs now and is not of Taco Bell's
making. The suggested improvements are valid solutions and will be
considered for implementation. The modifications to the
intersection striping will improve the operation at the College and
Troutman intersection and mitigate the addition of Taco Bell at the
Market Place P.U.D.
6_1
•
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
B. Parking Capacity
At the request of Staff, a parking analysis was conducted during
the Saturday noon peak hours (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) to determine
if parking was adequate. The parking lot is divided into an east
lot (219 spaces) and west lot (109 spaces) for a total of 328
spaces. Taco Bell would add 22 spaces to the west lot for a new
total 350 lots for the entire shopping center.
The analysis indicates that 45% of the parked vehicles stay for 1-
15 minutes, 35% stay for 15-30 minutes. The average length of stay
is 26-27 minutes.
According to ITE, Taco Bell will generate 108 inbound trips during
the Saturday noon peak. These trips are divided into 35% drive-
thru customers (38 trips) and 65% sit-down customers (70 trips).
Based on the data regarding length of stay, and based on Taco Bell
adding 22 spaces, it was conservatively assumed that there will be
an increased demand of 50 cars that must find parking spaces within
the shopping center's parking lot in any given 15 minute period.
The parking analysis revealed that with the increased demand of 50
cars during the Saturday noon peak, the maximum accumulation of
parked cars in the west lot would be 96 resulting in 73% occupancy,
and 157 cars in the east lot resulting in 72% occupancy. The
overall occupancy would be 72% at the average Saturday noon peak
hour.
In order to account for the worst -case scenario, the impact on the
parking lot during the month of December was calculated. In
December, the west lot would have 115 parked cars resulting in 88%
occupancy, and 223 cars in the east lot resulting in 102%
occupancy. The overall occupancy would be 97% at the December
Saturday noon peak hour.
The analysis concludes the increase in demand (108 trips) on
parking capacity within the shopping center, combined with the
increase in supply (22 spaces) will result in no spillage onto
adjacent public streets or private access drives.
Based on the analysis of the traffic generation and parking
capacity, and as conditioned by Staff, Taco Bell at The Market
Place is considered feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the request for Taco Bell at The Market Place P.U.D.,
Staff finds the following facts to be true:
•
•
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
1. A fast-food drive-thru restaurant is a complementary use
within a community/regional shopping center.
2. With a score of 56% on the Auto Related and Roadside
Commercial Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., the P.U.D. is
supported by the City's land use policies as appropriate at
this location.
3. The architectural character blends with the center and the
landscaping mitigates the drive-thru aspect of the restaurant.
The P.U.D., therefore, satisfies the All Development Criteria
of the L.D.G.S.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Taco Bell at The Market
Place P.U.D., Preliminary and Final, #21-89F, subject to the
following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the development
agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D., plans for
the planned unit development be negotiated between the
developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior
to the second monthly meeting (May 23, 1994) of the Planning
and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned
unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if
not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent
monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time.
The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it
shall first find that there exists with respect to said
planned unit development final plan certain specific unique
and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of
the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique
hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and
provided that such extension can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to
be included in the development agreement, the developer may
present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such
presentation is made at the next succeeding or second
succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table
any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have
had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the
Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made).
If this condition is not met within the time established
herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final
Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #21-89F
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
approval of this planned unit development shall become null
and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for
this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date
that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the
vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of
time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2,
Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decisionve
of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of
this conditional approval; however, in the event that the
dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding
provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
running of time for the filing of an appeal of such Iffinal
decision'$ shall be counted from the date of the Board's
decision resolving such dispute.
r
I
ARM'i►����
I
,10-
sit
MARKETPLACE
PUD-Pre
ITEM:
(TACO
BELL)
NTTIN4RTr'7?
•
2
I -89F
GENERAL NOTES
OCONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND
_a. OD i m a�mo.n xm�xm��
DIRECTIONAL SIGN SCHEDULE tQi
drtn iY
a cwT K
a yo
C d1EA � M¢COYE
o E 6Y 2 Y a i NRH aenY
T oar Y naa d Y
a
c oo aor dTd � Txau-P.ssdcEa w«w
H oal�-Tr,au o oa�� niau-oarvrx vlcxua
I OI6M-iI61U—� R
IMP
y
1t
001iol)
fil �Il
.,
VICINITY MAP
II�— sc : 1'.2000'
WAL Dl66RIFn0N
=M ,ml a
SITZ DEVELOPMENT DATA
paw x r.n
GENERAL NOTES
R.T
.� Q�,;.a Mom,,
9 Dq*&1 r E ITTdS'
MaWEA41
mEd
� ■llllrtl;,� - .. M-1,
Q I I
-___ r`6Yl TlA�
r �r�
IIT'OD' •
O4 T9
D I'
PMC1Y LOT
SITE PLAN
T— scAlF: 1'.20'
OWNER GERTILIGATION PLANNING AND ZONING
GERT11 ATION
W
w z
Z o
J w w Q 7
W
ED M
Owcc
U Q ¢ m
¢tea
H w z
u 13
w
U
2 0
Pll R13m, D1IkIf6K11
kco Tipff kc3
M-10-H
AMIRMDED PRSLOWINARY AND ANAL ?.UJ.11D.
L�1lNl`7LrtK1�L5� IJ �JuuLS
ONE
9/i/94
PN GAMM M 30 303/66P5060
,,.. .. -
vF "MET L0�.���
A 1 A
0
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1�— kALE, r.1p
SHRUB PLANT
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTIW
CCNfFEROUS TREE PLANTING
}SLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE
12� CGM,O!l ti.lE OOIAWV'•, 11,1E N1E
r. n.,X nru wwrw r�
M 1 �wX �JX. YI1nlM IYI�!' f
a.s MlW wwwr N•uY
�Xa,,+rr.� Xm u� AX.•a.� arsXr rxa e�m•� X s�K
•vienw�+.aourn HoiMilu q.rt�oo.. •aaaurH
M,ew Px n,ewo 1wu
XX�.1aXX+lwa .a+�
r AuvM 1.wae�X .uv,r
'j a aaawo.ua.waz .Y.iw.i. 3F I. wnn n.
ro PaE�.oX. P.t .Mr roows..
R XA.,XM.PI�NX{aw, Mp!>a4 Y1lb WAef
Al RAM♦r A1t•�l lMl.�o.Yr'YtlX!!
(Y R111A feiq.CLp
. XIM M1OeKSXH1IM M VKXMIIIXXM M1O9 iM1 ME uxm
MIM NO NX MM WR Wham XMV1HYNa®.
LANDSCAPE NOTES
,w X, .•.mX X, �• M«:X.Mn @.M. g �,a a,W.
X. e^"wnvn wxro�,o ee®' s�' peowi ax rN�iu n°A^i,e ranw
,. ,re awe�ei of Xomwi ^10 e.cimu
NiX i ..Xi awlo rwMiw PXrr rlo a .^X,X exuv^im roP+.ou_
m,m r� Xa���,enONau..,�oX
IN-
'TAM
RDHIN, 1MAIl6MTIPILACI9
ONE
PM GAMM M tm 30N66490h0
w F tam R LOYEOfU, MopmO em
MAGM%
wX once
Pa �
•w OX.Yb
rw owlrs
rwcwi�a
P�OXYXeXI
a
z
¢
w
W rc
z a
,zz <m
W W a
m.6 Z
owm �n
¢a m
~ V O
w
z x
S
U o
6 f
•
EAST ELEVATION
8 RIB SPLIT FACE CONCRETE BLOC
(STAIN TO MATCH MARKET PLACE P
SMLL I MC IAL UAY M
EIGE)
.F.S. SYSTEM (DRY-VIT)
AVAJO WHITE)
_ CABINET, PAINT
BLOCK VENEER
e
TACO BEyLL
'�; 'I 'II11111111111111111111111' ■ � � � �L�JIIJIYIIIYY — 14YMIIY
IyYlil �lwt•��ryy.l�l�`IIIL .. —__ III � ..1' - l%.��
8 RIB SPLIT FACE CONCRETE BLOCK WAINSCOTT
BENEATH DINING AREA WINDOWS
SOUTH ELEVATION
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN
PICK-UP WINDOW'
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
°(BLUE)
IT FACE CONCRETE BLOCK
MATCH MARKET PLACE P.U.D.)
mi
1 t 1 O
MWW O
ci z
a
ir
w
Qcw7
w
J
O - Q
U Q41
O
m
Fj
��\\ O D •
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, P.C. ONE
TACO BELL AT MARKET PLACE P.U.D.
STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
This proposed Taco Bell M-70-H Restaurant (70 seats) with a drive-thru service lane is proposed
to be located on Pad "A" of the Market Place P.U.D. at 4130 South College Avenue. This
undeveloped pad site is located just north of the existing Burger King Restaurant and just south of
the Best Buy retail store.
This P.U.D. submittal is for a revised preliminary and a final approval of this project. This site
received its initial preliminary approval with the overall development plan of the Market Place
P.U.D., however, no drive-thru service lane was indicated then. This site was previously
investigated for use by Checker Auto Parts, and a final P.U.D. was approved for the "Italian Oven"
Restaurant on this site. However, plans were never filed and construction of this restaurant was
never commenced.
The development of this site for Taco Bell is consistent with the original intended use for this site
with the exception of the addition of the drive-thru service lane. This submittal will show that
conflicts with the use of the drive-thru lane have been effectively mitigated. The drive-thru menu
board is located to the east of the proposed restaurant and is directed toward the interior of the
Market Place P.U.D. as opposed to toward any public right-of-way. Additionally, the established
existing landscape strip at the east edge of this pad site screens the menu board from the rest of the
center. The intensive existing landscaping and berm along South College Avenue at the west side
of this site effectively screen vehicle headlights of cars exiting the drive-thru from northbound
traffic on College Avenue.
The exterior elevations for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant have been modified from a standard
Taco Bell signature building to promote a unified, cohesive design within the Market Place, Best
Buy and Fountainhead P.U.D.'s. Along with the synthetic stucco material, 8-rib split face concrete
block and blue standing seam metal roofing have been incorporated into the building design. The
concrete block veneer will be stained to match the other uses of this material in the area. No
outdoor dining is proposed as a part of this submittal.
The monument sign has been designed to conform to the required 6' x 6' size requirement for the
Market Place P.U.D. The illuminated portion of the monument sign is 30 square feet per face with
a concrete block sign base designed to complement the other signs and structures within the Market
Place P.U.D.
The existing Market Place P.U.D. traffic study has been amended as requested in the staff
conceptual review comments. The amendment to the study concludes that the addition of the
proposed Taco Bell Restaurant will still result in acceptable traffic operations and parking levels.
A bicycle rack and motorcycle parking have been provided as required.
150 EAST 29TH STREET PALMER GARDENS, SUITE 200 LOVELAND. COLORADO 80538 303/669-9060
FACSIMILE 303/669-9066
0
%GD kS61-L HT -TNF Nlf�.e�(CFT PL.9r'
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the cnteron
applicable?
Will the cnterion
be satisfied?
If no, please explain
z
E
a Z
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
1.2 Comprehensive Plan
f
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
1.4 Mineral Deposit
✓
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
1.7 Energy Conservation
1.8 Air Quality
1.9 Water Quality
1.10 Sewage and Wastes
A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation
2.2 Building Placement and Orientation
2.3 Natural Features
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parkin
2.5 Emergency Access
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation
2.7 Architecture
2.8 Building Height and Views
2.9 Shading
2.10 Solar Access
2.11 Historic Resources
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 Landscape
✓
✓
2.14 Signs
2.15 Site Lighting
2.16 Noise and Vibration
✓
✓
✓
2.17 Glare or Heat
✓
2.18 Hazardous Materials
✓
A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity
✓
3.2 Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
3.4 Geologic Hazards
{�
ACTIVITY Auto -Related and
Roadside Commercia I
DEFINITION:
Those retail and wholesale commercial activities which are generally con-
sidered and typically found along highways and arterial streets. Uses
include: free standing department stores; auction rooms; automobile service
stations, repair facilities, car washes; boat, car, trailer, motorcycle
showrooms, sales and repair; fuel and ice sales; greenhouses and nurseries;
warehouses and storage; repair or rental of any article; exterminating
shops; drive-in restaurants; adult book stores; eating places with adult
amusement or entertainment; adult photo studios; adult theatres; any uses
intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment; and, other uses which
are of the same general character.
CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment plan.
Yes No NA
1. Does the project gain its primary �❑ INN-1H_tWL_
vehicular access from a street other (AW-PT F�
than South College Avenue?
2. Are all repair, painting and body work
activities, including storage of refuse
and vehicular parts, planned to take
place within an enclosed structure?
3. If the project contains any uses intended ❑ ❑ �/
to provide adult amusement or entertainment,
does it meet the following requirements:
a. Is the use established, operated or maintained no less than 500
feet from a residential neighborhood, church and/or school meeting
all the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the State
of Colorado?
b. Is the use established, operated or maintained no less than 1,000
feet from another similar use?
corinued
contirued
Yes No
4. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 50% OF THE.
MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED ON "POINT CHART D" n'o
FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA?
a. Is the activity located other than at the intersection of two arte-
rial streets?
b. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing
neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, office or
industrial park?
c. Is the primary access to the activity from a non -arterial street?
d. Is the project on at least two acres of land?
e. Does the project contain two or more significant uses (for
instance, retail, office, residential, hotel/motel and recreation)?
f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site
parking areas and adjacent existing or future off -site parking
areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces?
g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage, through the
application of alternative energy systems, use of existing build-
ings, and through committed energy conservation measures beyond
that normally required by City Code?
h. Is the project located with at least 1/6th of its property boundary
contiguous to existing urban development?
i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event
occurred, which has special public value because of notable archi-
tecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill
the following criteria.
i. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation;
ii. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with
the character of the building or place. Imitation of period
styles should be avoided; and
iii. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will
lead to its continuance, conservation, and improvement in
an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the
neighborhood.
AUTO -RELATED AND
ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL
POINT CHART D
For All Critera
Applicable Criteria Only
Criterion
Is The
Criterion
Applicable
Yes No
I u III IV
Circle
The
Correct
Score
Yes \W No
Multiplier
Points
Earned
1x11
Maximum
Applicable
Points
a. Not attwo arterials
X
X
2
0
2
4
b. Part of planned center
X
X
2
0
3
(0
6
c. On non -arterial
X
1
2
0
4
8
d. Two acres or more
X
I
IX
2101
3
—
6
e. Mixed -use
X
X
210
3
6
f. Joint parking
X I
1
201
3
&
g. Energy conservation
X I
1
2
0
4
--
8
h. Contiguity
X
X
0
5
f
10
i. Historic preservation
x
1
2101
2
--
-
j.
1
2
0
k.
1
2
0
I.
1
2
0
` VW —Very Well Done Totals
V VI
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points VNI =VI1 %
VII
•
•
00
M
LO
0
w
O
0
Q o
CLI (V
O C�
J
O
V Mo
M
z
3
w
O
J
w
Z)
z
W
a
z
a
r
z
a
m
z
w
W
z
c�
z
LLi "'
J
7
U
� zo
_v
J Q
F-
W cc
C o
a
Z
U
W �
= a
cc
MEMORANDUM
To: Gardiner Hammond, Taco Bell
Al Hauser, Architecture One
Rick Ensdorff, Fort Collins Transportation Division
Ted Shepard, Fort Collins Planning Department
From: Matt Delich
Date: March 21, 1994
Subject: Taco Bell at the Market Place PUD follow up
(File: 9404MEM2)
The "Taco Bell at the Market Place PUD traffic study,"
February 4, 1994, evaluated the current and future operation
at key area intersections. Some recommendations were made
regarding signal phasing and geometric improvements at the
College/Troutman intersection. The improvements at this
intersection have an effect on the operation at the Troutman/
Pavilion/Market Place stop sign controlled intersection. The
current, short range future, and long range future operations
are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. City Transportation Division
staff expressed concern about the levels of service E and F
that occur at the Troutman/Pavilion/Market Place intersection.
This memorandum examines the operation in some detail and
explores potential geometric improvements, particularly on
Troutman Parkway between College Avenue and the Pavilion/
Market Place driveways.
The operation at unsignalized intersections is based upon
hourly approach volumes, assuming random arrivals, and the
critical acceptance gap for the minor street movements and
major street left -turn movements. The technique does not
consider the impact of nearby signals. Figures 1, 2, and 3
are the peak hour traffic volumes that caused the calculated
operation shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Research
indicates that there are no modifications to the technique
which will account for the nearby signal condition. However,
Rick Ensdorff requested some further analysis that would show
how the operation would be improved due to the nearby signal.
One of the recommendations in the traffic study calls for
east/west left -turn phases for Troutman Parkway traffic.
These left -turn phases will comprise 9-13% of the cycle,
depending upon how much time is allotted to this phase.
During this phase at the College/Troutman intersection, there
will only be an occasional right turn from College Avenue that
will be eastbound approaching the unsignalized intersection.
Westbound, there will still be random arrivals that occur
during the analyzed hours. Based upon the volumes shown in
Figures 2 and 3, the westbound approach traffic is between 4-
7 vehicles per minute. During the north/south "green ball"
phase (permissive left -turns), the only traffic that will be
eastbound on Troutman Parkway will be right -turns from
northbound College Avenue and the southbound left -turns from
College, which will only occur near the end of the phase after
the northbound traffic has cleared. As mentioned above, there
will continue to be westbound random arrivals. The north/
south phases comprise 51-57% of the cycle. These two phases
account for 60-70% of the cycle at the College/Troutman
intersection. During this portion of the cycle, operation at
the Troutman/Pavilion/Market Place intersection will be
acceptable due to the lower traffic volume. It is only during
the other phases of the College/Troutman signal that the minor
street traffic will experience delays. This type of detail
in not incorporated into the unsignalized intersection
technique, but should be recognized at these unique locations.
Another improvement suggested in the traffic study
relates to the geometry on Troutman Parkway between College
Avenue and the Pavilion/Market Place driveways.
Operationally, a single eastbound lane is all that is needed
for through traffic at the College/Troutman intersection. The
width of Troutman Parkway, east of College Avenue, is 68-70
feet. Observation indicates that there are eastbound and
westbound left -turn conflicts in this area of Troutman
Parkway. Figure 4 shows a geometric layout with "back-to-
back" left -turn lanes that will eliminate the conflicts and
provide considerably more storage for left turns. Figure 5
shows a variation of Figure 4 with double westbound left -turn
lanes. This variation should be considered only if better
signal phasing efficiencies are required at the College/
Troutman signal. The geometric improvements are not reflected
in the overall operation at the Troutman/Pavilion/Market Place
intersection due to limitations of the technique.
One of the movements that exhibits level of service E and
F at the Troutman/Pavilion/Market Place intersection is the
northbound left turn from the Pavilion Shopping Center. As
the street network is completed in this area, particularly JFK
Parkway extended to Harmony Road, these left turns can become
a series of right turns to reach the same point on the street
system. As these left turns decrease, the operation at this
intersection will improve.
This memorandum has documented that the operation at the
Troutman/Pavilion/Market Place intersection will not be "as
bad" as the analysis technique would indicate due to
limitations of the technique with regard to nearby signalized
intersections. In addition, geometric and system improvements
will create a more acceptable operating condition in this
area.
Intersection
Table 1
1994 Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday Weekday Sst.
Noon PM Nom
College/Troutman
6 Phase Signal B B C
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
D D F
A A A
C C E
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
Table 2
Short Range Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday Weekday
Intersection Noon PM
College/Troutman
6 Phase Signal B B
8 Phase Signal B B
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
C
C
E E F
A A A
D C E
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
•
•
Table 3
Long Range Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday Weekday SFIt.
Intersection Noon PM Ibm
College/Troutman
8 Phase Signal
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
C
E E F
A A A
D D F
A A A
A A A
A A A
A
A
NOON / (NOON SAT.)
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
BEST
BUY
�— 95/120 (165)
ir 15/10 (25)
in o cn
�o 0
u� CD
W
Q
W
0
W
J
O
U
F--
O
N
110/70 (145 -
90 120 150
55/75 (65 --�
110/135 (155)
75/105 (105)
�-- 120/140 (165)
t�D N O
o�
co O
00
oOO� \
v7 N u7
O
O
1994 ADJUSTED, BALANCED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
MARKET
PLACE
0
Ln
�L Ln
to
LO
0 0 0
�— 65/40 (60)
''' Ln
80/130 (85)
I1
+
60/55 (85)
T M A N /
wY165/140 —1
(280
60/115 (75
115/140 (200 —�
°2
LoNf�
Z:7__ O
PAVILION
Figure I
NOON OM (NOON SAT.) •
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
0
Lno
o�Ln
O u7
CD
lA
v�N
N
CDcc
180/100 160 -f
120/130 (165
55/80 (70)—)�
-150/145 (215)
0I r
0
r •-
�LO
Ln un
LO�,
�^
0
In
BEST
BUY
LM�ARKET
E
CD
0
� cD
'2ono
115/140 (160) o CD75/45 (70)
115/115 (115) `D 125/150 (100)
165/170 (210) + 60/55 (85)
TROUTMAN
� PKWY23o/t7o (340 --� �
85 130 (85
CD�
ooa ��v
^ 115 140 (200 —�
o_ C:3 00
Ln
��-
-N O O
O
d
M
PAVILION
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
C
g NOON AM (NOON SAT.) •
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
150/145 (215)
W
(7
W
J
J
O
V
2
F-
D
O
co
0
0
O ^ t
CD
C)
o rn 'n o-150/160
(180
19
135/120 (140
210/175 (240
190/110 180
140/140 1 95)-•-
65/85 100 -
a o 0
-2
O v0
LO O
\
O
N\DDo
d'
OUTMAN
(: BEUYST
B
MARKET
PLACE
0
o^^
N t f 7 Ln
N LO L0
o �_� �-- 90/55 (80)
CD-�- 240/200 (190)
70/65 (95)
PKWY215/160 (325 -�
165/195 (185 -�
105/130 (190 --)�
f r
0 0 Ln
co of
CD CD
Ln " 00
M \\
LO " O O
PAVILION
LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
COLLEGE AVENUE
V, �
BACK-T043ACK LEF-T- TUR k LANES
FiGuFzE 4
COLLEGE AVENUE
Z - I "= 30'
DOUBLE LEFT-TURtN LANES
FIGURE 5
00
M
a
MEMORANDUM
co
O
Q
To: Al Hauser, Architecture One
W
o
C4
Taco Bell
0
o
Fort Collins Transportation Division
M
CD
Fort Collins Planning Department
aFrom:
Matt Delich����
J
W
J
Date: February 4, 1994
LU
Subject: Taco Bell at the Market Place PUD traffic study
W
(File: 9404MEM1)
a
a
This memorandum serves as an amendment to the "Market
a
Place Site Access Study," April 1989, and the "Best Buy PUD
m
traffic study," May 4, 1992. A Taco Bell Restaurant with a
drive -through is proposed on Pad A of the Market Place. The
M
Market Place site plan is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows
the proposed Taco Bell layout on Pad A. This amendment
addresses Fort Collins staff comments as stated in a January
4, 1994 letter and attachments from Ted Shepard.
Specifically, this memorandum addresses:
- Trip generation;
- Update of traffic assignment and operation;
- Parking analysis on Saturday noon peak.
Trip Generation
The trip generation analyses compare (1) the trip
z
generation estimate in the original study with the current
cc
counts; (2) the ITE trip generation with the Taco Bell trip
W
Z
generation; and (3) the Taco Bell trip generation with a high
z
turn -over, sit-down restaurant.
.
W
"'
CL:
Table 1, line 1 shows the trip generation from the site
access study for the Saturday noon peak hour and the weekday
=
a
afternoon peak hour. Table 1, line 2 shows the same peak hour
La
o
trip generation as determined from traffic counts performed
a
in January 1994. The counted Saturday noon trip generation,
c
based upon the traffic counts, is slightly higher than the
V,
estimated trip generation from the site access study.
.
a
However, it is important to note that Pad A is currently
vacant. It was expected that Pad A would be occupied by a
•
sit-down restaurant. This use would add 38 vehicle trips in
3
and 42 vehicle trips out during this peak hour. Based upon
W
_
LZ
<
this one day analysis, the trip generation in the site access
study underestimated the generated traffic by 6.0 percent.
Q
Using the same type of comparison for the weekday afternoon
peak hour, the trip generation in the site access study
overestimated the generated traffic by 15.2 percent. Both of
these differences are within the margin of error for this type of
retail use as documented in the trip generation manual.
Trip generation for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant is
typically estimated using Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE. Table
2 shows the trip generation for daily, weekday, and Saturday noon
peak hours using this reference. Taco Bell commissioned trip
generation research using nine Taco Bell Restaurants in/near the
San Francisco Bay Area, California. The trip generation research
was conducted by the firm of RKH, Civil and Transportation
Engineering, Foster City, California. Table 3 shows the trip
generation for daily and weekday peak hours using the Taco Bell
trip generation research. The Saturday noon peak hour trip
generation in Table 3 is based upon data from one site and adjusted
to reflect a "probable" Saturday noon peak hour. The Taco Bell
research had weekend data from only one site and it was not
distinguished from the weekday data. Comparing Tables 2 and 3
leads to the conclusion that a Taco Bell Restaurant is busier than
the ITE trip generation rates indicate. In light of this, the
higher trip generation for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant was
used in all subsequent analyses.
While no specific use was designated for Pad A in the "Market
Place Site Access Study," the size and location would indicate that
a sit-down restaurant would be a likely use. Table 4 shows the
trip generation for a high -turnover, sit-down restaurant using Trip
Generation, 5th Edition as a reference. During the weekday peak
hours, the Taco Bell Restaurant is 1.30 and 1.26 times higher than
the sit-down restaurant. However, during the Saturday noon peak
hour, the Taco Bell Restaurant is over 2.5 times as busy as the
sit-down restaurant.
Traffic Impact
Traffic counts were obtained during the weekday noon peak
hour, weekday afternoon peak hour, and Saturday noon peak hour at
two key intersections in January 1994. Weekday peak hour traffic
counts were counted at the College/Troutman intersection in 1993.
These counts are shown in Figure 3. Raw traffic counts are
provided in Appendix A. Since these counts were obtained on
different days, the weekday counts were adjusted and balanced as
shown in Figure 4. In addition, Figure 4 also shows synthesized
Saturday noon counts based used historic counts and relationships
between weekday noon and Saturday noon peak hour traffic.
Using the Figure 4 peak hour traffic, the key intersections
operate as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms are provided
in Appendix B. With a single east/west phase, the eastbound left
turn operates at level of service F during the Saturday noon peak
hour. This indicates that the left turns do not clear in a given
cycle. This level of service was confirmed through observation
2
•
•
during traffic counting. The
intersection operates acceptably
Acceptable operation is defined
The right-in/right-out access
acceptably.
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
during the weekday peak hours.
as level of service D or better.
on College Avenue operates
The traffic volumes accessing the Market Place, as shown in
Figures 3 and 4, depict full development of the site except for Pad
A. There maybe some "cross -over" traffic due to the proximity and
cross access to the Best Buy parcel. These volumes plus the Pad
A (Taco Bell) generated traffic depict full development of the
Market Place and the Best Buy parcel. Using the trip generation
shown in Table 3, the weekday noon peak hour, weekday afternoon
peak hour, and Saturday noon peak hour trips were assigned to the
key intersections. The assigned trips were distributed in
accordance with that shown in Figure 5. Passby traffic was
assigned based upon the expected traffic volumes on College Avenue.
Using information developed in the Taco Bell trip generation study,
cited earlier, the following passby factors were used: weekday
noon peak - 40%, weekday afternoon peak - 65%, and Saturday noon
peak - 50%. Figure 6 shows the short range peak hour traffic along
with background traffic at the key intersections. Figure 7 shows
the long range peak hour traffic and the background traffic at the
key intersections.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key
intersections operate in the short range future as indicated in
Table 6. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. At the
College/Troutman signalized intersection, it is recommended that
left -turn phases be added to the east/west movements. This will
eliminate the unacceptable operation for these movements. It will
allow the left -turn queues on Troutman to clear before the
permitted phase turns green. As indicated in Table 6, the through/
left -turn movements at the Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion stop sign
controlled intersection will experience delays. These delays will
be similar to the current operation of these movements during the
Saturday noon peak hour. This level of service was also predicted
in the 1989 site access study. It was observed during traffic
counting that these movements are primarily executed when the
signal at the College/Troutman intersection creates a gap in the
westbound traffic on Troutman. The right-in/right-out access on
College Avenue will operate acceptably.
During traffic counting, it was noted that occasionally the
westbound left -turns on Troutman at College would extend beyond the
designated left -turn bay. Provision of the east/west left -turn
phase will likely alleviate this occurrence. However, if it
continues to occur at more than occasional times, it is recommended
that the City consider double left -turn lanes on Troutman
approaching College Avenue. From available drawings and aerial
photography,. this solution appears to be feasible. Further
Q
•
is
traffic is 141.8% of the average
a sensitivity analysis indicate
vehicles (60% occupied) and the
(102% occupied). However, the
occupied.
month. Applying this factor as
s that the west lot would have 65
east lot would have 2.23 vehicles
overall parking lot would be B8%
The parking study provided data regarding parking duration
between 11:45 AM and 1:30 PM. Table 8 shows the number of vehicles
parking in each lot by 15 minute increments. Forty-five percent
of the parked vehicles stayed for 1-15 minutes. Thirty-five
percent of the parked vehicles stayed for 15-29 minutes. The
average length of stay was 26 minutes in the west lot, and 27
minutes in the east lot.
The Taco Bell Restaurant site plan (Figure 17) shows that 22
parking spaces will be added to the overall Market Place parking
lot and specifically to the west lot. The number of parking spaces
in the west lot would increase to 131 and the number of parking
spaces in the entire Market Place lot would increase to 350. The
Saturday noon peak hour trip generation from Table 3 shows that
there will be 108 inbound vehicles in a one hour period. ITE data
indicates that 35% of the generated traffic is drive -through and
65% of the generated traffic is parked. This results in 70 parked
vehicles in the peak hour. Applying the length of parked vehicles
mentioned earlier in this memorandum indicates half of the parked
vehicles would occur during a given 15 minute period or 35 parked
vehicles. Using a conservative safety factor of 0.70 results in
50 parked vehicles for the Taco Bell Restaurant in a given 15
minute period. Therefore, the maximum accumulation of parked
vehicles would be 96 vehicles in the west lot (73% occupied) and
157 vehicles in the east lot (72% occupied). The overall occupancy
would be 72% at the average Saturday noon peak hour. In December,
the west lot would have 115 parked vehicles (88% occupied) and the
east lot would have 223 parked vehicles (102% occupied). The
overall occupancy would be 97% at the December Saturday noon peak
hour.
The above conservative parking occupancy analysis indicated
that the existing plus new Taco Bell parking spaces will be
adequate to handle the peak hour parking demand at the Market
Place.
5
evaluation of this recommendation is beyond the scope of this
traffic study.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key
intersections operate in the long range future as indicated in
Table 7. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The level
of service will deteriorate somewhat with the increase in
background traffic. The College/Troutman signalized intersection
and the College right-in/right-out intersections will continue to
operate acceptably. Operation at the Troutman/Market Place/
Pavilion intersection will be similar as that indicated in the
short range future analysis.
It is concluded that the proposed Taco Bell will not have a
significant impact on the operation of the key intersections
compared to the operation reported in the site access study.
Parkinq Analvsis
At the request of city staff, a parking analysis was conducted
during the Saturday noon peak hours. This study was conducted on
January 15, 1994 from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. The study consisted of
recording license numbers at 15 minute intervals for the Market
Place parking lot. Since a circulation driveway bisected the
parking lot in the north/south direction, the lot was designated
as west lot and east lot. There are 109 spaces available in the
west lot and 219 spaces available in the east lot. The proposed
Taco Bell will be located in the area defined as the west lot. The
type of study conducted indicated the following:
- Occupancy at each time interval;
- Maximum parking accumulation;
- Parking duration.
Figures 8-16 show the number of vehicles parked and percent
of occupancy at each observation interval. There were 12 vehicles
in the west lot and 24 vehicles in the east lot that were parked
throughout the study period. The highest accumulation in the
entire parking lot occurred at 12:45 PM with 173 vehicles parked.
This consisted of 30 vehicles in the west lot (36% occupied), and
134 vehicles in the east lot (61% occupied). This was the only
time interval when the entire parking lot was greater than 50%
occupied.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data indicates
that, in retail centers, January traffic is typically less than the
average month. The data shows that January is 85.3% of the average
month. Given this, a sensitivity analysis was performed using this
information. The analysis indicated that maximum accumulation
would be 46 vehicles in the west lot (42% occupied) and 157
vehicles in the east lot (72`.K occupied). The overall occupancy
would be 62%. The same ITE data indicates that, in December, the
n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
• • NO SCALE
t N
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
_-----�'
SITE PLAN OF ORIGINAL MARKET PLACE Figure 1
w
z
w
a
w
O
w
J
J
O
U
F-
D
O
•
t TACO
t BELL
nTlTmTm-
t
t
t
t--
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Burger King
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
• NO SCALE A&
N
SITE PLAN OF MARKET PLACE WITH
PROPOSED TACO BELL RESTAURANT
Figure 2
•
•
Table 1
Market Place Trip Generation
Land Use
1. The Market Place
(from site access study
and Best Buy study)
2. The Market Place
(from 1/94 traffic counts)
Land Use
Saturday Noon
P.M.
Peak
Trips Trips
Trips
Trips
in out
in
out
450 460
327
349
459 426 225 275
Table 2
Taco Bell Trip Generation
from Trip Generation, 5th Edition
Taco Bell Restaurant -
1,986 Square Feet
Weekday
Saturday
Daily
Trips
1260
Noon Peak P.M. Peak
Trips Trips Trips Trips
in out in out
47 45
57 55
38 35
Table 3
Taco Bell Trip Generation from Taco Bell Data
Daily Noon
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Taco Bell Restaurant -
1,986 Square Feet
Weekday
1460 113
109
57
53
Saturday
108
104
Table 4
Sit -Down Restaurant Trip Generation
Daily Noon Peak P.M. Peak
Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips
in out in out
Sit -Down Restaurant -
5,300 Square Feet
Weekday 1090 91 77 47 40
Saturday 38 42
LEGEND- •
NOON / PM (NOON SAT.) N
BEST
BUY
1994 1994
93/117 (164)
12/10 (23)--)�
Ln r- 00
=o 0
d in ao
M u-)
rn
O
Uj
Q
W
0
W
J
J
O
U
H
D
O
co
Lo
cn
1993
oar"
CV [D
Do �
�-136 /115
' 89/86
—150/118 TROI
t2s/71
PAR
102/103 —
r— Ln
r-
L �
N
.2
MARKET
PLACE
O
\ CV r7
�— 62/40
(57)
76/128 (83)
60/55 (83)
165/136(276
60/114 (75
114 136 (196
�1
\ to CD
� N �
PAVILION
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS Figure 3
CD
NOON / . (NOON SAT.)
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
BEST
BUY
95/120 (165)
r15/10 (25)
u� o U-)
Lnr
%o 0
Ln
,-I- Ln o
0
�o
oo
1: n
�L0
1.4-L0
C)
00 L
110/135 (155)
Ln
75/105
(105)
120/140 (165)TROL
110 70 145 -
PK
90/120 NO -�
a n ;n
55/75 (65 --�
� "
o
o C:)
CD CO
O \
to N_ to
\ to
O
O
1994 ADJUSTED, BALANCED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
MARKET
PLACE
0
�L�
0 0 0
- 65/40
(60)
� r ) "'
— 80/130 (85)
T M A N 'IT
/,- 60/55 (85)
165/140 (280)--)"
60/115 (75)-;
115/140 (200°ter° e 20
Ln N O-
� N � d
PAVILION
Figure 4
Intersection
Table 5
1994 Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday Weekday Sat.
Noon PM Noce
College/Troutman
6 Phase Signal B B C
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
D D F
A A A
C C E
A A A
A A A
A A A
A
�1
Table 6
Short Range Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday Weekday
Intersection Noon PM
College/Troutman
6 Phase Signal B B
B Phase Signal B B
Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
A
Sett.
Noon
C
C
E E F
A A A
D C E
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
C:)
0 1 41-
w
a
W
a
W Site
J
J
O
U
10% _ 15%
20%
Lo
N
Lo
N
1
TROUTMAN PKWY
SHORT RANGE
Site
TROUTMAN PK W Y
LONG RANGE
20%
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5
g
NOON / PM (NOON SAT.) A&
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
BEST
BUY
-150/145 (215)
ca
uJ
� (MARKET
O PLACE
ON
H
D
O
0
Lo
oz--L
0
O Lnto
Nan
�t1)
CD
Ln
Cm\ N Lo O
a Do C 115/140 (160) o o 75/45 (70)
"' 115/115 (115) l' `D 125/150 (100)
+-165/170 (210)TROUTMAN 1 /� 60/55 (85)
180/100 �165
1so-l PKWY230/170 (34D)120/130 —*� o 0 0 85 130 85>--y- o o Ln
55/80 (70 —� o ;2 11540 (20D)� °O 0O
LnvLn LNn
O O 00 \\
\ N O O O
O\CD
^ 7
O
d
rn
(PAVILION
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
o s
g NOON / PM (NOON SAT.)
Rounded to nearest 5 Vehicles. N
150/145 (215)
I
00
Ln
�LO
o
n
0
cn
W
4
W
0
W
J
O
U
H
D
O
0
0
^vim
O
CV
O n n
O �\
C �
�- 150/160 (180
N
—135/120 (140
-- 210/175 (240
190/110 1" --�
`l } r
140/140 195
o 0 0
65/85 100 -�
"' o "2
oo
- u7 O
O L \
N \a�0
to
Q1
'•t
BEST
BUY
MARKET
PLACE
C
C��
N � �
O
CN
O \\
�- 90/55 (80)
in CD U-)
�- 240/200
AN I +
(190)
/� 70/65 (95)
215/160 (325 -,,
165/195
185105/130
�190
" o 0
In cV o0
o
LO n Ln
O
PAVILION
LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 7
E
•
Table 7
Long Range Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Weekday
Weekday
Sat.
Intersection
Noon
PM
Nom
College/Troutman
8 Phase Signal
B
B
C
'Troutman/Market Place/Pavilion
(stop sign)
NB LT/T
E
E
F
NB RT
A
A
A
SB LT/T
D
D
F
SB RT
A
A
A
EB LT
A
A
A
WB LT
A
A
A
College/Right-in/Right-out
(stop sign)
WB RT
A
A
B
Z)
z
lu
0
W
J
U
2
D
•
0 NO SCALE
n
------------
1 1
I I I
IVacant
I I
I I
' EAST LOT
IT Spaces Available — 219 I
I I I
Spaces Occupied — 88
I I I
Occupied — 4057.
_WEST LOT
tl
Spaces Available — 109\ \
Spaces Occupied — 21 \
1 �
I
U ----------------
Occupied — 19i ' \
n n_-
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
J&
N
PARKED VEHICLES AT 11:30 AM Figure 8
C
•
• NO SCALE
-
----- -- - --
---------- --
I I I
� I
I vacant
I I
I I I
I I
-------- EAST LOT
IT Spaces Available — 219 I
I
li I4 Spaces Occupied — 82
Occupied — 37:
WEST LOT ----------- ----
I
Spaces Available — 109\ I
' I Spaces Occupied — 25
Occupied — 23%
i
I Burger Kin
� 9 9
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
A&
N
PARKED VEHICLES AT 11:45 AM Figure 9
Ej
D
z
a
CW7
w
J
0
fA
Vacant
NO SCALE
------------
i
i
i
------- EAST LOT
\
I
I Spaces Available — 219
Spaces Occupied — 107
� � l
i Occupied — 49�
WEST LO-T \ \ - --- ----- `
\
Spaces Available — 109\ \
\
Spaces Occupied — 28 \
1 \
I
Occupied — 26% � \-
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
A&
N
PARKED VEHICLES AT 12:00 NOON Figure 10
•
0 NO SCALE
----------------
I I I
Vacant I
I I
I �
'------- EAST LOT
' � I
ISpaces Available — 219 '
I Spaces Occupied — 119 '
I I 1 I 1
Occupied — 54%
I WEST LOT
I I N` - -- -- - —1
Spaces Available — 109\
' Spaces Occupied — 31
� I I
Occupied — 28%
I
Bur , ger King
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
A&
N
--1 - L
PARKED VEHICLES AT 12:15 PM Figure 11
T
0
3
Z
Q
0
W
J
0
D
9
• NO SCALE
5-------- EAST LOT
-. I
Spaces Available — 219
Spaces Occupied — 129
I I I
Occupied — 59%
WEST LOT
Spaces Available — 109\
Spaces Occupied — 32
U
i Occupied — 29% ' �-
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
PARKED VEHICLES AT 12:30 PM Figure 12
A'
Z
W
Q
0
J
J
O
O
•
• NO SCALE
I I I
� I I
Vacant I
I I I
I I i
I I
� _--__—__- EAST LOT
� 1 I
II IT Spaces Available — 2
I
Spaces Occupied — 1341
I '
Occupied — 61
I WEST LOT
Spaces Available — 109\
' I I Spaces Occupied — 39 ` � I
I i Occupied — 36% ' I
00
---------
I=Burger
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
PARKED VEHICLES AT 12:45 PM Figure 13
19
w
N
Z
w
Q
a
w
J
0
2
D
•
• NO SCALE
----------- ----- -
I I I
� I I
Vacant I
I I I
� I
I
I I
EAST LOT
Spaces Available — 219
I
Spaces Occupied — 121
I
Occupied — 55% I
WEST LOT \ \
\
Spaces Available — 109\ \
Spaces Occupied — 42 \
I
Occupied 39% I \,
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
�•. - - •ram
PARKED VEHICLES AT 1:00 PM Figure 14
0
• NO SCALE
-----------
_---------
I I I
� I �
Vacant
I I
I
I I
------- — EAST LOT
� I
Spaces Available — 219
Spaces Occupied — 124
1
Occupied — 57%
I WEST LOT
Spaces Available — 109\
ISpaces Occupied — 36
IIr
I Occupied — 33%
I�
Burger King
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
A&
N
PARKED VEHICLES AT 1:15 PM Figure 15
Rj
D
Z
LU
C7
W
J
O
H
D
Cn
0
0 NO SCALE
----------- _
---- ----- --
I I I
Vacant
I I
� I
I i
I I
------- ` EAST LOT
I
I`
1 I Spaces Available — 2191
TSpaces
Occupied — 133
I I 1 1 1
Occupied — 61%
WEST LOT -- ------ --- —
II
I
I Spaces Available 109\ , I
ISpaces Occupied — 28
Occupied — 26% ,
— — — — — — — — —
I� Burger King
TROUTMAN PARKWAY
A&
N
PARKED VEHICLES AT 1:30 PM Figure 16
19
0
g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO SCALE N
1
1
TACO BELL SITE PLAN Figure 17