Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
INTERSTATE LAND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 34-88B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (3)
ITEM NO. 14 MEETING DATE 314/96 STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary - #34-88B APPLICANT: G.T. Land Colorado Inc. & Heath Construction CO. c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: Overlook Farm Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (PUD) approval for 223,000 square feet of mixed highway business uses on 25.58 acres located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The property is in the hb - Highway Business Zoning District, with a PUD condition attached. RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval with a condition This request for preliminary PUD approval: Is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan; is in conformance with the Prospect Road Streetscape Plan; meets the applicable all Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.); scores 56% on the Auto-Related/Roadside Commercial Point Chart and 52% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart in the L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum of 50% required on both point charts; is located on a site that is excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. All signage will be regulated by the Fort Collins Sign Code that is administered by the Zoning Department. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C� Is Interstate Land PUD - Preliminary, #33-84B March 4, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: hb; vacant S: RC; City of Fort Collins Resource Recovery Farm E. bp, hb, ip; agricultural W: hb; vacant The property was annexed into the City with the Interstate Lands First and Second Annexations in April, 1989. This 25.58 acre parcel of ground is part of a 190 acre (+/-) property that is under one ownership; however, the existing frontage road and the Boxelder Creek drainageway present significant physical barriers between this parcel and the remainder of the property. Because there are constraints that preclude vehicular connections between this area and the area to the west of Boxelder Creek, staff determined that an overall development plan is not necessary with this request. 2. Land Use: This is a request for preliminary PUD approval for 223,000 square feet of mixed highway business uses on 25.58 acres located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. Proposed uses include financial institutions, office, retail, hotels, standard and fast food restaurants, day care, personal services, vehicle dealership (motorcycle sales and service), and convenience stores on 13 separate lots. This request has been evaluated against the Auto-Related/Roadside Commercial and Business Service Uses Point Charts and the All Development Criteria in the L.D.G.S., and the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan: This request is supported by several elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Policies Plan (LUPP), the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, and the LDGS. LUPP: Although it is supported by some of the general policies in the LUPP, the proposed Interstate Land PUD - Preliminary, #33-84B March 4, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 3 land uses are not addressed in the section dealing with LOCATIONAL POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES. As stated in Section I.B. of the LDGS, "the basis for the Land Development Guidance System is found in the City's Charter, Colorado State Statutes, and the City's Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, the Goals and Objectives document and the Land Use Policies Plan". LDGS: The request meets All Development Criteria Al-1.1 through A3-3.4. Auto-Related/Roadside Commercial Point Chart: The request scores 56% on the point chart, earning points for: a) being located at the intersection of a collector street (1-25 Frontage Road) and an arterial street (East Prospect Road); b) gaining its primary access from a non -arterial street (1-25 Frontage Road); c) being more than two acres in size; d) containing more than two significant uses; and e) providing joint parking opportunities between the various pad sites. Business Service Uses Point Chart: The request scores 52% on the point chart, earning points for: a) being outside of the "South College Avenue Corridor"; b) being more than two acres in size; c) containing more than two significant uses; and d) providing joint parking opportunities between the various pad sites. Prospect Road Streetscape Program: Part One consists of existing conditions and analysis, design concepts, and implementation. The site is in the Highway Corridor District, with the potential to be developed as a regional commercial area with highway business, shopping, and industrial park land uses. This district has one of the primary interchanges from 1-25 into Fort Collins, with sweeping views to the front range, the Cache La Poudre River, and the city. The interchange area has the potential to be developed as a focal point along 1-25 and it should project a high quality image from a design standpoint. The proposed land uses (financial institutions, office, retail, hotels, standard and fast food restaurants, day care, personal services, vehicle dealership (motorcycle sales and service), and convenience stores) are considered to be appropriate at this major intersection of East Prospect Road (an arterial street) and 1-25 (an interstate highway). • Interstate Land PUD - Preliminary, #33-84B March 4, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Part Two contains the design standards and guidelines for the four "character and style"areas along East Prospect Road. The standards and guidelines will be discussed further in the architecture and landscaping sections under 3 Design. 3. Design: Architecture: This site is in the "Interchange Style" area of the Design Standards and Guidelines section of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. As a standard, the buildings shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include architectural detail and enhancement, rather than placing heavy emphasis solely on the front elevation and ignoring the need to apply aesthetic enhancement to the other elevations. As a guideline, the predominant architectural building finish in the Highway Corridor District should be brick, tile, other masonry material or concrete. The architecture of the pad sites in this development proposal will reflect compatibility of scale, form, materials, and colors of the buildings and will relate to the dominant forms of the immediate surrounding area. The retail stores and restaurants will be approximately Win height, with parapet walls and gables extending to 20' (+/-). The office buildings will be approximately 26' in height, with parapet walls and gables extending to 33' (+/-). The hotels will be up to 40' in height. The roofing materials will consist asphalt shingles, tile, or standing seam metal and the siding materials will consist of brick, dryvit, or masonite wood. Landscaping: This site is in the "Interchange Style" area of the Design Standards and Guidelines section of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. The frontage roads create a unique opportunity for an expanded entry area by defining four large developable quadrants of land. Street trees in a staggered row are recommended around the frontage roads to reinforce the perimeter definition and unify the area. Prospect Road and the interchange maintain a 50' setback for landscaping. The frontage roads maintain a 30' setback to allow for generous and cohesive entryway landscape. The preliminary landscape plan conforms to the standards and guidelines with possible exceptions at the intersections of access points into Lots 7, 8, and 13, where plantings may have to be modified because of sight distance triangles associated with accesses located on the inside of street curves. Interstate Land PUD - Preliminary, #33-84B March 4, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Parking: The overall parking ratio for the entire development is 3.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The parking provisions are considered to be adequate for the mix of proposed uses. Signage: This request is on a site is excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. All aspects of proposed signage for this development will be regulated by the Fort Collins Sign Code that is administered by the Zoning Department. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood information meeting was held on April 20, 1995 at the Holiday Inn Holidome at the intersection of East Mulberry Street and 1-25. There were 56 neighbors and affected property owners in attendance. Primary concerns expressed concerned potential access into the existing residential neighborhoods to the west and north and buffering between the proposed uses in this development and the existing neighborhoods. Submittal of the entire 190 acre ODP was still being contemplated by the developer and was presented at the meeting. This development request is for only the 26 acres at the intersection of East Prospect Road and 1-25. There is a significant distance between this development and the existing neighborhoods, separated by the Boxelder Creek drainageway, that mitigates immediate impacts to the neighborhoods. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is attached to this staff report. 5. Transportation: The primary access to the various land uses in the development will be from several local street and driveway curb cuts along the 1-25 Frontage Road. Gateway Drive, a local street, will loop through the southerly portion of the development between Lots 1 - 6 and 9 - 13. Lots 7 and 8 are on the north side of the frontage road and will be accessed from two points. The northernmost access point (into Lot 8) is subject to change due to potential impacts of the existing box culvert(s) on the frontage road. A continuous right -turn lane is required along the east/south side of 1-25 Frontage Road, adjacent to Lots 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Also, the Colorado Department of Transportation has not yet determined if the frontage road should be designed and constructed to a rural street standard. Additional right-of-way may be needed along the frontage road, which could affect the proposed layout of the development. Staff is recommending that a 0 • Interstate Land PUD - Preliminary, #33-84B March 4, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 6 condition of approval be placed on the preliminary PUD regarding the possible need for additional right-of-way, which potentially could require changes to the layout of the development. 6. Storm Drainage and Resource Protection: The developer is required to provide a stream bank stabilization study for Boxelder Creek to the City for review at time of final PUD submittal. The City must approve the study prior to the PUD documents being recorded. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for the Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary staff makes the following findings of fact: It is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan is in conformance with the Prospect Road Streetscape Plan; It meets the applicable All Development Criteria in the L.D.G.S. It scores 56% on the Auto-Related/Roadside Commercial Point Chart and 52% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart in the L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum of 50% required on both point charts. This site is excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. All aspects of proposed signage for this development will be regulated by the Fort Collins Sign Code that is administered by the Zoning Department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary - #34-88B, with the following condition: 1. The layout of the development is subject to change with the final PUD due to the need for a continuous right -turn lane along the east/south side of 1-25 Frontage Road (adjacent to Lots 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13), possible deletion of the access point straddling the lot line between Lots 9 and 10 due to a potential left turn conflict with the access into Lot 7, and a determination by the Colorado Department of Transportation about whether the cross-section of the frontage road should be designed and constructed to urban or rural street standards, potentially requiring additional street right-of-way. 0 NAEMORANDUM urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 TO: Fort Collins P&Z Board fort collins, colorado 80525 ADD'L COPIES: Stan Whitaker, LGT; Lucia Liley, March & Myatt (970) 226-4074 FROM: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.r.�rFAX (970) 226 4196 DATE: March 4, 1996 .RE: Interstate Land - Preliminary PUD PROJECT #: 7264 (7264P&Z3) There are three key issues we would like to address regarding the Interstate Land PUD: 1. An ODP for parcels "A" and "B" combined is not needed or appropriate at this time. - The parcels are physically separated by the Boxelder Creek floodplain and the 1-25 Frontage Road. - The maximum extent of the impact of the floodplain on "A" has been determined. The City Storm Drainage Utility's planned study of Boxelder Creek will, in the future, determine the extent of the floodplain's impact on "B". - In 1987 and 1988 this property owner took the lead in creating an improved interchange/frontage road design and facilitated agreements between CDOT, the City of Fort Collins, and affected property owners. In the process, both the City and CDOT realized monetary savings and established basic expectations for access, circulation, and land use mix anticipated on parcel "A". - Parcel "B" is part of the "Prospect Gateway" style area, while "A" is in the "Interchange" style area of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Because of its location, Parcel "A" is clearly and appropriately oriented toward the interstate. There are other options available for parcel "B". - When we looked at a potential new ODP at the time of the neighborhood meeting (April 20) we found that - for Parcel "A" - clear land use, access, and circulation, patterns had been determined through past planning with City, State, and property owners; and through the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. This is not the case for parcel "B". - It may appear tempting or expedient to do an ODP for Parcel "B" at this time. However, as there is no code requirement to include both parcels on the same ODP, it appears to be to everyone's advantage to address parcel 'B' at a later date. City Plan elements: The Structure Plan, community goals, land use policies, and design guidelines may influence land use, access, and circulation considerations that are currently undetermined for parcel 'B'. In this unique case, we can plan parcel "A" without precluding land use, access, or circulation options for parcel "B"; On the other hand, including parcel "B" in an ODP at this time would force the City, the applicant, and the neighborhood to make decisions without the benefit of City Plan elements, without the planned Boxelder Creek Study, and without more clear market direction regarding land use. urban design, inc. 2. Traffic/circulation in the surrounding area. - Staff and the applicant have found that the additional traffic (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic) generated by the land uses within the proposed project can be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems; that impacts from the additional vehicular traffic will meet city traffic flow delay policies; and that pedestrian and bicycle needs are being be addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system. Bike lanes are provided on both Prospect and the Frontage Road; Public walks are included on proposed streets; and - although it is not part of this PUD, the applicant has discussed possible alignments for a Boxelder Creek Trail, subject to the City's drainage study findings. - City Staff has stated that the project met all the applicable All Development Criteria, The applicable LDGS point charts, the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, the Land Use Policies Plan, and other applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Both Staff and the applicant have noted that the traffic generated by this site would primarily be oriented toward 1-25. Between 65% and 70% of the total projected site generated trips are oriented toward 1-25 rather than west bound on Prospect Road. The initial construction phase at Interstate Land - John's Harley Davidson - will add only 473 ± trips to Prospect Road west of the Frontage Road; Uses projected during the next 3 years ± would add approximately 1735 trips west of the site; and upon total build -out of the anticipated uses, about 4520 trips would be added to Prospect Road west of the Frontage Road. - City Staff has also stated that traffic questions affecting Summit View and east Fort Collins in general need to be addressed regardless of the Interstate Land proposal. A number of improvements and plans are in progress to address problems in the greater community, in much the same way community wide capital improvements affect every development plan considered by the City. - The applicant's traffic study does call out the need for additional turn lanes at the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection; and those lanes will be added with the appropriate construction phase with this PUD. - Contrary to comments made during citizen input at the January 8th meeting, our Traffic Impact Analysis does not state that this Preliminary Plan is dependent upon the Timberline Road extension. This has been further clarified in the January 19th addendum to the study. - The off -site street improvement obligations of this property are defined in the 1989 Annexation Agreement. In addition to the Developer's direct responsibilities for improvements to Prospect and the Frontage Road, this PUD will generate over $300,000 in street oversizing fees. Approval of the Interstate Land PUD will help to address the need for street improvements in the greater area; while denial or further delay of the PUD will not. - The owner of this property has made - and will continue to make - substantial contributions to traffic improvements in the East Prospect area. � oo� urban design, inc. 3. Preliminary PUD Plan elements - As a result of the planning coordination with the City in 1989, this property owner initially proposed a Prospect Corridor plan at that time. This suggestion eventually evolved into the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. This owner has demonstrated a substantial commitment to the quality of the east Prospect Road area for over 8 years; and has worked with the City to prepare this plan for the northeast quadrant of the "Interchange Style" area that conforms to the established program. This includes coordinated access and circulation, the creation of a "campus or park -like" setting for building sites, and a level pedestrian consideration that is rarely integrated into a site that is designated for auto oriented, highway business types of uses. - Again, City Staff has found that the proposed plan meets the criteria of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, the LDGS, and other applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Opportunities for neighborhood connections are not precluded by this plan. While we have removed a potential street crossing of Boxelder Creek from our Preliminary PUD - because that was indicated to be the preference of the Natural Resources Department and the Storm Drainage Utility - that option is still open. Street and/or bike pedestrian connections to the existing neighborhoods are still a possibility when the property west of the creek is planned. - The condition of approval regarding possible changes in site layout due to a potential right -turn lane along the Frontage Road is minor. The P&Z packets include cross sections showing the alternative lane configurations for the Frontage Road. As you can see, the only portion of the "site layout" expected to be affected by the turn lane is the width of the tree lawn. Our traffic engineer has also confirmed that the shared access between lots 9 and 10 meets CDOT criteria. The planned first phase of this Preliminary PUD is for a new facility for an existing small local business that is currently located outside the city limits. When we started this process in late 1994, John's had hoped to be open for business by this time. They have been very patient with the process, and would still very much like to be part of the initial implementation of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. In summary, approval of the proposed Interstate Land Preliminary PUD does not preclude any options for access and circulation on Parcel "B"; will allow better coordination with City Plan elements; contributes directly to needed traffic improvements in the area; and begins implementation of the Prospect Road Streetscape Plan. This is a well planned development, and we respectfully request that you grant approval of this proposal. urban design, inc. The following is a summary of the key dates in the planning history of the Interstate Land property. Date Activity February, 1988 "Memorandum of Understanding" with G.T., CDOT, City, and owners of out parcel defining frontage road right-of-way and basic approach to access serving the property. March, 1988 Neighborhood meeting on proposed Annexation and Master Plan. April, 1988 Draft annexation petition and proposed Interstate Land Master Plan submitted to City. January, 1989 Final annexation petitions, maps, and annexation agreement submitted to City; P&Z approval on January 30th. March, 1989 City Council approval on first reading of annexation, zoning, and annexation agreements. April, 1989 Annexation, zoning and annexation agreements approved on second reading. April, 1993 5.3 acres on western edge of property acquired by the Cooperslew. Openspace Association. March 20, 1995 Conceptual Review with City Staff. At this time we discussed with Staff reasons to consider the property as two parcels divided by Boxelder Creek. April 20, 1995 Neighborhood Meeting. We reviewed with the neighborhood the original 1988 "Master Plan" that was the basis of the zoning for the property; a possible new ODP for the entire property, and the concept plan for the Preliminary PUD east of Boxelder Creek. July, 1995 City Staff determined that, because of the potential extent of the Boxelder Creek flood plain, the overall area of the annexaton could be considered as two parcels, and the proposed street crossing of the creek should be removed from our plans. August 21 Submitted Preliminary PUD Plans. January 8 Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing on Preliminary. March 4 (or 6), Planning and Zoning Board Re -hearing of Preliminary. 0 INTERSTATE LAND PUD ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION urban design, inc. Daily Trips on Prospect Highway Land Use Trips *Highway Oriented West of Site Oriented Trips Yes No PHASE Lot 1 - C-store/Gas 1,170 X 292 878 Lot 2 - Sit -Down Restuarant 1,330 X 332 998 7.5 KSF Lot 6 - Retail - 8.0 KSF 440 X 229 211 Lot 7 - Retail - 7.0 KSF 380 X 198 182 Lot 8 - Motorcycle Sales 910 X 473 437 19.0 KSF Lot 13 - Hotel - 120 Rooms 840 X 210 630 SUBTOTAL 5,070 1,734 3,336 PHASE II Lot 3 - Fast Food Restaurant 2,360 X 590 1,770 3.0 KSF Lot 5 - Fast Food Restaurant 2,360 X 590 1,770 3.0 KSF Lot 12 - C-store/Gas 1,170 X 292 878 SUBTOTAL 5,890 1,472 4,418 PHASE III Lot 4 - Sit -Down Restaurant 1,280 X 320 960 7.2 KSF Lot 9 - Hotel - 120 Rooms 840 X 210 630 Lot 10 - Office/Retail 770 X 400 370 19.3 KSF Lot 11 - Office/Retail 740 X 365 353 18.6 KSF SUBTOTAL 3,630 1,315 2,313 TOTAL 14,590 4,521 10,067 31 °/ 69% *Assumes Highway Oriented uses put 25% of their traffic on Prospect west of Frontage Road; - other uses put 52% of their traffic on Prospect west of Frontage Road Current traffic on Prospect in this area = 10,000 to 12,000 ADT 2015 traffic = 16,000 to 20,000 ADT VICINITY MAP 08/25/95 34-88B INTERSTATE LAND PUD Preliminary 1"= 2000' VICINITY MAP 08/25/95 34-88B INTERSTATE LAND PUD Preliminary 1"=300' GENERAL NOTES VICINITY MAP l =='m ................. _s, T-, .... . ................. .. . . ...... 7 1 PROPERTY DESCRIP110N 7- co % Fc. II LOT 6 T 13 ft v M3 B6kM LO 12-11 IZ�C-_111.,11�1:� I- I 14 AT a LOT I LOT T 3 LJ in ------- - ------ ...... ...... PROSPEGT_RoA D�DEs— — — — — — — — — --- — — —-- - REVISED ..T —PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1 3 LOT 2 LEQEND PARKING LAYOUT N 0 pIBrFBE�WTN fm4lFAD �rE�ET4*E � � Imo. Y.plpt 4UTb WW �Con�ILNuuJD> // ,/ / J 10 K-1-1 ri O e �— �ip F ' R! U roe Ors 11iceC•' ��►s /Oly�i���i!'1<:.rF r ' 00 � �r yl!^ J f�i�� t�„■. � _� � ��'•�? O if +sou r�yJ 11k-' I p _ - al ��— ,,, e� a��� � r� � � C•itys ope tir �I �9 y� 11 FMB III, Ne i 0 ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ANGLED CORdER ENTRIES FOR OOMaIER STORES ARTICULATE THE PARAPET TO PROVIDE INTEREST N THE BUILDING, PROVIDE COPING OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MATURE TO 'CAP' A - THE BUILDING Ac 1 OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS UP THE FACADE AND HIGHLK T ENTRIES ZINGS OR ARCADES TO PROVIDE RIAN SHELTER AND SCALE DOWN =HCAL CHARACT EIR OIF IRIETAM SUOIM AM II W1rAU RAF3M KALE ,a- • I.-C. =H CAIL OffikMAtCT EEIR OIF HHOM1 SCALE V9' . I'-®' 'II°I ECAIL CEAIRAC73IR OIF OIFIFIIOIE II umL1DffHG9 KALE I.- • I.-D. L THESE ELEVATIONS ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS. VARIATIONS CF THESE ELEVATIONS, OR ALTERNATE ELEVATIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED AT FINAL. 1 COMPATIBILITY OF ELEVATIONS WILL BE CREATED THROUGH THE USE OF MATERIALS AND COLORS. OONSIDERATIONS WILL ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE ExiSTING BUILDINGS, MATERIALS. Am COLORS SURROUNDING THE SITE. 8. POTENTIAL MATERIAL LIST: ROOFING - ASPHALT SHINGLES, TILE, OR STANONG SEAM METAL SIDING -BRICK DRYVIT, OR MASONITE WOOD 81DNG OTHER MATERIALS MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A 048E Br CASE BASIS. Citys�aPe NOW PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS D4TE � P�P„RATI�,, --3-3 L� U 0 %mm-f-wi. W M kf JL (J. 0 H N S H 1 1) L E y FL Architectural 'HEATH Resource CONMUCTION CO. Group M FCOLLM, CO. Iti F D A V I D S 0 0 0 EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION - Div •r.• — SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION •— WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 0 W U !A 00 a LL O 2 a SOUTH ELEVATION' JONN'S NARLEI' DAVIDSON ALTERNATE TIE RETAINING WALL TO TERRACE SLOPE REVEGETATE WM4 NATIVE GRASSES, 5NRUI36, AND POSSIBLE CLUMPS OF COTTONWOOD& APPROX. EXISTINCx GfR,4DE GOBBLE RIP —RAP AT TOE OF SLOPE BOXELDER CREEK I�"I'I�.IZti7'��" ' ; I.:��\11) I"IZI•:I, 1II\;��Ill' I'.[.II). BANK STABILIZATION urban design, Inc. 3w .,e,,.,. ne4 w. 105 SCALE; 1,=10' DATE: 12/b/95 LJ • t25' GRASS SWALE EXISTING ROADWAY 80' fRIC;:HT OF WAl' I\7'F,IZ�"1�.� '1'F I,:��\11) I''IZI•;I.I�II\:�1IZ � I'.t.11)., EXISTING FRONTAGE ROAD CROSS SECTION t25' GRASS SWALE urban design, Inc. MS3 10 wv SCALE: 1'.10' DATE: 12 /6 /95 • 0 STREET TREES WHERE THE SITE LINE ALLOWS CURB, GUTTER, AND WALK ON DEVELOPED SIDE ONLY u 12' 61 12' 14' 12' 6' Im' WALK TREE Rf6tHT TURN BIKE TRAVEL ONTINUOUS LEFT TRAVEL BIKE SWALE LAWN LANE LANE LANE TRUN LANE LANE LANE OR SAD' RIGHT OF WAY DRAIN TO GRE K cC a D o urban design, Inc. HHUMBUkU� Ll�dVLILIA V �0�o111Jo u'�'r:�'`'"t.0 m • PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD CROSS SECTION SCALE: I'=10' PATE: 12i6ig5 WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 6' _ WALK TREE LAWN 6' 12' 14' � 12' BIKE TRAVEL ONTINUOUS LEFT TRAVEL LANE LANE TRUN LANE LANE 80' RIGHT OF WA`i II\'1'I•:Ilti7'.� "1'l�. I"IZI0:I.I�III\.� PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD CROSS SECTION WITHOUT RIGHT TURN LANE • 6' BIKE 10' SWALE LANE OR DRAIN TO GRE K (2qm. o p urban 4 design, inc. • Me .Md... w.A. 15 p�N u.-roes SCALES Nlo' DATES 12/6/96 • �� �caa o 0 urban design, inc. INTERSTATE LAND PRELIMINARY PUD Statement of Planning Objectives August 21, 1995 The /NTERSTATELAND PUD is planned as the initial component of an important entry into Fort Collins at the Prospect Road / 1-25 interchange, as envisioned in the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. The proposed plan extends the highway oriented business development that exists to the north along the 1-25 Frontage Road; but in a more cohesively planned manner with extensive landscaping, consistent signage, controlled architecture, and coordinated vehicular, bike, and pedestrian access. This phase of Interstate Land - proposed as 25.6 ± acres of mixed Business Service and Auto Related uses - is in keeping with adopted City Policies (including 20, 21, 59, 60, 68, 69, and 74), and the goals established for the Prospect Road Corridor. These include encouraging the development of a well planned Business Park with integrated office, lodging, and business service users; and promoting efficient utilization of the existing and proposed street and utility systems. Construction is anticipated to begin in 1996. 500 to 750 people are projected to be employed in this development. Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CR1T—= j,^-, I Ar�� lr CA-SL= CRITEF I A L CNLY CRlTE=ICN ". C;:MMUNI-!-�JI ==r CE CRI T _- .r. :Cfar �Jricr'-c :C" `.e c'.encn WW the merit acalicscie7 ) be satisriec? 3 (Yes I No !r no, ;,lease ex:: iain � I i_ C: ,•--cr�r r'S'vc =!an I i" i I i i . WiIC!ife Hc. ,c ! eri iEC :Si, I ✓ I Tr I I ! 1.7 ==rcyVr`..^5= :c:ICJI I ✓j j ✓ I I rJr Cuaiity I �. I I ✓ I i I ✓I =nt 2 ,,., 1L� T Y C� 1 i _= r ^ =-: ✓ I i __ i and (Dr=rr" -:C. i I I i I ✓ j n 77 _ ICI I I ✓ I •� :Ci�ril i I� I I r I ✓ I I ^ �.i _��• rr= :i:..:l.. ... ." I� I I I✓ i I n y =r'C Views I I I IZ. I ! C _ �z:..�- ✓ I ► ✓ I 1 1 �Slv �iC �CS�,. ..� -.C. I I i ✓I I I 1 �!C"S 11J I I I ✓ I 2. i -5 -itc iC, +ilr'C L✓ I I ✓ f f 2. i e NC:Sc end V•ilrr= :cn I✓ I I I ✓ I I 2.1/ r ��a �= cr Hey: I I I I I I 2.1 8 He =rcous Nla:=-r+ais I V! I I I 1 A J. ENGINEERING CRlitcclA � I 3.1 l,,Itlliry Cacac:tV V I I I✓ I I 3.2 Cesicn Standarz:s I ,/ I f l✓ I J.J Wa— ;"cZ.3res I✓ I I I I J.4 Geciccic I�az- - 1 1 I71 I I -- Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments T'cle try of For: Collins, Colorado, Revised 'i 1994 _ -6I U • 0 ACTIVITY; Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial DEFINITION; Those retail and wholesale commercial activities which are generally considered 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 theaters; 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 development plan. Y� No 1. Does the pro iect gain its primary vehicular access from a street other than South Coileoe avenue? 2. Are all repair, painting and body work activities, including the storage of refuse and vehicie parts, planned to take place within an enclosed structure? If the project contains any uses intended to provide adult amusement or J 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 of the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the State of Colorado?; b. Is the use established, operated, or maintained no less than one thousand (1,000') feet from another similar use? 4. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 1-I1-1 Y (50%) PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED ON POINT CHART "B" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA? a. Is the activity located other than at the intersection of two arterial 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? N/A PAN d d. Is the project on at least two (2) acres of land? e. Does the project contain two (2) or more significant uses (for instance retail, office, residential, hotel/motel, or recreation)? Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 t Im -10 Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial (continued) 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 or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix "E" for energy conservation methods to use for calculating energy conservation points. h. Is the project located with at least one -sixth (1/6) of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development? i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, has special public value because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following criteria? 1. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation; 2. 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 3. 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. Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -69- AUTO -RELATED AND ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL POINT CHART D For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only Is the I II III IV Circle the Multiplier Points Earned Maximum Applicable Criterion Criterion Applicable Yes No Correct Score Ixll Points a. Not at Two Arterials X I X 1 2 0 2 4 b. Part of Planned Center X X 1 2( 0 3 © 6 c. On Non -Arterial X X 12 0 4 8 d. Two Acres or More X X 12 10 3 (� 6 e. Mixed -Use X` X 12 10 3 6 f. Joint Parking 1 12 (O 3 (P g. Energy Conservation X 1112131410 2 0 8 h. Contiguity X IX 21 0 5 10 i. Historic Preservation I 1 2 I 0 2 ._, j. 1I2I0 k. 1 2 0 I. 1 2 ( 0 Totals ® v vi Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII % vii Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -70- V41-e,0--k� V�Aft ACTIVI TY: Business service uses E I DEFINITION: Those activities which are predominanriv retail, office, and services uses which would not qualify as a neighborhood service, neighborhood convenience, or community/regional shopping center. Uses include retail shops: offices: personai service shops: financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clinics; health clubs; membership cubs; standard and fast-food restaurants, hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theaters: recreation uses: small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which are of the same general character. CRIiaRIA: Each of he following applicable c::tena :rust be answered "yes" and implemented within the deve!opment plan. Yes No N/A 1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street other than South College Avenue? 2. DOES i rE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST FIFTY (50"0) PERCENT OF TP_= viA.YIN1Lti1 POINTS AS CALCLLATED ON POINT Cl_= "B" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA? a. Is the activity contiguous to an existing transit route (not applicable for uses of less than twenty-five thousand [25,0001 square feet GLA or with less than twenty-five [25 j employees, or located in the Central Business District)? b. Is the project located outside of the "South College Avenue Corridor"! c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of a neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, an office or industrial park, located in the Central Business District, or in the case of a single user, employ or will employ a :oral of more titan one hundred (100) full-time employees during a single eight (8) hour shift? d. is the project on at least two (2) acres of land, or located in the Central Business District? e. Does the project contain two (2) or more significant uses (for instance retail, office, residential. hotel/motel, or 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 or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix "E" for energy conservation methods to use for calculating energy conservation points. Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -71- Business Se Nice USeS (continued) h. Is the proje; located with at least one -sixth (1/6) of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development? i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, has special public value because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following criteria? 1. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation; 2. 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 3. Pr se 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. Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -72- 11 • BUSINESS SERVICE USES For All Criteria Criterion a. Transit Rcute b. South College Corridor c. Pcrr of Center d. Iwc Acres or i\/Icre e. Mixed -Use POINT CHART E Applicable Criteria Only Is the I II III IV Critericr Applicccie C:rc:a MuT"Cller Pcirrs vtcximum re Correc' Score ccrrec Acoiicccie Yes No IxJ Pcirrs I J_X 1 2 0 2 .__. X IXI 2 I 0 8 X XI 2 IO , X! X t � � i v X X2i0 f. Joint Perking I i 2 0 0 i g. Energy Conservation X I i 12,1 0 +410 2 8 h. Contiguity X X 1 2 1 0 10 i. Historic Preservation 1 12 , 0 2 J. 1 2 `0 k. 1� 2�0 1' i 1 2 lo, Totals 1 j r� (] Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII % vu r Land Developmentv Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -73- • s NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Interstate Land - U.D.P. and Phase I. DATE: April 20, 1995 APPLICANT: Stan Whitaker, G.T. Land CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Cityscape PLANNER: Steve Olt The potential developer is proposing an overall development plan that could consist of mixed -density residential, regional retail, industrial, office, local retail, hotel/motel, and business service uses. The property being considered for development is approximately 186 acres of land at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. What is Rp and Hb zoning? A. Planned residential and highway business. 2. Who in the County/City will represent us through this growth? A. No one in the City departments does. 4. How long ago did the City annex this property? 5. Has the issue of increased traffic on Prospect been addressed? A. Not yet. When a formal submittal comes in, then the traffic study will be done. 6. Does the City own most of the frontage road. A. No. 7. Has there been an impact study near the wetlands in this area? 1 A. I'm not sure, I'll find out. 8. Will this have any affect on further annexation by the City in the surrounding area? !M 9. What department in the City deals with annexation? A. The planning department. 10. What is the position of the Elco Water District? Does the City take that over? A. No 11. There will be two points of access off of Prospect Road. 12. No drainage study has been done yet. 13. Is there a time -table yet on this project? A. Not yet, but it could take possibly 5 to 8 years to complete. 14. Is there one owner of all of this property? A. Yes. 15. I'm concerned about any trailer parks going in on the multi- family zoned area. A. This could be a possibility. 16. Why is there not commercial only all across the Prospect Road area instead of some housing? A. 17. I'm very concerned about the signage lighting at these proposed commercial sites. A. The City sign codes are very restrictive now and regulate all signage very carefully. 18. The extension of Timberline should take some of the traffic impact off the intersection at Summit and Prospect. 19. The entrances and exists off some of these roads is going to be a big concern. 2 20. We really would like to start now doing some landscaping and buffering in the area of Boxelder Estates, between us and this new proposed project. A. This would be a very good idea. 21. A pedestrian and bicycle access should be built into the new proposed site from Boxelder Estates for sure, however, vehicle access we're not sure about yet. 22. Emergency vehicles will also have to have access, but they very possibly might barricade their access to other public vehicles. They can do this with a chain across the access. 23. Is there any way we could get the City to make this area a public park? A. You could contact Parks & Recreation and find out. 24. If the "bubble" process goes through, will the existing zoning stay in place? A. The overall development plan is only one, nine -week process, you're not locked in. 25. Harley Davidson dealership is wanting one area of the proposed site. They were able to acquire some free dirt and are stock -piling it on this area at their own risk. 26. Will there be a need for another school to be built? A. The school district will have to address this issue. 27. What can we do to get Timberline Road extended? A. This will be a City Council call, if this should occur. You'll have to take that up with them. 28. Is there any possibility of a Truck Stop being put in? A. We have had no interest in that. A gas/convenience store and Harley Davidson are the only two interested parties. 29. Could this housing possibly be a H.U.D. project? A. Not that we know of. 3 30. If I don't like where the boundaries are in some of this zoning, is there anything I can do about it? I want those single-family homes set back further away from my property and home. A. We surely can take a look at this. 31. With all this proposed digging that will occur, what do you suppose this will do to our wells and water supply? When we need to irrigate, we need to do it right away. A. The digging should not do anything to your wells. This is not a frequent problem in new construction. 32. Can you have a well study done? A. Our engineers are not here tonight at this meeting, but we can research this. 33. I do not want a pedestrian/bike path going through my land. I do not want to be liable. Who pays for this liability anyway? A. We'll have to investigate this. 4 INTERSTATE LAND, PHASE ONE PUD SITE ACCESS STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AUGJJS 1995 Prepared for: G. T. Land Colorado, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis for the Interstate Land Phase One P.U.D., herein referred to as Interstate Land, addresses the capacity, geometric, and traffic control requirements related to the proposed development. Interstate Land is located west of Interstate 25 and north of Prospect Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The location of Phase One of the Interstate Land property is shown in Figure 1. This study conforms to a typical traffic impact study format. The study involved the collection of data, a review of previous developments and studies in the area, trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, and the operation analyses of the key intersections in the area. The operations analyses were performed for the existing conditions and the short range future. The long range future traffic projections were not evaluated in this analysis. As additional phases of the Interstate Land project are developed, further traffic analysis would be required. II. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Existing and Proposed Uses The land for this development is currently undeveloped. The area is in transition from a rural to urban environment. Figure 2 shows the site plan for Interstate Land. When the north ramps at Prospect Road were constructed a number of years ago, the Frontage Road was reconstructed to provide 800-900 feet of separation between the southbound ramps and Frontage Road intersections. Figure 2 shows the key intersections analyzed in this study. When other developments occur on both sides of the Frontage Road, then intersections along the Frontage Road should be evaluated. The Interstate Land development is proposed as a mixed -use development consisting of the following land use elements: office, retail, hotel, restaurant, and auto related uses. For analysis purposes, Interstate Land was assumed to be built out by the year 2000. The ultimate Interstate Land development would include up to approximately 186 acres. Phase One includes approximately 28 acres. At this time, it is not known when the remaining parcels would be developed or how they would be accessed from the street system. It is for this reason that a long range analysis was not performed. 1 A& N UU11 �Uufbcii Gidding'i- c 31 z .5'. -Z\ el M, !Jr �NNr ,• mi 522 . . ......... ";I.Substa 49 :AV' If ll if i I • North Yards COLORADO. -Black 110110'%V 11 if If TIA Isugar I I ': , . Junction Ae �Ai( ��!y j Obwntown sinnal Fbrt Collins G I ravel Pit COLORADO 11 ]L: _1LA I 'I Airpark V. 9 � q,111, AL if + 11F.11 AL.Jr.dr Di sa .1 SM 4954 W( _J 91 !1 -11-141 - t L INI -11 H III t ij 1* jt.. w.) rive 3 4 7� D,-'akes r -,I, II,�r`�a..j(�,rz-3II—_� 26 1! rj 011leg-.1 r 9 15 4991 SITE LOCATION Ros elawn CeT A n-mvhcad Mi El— V us 8 INTERSTATE LAND la PHASEPHASE ONE PUD cc A Uj 117 Gravel Pit _'OROSPE& RD. o,,, !Radio :Towers i. 10 a \2� A % it m 30 32 NO SCALE SM 4874 It 1486 II IL CO, 71 03 3 Figure 1 SITE PLAN Figure 2 0 Site Access Access to the site is proposed from the Frontage Road. No additional access onto Prospect Road is proposed at this time. The Frontage Road is a two-lane, north/south road adjacent to I-25. South of Prospect Road, the Frontage Road terminates. North of Prospect Road, the speed limit is posted at 45 mph and, south of Prospect Road, it is at 35 mph. The intersection of Prospect Road at the Frontage Road is stop -controlled for the Frontage Road. Prospect Road is a two-lane, east/west street with a rural cross section within the study area. Access to/from I-25 is provided at Prospect Road. The northbound and southbound I-25 ramps at Prospect Road are stop -controlled for the ramps. Prospect Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph with the exception of the I-25 interchange area, which is posted at 35 mph. Existing Land Uses The land surrounding the site is primarily undeveloped. North of the site, near Highway 14, are commercial and light industrial uses. East of I-25 are agricultural and low density residential uses. South of the site, is the City of Fort Collins Resource Recovery Farm. West of the site are undeveloped and low density residential uses. Existing Traffic The existing peak hour traffic counts at the key intersections in the area are shown in Figure 3. Peak hour traffic data was collected at the three study intersections in May, 1995. Raw traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Existing Operation The existing peak hour operation at the key intersections is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix B. The intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 1_994 Highway Capacity Manual (1994 HCM�_. As shown in Table 1, each of the study intersections is currently operating at acceptable levels of service. Acceptable operation is defined as level of service (LOS) D or better. 2 E to 24/13 j ' 608/522 3/1 /r 7 3765/99 2/1- -- -- 0 z Site I*%'- -- . ---oll PROSPECT AM / PM 0 00 Uj Qa co OmWZ �Fcm_Q " ^^ —477/4048/22 141/237 --f 235/473 --A A& N !�- 6 /12 — 94 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 0 0 Table 1 Existing Peak Hour Operation Intersection Level AM of Service PM Prospect/I-25 NB ramps (stop sign) NB LT/RT C C EB LT A A Prospect/I-25 SB ramps (stop sign) SB LT/RT B B WB LT A A Prospect/Frontage (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT B C EB LT A A WB LT A A III. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development on the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE was used to forecast trips that would be generated by Phase One of the proposed Interstate Land development. A trip is defined as a one way vehicle movement from origin to destination. The Regional Transportation Plan for the North Front Range Area has goals aimed at reducing Single -Occupant Vehicles. However, for a conservative analysis, no trip reductions were assumed as part of this traffic study. Trip generation for Interstate Land is shown in Table 2. IV. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution for Interstate Land was based on existing/ future travel patterns, land uses in the area, and consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area. The existing roadways in the area also played a role in developing the trip distribution. A major factor in determining the trip distribution was its proximity to Fort Collins and I-25. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 4. V. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip Assignment The trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The site - generated trip assignments are shown in Figure 5. Background traffic was determined for the year 2000. The background traffic for the area streets was developed using the existing traffic counts performed at the study intersections. A review of historical traffic count data available from Larimer County and traffic projections from the "North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan" (NFRRTP) was conducted to determine the annual growth rate. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic is expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year. This growth rate was applied to the existing traffic counts to determine the year 2000 background traffic. The resulting background traffic for year 2000 is shown on Figure 6. 3 Table 2 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out PARCEL A Gas w/Car Wash & C-store 1166 44 43 49 50 8 fuel positions Sit -Down Restaurant 2894 123 118 118 92 16.273 KSF Drive-Thru Restaurant 6391 257 246 171 158 9 KSF Specialty Retail 2923 40 24 138 139 71.875 KSF Bank - 5 windows 2056 62 49 132 142 Office - 100 KSF 1142 164 20 23 128 Hotel - 140 Rooms 1218 56 38 57 49 TOTAL PARCEL A 17790 746 538 688 758 PARCEL B Specialty Retail - 10 KSF 4067 56 33 192 193 PARCEL C Motorcycle Sales - 25 KSF 1198 34 15 27 39 TOTAL 23055 836 586 907 990 N TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 LC) C1 „� o �`- 25/15 "I' ,o 685/590 /� 1 T %-5/5 840 425 790 �\ 5/5 --,, n n in 0 0 r � Site 110, �z 0 4L LO S42-z LL) F- � �4 4 O ~ cc Q w Z — 550/480 PROSPECT—J-10/25 160/270 _y r, 265/535 --,A AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC YEAR 2000 I& N V::-10/15 1105/ 110/180 , 80/110 h � 2 O C Figure 6 0 The site -generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted traffic for the study area. Total peak hour traffic for Year 2000 is illustrated in Figure 7. As mentioned earlier, the long range (year 2015) analysis should be conducted as additional phases of the Interstate Land project are developed and/or other significant development occurs in this area. VI. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Operational analysis of the three key intersections was conducted using the 1994 HCM techniques for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections for background traffic conditions. An initial analysis of Prospect Road at the I-25 northbound ramps indicated that, most likely, a signal would be warranted. Therefore, it was assumed that, by the year 2000, this location would be signalized. All of the key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service with background traffic. Calculation forms for the year 2000 background traffic operational analysis are provided in Appendix C. Traffic analyses were completed for total traffic conditions, with completion of Interstate Land. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 4. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. As indicated, each of the study intersections is expected to operate at ' acceptable levels of service with the following improvements at the Prospect Road/ Frontage Road intersection: signalization of this intersection; installation of an eastbound left -turn lane; and installation of a westbound right - turn lane. With these improvements, this intersection is projected to operate at a Level of Service D. It is anticipated that Prospect Road would ultimately be widened to a four -lane cross section, two travel lanes in each direction. A level of service analysis with this improvement was also performed. With the four lane cross section, the Prospect Road/Frontage Road intersection would operate at Level of Service B during the morning and afternoon peak hours. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the transportation impacts associated with the development of the Interstate Land Phase One PUD, located west 4 • 0 w Q F- 0 LL o -- Z" �- 360/375 O C4 �-- 685/590 I� / 1 /-- 5/5 545/540 --� � � r 425/790 - �n n Ln 5/5-� 10�U0 Site PROSPECT U 'n J 00 N -_ J H co � W Q a ��o� w �- z 760 /705 —10/25 275/470 —1 380/735 --� AM/PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. 0 t? 7 Z ��to �G O �-- 10/15 �-145/120 200/330 � 110/160 --� \ \ 2 OCL C 2 TOTAL PEAK YEAR 2000 HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 0 • Table 3 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Prospect/I-25 NB ramps (signal) B B Prospect/I-25 SB ramps (stop sign) SB LT/RT B B WB LT A B Prospect/Frontage (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C D SB LT/T/RT C C EB LT B A WB LT A B Table 4 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation Intersection Prospect/I-25 NB ramps (signal) Prospect/I-25 SB ramps (stop sign) SB LT/RT WB LT Prospect/Frontage (signal) w/WB LT & EB RT & 2 travel lanes Prospect/Frontage (signal) w/ WB LT & EB RT & 4 Travel Lanes Level of Service AM PM B C A r E E07 iI .—.: �..yu.::.�._>W.c.....�...._��.�...:... '. ...tea.-s_�.._.:_.—...�._._�,.......:�.:�.,.... _.:. _:_: .�.`._�.�..>..�_...._.r:.. .._.._ of I-25 and north of Prospect Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. At the proposed development level, it is expected to generated 23,055 trip ends on an average weekday. The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following three intersections: Prospect Road/I-25 northbound ramps, Prospect Road/I-25 southbound ramps, and Prospect Road/Frontage Road. Currently, the key intersections analyzed as part of this study operate acceptably with their existing control and geometry. Future traffic conditions were evaluated for background (without project) and total (with Interstate Land) traffic conditions for the year 2000. The results of the future analysis for background traffic conditions indicated that the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the following improvement: signalization of Prospect Road/I-25 northbound ramps intersection. The results of the traffic analysis for total traffic conditions, with completion of Interstate Land, indicated that the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the following improvements at the Prospect Road/Frontage Road intersection: signalization of the intersection; installation of a westbound left -turn lane; and installation of a eastbound right -turn lane. These improvements would result in acceptable levels of service at the Prospect/ Frontage Road intersection. It is anticipated that. ultimately, Prospect Road would be widened to a four -lane cross section. After this widening, the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection would operate at Level of Service B during the morning and evening peak hours. From a traffic engineering standpoint, the development of Interstate Land is feasible. When other development proposals are put forth on nearby or adjacent properties, this traffic study should be expanded to include a long range analysis and evaluation of intersections along the Frontage Road itself. 5 Commt*y Planning and Environmental•rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins December 7, 1995 Dear Resident: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Monday, December 18, 1995*, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers**, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, is planning to hold a public hearing on a proposed project in your neighborhood. The proposed project is commonly known as Interstate Land PUD, Preliminary, #34-80B. The applicant is requesting 223,000 s.f of mixed highway business uses on 25.58 acres located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25, zoned hb, Highway Business. Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Planning Staff consider your input on this matter, as well as your neighbor's input, an extremely important element in the City's review of this proposal. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, written comments are welcome. This letter has been sent as a courtesy to all property owners of record within 500 feet of the area based on current County Assessor's records. If you should have questions or require further information about this item, please feel free to contact me at 221-6750. gS'erely, '7, OLeve Olt City Planner -�Oty,,� ���a�LL����►Yr,�� -- �J �'�i*rz.�-f .-c� u.'d Cc.. �� t y�. SO/gjd *Please note that if the Dece bif► er 18th meeting runs past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Monday, January 8, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. 74 Z 44 **The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to Ci services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6750 for assistance. CoU S CO. 8e)r72+ lop 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002 5300 Elderberry Court Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 17, 1996 City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 ATTN: Mr. Robert Blanchard Director of Current Planning Dear Mr. Blanchard, Thank you for informing me of the upcoming vote on the Interstate Land P.U.D. #34-88B. I believe that the planning board should rescind their vote denying the approval of this project. I also believe that the P.U.D. Board has been much too aggressive in trying to stop new projects. Let the free-market system work, please Sincerely, Charles R. Schmidt