Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutELEMENTARY SCHOOL 88' AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 90' - MASTER PLAN - 20-87 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 24 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF May 18, 1987 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Elementary School 88' and Junior High School 90' - Master Plan Elementary School 88' - Site Development Plan - Special Review APPLICANT: Poudre School District OWNER: Same 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROTECT PLANNER: Joe Frank PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a master_ plan proposal for a new elementary school and new junior high school site on approximately 30 acres and a special review of the site plan for the elementary school. The site is located approximately 1/2 mile south of Ho.rsetooth Road and 1/2 mile west of Shields Street. The property is zoned is rlp, low density planned residential. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning and Zoning Board review the proposal and convey to the School District that the site as proposed meets the locational and site design requirements of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City is providing comments to the School District in regard to the site location of a new elementary and junior high school and site development plan for the elementary school. The project is not required to follow the City's formal review processes, but is subject to those fees or public improvements necessary to offset the impact of the new school. The Staff conducted a neighborhood meeting at which no major objections were .raised. The Staff feels that this is an excellent location for these school sites OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 SERVICES. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Elementary School '88 and Jr. High School '90 - Master Plan P & Z Meeting - May 18, 1987 Page 2 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RLP; vacant (future park site) S: RLP; vacant (future single family homes in the Regency PUD) E: RLP; vacant (future multiple and single family units in the Villages at Harmony West) W: RLP; vacant The subject property was part of a larger development known as the Villages at Harmony West PUD. The area was originally planned for patio hones and multiple family homes, but that phase of the overall preliminary has expired. The property is zoned RLP, low density planned residential with the condition that any development occur only as a PUD. The State Statutes pertaining to School Districts exempt schools from local zoning and building codes. The provisions provide, however, that the Plan- ning and Zoning Board may still review the site development plan for the proposed school site and, if it desires, request a hearing with the Board of Education prior to any construction of structures or buildings to dis- cuss the site location or site development plan. The School District is not subject to the review process provided within the Land Development Guidance System. The City's Division of Building Inspection will not be issuing permits for construction but will be avail- able for inspection at the request of the Division of Labor and will apply the standards of the Industrial Commission of Colorado in its inspection of the school. The City can require of the School District any impact fees or public improvements to the extent reasonably necessary to offset the impact of the new school, including but not limited to development fees, street and utility standards, and off -site improvements. Some items which the City is not considered able to require include plan processing fees, build- ing permit fees, PUD and zoning requirements, subdivision, storm drainage requirements, building codes and submittal of a Development Agreement. 2. Land Use Public schools are considered to be appropriate at any location in the City, subject to all off -site impacts of the proposal being effectively mitigated. 3. Design The proposed master plan for the entire 30 acre site consists of a proposed 1988 elementary and 1990 junior high schools. The activities on the site have been arranged to maximize joint use of the active sport areas. The Junior High is located on the south portion and the Elementary School on the north portion, directly adjacent to a future public park. Between the two schools are planned open areas including soccer, football and baseball Elementary School '88 and Jr. High School '90 - Master Plan P & Z Meeting - May 18, 1987 Page 3 fields. The exact locations and design of the Junior High School and open areas will be determined at the time of preparation of the site development plan for the Junior High School. The Junior High site development plan will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at a future date. Access to each of the future structures will be from Seneca Street, which is a planned collector street for the square mile in which the site is located. The sidewalks adjacent to the school site will be a minimum of six feet in width and will be separated from the curb by at least 4 1/2 feet. The design of both schools will be reviewed as part of the site development planning phases. The Elementary School plan is very similar in design to the 1987 Elementary School (Werner) which is now under construction in the Fossil Creek Subdi- vision area in south Fort Collins. The school will be approximately 50,360 sq. ft. in floor area and will accommodate approximately 550 students. 55 parking spaces have been provided along Seneca Street for employee and visitor usage. Separate auto and bus drop-off lanes have been provided. Public sidewalks will be provided along Seneca Street. In addition, the School District has agreed to provide a temporary sidewalk connection between the Imperial Estates Subdivision to the elementary school site. This temporary sidewalk will remain until such time as public street con- nections are provided between the Imperial Estates Subdivision and Seneca Street, at which time, the need for the temporary sidewalk will be re- evaluated. The elementary school will be one story or approximately 14 feet in height with the exception of the gymnasium which will be approximately 24 feet in height. The exterior materials of the structure will be a buff colored brick, with darker brick accent and one color glazed brick accent stripe. Landscaping is being provided along the Seneca streetscape and interior to the site. The staff feels that the design as proposed is of high quality and will set a good example for future development in the area. 4. Transportation The School District has submitted a detailed Traffic Study for the proposed Master Plan, focusing on traffic expected to be generated at the site and its impact on the surrounding street system. Some conclusions of that study are as follows: a. Approximately 1600 trips per day will be generated. b. Some improvements at the Shields/Harmony intersection are warranted at this time to improve the flow of traffic. Elementary School '88 and Jr. High School '90 - Master Plan P & Z Meeting - May 18, 1987 Page 4 c. In the short term, access to the school site from Seneca via Regency Drive and Wakerobin Lane will be adequate. In the long term, the con- nection of Seneca to Horsetooth Road and the construction of Troutman Parkway between Seneca and Shields Street will provide excellent access to the site. The School District has agreed to construct Seneca Street to collector standards as it abuts the School sites; Regency Drive to collector standards between Seneca Street and Wakerobin Lane, and; Wakerobin Lane to local street standards between Regency and the existing portions of Wakerobin Lane. In addition, the property owners south of the school sites have been committed to constructing Regency Drive to collector standards between Wakerobin Lane and Harmony Road. These improvements are in conformance with the City's Master Street Plan and other approved Master Plans in the area. d. In the long term, signals will be required at the intersections of Horsetooth/Seneca streets and Troutman/Shields Street. e. Adequate parking is provided on the elementary school site. There is still some outstanding issues regarding off -site improvements necessary to off -set the impacts of the school sites. Same existing streets may need to be upgraded to handle the additional auto and bus traf- fic. The areas which are being discussed is the existing portion of Waker- obin Lane and Shields Street between Wakerobin Lane and Horsetooth Road. The Staff has been working with the School District for several months on this issue and will continue to work toward a solution. This outstanding issue, however, should not prevent the Planning and Zoning Board from pro- viding a recommendation to the School District on the location of the school sites and,the site development plan. There is one additional issue that needs to be addressed in the future concerning the street requirements of the future Junior High School. This issue needs to be more carefully analyzed in the traffic impact study: Seneca Street may have to be extended to Horsetooth Road; Troutman Parkway may need to be constructed between Seneca Street and Shields Street. This analysis should be canpleted as part of the School District's overall plan- ning for the Junior High School. The Planning and Zoning Board convey to the School District that the loca- tion of the proposed schools as indicated on the Master Plan and the design of the elementary school as indicated on the site development plans are appropriate. onfall a' • VICINITY WE Z V a�UJ aW_ uj w W cl) LLJ 0E*z U ^Q = o �Oo � Z a=W �J =tea U V U) O . � ♦♦^^ apgc/♦ 2Aa w�c J G w O = 5 � • R ! • N reeleoil fir. 1 �. t �` ■ITo i �� T 'VICINITY MAP BENCHMARK ObIQ Wf fN SMM SR 6 fM 11fMVT AT �iK.uT m!O 6 111.OI! Or Ye 9H116 ifAFII. n[vaTni. :n m!. PLANT LIST I' s 1A[paE� m rEmlR VI1N AUTOA�LIT�IC NQ 1\ a¢ IUT m TD➢1 INA m Ev�T rtIN m AUSTgAN PDE C-TRACT UM LJW a oars E,Tow NOTES I ISO IS TO K LAID w nn ER THM ID• TD NE TTRRR( / R TI✓EE M TD WTNIN IY W TIE PEITI—M ff M ELLIADE 6 AMY PDE Ut SFTDIE - EDGING VNERE SMVM IS K➢— — IN —c" TLUSN WIN TIE TOP W M SOD TO PRECLUDE ANY TRIPPD.L— INZMta MD STARED Vi1N REDVm➢ STAKES EVERY r M110Rw _��--� IO RDOt DR ulm:cAPE PANIC u IILlUKD --.rr� s _. � — TREES [N SUMS SMALL IMVE AN EARTIEZI OUS DE —IE •�- f `�. SIZE DULLT ARODID TNEI. ilE D➢R SIRILL EAT LEATT N' NIW W TIE DCAMSLD�E SIDE TD RETMN S SENT - RW-!Tf VATER flA ®1%YTH ALL MCID—S —S TO WMM UI r STEII `T POST' STAKES SPACED EDUIDISTA Y A MDI IPPIDL(➢NTElT Ir-26' PRW M TRIM( W TIE TM W. 5 111 6 TIE PAST ADDVE M EAOMD. CAW CITY VIBE TO RECEIVE A NIWTLY C D P6.ff W SURVE S TAPE M Sj1 NATEYUL 6- L HILEVAY aCTVEEN M 1NIS TRIM( AND TIE STAKE ALL PDES A SPRUCE TD RECEIVE TIRES STA .IN TIE STAKES K— DRIVER ➢RD M EielNll .'U' ER OJf TIRN M OUTSIDE PEII➢EIER 6 M ED.IAEE. DAYLIGHT MENTORS (TYP.) SEE ROOF PLAN X�8\ROOF OVERFLOW SCUPPER (TYPJ SEE ROT PLAN MATCH GLAZED CHU COLORED ACCENT (TYPJ �• rwl n �I // '' 1 �3�\M-.4bNIN/n-�s66 -LIrHT FIXT. (TYPJ) �i7�IL� rwi ^'�' ...• n EAST ELEVATION SCORED MASORY WITS (TYPJ SEE WALL SECTIONS L"1 IDAN n YMf• uPY-1' A IYVICII] L'I.C:VAnOry YRT (KI � wr.. LINE low. J7 _ 4" 7�TO�� - / \`PAINTED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND WINDOW FRAMES (TYPJ WIT VENTILATOR GULL (TYPJ SEE WALL SECTIONS 12' DIAMETER BRICK CIL (TYPJ J F-IRE ALARM NOTE. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.FO( LOCATIONS OF MASONRY EXPANSION JOINTS NOTE, FOR BRICK COLORS, SEE WALL SECTION SHEETS A-10 THRU A-13 ROOF OVERHANG AT ENTRY II I II II II t5---------------------t5 t]-------- COLORED ACCENT BRICK n NORTH ELEVATION (n SOUTH ELEVATION n MAIN ENTRY H CORNER FACE run ortn - rry auu " •r (An 1r1IR1 - •ena aau MNTMASr vEv rxt, vr- r-(• �— ?/lA1l►Yy' iWEiTYI rM� G1ti+VF Y-I I -ROOF OVERHANG AT C"TYARB . .... ............... ....... _ MAIN ENTRY LINE Cr 55 �(n= gee. CTS t 53et1 CXD GLAZED CHU COLORED ACCENT (TYP)�\ SEE WALL SECT,ONSN „1 DAYLIGHT MONITORS (TYP�1III RDDf PLAN I' %'e' ROOF OVERV'LDV SCUPPER (TYPJ SEE ROOF PLAN ET ELEVATION-SCOiED MASORY ours (TYPJ SEE WALL SECTIONS PAIn)r:u K ASaum ro ci+n ur-rt _ n NORTH ELEVATION � " fwn u rrn v►+v MATCH NORTH ORTH EzVvAO HDLLUV METAL DOOR AMID VINDDV FRAMES (TYPJ`12' DIAMETER BRICK COLUMN RYPJ UNIT VENTILATOR GRILL (TYPJ SEE VA" SECTIONS OVERHANG AT COURTYARD u i i 1/EST ELEVATIONELEVATION usr vw MRM ORIpD aun uwrvr n EAST ELEVATION cr ET Al mx mm�o tun urty MATCH LINE gyp? CXD CXD 1188 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND 1?90 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE ACCESS STUDY, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOVEMBER 1186 Prepared for: Poudre School District F,-1 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort C:ol 1 i ns, Colorado 80521 Prepared by: MATTHEW J . DEL I CH , P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone 30:3-66 -2061 EXECUTIVE SUMMAR'r The 1982 Elementary School and 1990 Junior High School located west of Shields Street and south of Horset.00th Road in Fort Cool i i ns, Colorado, is proposed to be an i nst i to t i ona.l development. This study involved the steps of tr i p generation, distribution and assignment; traffic Projection; Capacity analysis;traffic signal warrant analysis;traffic signal progression analysis; a n d accident analysis as _. e t forth in the CiWs Traffic Impact Study Gu i del i nes. This stud;: .a,_._.e_.sed the imp.a.cts of two proposed school sites on the existing street system in both 1j?O and 2006. However, it should be pointed out that the long range analyses assumed that other nearby developments would also be in place in the general vicinity of the proposed schools. it is folly to look: at a single development without considering the interaction of ether land uses in the area. As a. result of this analysis, the following i concluded: • - The development of the 1P88 Elementary School and 1 O junior High School as proposed is feasible from .a. traffic engineering standpoint with specific improvements in the area. Full development_ of the school sites as proposed will generate approximately 1600 vehicle trips per d.a.:v for. the 180 day school year iSeptember - May). - Current operation of the Horse toot h/ Shield=. intersection is in the level of service H category during both peak: hours with signal control. The four way ..top sign controlled intersection of Ha.r•mony/Shields operates at level of service D. However, this can be improved with the addition of both approach and exit lanes. This level of service D operation is unacceptable according to the C: i t y` _. own evaluation cr i ter i a. Trafficsignals may be warranted s_.i��n now. Signals would improve operation to acceptable levels. Opera.t i on can also be improved to acceptable levels by improving this intersection to either a. 2?<:4 or 4:~;4 _.top sign controlled intersection. It is recommended that one of these alternatives be pursued by the City immediately to bring operations to acceptable 1 evel s. - Access from the three principal arterials, Hor =.e tooth , Shields, and Harmon:was evaluated in the short range future. It is recommended that access to the school sites be from Shield_. Street via either Troutman Parkway or Wa.kerob i n Lane. Access from Hor =.e tooth Road via Seneca Street or Harmony Road uia. Regency and Seneca. Street=. are the least acceptable access solutions considering street construction, anticipated school service area, and e.•._.e of access. 0 0 - Development of the schools in the short range future can be handled on the street system with some improvements.. These include provision of access to the school hcol sites from Shields tr•ee t . This access can be accomplished via either Troutman Parkway or Wakerob j n Lane. Both routes have advantages a. n d disadvantages. From nrn a. traffic operational viewpoint, both accesses operate similarly. H signal is 1 j ke l y to be warranted at the Ha.rmony/Shields intersection by before based upon background traffic !ether than site (school) traffic). All signalized intersect.ion_. will operate acceptably in the short range future. - With fu 1 1 development of the school sites in the long Ong range future, signals will be warranted at the Shields../ Troutman and Horsetooth/Senec.a. intersections. _ This assumes full development of the Section in which the _school sites ore contained. These s.tr•eets are classified as collectors. - All the signalized intersections analyzed operate acceptably �: i n the peak hours i n the long g �_ future with F � 1= _n range the four lane section cross � th, Shields, and _ _ n on Horsetooth, Harmony. - Parking was surveyed at an existing Fort Col l i ns. junior high school of comparable size. At the existing chool , 85 _.Places appeared to adequate. Approximately nc .are=. Should be provided a spaces - F �_ � .t the proposed junior high school unless additional da.ta indic.a.tes, a. significant difference. - With goad design of the aforementioned geometric improvements to the various intersections, the accident rate should be at acceptable levels for urban conditions. I . I tITRCrC'! ACT I Citd Th i = traff i c i mpac t = tud:,` a.ddr•e se=. the cap.ac i ty, gecirri e tr i c , .and core trot r•equ i semen is at a.nd near- a, proposed el emen t ar;•' school and Junior high school de,.: 1 _ e oC�ment located I,;Ie t of Sh i e l ds tree t , he tt!,Ieen Horse tooth and H.a.rmon-Y. Roa.d=. i n For t Col l i rl=., Co or•.a.do. The l oca.t i on of the proposed development i = •_.hova n in F i gur•e 1. Dur i rl,7j the sour —Se of th i s ana.l'Ys i s, nurrlerou= conta.c fs L,:lere made I.mith the pr-oiect enQineer•ing: pla.nninq con -Sul tan ts, F'oudre Schoch Di strict Staff, and Ci t": Traffic -. Erlciineering Department. The stud,,, conform to the format _r-t +� r-th h-,- the Transportation Ser ices Un i t of the Cit-y of Fort Coll ins. The study involved the fol 1 ot,,ii ng step=.: Cc,llect ph> - -icaI, traffic, a.nd development da.t.a.. F'er•+orm trip gener•.a.t i on , trip di =.tr i hu t i on , and tr i a.ss, i onmen t . F'ro:iect traffic �r•ot,jth. — Determine _k: p_Pa. • hour- traffic �,�c�lurrrea. C:onduc t c.a, a. i t and r �er..a-t i ona.1 l eve o p- -F- 1 + r.:ice an al ;. e._ on key i nter•s.ec t i on . — An al >' z e s i g n a. l Vd •a. r• r' a. n t '_• a. n d s• i g n al p r- o g r- e s G i on — Accident anal;+'si I I . E`.<:I STI AG COI-ADITI O[A The site of the 1 -' 8 E1 omen t-ar•;. School and 1 PF"D Junior Hi-:�h School, as shotin in Figure 1, is in a. mi::r.e I _ a. To the nor thv)est , it is hounded h .an existing single +.am i 1 v- _uhdi i _•ion k:not.,.fn as Im F per i .a.l Estates. Th_F _ r_F is l.a.rae lot residential u_.esnorth of the _.shoal sites. To the west. south I and east , i t i= hounded by 1 .and t,,rh i ch i s eh _ } a i r• :.a. c .a. rl t or i n .aar• i cu 1 tural a=•e . There a.re scattered r es i dense=_ i n this area. To the ea._t, a.cr•os•s• 'shields. Street, is a. single fa.rrliI:. residential _uhdi':!i-ion. Thesquare mile in I:.:Ihich the drool sites ar•e contained is a. de',!el cep l ncl area. of Fort Col l ins. and i s• e->fpected to change in char- ter over the ne'.:t fet:,l e.a,r s. . The tr o ra �h;�� re i n the a - p 9 F •. _. i =. e =. _. e rl t i a] 1 : f l .a. t. The major inter=.ections in the area. are el ds Hor se tooth and Sh i e 1 ds:,'Ha.rmon;, , a. haf m i 1 e nor• thea.=.t and tof this site, r s.pertj�.:e1i'. Harmon. Hor s etootll a.nd Ch fi e l d=. +.r e c l as i f i ed a.=. .ar ter• i .a.1 =. t,) i th the f,1 1 ok:.) l nq_ geomet.rics in this r.rea.: — Ha.rmon,; Road — tt,.jo 1 .anes t�,iest cif Sh i e 1 ds an trio — four• lane=east of Shield — Hor=etooth Road — four lanes east of Shields and tl:.ace 1a.nas. t,aest ,+ hield E. t.Vith =.ome pr•ovision for• a.ux i 1 i ar-y turn 1 anes a 0 000000. Park, 0 EIDEM110121FU 00 1/ 11 aff c se E11:1020JOL: �"y age 7-p - I nj '_ Disposal U BM41954 ULJ , J J& mini firJa•IJ000 r--7 A -Jul I UDSVOER 7 rim, F405P - -L PAO 1*1 �I ILI XT, Vol LD V 5065 1544 c:3 .;;,. _j -4 T Hughes r r YO Stadium Ve[RI Gravel:. -'Drive4 it 'Theater Drakes t ]Duo '17 Gravel it Pits I i Omega /519 It tt D • ry Lake 3 -Gravel la Pit Me Cleflands Harmon J Cam am SC OOL S TE%j 501, _ I � � '• -=gyp y - _ _I. _ ,I. /5245W0 4916' SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1 0 9 Shields Street - two lanes ( one lane in each direction) with auxiliary turn lanes at some locations. There is some widening for one half mile north of Harmony Road. The Shields/Hor_•etooth intersection was recently signalized. Other streets in the area have .to - p sign control...peed l i m i t_ on the arterial streets are 45-50 mph. Existing Traffic Daily traffic flow is shown in Figure re 2. These vnlume= are d i r'ec t i ona.l , machine -counted approach FF pr J oach volumes 1me_ conducted by the Colorado Department of Highways =. in September 1?83 and by the City of Fort Collins in September I 86. In addition to the daily count data, peak hour turning movements were obtained a. - t h i e l d_:`Horse tc�Oth i nr'=fugUst 1'?% and at Shields/Harmony in August 1 285. Eased upon historic count t information, i on , summer' counts are generally �_nr'._11y 1_�c percent less than winter counts due to school (Particularly C U) not being in session. Therefore, for analysis purposes, it is appropriate that the Shields/Harmony count be factored by 1.15. The 1?85 counts were further factored by 1.03 to reflect 1 F86 conditions. These factored counts are shown in Figure 3. All raw traffic count .t_. d d a � is provided in Apperldi:. A. Ex:i=_.ting Ciper.ation Using the traffic volume=. shown in Figure 2 and the existing geometr•ics, the signalized intersection of 'shields. and Hor_e tooth operates at level of ser !ice A in both peak hours. The Shields/Troutman intersection operates acceptably with stop sign control and the existing geometr i cs. The Shields/Harmony intersection operates unacceptably for all movementswith 4-way stop t sign control. �l In the morning and afternoon peak hours, it is at level of service D K cr i t i c•a.l sa/rl of all legs is 1231 in the morning and 1017 in the afternoon). Appen dix B describes 1e'..!el ofservice for unsi gna.l i zed and signalized intersections as defined in the 1285 Highway Capacity Manual. Calculation form=. .are provided ded in Appendix C. By definition of the City of Fort C:ol l i ns., acceptable operation is level of service C or above. Opera- tion at the signalized intersection is considered to be acceptable in most urban situations. Operation at the Shields/Harmony intersection can be improved with 4-way _.top control by adding additional lanes on either Harmony or Shields or both. The additional lanes would need to be bath approach lanes and exit lanes. This would make it either .a. 2 lane by 4 lane, or 4 lane by 4 lane intersection. According to signal warrants presented in Appendix D, signals may be • 9 J J C.R. No. 38E _ H LL F- 0 HORSETOOTH 454 a HARMONY 3�ZS� Q N RECENT DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FIGURE 2 rr tj — co�, --, r O �—lol/Za0 s2/31 HORSETOOTH 340/ Z 3 Z —i► 17/Z3 I- U) Ln to irt �Q 15/ to oft' J W o N �O lP IZ/13 Z43/13Z—� 33/ 1 TROUTMAN ,r— 4 4/ 5 5 I( HARMONY Ln co �S AM/PM Q N 1986 PEAK HOUR COUNTS FIGURE 3 0 0 i-,l.a,rr' anted lUhen cons 1 der1 no] cur•ren t tra.ff i c vctl umes. Hcn,,,tever. } the geometric improvement= des e a boo•! 111 improve i- _ d_ rlt d t .e I,.I operation sufficiently un t l l final geome tri c'= can be con- structed in this intersection sc, that temporary signal j at i can i s. not necessary. - I I I . PROPOSED GP..)ELC IFP'1Eh'dT The 1'-ES E1 ementa.r.+' 'school and 19'PO Junior Hi qh School I = 9. Proposed i n=•t i tut i onal (-i deve1 _pmen t t,:le'_.t of :_,hie 1 d= Street and a. hal f mi le south of Horse tooth Road. A schema.t i c of the si to p l an -showing the t or.a.t ion -and l ikely acre _. paints is provided in Figure J. The elementary school i=. scheduled to be occupied b-:•' 1588 and the junior h i c�h =school is scheduled to be occupied by 19'=0 . As _stated ea.r' 1 i er , the land surrounding these sites. FI s d_,:, e 1 op i rlg and, .?.__. such, rrla.ny of the _streets are not completed. Access_ from the arterial street _ '=stem v.1i 1 1 be evaluated based upon operation and ea._.e of access. based upon the proposed service areas of the=.e school s. Traff i c s i gnal 1--...rr'a.n is L:Ii l l be exa.mi ned as a matter of course. Geometric requirements of on -site streets. t:li l l al s.o be-addr•e sed. In order to comprehensively ar-e-- the jmpa.r_t=to the various streets .and the key Inter-_eCtjon=., It is rlece=.=..a.r;>' to include traffic from uses I::Ihich are 1 ike1y to exist in the area. This v.iouId include the land pr'ima.ri1v v.1ithin this '=ecti on _urroundi ng thes.e school site_.. A=. stated earl i er this. land is currently in fa.ir'1; lots:, inten=•it:+' a=ea. 'since no land use change proposals have been put for•i,.ard for th i =. 1 and to d•a.te j t 1�:1as a=.=.ume t _ d c remain in the existing use for• the short range 3-5 ye.a.rs.? anal :+'s•i _.. HOUJever, tor the 1 onu range ;:>'e.ar 00, ? . i t t•aa.__. a. __.umed that the se proper t i e•_. would be developed t1as. indicated on the Fort CollinsZon i nq a.p . _ Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a. development such as th i -_. upon the e:>, i st i no street =stem. A Compilation of tri p generation i nfor'm•?.t i on I,•.Ja s prepared by the Insti tute of Tr•a.nsporta.tion Engineers,jn 1';76, updated i n 1 tc, a.nd t,,la._. u-.ed to projec t tr i p=. that I:':Ic,uld be generated by the proposed elementary school use a.t thj _. si te, as. I:.jel l ?._•, the a.diacent deveIopments. The junior. high -school use is. not addressed in the Tr j � Generation Manual . Therefore, tr•.aff i c observa.t i ons and counts. i:ler'e performed on October 2 b -, 1F86 at Eol tz junior High School in Fort Col l ins.. Boltz J.H.S. has '?051 =students vihich is compassable to the expected 900 students at the proposed j un i or' h i gh _school . h'lanual traffic count=. �r;lera performed fr om ,: 15 AP1 to 8; 15 Af9 (mor'n i ng peak; hour• of the =•chi col ) an ! HORSETOOTH ELEMENTARY ' • • SCHOOL 1988 1 � JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1990 do �V IZ W a W 0,, HARMONY LEGEND EXISTING STREETS • • - - - PROPOSED STREETS Q N G J _W TROUTMAN SITE PLAN SCHEMATIC FIGURE 4 • 0 from 2:15 PH t :15 PH (afternoon peak hour of the school). Both automobiles and school buses i:,:,ere counted. From these counts, factors were developed to project trips that would be generated by the proposed junior high schanl use. Table 1 s.hoi.,:is the expected trip generation for the school sites on a. daily and peak: hour basis. The analyses assumed no publ i c transit or r i de sha.r• i ng for the school generated trips except for school buses which are reflected in the tr i p generation factors. As the residential area. around the school sites fills i n , the number of walk trips will l i k:e l y increase. At a typical elementary or junior high school, the morning peak hour f h_ �_o the to p generator ra. r corresponds to the peak: hour of the street. However, in the afternoon, the peak hour of the generator is not usually the peak hour o � .1 f the street. For analysis purposes-, the peak hours used were 7: 15 off to 8:15 MH and 2:15 PH to 2:15 PH. Ample daily traffic __punts exist to ,determine what percent of the daily traffic occurs at any hour of the day. In addition, recent daily traffic counts. at key intersections were used to determine the background traffic in mid -afternoon on a. typical week:dax . it is also noted that the school trips would occur only during a� 180 day school year. Typically, this is from September to Hay with some sp i 1 l over to the lost week in August and the first week in _Tune. - Trip Distribution and Assignment The directional distribution of generated trips from the school sites was determined based upon the anticipated school service a.r•ea as described by Poudre School District Staff and the a.r•e.a. road system. In the _.hart range future (1590), the e V e m_p tr�y school hool service area is assumed to be as shown in Figure 5. i'''1ost (estimated at . 80%) children attending this elementary _drool will come from the north (Wagon Wheel, , Pass.borough . and Imperial Estates). In the long range future (2006), the elementary school service area is assumed to be as shown in Figure 6. The major difference being el imi na.t i on of the a.rea west of Taft Hill P..oa.d. However, it is important to note that the Section in which the school is located wi 1 1 1 i k:e l have a. significant residential Population, possibly filled with residential uses. At this time, a. significant portion of the students attending this school wi l l still come from the north. However, this is l i k:e l y to decrease to 30-35 Percent.. The remainder (65-70 percent) will consist of children living in this_. Section, within 1/2 mile of the school. This is generally considered to be wi th i n walking distance. The junior high school is assumed to have the some service a.rea in both the short and long range futures. This 4 • Table 1 Trip Generation DO i 1 Y Land Use Trips Elementary School 551 540 students. junior High School 1089 00 students Total 1640 A.H. Peak Trip=. Trips in out P.H. Peak: Trip_. Trips in out 22 =_ 1 1 ? ; n 63 90 176 1 1 r 85 128 ASSUMED SHORT RANGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICE AREA FIGURE 5 ASSUMED LONG RANGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICE AREA FIGURE 6 • assumed service area is shown in Figure ,. While service t o j'I _ area. is not anticipated to change over time, the trip south distri- bution will, since the portion �f the service areais not .as developed as the north portion. As residential developmentoccur'= to the south, travel to/from the junior high school will change. Given the above service areas _. r. f c, r. each school and the anticipated residential growth wi th i n those service areas, the trip distributions used are shown in Figure S. Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are eApected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 9 shol::ls the peak: hour trip assignment with background traffic reflecting the short range re future f 1:::�: 0) conditions. Wh i 1 e this assignment does have a. year associated with i t , the year is only used to t derive background traffic, which can change the overall volumes. However, the assignment of site generated traffic wi l l remain constant. Traffic Projections Traffic volumes are projected far various streets wi th i n the City; of Fort Collins utilizing a. tool known as the gravity model which considers future land use, population, and employment locations. For 20 Year projections (yeas 2006) , this gravity model Output is the usual source for pr•o_iections used in traffic impact studies. However, the last Traffic Flow Map provides projections fo r the year 2000, Therefore, an estimation was made of traffic in this area by the Year 2006 using the latest Traffic Flow Map and the knowledge of what has been occurring and what is expected to occur in this area. of Fort Col 1 i ns. Figure 10 shoI::Is the expected average daily traffic (ADT) for bath Horsetooth, Taft Hill, Harmony, and Shields near this i to in the year. 1 FFO . Figure 11 shows the expected average e daily traffic in the same area in the year 2006. Figure 12 =.ho!::1= the peak hour traffic for the streets in this area in the year 200 with full development of both school sites and full development of the Section as might be expected according to the Fort Col 1 i ns Zoning Map. Si gna.l Warrants. As a matter of policy of the City of Fort Col 1 ins, traffic signals are not i n=.tal 1 ed at any location unless warrants are met according to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." However, it is possible to determine whether traffic signal warrants will be met based Upon estimated ADT and uti 1 izing a. ch.a.rt. shown in Appendix D or the peak hour signal wa,r•rant=. also provided in Appendix D. 5 ASSUMED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SERVICE AREA FIGURE 7 ELEMEN•ARY 4 N ELEMENTARY 1990 2006 • JUNIOR HIGH <5% >S% �'; WITH 1 IJ SECT ION <5 JUNIOR HIGH 15 e WITHIW SECT I O►J 5% 010 30% 010 ti 2S% TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 8 11 HORSETOOTH TROUTMAN HARMONY • I14/ZO-7 �— ►13/314 3 � I /Z (00—.► 40/ 34 vn Ln r ul -9 4a/ 5 I Z3/ Z3 �► 7/1 Mtn �LD_ I (o/ 1-1 —� 212 /14 S—� 35/ Z I —� ,a/102 -f—,4/ 153 55/ (o2 �It9 AM/PM Q N 1990 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 9 00 o 10, 000.. -9 - 14,000 1� 1 � �/ HORSETOOTH O to O O c J W N SITE TROUTMAN 0 0 0 5,800 °f �00 HARMONY 0 0 0 0 1990 DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FIGURE 10 8 a Q _0 ,000 ! 1, 000 . cj ZI,000 N HORSETOOTH N 00 W C W J OO O W N O J = N 4,000—` 3,000— 4,� 000 O a a SITE �5,000 TROUTMAN I- 0 000 0° o� ►o, oo0 15, 000 HARMONY 0 0 2006 DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FIGURE 11 U a00 � 0 0 I'**— ZO/ZO 1 � I � s /OSo ZO ZO ZO/ZO-4e ) I r 600/500 —� I ZO /ZO 000 000 Q V W Z W N TROUTMAN HARMONY AM/PM • Q N 0,n �o 0°° 1350/4� S 140/ I40 11 110/-7-5 HORSETOOTH 500/410 —i 00 Ln O 00 O � O J 00W 0 = • �O� N �— too/50 �— 40/ 20 loe— 30/ ZO 12o/ 50 t ( s o/ 50 —� ZO/ZO —� O00 O 30/ \� 100/ 150 + Z ZO/ Z-70 1-7 0/ ZZO 2006 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 12 • Utilizing this appendix and the volumes shown in Figures and 10, signals wi I 1 not likely be warranted at any of the possible access locations to the school sites in the short range future. It is likely that signals would be warranted at the Shields/Harmony intersection. Based upon volumes shown in Figure=. 11 and 129 signals are 1 i k:e 1 y to be warranted at the Shields/Troutman and Hor s.e tooth: Seneca. intersections in the long range future. These warrants are r 1 i k:el to be met due to background traffic rather than school related traffic since Troutman and Seneca are collector level streets. Signal Progression Signal progression was evaluated prior to intersection operational analysis to determine whether the signals would fit into progression schemes. In addition, the h Fr•oOr•.-__.ion scheme could be used in evaluating operation can a. stop Sign controlled street with the major -.tree .at• - t having platoon flow. This analysis technique is described in the 1 -'85 Hi ahwa..,: Capacity Manual. The technique used in the signal progression analysis was a computer program called Signal Progression Analysis (SPAN) prepared by the University of Florida Transportation Research Center. Its main functions include: - Interactive entry of arterial system data.. - Display .a. time location diagram which provides graphical representation of the qua.l i ty of arterial progression. - Printing of a. time -space diagram to show the qu.al i ty of progression. - Optimization of signal offsets for arterial pro- gression. The program inputs are: - Inter_.ection location - Cycle length - Phasing - Off=.et=. - Speed Any or all of these inputs can be changed iteratively in achieving the optimal progression. Shields Street data for existing and anticipated signals to i the north were used in evaluating progression along Shields. The evaluation was made with a. signal at Richmond based upon the Williamsburg PUD Site Access Study. The signal progression on Shields Street was analyzed based upon the following cr i ter i a: ,4 • - Cycle length of 80-120 seconds. - Posted speed of 35 mph. - Mainline (Shields) G/C P.atic. Drake G C = 0.30 Swallow G/C 0.60 Richmond G/C 0.70 Hor•s.etooth G/C: = 0.30 Troutman G/C: 0.60 Harmony G/C 0.40 - Green time an the cross pedestrian crossing time street is greater than the of the mainline at 4 feet per second. - Achieve the largest bandwidth possible along Shields. A number of cycle lengths were examined. A cycle length of 100 seconds and a. travel speed of 35 mph were selected as the best to meet the above cr i ter• i a. Figure 13 shours the progression analysis for Shields Street with Richmond s i gna.l i zed. A bandwidth of 27 seconds is possible in the northbound thbound direction and 30 seconds in the sou thbound direction. Hor s.e+oath Road data for existing and expected signals were obtained from the Williamsburg PUD Site Access Study, dated September ,tember• 1?86. The signal progression on Hor..=.etoott'i Road was analyzed based upon the following cr i ter i a.: - Cycle length of 80-120 seconds.. - Posted speed of 35-40 mph. - Mainline (Horsetooth) G/C: Ratio College G/C = 0.28 Mason G/C = 0.70 Meadowlark G/C = 0.60 Shields G/C 0.30 Richmond G/C 0.70 Seneca. G/C: = 0.70 Taft Hill G/C = 0.50 - Green time on the cross pedestrian crossing time per second. street is greater than the of the mainline at 4 feet - Achieve the largest bandwidth possible along Hor•s.etooth. A number of cycle lengths and speeds were examined. A cycle length of 100 seconds and a. travel speed of 35 and 40 mph were _.elected as the best to meet the .above cr i ter i a. Figure 14 _.hows the progression analysis for Hor•s.etooth Read. A bandwidth of 15 seconds is possible in each direction. The above progression analyses are presented to show that signals can fit along Shields and Horsetooth and to provide data for the platoon analysis. Design progression analysis must be conducted on a. regular basis reflecting change in land use, speed, and other variables. 19 AP.TEP.IAL PP.OGRESSIOIJ DEGIGN RLIN2 • ROUTE: SHIELDS INTERSECTIONS: 6 CYCLE LENGTH: too SYSTEM OFFSETt 0 SANDIJIDTH LEFT: 30 S6t. RIGHT- 27 9s+c. PERFORMANCE INDEX.- 32 EFFICIENCY: 287, ATTAINABILITYt 10t INTERFERENCE: 20 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. .........TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE SPEED RIGHTBOUND ... READ DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT 1 xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2110 0 35 35 2 XxxxxxxX XXXXXXXX 3170 2110 35 35 3 XXXXXXXXxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 510 3170 35 35 4 XXXxxx.XXXXXx 23?0 510 35 35 5 x XXXXX.XXXXXXXXXX 2380 2370 35 35 6 XXXXXxxxx Xxxxxxxxx.XXxxxxxxxx 0 2380 35 35 NO. OFFSET .........TIME -LOCATION DIAGP.AM.......... PHASE LENGTHS LEFTSOUND ... READ UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 20 Xxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 40 60 2 60 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 60 40 3 27 xxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30 70 4 5 xxxxx XXXXXXX 70 30 5 60 XxXXX XXXXXXXXXXX 60 40 6 25 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxXx.XXxxxxxxxxxx 30 70 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME SPACE DIAGRAM ROUTE: SHIELDS COMMENT: P,UIJ2 CYCLE LENGTH 100 SECONDS: SCALE IINCH-407 OF CYCLE: 1 LINE= 264 FT TROUTMAN xxxx",m)(x), c �x- 16 �c HOE4S�-FOOT 1—-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx RI IMFiIJD--- -- - xxxxxx-- ----KXXXXX. SVALLbW xxxxxxxxxx - /- - /- xxxxxxxxxx -• xxxxxxxxxx D R A KE�xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx SHIELDS SIGNAL PROGRESSION FIGURE 13 RLN1 ROUTEt HOP.SETOOTHO INTERSECTIONS1 7 CYCLE LENGTHt 100 SYSTEM OFFSETt 0 BANDWIDTH LEFTt 15 96c RIGHTt 15 Sec PERFORMANCE INDEXI 26 EFFICIENCYt 15 7 ATTAINABILITYt 60 INTERFEREIJCEI 27 ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------- NO. •••......TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE SPEED RIGHT80LIND ... READ DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT 1 XXxX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 500 0 35 35 2 XXXXXX 1280 500 35 35 3 XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX 3500 12?0 40 35 4 xxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 670 3500 40 40 5 XXXXXXXXXXXX 1010 670 40 40 6 xxxxxxxxXXXX 3600 1010 40 40 7 XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX 0 3600 40 40 1,10. OFFSET .........TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... PHASE LENGTHS LEFT80UND ... READ UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 28 72 2 7 XXXXXX 85 13 3 45 Xy)CXXXXXXXXXXXxX 60 40 4 10 xxxx.XXXX xxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXX 30 70 5 0 Xxxxxxxx XXXX 70 30 6 SO xxxxxxxxxxx X 70 30 7 2 x XXXXXXxxxxxxx.XXXXxX 50 50 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- T111E SPACE DIAGRAM ROUTEI HORSETOOTH COIVIENTt RUNT • CYC LENGTH 100 SECONDSI SCALE 11NCH--40% OF CYCLEt 1 LINE= 264 FT sss sssrs�.►+tsrr*r*+ratt4s+r*a�tt�r�*ttr+t*attr�krr�rrttr*Its*s�rtrltsrs+�.���rs±tsaFryttr*I.rr►• COLLECT <xX - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx----.-•--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxX- MABON •x - ---. _ . xxxx — -----..I® ..........—...xxx YX MEADOW-ARk)Wx9',X* _.. ------ XXXxxxxxxx Sk1EL 'x-------x*X)wXXXXXX-Y)cykx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---..-._-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XYXXXXX' _ .... _.. _ . xxxxxxx' SENE A)wxxxxxxxxxx ..._..._.— ... __. _.. ------ x>Er.-xxxx Aa &Dy ti0 TAFT ii LL — iOEi'.i x".X'xx) —?0 XX XXXXx3('------XXYXXXXXXxx--- HOR��'�Y�'� ■ ���• �r��RMMNMMMM%Nlf%MMMMMII#lollM1FIF1FMR11w1F1lMRflkNklIMNMMRIM SIGNAL PROGRESSION FIGURE 14 0 • Operations Analysis. Capacity analyses were performed can key intersections to determine how each would operate aerate in 1 9?n with full development of both the elementary and junior high schools. Operations analyses were also performed on key intersections for Year 2006 traffic .and full development of the school i tes., .as well as other assumed development in the area. In the short range future (1 :?90 ), it is 1 i k:el y that the schools. wi 1 1 be developed, but it is not 1 i kel y that the surrounding residential a.re.a. wi 1 1 be developed. This assumption is made because no active development proposals exist for the vacant land within this Section. Therefore, the question is raised — how wi 1 1 these school sites be accessed from the arterial road system prior to development of the collector and local street network: within th i s Section. Access. can r _ c ._ b e via .a. Shields d s. ._+ t r e e t, Harmony Road, or Horsetooth Road. Acce_.s. from Hors.etooth, Road would require the.t :Seneca. Street be constructed from Horsetooth to the school sites. This would involve over 1/2 mile of street construction. This would provide a good route for 80 r e l: r_ent of the elementary students and about 25 percent of the junior high students. Access. via. Shields. Street could be via. Trautman Parkway or Wa.k:er•obin Lane. Either of these s.tr•eet.=. wi 1 l operate similarly with stop sign control at shields. Street in the short range future. This. would provide a. good route for 40 percent of the elementary students and about 60 percent of the juniorhigh students. Access via Harmony Road would provide the least acceptable route due to its. remoteness from the majority of the Population in the short range service area. From a. numbers viewpoint, it i concluded that the short range access should be from Shields t r_• _ reet. As development occurs in the area, other s.treets will be constructed which wi 1 l provide additional a.cces.s from all the arterials around this. Section. From an operational point of view, it ma.kes little difference whether the school sites are accessed via. Troutman or Wakerobin. Both will operate similarly at the Shields Street intersection with stop sign control. This operation is shown in Figure 15. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. As mentioned earlier, the morning peak hour analysis corresponds to the peek: hour of the street, since the morning peak hour of the generator and the morning peak: hour of the street are i den t i ca.l . However , the afternoon peak hour analysis corresponds to .a. mid —afternoon traffic volumes on the street. Both elementary .and junior high schools exhibit very- little traffic activity between 4:30 and 5::30 PH on a typical weekday. Traffic activity related to the school will only occur during the 180 day school year. During the summer, traffic wi 1 1 operate prate as. though the schools did not ex i s.t , Both signalized intersections (Harmony,/ Shields and Horsetooth/Shields) will operate acceptably. • 0 CS A Q N 1990 PEAK HOUR OPERATION FIGURE 15 • Left_ -turn exits from the school access road (Troutman or Wa.kerobi n) wi 1 1 experience some delay during the morning peak: hour. These delays can be confined to a single left -turn lane if aun i 1 i a.r•y lanes are provided. Based upon 1 imi ted research conducted relating left -turn delay to level of service (reserve capacity) at stop sign controlled intersections, the range of expected delay is 8-14 second_ Per approach vehicle. H brief documentation of that research is presented in Appendix F. If good progre=_•=_•ion i maintained on Shields Street, similar to that indicated in Figure 13, level of service C is attainable for these left turns. This conclusion is drawn using the platoon flow analysis described in the 1'=35 Highway, Capacity Manual. The delay per approach vehicle for level of service C conditions. with stop sign control is projected to be from 5-10 seconds. For the short range future, two travel lanes are needed for the school access road {Troutman or Wa.kerobi n) , except for the widening recommended at the Shields Street inter- section. It is, however, the pal i ry of the City of Fort Collins to require a. developer to construct a. full width street. The Wa.k:er•ob i n Lane route would require construction of 1600 feet of primarily local streets with approximately 1 000 fret of collector (Seneca). The Troutman Parkway route would require construction of approximately 2$00 feet of collector (Troutman and Seneca). The two � lane portion 1._nn of Shields 'street (roughly between Horsetooth and Troutman) can handle the anticipated volumes from an operational viewpoint. However, this section of roadway has numerous patches =. �F _ h_ and should be evaluated for structural integrity given the current traffic. If it remains a. two lane rural cross section for 5 or so years , it is recommended that adequate feet) shoulders be added. The ultimate solution for Shield=. Street is to construct it to its anticipated four lane cross section. Each of these alternative access streets, W.a.k:erobin or Troutman, has specific advantages to the School District. The Wakerob i n Lane alternative provides a paved street for. approximately 0. 15 miles and a. completed bridge over the Pleasant Valley & Lake Ditch. However, the bridge is not paved. Wa.kerobin intersects with Shields Street at a. point where Shields Street is constructed to its fu l 1 curb -to -curb arterial width. If Wa.kerobin Lane is extended to the west along with other anticipated street alignments in the area, a total of 2600 1 i nea.l feet of street must be constructed in order to serve both school site_.. The Troutman Parkway alternative intersects with Shields Street approximately 0.3 miles north of Wa.k:erobi n Lane. At this location, Shields Street is constructed to its fu 1 1 width on the east side, but on the west it cons•ists of a. rural crass section. Troutman Parkway is completed on the east side of Shields to the railroad tracks. It is the 9 0 • intent of the City of Fart C.ol l ins that Troutman Parkway wi l l some day have an at -grade rail crossing. In order to ga.in acre_.s to these school sites via. this route, approximately 2SOO lineal feet of street must be con structed. .mince in the _.hart range, most of the students will 1 i ve north and northeast of the school sites, the Troutman Parkway route will decrease the total travel distance by approximately 0. mile_.. This wi l l have a. corresponding savings _ ings in travel time depending upon the _peed=_. involved. Capacity analyses were also conducted utilizing the year 2006 traffic as shown in Figure 12. The results of these analyses are shown in Figure 16. Backup calculation forms are provided in Appendix G. This an a 1 ,_i = assumes that Harmon::•, Hor_.etooth, Shields and Taft Hill are constructed to at least four lane sections. cross The operation of the Sh i e l ds/Horse tooth and Shields Harmony intersections are in the acceptable categories as indicated in Figure 16. It is enpected that the Shields Troutman and Horsetooth/'=ener_a inter=.ections wi l l provide the major access routes for trips originating within the Section or accessing the school sites. These intersections .are expected to be signalized in the long • range future. These intersections wi 1 1 also operate acceptably as indicated in Figure 16. In the long range future, all on -site local streets should have one travel lane in each direction. Both Troutman Parkway .and Seneca Street are expected to be collectors and, as such, should have one travel lane in each direction and a cen ter left -turn lane. The expected cro_.s section of the collectors (Troutman and Seneca) wi l l be as indicated in Figure 17 (from Design Criteria and Standard=_. for Streets, City of Fort Collins). Accident Analysis The geometric change.. .at all the analyzed intersections should reduce the accident rate. The a.ux i 1 i .a.r•y lane discussed above should remove right -turning and 1 e+t-turning vehicles from the through traffic stream and thus eliminate the likelihood of rear end accidents. Parking Analysis The City of Fort Col 1 ins expressed concern regarding the provision of adequate parking at the school site, - particularly the junior high school. During the traffic counting, parking inventory and parking observations were also conducted at Boltz Junior High School. At Boltz _T.H.S. , there .are 63 on -site parking spaces in front of the bu i 1 di ng. There is also .a. large un=.tr i ped parking lot in the rear of the bu i 1 di ng. On the observation day, there were 51 vehicles 10 2006 PEAK HOUR OPERATION FIGURE 16 RECOMMENDED TYPICAL CROSS SECTION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 50` z z H H a s o F4 a z a u H W Q Q z W D H z W H Q z W Q D W to cq E+ E+ X H o4 m 4', 6' 131 12' J,13' 1, 6 ,5, 4' 68' RIGHT OF WAY COLLECTOR (BIKE LANES, NO PARKING) INTERSECTION/TURN LANE TROUTMAN AND SENECA CROSS SECTION FIGURE 17 in the front lot and 19 vehicles in the back lot in the morning shortly after the morning be 1 1 rang. During traffic counting, three vehicles were observed to have parked and moved within the counting period. Numerous vehicles pulled up to the curb to discharge passengers, but did not s.engage in an act of parking. Parking is defined as stopping ng and exiting the vehicle. Prior to the afternoon oo n traffic count, 56 vehicles were in the front lot and 21 vehicles were in the rear 1 of . Four vehicles were in parking spaceswith drivers waiting. These are not included in the 56 veh icles in the front 1 of . There were also 5 vehicles "standing" a long the curb waiting to pick: up students. At Boltz _T.H.S., it .appears that there is an excess of parking spaces. The highest number of vehicles parked was 77. While one school observation does not adequately draw firm conclusions, it appears. that 85 parking spaces. (75 plus 10%) should be adequate at .a. junior high school with an enrollment of too. This estimate should be adjusted if data from other schools indicates a. significant difference in parking requirements.. IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of two proposed school sites on the existing street system in both 1?0 and 2006. However, it should be pointed out that the long range a.na.lyses assumed that other nearby developments would also be in place in the general vicinity of the proposed schools. It is folly to look at a. single development without considering the interaction of other land uses in the area. As a result of this. analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the 1188 Elementary School and 1990 Junior High School as proposed is feasible from a. traffic engineering standpoint with specific improvements in the area. Full development of the school sites as proposed will generate approximately 1 600 vehicle trips per day for the 180 day school year (September - May) . - Current operation of the Horse tooth: Sh i el ds intersection is in the level of service A category during both peak hours with signal control. The four way stop sign controlled intersection of Harmony/Shields operates at level of service D. However, this can be improved with the addition of both approach and exit lanes.. This level of service D operation is unacceptable according to the C:i tx's own evaluation criteria. Traffic signals may be warranted now. Signals would improve operation p to acceptable levels. Operation can also be improved to acceptable levels by improving this intersection to either a 2•'''4 or 4::" 4 stop sign controlled intersection. It is recom mended that one of these • it 0 alternatives be pursued by the City immediately to bring operations to acceptable levels. - Access from the three principal aster• i a.l s, Hor•=_.e tooth , Shields, and Harmony was evaluated in the short range future. It is recommended that access to the school sites be from Shields Street via either Troutman Parkway or Wa.k:erob i n Lane. Access from Horsetooth Road via Seneca Street or Harmony Road via Regency and Seneca Streets are the least acceptable access solutions considering street construction, anticipated school service area, and ease of .arrest.. - Development of the schools in the short range future can be handled on the street system with some improvements.. These include provision of a.cces.s to the school sites _ from Shields Street. This access can be accomplished via. either. Troutman Parkway or. Wakerobi n Lane. Both routes have advantages and disadvantages. From a traffic operational viewpoint, bath accesses operate simi l.a.rl y. A signal is likely to be warranted at the Harmony/Shields intersection t> 1 -' 0 or before based upon background traffic{other than sito (school) traffic). All signalized intersections will operate acceptably in the short range future. - With full development of the school sites in the long range future, signals will be warranted at the Shields/ Troutman and Horse tooth/Seneca intersections. This. assume s. Ames. full development of the Section in which the school sites are contained. These F streets ar e r_ C1a.t_•__•ified as collectors. - All the signalized intersections analyzed operate acceptably in the peak hours in the long range future with the four lane cross section on Horse tooth , Shields, and Harmony. - Parking was surveyed at .an existing Fort Collins. junior high school of comparable t_•i ze . At the existing school, 85 spaces appeared to adequate. Approximately 85 spaces should be provided at the proposed .junior high school unle_.s. .additional data indicates a. significant difference. - With good design of the aforementioned geometric improvements to the various intersections, the accident rate should be .at acceptable levels for urban conditions.. 12