The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCENTERPOINT PLAZA - PDP - 35-01 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSThere are number of existing trees on the site. The applicant has met with the City arborist, to review the trees. Please see attached letter. The design objectives of the proposed landscape plan are to provide an attractive streetscape, screen parking and service areas and to enhance the pedestrian and vehicular experience within the site. Deciduous and evergreen trees and foundation plantings will be used to enhance the architecture and provide shade and seasonal color. The project will be maintained by a Condominium Association. City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include: PRINCIPLE LU-2: The city will maintain and enhance its character and sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-2.1 City -Wide Structure. The mixed -use buildings compliment the surrounding development and promote a compact development well -served by all modes of travel. PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a viable transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in balance with other modes. Direct pedestrian connections will be provided and encouraged from place of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work and public facilities. Policy T-5.2 Connections. Pedestrian connections are clearly visible and convenient. The site will also provide sidewalk connections with the surrounding development. PRINCIPLE CAD-3.: commercial developments create a powerful impression of the city, both individually and taken together as. a whole. While corporate franchises and chain stores will remain vital and recognizable, commercial developments will be designed to contribute to Fort Collins' district visual quality and unigeness. Policy CAD-3.1 Policy CAD-3.2 The buildings have been designed to provide an interesting fagade with entry features over main entry doors. Building materials consist of masonry, E.F.I.S. and architectural pre -finished metal siding complimenting the existing building characteristics of the area. nwzvvv: oignaiizea intersections Release 4.1b Aijalyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: Period: 11/17/01 am pm Jurisd: Year Fort Collins Q short recent bkgr total L> � Project ID.• 53 apf E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound i I L T R I I L T R I I L T R t I L T I R I No. Lanes i 1 2 0 I 1 2 0 I 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1121 925 420 1441 997 78 1407 545 176 165 526 140 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 EB Left A P 1 NB Left A A A Thru P 1 Thru A A Right P 1 Right A A Peds X 1 Peds X WB Left A A P 1 SB Left A A Thru A P 1 Thru A Right A P I Right A Peds X 1 Peds X NB Right 1 EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 4.0 14.0 48.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 Yellow 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 228 1770 0.58 0.42 29.5 C TR 1245 3373 1.19 0.37 133.6 F 125.0 F Westbound L 343 1770 1.38 0.52 231.0 F TR 1670 3501 0.69 0.48 27.8 C 86.9 F Northbound L 357 1770 1.16 0.42 139.5 F TR 690 1794 1.07 0.38 93.4 F 110.0 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.39 0.32 36.1 D T 502 1863 1.23 0.27 168.8 F 130.8 F R 536 1583 0.31 0.34 32.1 C Intersection Delay = 110.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS nwzuuu: Signa.tizea intersections Release 4.1b Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Coll' s Period: am pm Year recent bkgr total Project 1p 0153 apf or E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I I I I I No. Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1104 933 310 1412 872 35 1448 391 242 I110 368 141 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P 1 Thru A A Right P I Right A A Peds X I Peds X WB Left A P I SB Left A A Thru P I Thru A Right P I Right A Peds X I Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C TR 1337 3407 1.09 0.39 94.1 F 88.7 F Westbound L 288 1770 1.66 0.51 355.0 F TR 1381 3519 0.76 0.39 38.3 D 137.2 F Northbound L 438 1770 1.20 0.43 150.6 F TR 689 1756 1.08 0.39 97.9 F 119.7 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.67 0.28 47.2 D T 430 1863 1.01 0.23 95.2 F 71.5 E R 597 1583 0.28 0.38 28.4 C Intersection Delay = 108.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS secs APPENDIX B nwzuuu: bignalizea Intersections Release 4.1b Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Col) Period: Project am pa ID: 0153 apf Year recent(shor bkgr total /'OA)p(-riO) E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline l� No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I 1 2 0 I I 1 2 0 I I 1 1 0 I I 1 1 I 1 I I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I 1121 924 420 1431 997 78 1402 544 176 165 526 140 1 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ration 0. Phase Combination 1 EB Left A Thru Right Peds WB Left A Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right A Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 1 P I NB Left P I Thru P I Right X I Peds A P 1 SB Left A P I Thru A P I Right X I Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 7 A A A A A A A X A A A A X Green 4.0 14.0 48.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 Yellow 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 228 1770 0.58 0.42 29.5 C TR 1245 3373 1.19 0.37 133.2 F 124.7 F Westbound L 343 1770 1.35 0.52 217.5 F TR 1670 3501 0.69 0.48 27.8 C 82.0 F Northbound L 357 1770 1.15 0.42 134.3 F TR 690 1794 1.07 0.38 93.0 F 107.8 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.39 0.32 36.1 D T 502 1863 1.23 0.27 168.8 F 130.8 F R 536 1583 0.31 0.34 32.1 C Intersection Delay = 108.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS RC62000: Slgnalizect intersections Release 4.1b Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E_ Area Type: All other areas ?A E Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Col s ✓✓✓✓ Period: am pm Year recent sor •bkgrd htotal Project : 0153 apf CoouTjr(10 V E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I No. Lanes I 1 2 0 I 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1104 928 310 1410 872 35 1447 391 242 1109 368 141 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P 1 Thru A A Right P I Right A A Peds X 1 Peds X WB Left A P I SB Left A A Thru P 1 Thru A Right P I Right A Peds X I Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C TR 1336 3406 1.09 0.39 92.7 F 87.4 F Westbound L 288 1770 1.66 0.51 352.0 F TR 1381 3519 0.76 0.39 38.3 D 136.0 F Northbound L 438 1770 1.20 0.43 149.7 F TR 689 1756 1.08 0.39 97.9 F 119.3 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.66 0.28 46.9 D T 430 1863 1.01 0.23 95.2 F 71.4 E R 597 1583 0.28 0.38 28.4 C Intersection Delay = 107.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F IICS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS APPENDIX A o (D � N � 00 rn v (o 0 cM 104/121 - 928/924 --_ 310/420 m E 35/78 872/997 410/431 N st (fl It CDv tt Cl) N Prospect --mu- AM/PM 4- N SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 o CD Nt N LO �00o "T i 1 104/121 933/925 310/420 41` N E 35/78 -�— 872/997 412/441 LO o o v r- q rn v It C7 N Prospect AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE PLUS Figure 3 BUILDING B PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TABLE I Short Range (2006) Base Condition Peak Hour LOS Delay Morning F 107.6 secs. Afternoon F 108.8 secs. TABLE TnpGeneration NK IN R1-2v, Building B (27,306 S.F.) 710 General Office . 5.0 KSF 11.01 55 1.37 7 0.19 1 0.251 1 1.24 116 150 Warehouse 20.306 KSF 4.96 104 0.37 8 0.08 2 0.12 2 0.39 8 495 Recreation 2.0 KSF 22.88 46 0.87 2 0.45 1 0.60 1 1.16 2 Total 202 17 4 4 16 TABLE Short Range (2006) Base Condition Plus Building B Peak Hour LOS Delay Increase in Delay Morning F 108.5 secs. 0.8% Afternoon F 110.8 secs. 1.8% U- oqq M (0 It LO `° 27/61 Cl) M � CO °' 801 /910 1 /—327/327 97/112 786/820 283/368 M r' coo Cl) M 00 --•— AM/PM Prospect N RECENT (11/01) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1 criteria, the delay at the Prospect/Timberline intersection could not exceed 109.8 seconds and 111.0 seconds in the respective peak hours. These values reflect a 2 percent increase in delay at this intersection with the current geometry. In the course of conducting these evaluations, it was determined that full development of Centerpoint Plaza (Buildings A, B, and C) would not meet the APF criteria. In fact, development of Buildings A and B would meet the APF criteria in the morning peak hour, but would not meet the APF criteria in the afternoon peak hour. In light of this, an assignment was conducted using just Building B. The trip generation for Building B is provided in Table 2. The total floor area in Building B is 27,306 square feet. As analyzed in this memorandum, the uses within Building B were 5000 square feet of general office, 20,306 square feet of warehouse, and 2000 square feet of indoor recreation. This trip generation was assigned to the Prospect/Timberline intersection using the accepted trip distribution shown in the cited TIS. The forecasted (2006) peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 3. Table 3 shows the intersection level of service and delay using the volumes shown in Figure 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The increase in delay is 0.8 percent and 1.8 percent in the respective peak hours Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that Centerpoint Plaza, Building B will meet the APF criteria at the Prospect/Timberline intersection. If, after Building B was approved for development by the City of Fort Collins, Building A was proposed as a PDP or FDP to the City, an APF analysis would be required. That analysis, like the Building B analysis, would need to include the current traffic factored to reflect the analysis year plus all approved developments which are not built at the time of the Building A proposal. This would include Building B. From the foregoing analyses reflected in this memorandum, it is likely that Building A would meet the APF criteria. V� Y • i :_\!� lY W C0 C CD Cr) TO: Kevin Frazier LO Dick Fisher, Cobalt Design -Build o co Louise Herbert, VF Ripley oW City of Fort Collins 60 _1 U rn FROM: Matt Delich • o X ti DATE: August 26, 2002 z a SUBJECT: Centerpoint Plaza Transportation Impact Study - Building J B Adequate Public Facilities Analysis (File: 0153ME07) • w > o N aw Q (D This memorandum addresses the adequate public facilities (APF) z issues at the Prospect/Timberline intersection for Building B within UJ o Centerpoint Plaza. The transportation impact study guidelines a _ indicate that significant impact is defined in Section 4.5.2.A.2 in z ii; the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards," as follows: "When w o the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes N an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service rl- standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent N increase in the intersection delay." The "Centerpoint Plaza Transportation Impact Study," August 2001 demonstrated that all of the key intersections would operate acceptably with full development of Centerpoint Plaza in the short range (2006) future. Given this analysis timeframe, it.was assumed that the Prospect/Timberline intersection would be improved beyond that which exists today. This analysis included a number of developments which have approved overall development plans, but no approved preliminary development plans or final development plans. The assumed improvements at the Prospect/Timberline intersection were reasonable for this analysis. W The original cited TIS used base (existing) traffic conditions a Z at the Prospect/Timberline intersection that were dated October 2000. cc The analyses contained in this memorandum use more recent traffic zcounts (supplied by the City) dated November 2001. These traffic U counts are shown in Figure 1. These counts indicate that the ZProspect/Timberline intersection is operating at level of service F J W during both peak hours with the existing geometry. W o Q a Since improvements to this intersection are not on a capital Ir improvement program, City staff requested an APF analysis that • a' included existing traffic factored to the year 2006 at 1.5 percent 0) per year, plus known/approved projects that impact the subject a intersection. These projects are: Rigden Farm 6th Filing, Spring H Creek Center, and Midpoint Self Storage. The base (2006) peak hour W ad traffic at the Prospect/Timberline intersection is shown in Figure 0 2. The APF analysis must use the existing geometry at the subject F. LL intersection. Table 1 shows the intersection level of service and cc delay using the volumes shown in Figure 2. Calculation forms are Q H provided in Appendix A. Clearly, this intersection will operate C unacceptably with the existing geometry. In order to meet the APF HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agen+ Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Collins Period: a pm sho Year recent rt bkgr otal C p % Project ID: 153 apf E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I I No. Lanes 1 1 2 0 I 1 2 0 I 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 i LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1121 927 420 1437 997 78 1405 545 176 166 526 140 1 Lane 'Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P I Thru A A Right P I Right A A Peds X I Peds X WB Left A A P I SB Left A A Thru A P I Thru A Right A P I Right A Peds X Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 4.0 14.0 48.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 Yellow 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS L 228 1770 TR 1246 3374 Westbound L 343 TR 1670 Northbound L 357 TR 690 Southbound 1770 3501 0.58 0.42 29.5 C 1.19 0.37 134.2 F 1.37 0.52 226.1 F 0.69 0.48 27.8 C 125.5 F 85.1 F 1770 1.16 0.42 137.4 F 1794 1.07 0.38 93.4 F 109.2 F L 193 1770 0.40 0.32 36.2 D T 502 1863 1.23 0.27 168.8 F 130.6 F R 536 1583 0.31 0.34 32.1 C Intersection Delay = 110.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect Agency:'Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Collins yj Period: am pm Year recent s ort bkgr otal' Project 0153 apf E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound ( Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I I No. Lanes I 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I LGConfig 1 L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1104 932 310 1415 872 35 1449 391 242 I110 368 141 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P I Thru A A Right P 1 Right A A Peds X Peds X WB Left A P 1 SB Left A A Thru P 1 Thru A Right P 1 Right A Peds X 1 Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A 1 WB Right Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Appr/ Lane Lane Group Grp Capacity Cycle Length: 130.0 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C TR 1337 3407 1.09 0.39 93.5 F 88.1 F Westbound L 288 1770 1.68 0.51 361.1 F TR 1381 3519 0.76 0.39 38.3 D 139.7 F Northbound L 438 1770 1.21 0.43 151.5 F TR 689 1756 1.08 0.39 97.9 F 120.1 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.67 0.28 47.2 D T 430 1863 1.01 0.23 95.2 F 71.5 E R 597 1583 0.28 0.38 28.4 C Intersection Delay = 109.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS secs APPENDIX B Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas n s Date: Period: 11/17/01 am Jurisd: Fort Col},j--�s Year recent shor` bkgr total 7� n D`�iOA) Project ID: 0153 apf QN E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I No. Lanes I 1 2 0 I 1 2 0 i 1 0 I 1 1 1 I LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1121 924 420 1431 997 78 1402 544 176 165 526 140 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P I Thru A A Right P I Right A A Peds X I Peds X WB Left A A P i SB Left A A Thru A P I Thru A Right A P I Right A Peds X I Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 4.0 14.0 48.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 Yellow 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle'Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS L-__- -228 1770 0.58 0.42 29.5 C TR 1245 3373 1.19 0.37 133.2 F 124.7 F Westbound L 343 1770 1.35 0.52 217.5 F TR 1670 3501 0.69 0.48 27.8 C 82.0 F Northbound L 357 1770 1.15 0.92 134.3 F TR 690 1794 1.07 0.38 93.0 F 107.8 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.39 0.32 36.1 D T 502 1863 1.23 0.27 168.8 F 130.8 F R 536 1583 0.31 0.34 32.1 C Intersection Delay = 108.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Agency: Matthew-J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas AS Date• 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Col _ s Period: lam pm Year recent shor bkgrd total C O�Il CODA) Project � 0153 apf C, E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound i I L T R I L T R 1 I L T R I I L T I R I 1 No. Lanes I 1 2 0 i 1 2 0 I 1 1 0 i 1 1 1 I LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I Volume 1104 928 310 1410 872 35 1447 391 242 1109 368 141 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P I NB Left A A A Thru P I Thru A A Right P I Right A A Peds X I Peds X WB Left A P i SB Left A A Thru P I Thru A Right P I Right A Peds X I Peds X NB Right 1 EB Right SB Ri9 ht A I WB Right Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 130.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C TR 1336 3406 1.09 0.39 92.7 F 87.4 F Westbound L 288 1770 1.66 0.51 352.0 F TR 1381 3519 0.76 0.39 38.3 D 136.0 F Northbound L 438 1770 1.20 0.43 149.7 F TR 689 1756 1.08 0.39 97.9 F 119.3 F Southbound L 193 1770 0.66 0.28 46.9 D T 430 1863 1.01 0.23 95.2 F 71.4 E R 597 1583 0.28 0.38 28.4 C Intersection Delay = 107.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS APPENDIX A o CD V N L0 00 rn v CD o 104/121 928/924 — 310/420 SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC o CD Co o v c0 r- e- CO r I 104/121 932/927 —► 310/420 d) A& � N E 35T78 872/997 410/431 ` f r Prospect N d co C7 � � L qt m � st M N f AM/PM N Figure 2 N E 35178 872/997 415/437 f r Prospect Cn Ln to o v r� � rn v It co N --a*— AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE PLUS Figure 3 BUILDING A PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TABLE 1 Short Range 2006 Base Condition Peak Hour LOS Delay Morning F 107.6 secs. Afternoon F 108.8 secs. TABLE 2 Trip Generation___ viz" as x ..�`��".��'S �'"� ��`��kk'icv-�_, y� �r'i-. �.�;�- a *��-,r � �� <..x ... ✓"'��"X, �rxSa Building A (7062 S.F.) 814 Specialty Retail 7.062 KSF 40.67 1 268 11.92 1 14 11.44 10 1.11 8 1.48 1 10 TABLE 3 Short Range 2006 Base Condition Plus Building A Peak Hour LOS Delay Increase in Delay Morning F 109.2 secs. 1.5% Afternoon F 110.3 secs. 1.4% JI` 97/112 786/820 —► 283/368 --w— AM/PM 27/61 801 /910 327/327 Prospect N RECENT (11/01) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1 criteria, the delay at the Prospect/Timberline intersection could not exceed 109.8 seconds and 111.0 seconds in the respective peak hours. These, values reflect a 2 percent increase in delay at this intersection with the current geometry. In the course of conducting these evaluations, it was determined that full development of Centerpoint Plaza (Buildings A, B, and C) would not meet the APF criteria. In fact, development of Buildings A and B would meet the APF criteria in the morning peak hour, but would not meet the APF criteria in the afternoon peak hour. In light of this, an assignment was conducted using just Building A. The trip generation for Building A is provided in Table 2. The total floor area in Building A is 7062 square feet. As analyzed in this memorandum, the use within Building A was 7062 square feet of specialty retail. The description of specialty retail in Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE closely matches convenience retail in the Fort Collins Code. This trip generation was assigned to the Prospect/ Timberline intersection using the accepted trip distribution shown in the cited TIS. The forecasted (2006) peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 3. Table 3 shows the intersection level of service and delay using the volumes shown in Figure 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The increase in delay is 1.5 percent and 1.4 percent in the respective peak hours. Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that Centerpoint Plaza, Building A will meet the APF criteria at the Prospect/Timberline intersection. If, after Building A was approved for development by the City of Fort Collins, Building B was proposed as a PDP or FDP to the City, an APF analysis would be required. That analysis, like the Building A analysis, would need to include the current traffic factored to reflect the analysis year plus all approved developments which are not built at the time of the Building B proposal. This would include Building A. From the foregoing analyses reflected in this memorandum, it is likely that Building B would meet the APF criteria. MEMORANDUM M M CC) O CO CC") TO: Kevin Frazier • LO Dick Fisher, Cobalt Design -Build O 0 6 Louise Herbert, VF Ripley Q CD City of Fort Collins o p O U rn FROM: Matt Delich • o X < DATE: August 26, 2002 z a SUBJECT: Centerpoint Plaza Transportation Impact Study - Building J A Adequate Public Facilities Analysis (File: 0153ME06) • w � CV Cr 0 rn coThis memorandum addresses the adequate public facilities (APF) z '-9 issues at the Prospect/Timberline intersection for Building A within Centerpoint Plaza. The transportation impact study guidelines indicate that significant impact is defined in Section 4.5.2.A.2 in Z z the `�Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards," as follows: "When w J o the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes C7 = an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service r standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent N increase in the intersection delay." The "Centerpoint Plaza Transportation. Impact Study," August 2001 demonstrated that all of the key intersections would operate acceptably with full development of Centerpoint Plaza in the short range (2006) future. Given this analysis timeframe, it was assumed that the Prospect/Timberline intersection would be improved beyond that which exists today. This analysis included a number of developments which have approved overall development plans, but no approved preliminary development plans or final development plans. The assumed improvements at the Prospect/Timberline intersection were reasonable for this analysis. W The original cited TIS used base (existing) traffic conditions n. at the Prospect/Timberline intersection that were dated October 2000. z Z Fc The analyses contained in this memorandum use more recent traffic zcounts (supplied by the City) dated November 2001. These traffic counts are shown in Figure 1. These counts indicate that the Va Z Prospect/Timberline intersection is operating at level of service F J during both peak hours with the existing geometry. W Z O Q a Since improvements to this intersection are not on a capital improvement program, City staff requested an APF analysis that • 0 included existing traffic factored to the year 2006 at 1.5 percent a z per year, plus known/approved projects that impact the subject th intersection. These projects are: Rigden Farm 6 Filing, Spring Cr H Creek Center, and Midpoint Self Storage. The base (2006) peak hour UJ Ca traffic at the Prospect/Timberline intersection is shown in Figure 0 2. The APF analysis must use the existing geometry at the subject F aintersection. Table 1 shows the intersection level of service and ccdelay using the volumes shown in Figure 2. Calculation forms are Q F provided in Appendix A. Clearly, this intersection will operate c unacceptably with the existing geometry. In order to meet the APF IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Centerpoint Plaza development in the short range (2006) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of Centerpoint Plaza is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, Centerpoint Plaza will generate approximately 969 daily trip ends, 100 morning peak hour trip ends, and 80 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable. Acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better overall. Acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for any approach leg. ' - It is expected that additional traffic signals will not be implemented in the short range future. In the short range future, given full development of Centerpoint Plaza and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. The short range geometry is shown in Figure 9. Acceptable level of service will be achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi - modal transportation guidelines. 21 ' Appendix F. The minimum level of service for "transit corridor" is B for all categories, except for the visual interest & amenities ' category which is level of service C. The minimum level of service for "other" is C for all categories, therefore, the "transit corridor" level of service will govern. With the assumed future pedestrian ' facilities along future streets, the pedestrian level of service will be acceptable. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no ' destination areas within 1320 feet of Centerpoint Plaza. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F, which indicates that the base connectivity is acceptable at level of service C. Transit Level of Service Currently, there is one transit route serving the area near Centerpoint Plaza. In the future, transit service will be improved. In the future, Timberline Road will have high frequency transit ' service (20 minute service) and Prospect Road will have feeder route service (30+ minute service). It is anticipated that the level of service will be in the A category with implementation of the City's ' Transit Development Plan. A future transit level of service worksheet is provided in Appendix F. 20 F-I _E f- -• - -Denotes Lane SHORT RANGE (2006) GEOMETRY N Figure 9 19 TABLE 4 Short Range (2006) Total Peak Hour Operation Timberline/Prospect NB C C Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway NB C D 18 TABLE 3 Short Range (2006) Background Peak Hour Operation ..+.tg.X r�s.`yiniY'Yih ? 4t w,f..W .n5 *S f`"i�'S✓L a**(3;'PiL S`i �'4b]hT1"v ,�.�`I�,`s •ni'�+L"��`S'$y'r_,hWY'�^, �,�}r tS ' �L}d�'- .i- v}�K'f �"-.. MEN S � big 4..i9�n�.J Timberline/Prospect (signal) EB C C WB C D NB C C SB D D OVERALL C D Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway (signal) EB B C WB B C NB C D SB C C OVERALL B C Timberline/Midpoint (RT-in/RT-out) WB RT B B Prospect/Specht Point (stop sign) NB LT/RT C C WB LT B B Midpoint/Access A (stop sign) SB LT/RT B A EB LT A A Midpoint/Access B (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT B A SB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A A WB LT A A 17 Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key intersections operate in the short range background condition as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shoe geometrics, the key intersections condition as indicated in Table analyses are provided in Appendix operate acceptably. Geometric Analysis in in Figure 8 and the recommended operate in the short range total 4. Calculation forms for these D. The key intersections will The short range geometry is shown in Figure 9. The geometry at the Timberline/Prospect intersection was recommended in the "Johnson Farm Property Transportation Impact Study," July 2001. No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended at the Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway, Timberline/Midpoint, and Prospect/Specht Point intersections. Based upon Figure 8-04 in LCUASS, an eastbound right -turn lane is warranted at the Prospect/Specht Point intersection with the existing traffic. However, the south side of Prospect Road is finished with curb/gutter and sidewalk per the previous Fort Collins Street Standards. It is not likely that this turn lane would be added because the street standards changed. Design of the Timberline/Midpoint intersection is subject to the ability to widen Timberline Road to the west. The recommended geometry shown in Figure 9 assumes that this can occur. Appendix E shows a preliminary design of this intersection which provides for a WB- 50 vehicle to negotiate the turns within the curbed area. Final design should be conducted later in the development review process. No auxiliary lanes are required at any of the site access intersections. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Centerpoint Plaza. There will be five pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of Centerpoint Plaza. These are: 1) commercial area (Bath Nursery) in the northwest quadrant of the Timberline/Prospect intersection, 2) commercial area (BMC Building Products) north of the site, 3) the future commercial area (Spring Creek Center) north of the site, 4) the commercial area northeast of the site (Prospect East Business Park), and 5) the future residential area (Johnson Farm Property) south of the site. This site is in area types termed "other" and "transit corridor." The level of service determination assumes that future developments will build their streets and adjacent streets in accordance with Fort Collins Standards. This being the case, pedestrian facilities will exist where they currently do not. This is a reasonable assumption. If this does not occur or is not accepted by the City, then acceptable pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in 16 oLf) � �Io a 45180 o�� — 76a025 19&460 315/610 v oc') R N 7 0 (0�m ..-880/1390 a 1140FJQ 335/165 n Ln o v m "' 'o°mM 50M�� 75/45 o 55 8 5115 �— 25115 5H 5 5/5 515 1301180 1 /-- 4520 -� f r 30115 - / g 320170 -� 0 ,� 3251115 —i o o o 35/15 i o 61 105--y 1' Z N c Lo N Q m N a fA w fn rn E U U ~ Q Q --.— AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2006) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 11525 ---/ 955/W 11525 >1 m f6 0. 0 U N a 0 0_ �i 20/15 �. 7601925 Ln to 0 V) o V o ;is0 7 N Figure 8 15 O Ln Lf)US -M Iomlo 95/110 9701840 —�- 315/610 11401940—a- 310/150 Q y fA N U o 0 LO Q o m p 75/45 M r ,v v z co --o- 60/85 L 115/160 155J 00 95 o305180 o 315770 —� 55 0 "'-, i z c 'C •N- 0] d � N N E U U a -�•-- AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2006) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC t+ C O a w s U N a m Ln— 20/15 �- 865M365 S 40130 7601925 7520 co o o n 11525 C o v o o � M N Figure 7 14 --a*-- AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 13 Background Traffic Projections Figure 6 shows the short range (2006) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by contacting Fort Collins Transportation Planning Staff and reviewing various other traffic studies for development proposals in this area. The other development projects considered in this study were Spring Creek Center (north of Centerpoint Plaza), the Johnson Farm Property, and the Spring Creek Farm. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 7 shows the site generated morning and afternoon peak hour traffic assignment of Centerpoint Plaza. Figure 8 shows the short range (2006) total (site plus background) morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants ' As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be t met at the Prospect/Specht Point intersection with the short range background peak hour traffic forecasts. However, with an existing signal at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection, it is not likely that the Prospect/Specht Point intersection would be signalized. There t are sufficient alternative routes for the northbound left -turn at the Prospect/Specht Point intersection if delays become unacceptable. Sight Distance Analysis Intersection sight distance was evaluated at the key intersections. All streets are level from a traffic engineering perspective. The intersection sight distance of 660 feet can be achieved in both directions at the key intersections. Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2006 condition. 12 ■ N E F- TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 11 SITE PLAN 10 Figure 4 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' Centerpoint Plaza is a commercial development, located east of Timberline Road and south of Midpoint Drive in Fort Collins. Figure 4 shows a site plan of Centerpoint Plaza. The short range analysis (Year 2006) includes development of Centerpoint Plaza and an appropriate increaseinbackground traffic. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a ' development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. Land use codes 814 (Specialty Retail), 710 (Office), and 150 (Warehouse) were used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation 01-111,11z'11 T.S K✓`�i"t' lP0't -41 is1a �..Y9 n13.:tY ..ii' _ . 4 s h.-r. -.TF 'w f,Si r.i r •. S' ...ufiC•• Building A 814 Specialty Retail 6.96 KSF 40.671 283 11.92 13 1.44 1 10 11.111 8 11.481 10 Building B 814 Specialty Retail 4.5 KSF 40.67 183 1.921 7 11.441 6 11.111 5 11.481 7 710 Office 7.08 KSF 11.01 78 1.37 10 0.19 1 0.25 2 1.24 9 150 Warehouse 15.42 KSF 4.96 76 0.37 6 1 0.08 1 0.12 1 2 1 0.39 6 Building C 814 Specialty Retail 5.25 KSF 40.67 214 1.92 10 1.44 8 1.11 6 1.48 8 710 Office 9.45 KSF 11.01 104 1.37 13 0.19 2 0.25 2 1.24 12 150 Warehouse 6.3 KSF 4.96 31 0.37 2 0.08 1 0.12 1 0.39 2 Total 969 61 29 26 54 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined based upon a simple gravity model and was agreed upon in the scoping meeting. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution used for the following analyses. 9 While the analyses show that acceptable operation occurs at the Timberline/Prospect intersection, observation indicates otherwise. During the peak hours, the northbound queue routinely backs up to/through the Timberline/Midpoint intersection. This intersection allows for right-in/right-out movements. It is approximately 500 feet south of Prospect Road. This length of queue indicates that there is currently inadequate geometry northbound on Timberline Road at Prospect Road. In addition to this, there is a high (>200 vph) eastbound right - turn volume on Prospect Road during the peak hours. Provision of both a northbound right -turn lane and an eastbound right -turn lane would greatly improve the operation of the Timberline/Prospect intersection. Pedestrian Facilities There are no sidewalks along Timberline Road near this site. There are sidewalks along Prospect Road, Specht Point Drive,. and Prospect Parkway. Sidewalks do not exist adjacent to undeveloped properties. Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle facilities along Prospect Road. However, the Spring Creek Trail runs parallel to Prospect Road. There are bicycle facilities along Timberline Road. Along the key collector streets, bike lanes are not striped, however the cross section is wide enough to accommodate bike lanes. Transit Facilities ' Route 10 transit route is within 1320 feet of this site. Route 10 operates along Laurel Street from the CSU Transit Center, south on Remington Street, east on Prospect Road, south in the area of Prospect ' Park East, and then south on Timberline Road. Route 10 provides year- round service on 60 minute headways between 6:20am and 6:50pm. 8 TABLE I, Current Peak Hour Operation Nf'%, gg Timberline/Prospect (signal) EB D D WB C D NB D E SB C D OVERALL C D Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway (signal) EB B B WB B B NB C D SB C C OVERALL B C Timberline/Midpoint WB RT A B -(RT-in/RT-out) Prospect/Specht Point -(stop sign) NB LURT A A WB LT A A 0 M M N Z Cm � 40/70 (n M --a-661/906 140/353 86/102 -- '*] t r 814/746 -; 14 230/372 m v m 00 O iD N N N s :-r 1 I-**,-11162 T Lo t::4 �CO r� N n .n E F- A& N LO - 801/1267 1 ° 17/11 r` CO + - 672/835 10/5 � � � � 66l18 983/873 '� r 131/46 o v W N 11221 t r Prospect 810/861 <- N O 85l16 N o co N e- U N a co 0 a �� AM/PM BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 6 vLn mm'm f) N O 37r7o (41n0) °I' "' 04 Cl)�-- 556/880 (720/933) iJ j L 62294 (207/413) ' (83/114) 88/90 1 (757/695) 873/683 m v LO ' (2=42) 231 /341 00 M O f7 Cl) N Cl) N (D N V) c7 M +— 829/1265 10/5 981/939 *'*, r 131I48 �t N ' on OD M e- CO N N CD v v O 11 /62 Midpoint Co co t0 In C N co N r.- F- w C O a L U N a A' --a* — AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N 17/11 757/847 r— 66/18 115/19 1 f r Prospect $29/800 —� I LO N O 86l15 N o m O � � 7 Figure 2 5 becoming stuck in the drainage ditch. This is an existing condition and should not be the responsibility of this developer. However, the solution may have an impact upon the placement of buildings and as such, will impact the site plan. Specht Point Drive is northeast of Centerpoint Plaza. It is a north -south street designated as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it is has a two-lane cross section. The Prospect/Specht Point intersection has stop sign control on Specht Point. Prospect Parkway is northeast of Centerpoint Plaza. It is a north -south street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it is has a two-lane cross section. At Prospect Road, Prospect Parkway has northbound and southbound left -turn lanes and combined northbound and southbound through/right-turn lanes. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic counts at the key existing intersections are shown in Figure 2. The traffic data for the Timberline/Midpoint and Prospect/Specht Point intersections was collected in July 2001. The traffic data for the Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway intersection was collected in October 2000. The traffic data for the Timberline/Prospect intersection was collected in July 2000 and was taken from the "Spring Creek Farm TIS," August 2000. Values in parentheses at the Timberline/Prospect intersection reflect counts obtained by the City in October 2000. A comparison of these counts indicates abnormalities for some movements. A review of the recent counts at the key intersections near the Timberline/Prospect intersection indicates that averaging the July 2000 count and the October 2000 count would best reflect the current traffic volumes. at the Timberline/Prospect intersection. Therefore, these counts were averaged and balanced between the other key intersections in the area. The balanced recent peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 3. Existing Operation Using the volumes shown in Figure 3, the key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The current peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is also provided in Appendix B. The key intersections operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better overall. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is defined as level of service F for any approach leg in mixed -use districts and level of service E for any approach leg in all other areas. FORT A 1 COLLINS j DOWNTOWN AIRPARK Centerpoint Plaza Specht Point Prospect Parkway Prospect Road Midpoin o eG ti E tiFR� Oq O Drake Road SITE LOCATION SCALE: 1"=2000' Figure 1 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of Centerpoint Plaza is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use ' Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, institutional (Larimer County Detention Center).. These east of the site, in an area known as Prospect Park ' itself is within Prospect Park East. The center of Fort the west of the Centerpoint Plaza site. Roads industrial, and land uses exist East. The site Collins lies to The primary streets near the Centerpoint Plaza site are Prospect Road, Timberline Road, Midpoint Drive, Specht Point Drive, and Prospect Parkway. Condition diagrams of the key intersections are provided in Appendix A. Prospect Road is north of the Centerpoint Plaza site. It is an east -west street designated as a four -lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four -lane cross section in the area of the site. At Timberline Road, Prospect Road has two travel lanes in each direction, left -turn lanes, and limited bike facilities. At Specht Point Drive, Prospect Road has two travel lanes in each direction and a westbound left -turn lane. At Prospect Parkway, Prospect Road has two travel lanes in each direction and left -turn lanes. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. The Timberline/Prospect and Prospect Road/Prospect Parkway intersections have signal control. At the Prospect/Specht Point intersection, Specht Point Drive has stop sign control. Timberline Road is to the west of the Centerpoint Plaza site. It is classified as a six -lane arterial beyond the year 2015 on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Timberline Road has a two-lane cross section near the Centerpoint Plaza site. At Prospect Road, Timberline Road has one travel lane in each direction, left -turn lanes, a southbound right -turn lane, and limited bike facilities. At Midpoint Drive, Timberline Road has one travel lane in each direction and a northbound right -turn lane. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. Midpoint Drive is adjacent (north) to the Centerpoint Plaza site. It is an east -west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it is has a two-lane cross section. The Timberline/Midpoint intersection has right-in/right-out stop sign control on Midpoint Drive. In the scoping meeting, Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer, indicated that the right -in movement had some existing problems, especially for large vehicles. Entering vehicles (trucks) were either mounting the median island or 2 I. INTRODUCTION This. intermediate transportation impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed development known as Centerpoint Plaza. The Centerpoint Plaza is located east of Timberline Road and south of Midpoint Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project engineering consultant (VF Ripley), the Fort Collins Transportation Planning Staff, and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Chapter 4- Transportation- Impact Study, January 2, 2001. A traffic impact study base assumptions form is provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine daily and peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location ........................................ 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 5 3. Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic :................... 6 4. Site Plan ............................................ 10 5. Trip Distribution .................................... 11 6. Short Range (2006) Background Peak Hour Traffic .................................... 13 7. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ..................... 14 8. Short Range (2006) Total Peak Hour Traffic .................................... 15 9. Short Range.(2006) Geometry .......................... 19 APPENDIX A Base Assumptions Form/Recent Peak Hour Traffic/Condition Diagrams B Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions C Short Range Background Traffic Operation D Short Range Total Traffic Operation E Preliminary Design of Timberline/Midpoint F Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Level of Service worksheets TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2 LandUse ............................................. 2 Roads.............................................. 2 Existing Traffic ..................................... 4 Existing Operation ................................... 4 Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 8 Bicycle Facilities ................................... 8 Transit Facilities ................................... 8 III. Proposed Development ................................. 9 TripGeneration ...................................... 9 Trip Distribution .................................... 9 Background Traffic Projections ....................... 12 Trip Assignment ...................................... 12 Signal Warrants ...................................... 12 Sight Distance Analysis .............................. 12 Operation Analysis ................................... 12 Geometric Analysis ................................... 16 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 16 Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 20 Transit Level of Service ............................. 20 IV. Conclusions .......................................... 21 LIST OF TABLES Table Page ' 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 7 2. Trip Generation ...................................... 9 ' 3. Short Range (2006) Background Peak Hour Operation .................................. 17 ' 4. Short Range (2006) Total Peak Hour Operation 18 CENTERPOINT PLAZA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AUGUST 2001 Prepared for: Cobalt Design -Build 1708 E. Lincoln Avenue, #5 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 ORE PO, I ODP`�E,W y p�t`•T�9 U 1 Q e� b5��s1.4 VAL�G� Twn -e ms C g Z .2 l�� Qa-) Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.2(K) -?VI Vies" Use Maximum Parking Restaurants a. Fast Food I5/1000 sq.ft. b. Standard 10/1000 sq.ft. Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 10/1000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreational Limited Indoor Recreation 6/1000 sq.ft. a. b. Outdoor .3/person cap. C. Bowling Alley 5/1000 sq.ft. Theaters 1/3 seats General Retail 4/1000 sq.ft. Personal Business and Service Shop 4/1000 sq.ft. Shopping Center 511000 sq.ft. Medical Office 4.5/1000 sq.ft. Financial Services 3.5/1000 sq.ft. Grocery Store, Supermarket 6/1000 sq.ft. General Office 3/1000 sq.ft. or .75/employee on the largest shift or 4.5/1000 sq.ft. if all additional parking spaces gained by the increased ratio (over 3/1000 sq.ft.) are contained within a parking garage/structure Vehicle Servicing & Maintenance 511000 sq.ft. Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and 211000 sq.ft. Custom Small Industry Lodging Establishments 1/unit Health Facilities 1/bed a. Hospitals b. Long -Term Care Facilities .33/bed plus 1/two employees on major shift Industrial: Employee Parking .75/employee (b) For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed. Article 3, Page 32 Snpp. 9 CENTERPOINT PLAZA PDP Permitted Uses and Parking Analysis. The information below will be shown on the Schematic Parking / Drive Plan Revised 9/5/02 PHASE ONE — BUILDING B Type I Uses Use Building sq.ft. Maximum Parking Total Parking Table — section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) Spaces General Office 5,000 3/1000 sq.ft 15 Warehouse 20,306 Warehouse 42 employees/ .75 Total 25,306 sf.ft 47 4(p Secondary Uses ( not to exceed 25 vercent of the total gross area of the development plan). Use Building sq.ft. Maximum Parking Total Parking Spaces Workshops and 2,000 sf.ft 2/1000 sq.ft. 4 Custom small Industry uses Total of Type 1 27,306 sf.ft G}O and Secondary Uses Any other uses allowed in the E District under Type 1 uses will be subject to a Minor Amendment. 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • 970-224-5828 FAX 970-224-1662 • E-MAIL vfripley@frii.com CENTERPOINT PLAZA PDP Permitted Uses and Parking Analysis. The information below will be shown on the Site Plan. Revised 9/5/02 Tyae I Uses Use Building sq.ft. Maximum Parking Table — section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) General Office Medical Office Warehouse Total 10,000 3,000 33,685 46,685 sf.ft 3/1000 sq.ft 4.5/ 1000 sq.ft Warehouse 70 employees/ .75 Total Parking Spaces 30 t:72 Z Secondary Uses ( not to exceed 25 Mrcent of the total gross area of the development plan). Use Building sq.ft. Maximum Parking Total Parking Spaces Print Shop 2,000 sf.ft 4/1000 sq.ft. 8 (personal business and service shop on the LUC parking table under section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) Bars and Taverns 3,000 sq.ft. 10/ 1000 sf.ft. 30 Workshops and 4,062 sq.ft. 2/1000 sq.ft. 8 Custom small Industry uses Total 9,062 sq.ft. 46 Total of Type 1, 6� S5 747 sf.ft and Secondary Uses 143-- [,,�J Any other uses allowed in the E District under Type 1 uses will be subject to a Minor Amendment. 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • 970-224-5828 FAX 970-224-1662 • E-MAIL vfripley@frii.com A September 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Members Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Existing trees Centerpoint Plaza Project Development Plan (PDP) Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members There are a total of 12 existing trees on the site which consist of the following: eight ash, two crabapple and 3 pinon pine trees (See landscape plan for location, species and approximate size). Most trees are in reasonable condition and it is the applicant's intension to retain, protect or transplant as many of the trees as possible on the site. There is also an existing stand of cottonwood trees located on the south eastside of the site. The stand consists of approximately 4 to 5 clumps ranging approximately from 6 to 12 inches in caliper. The applicant has met with the city forester to evaluate all trees on site including the cottonwood stand. The stand appears to consist of a percentage native cotton— bearing trees which could constitute a nuisance to the public. The site plan layout allows for the required parking and vehicular circulation which conflicts with the location of the cottonwood stand making it difficult for it to be preserved. The applicant proposes to replace and mitigate the loss of any existing trees on the site including the cottonwood stand in order to achieve an overall balanced landscape plan that will comply with the landscape and tree protection requirements stated in the current Land Use Code. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates Louise Herbert �A I PRINCIPLE ENV- 3 Policy ENV-3.3 Water demand management Policy. The proposed landscape plan for the project will utilize the following xeriscape principles: Plant material with low to moderate water requirements. Limited turf areas. Effective use of soil amendments and mulches. An efficient irrigation system. Appropriate maintenance. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates Louise Herbert September 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Members Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Planning Objectives for Centerpoint Plaza Project Development Plan (PDP) Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members The proposed Centerpoint Plaza PDP is located south of Midpoint Drive and east of Timberline Road. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the south side site. An existing warehouse distributing facility is located on the southeast side of the property, which is accessed from Midpoint Drive. The site currently zoned E — Employment Zoning District. The applicant proposes three mixed -use buildings, which will be a combination of office, retail and warehouse uses on 4.5 acres. Building A is single story building consisting of office and retail uses. Buildings B and C are single story with a mazzanine level and will consist of office, retail and warehouse uses. Buildings B and C will have rear loading docks areas. Additional street right-of-way (ROW) has been dedicated to allow for a total 141 ft. right-of-way on Timberline Drive for future road improvements. An additional 3 ft. right- of-way has also been dedicated adjacent to Midpoint Drive to allow for a total 66 ft. right-of-way. Two points of access are provided off Midpoint Drive, which are to be aligned with the vehicular accesses to the Spring Creek Center development north of Midpoint Drive. The project has a total 144 parking spaces. Parking ratios are based on 1 space per 1,000 square feet for warehouse use and 3 spaces per 1,000 for office /retail. Sidewalks within the site provide for safe and convenient pedestrian circulation to existing and proposed sidewalks on both Timberline Road and Midpoint Drive. The maximum height of the buildings are 36 feet. The buildings are scaled to the pedestrian level, with tired roofs and the variety of complimentary colors and materials. Building materials consist of masonry, E.F.I.S and architectural pre -finished metal siding. No Text Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 8 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting The Centerpoint Plaza, PDP contains proposed land uses that are permitted in the E — Employment Zoning District subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The proposed land uses include general office, medical office, warehouse, print shop, bars and taverns, and workshops and custom small industry uses. The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for a Type I development proposal and a City -facilitated neighborhood meeting was not held to discuss this proposal. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Centerpoint Plaza, PDP, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the E — Employment Zone District of the LUC. 2. The PDP complies with, all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the LUC. 3. The PDP complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.22 of the LUC. 4. The proposal satisfies the requirements located in Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities of the LUC, with the following stipulation: Due to the need for improvements to the Timberline Road - Midpoint Drive intersection and the Timberline Road - East Prospect Road intersection to ensure that adequate public street facilities are in place and operational, the applicants / developers may submit a Final Compliance Plan and, if approved, be issued a building permit and construct only one building (of the three proposed) at this time. Either Building A or Building B on Lot 1 may be constructed initially. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Centerpoint Plaza, Project Development Plan - #35-01. Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 7 Section 3.7.3(E)(1) states: The City's APF management system shall ensure that public facilities and services to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of development. In this regard, the following standards shall be used to determine whether a development meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for adequate public facilities: (a) For transportation facilities, at a minimum, the City shall require that, at the time of issuance of any Building Permit issued pursuant to a site -specific development plan, all necessary facilities and services, as described in Section 3.7.3(D)(1), are either. (1) in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the development agreement, or (2) funding for such improvements has been appropriated by the City or provided by the developer in the form of either cash, nonexpiring letter of credit, or escrow in a form acceptable to the City. City staff has determined, based on the land use information in the Transportation Impact Study provided by the applicant, that the project may gain PDP approval for all three of the proposed buildings in the Centerpoint Plaza development. However, to remain in compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities pertaining to transportation facilities, only one building (either Building A or B) may be submitted for Final Compliance review and, if approved, be issued a building permit and be constructed. Subsequent Final Compliance reviews for future buildings in the Centerpoint Plaza development will be subject to the requirements set forth in the Adequate Public Facilities section of the LUC and the transportation levels of service criteria related to the affected street network and the Timberline Road - Midpoint Drive and the Timberline Road - East Prospect Road intersections at that time. Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 6 standards on both the arterial street (Timberline Road) and the collector street (Midpoint Drive) adjacent to the development. D. Division 3.7, Compact Urban Growth Standards 1. Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities The proposal satisfies the requirements located in this section of the LUC, with the following stipulation: Due to the need for improvements to the Timberline Road - Midpoint Drive intersection and the Timberline Road - East Prospect Road intersection to ensure that adequate public street facilities are in place and operational, the applicants / developers may submit a Final Compliance Plan and, if approved, be issued a building permit and construct only one building (of the three proposed) at this time. Either Building A or Building B on Lot 1 may be constructed initially. Section 3.7.3(C)(2) states: The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve new development. No Building Permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 3.7.3(E) have been made. Under this APF management system, the following is required: (a) The City shall adopt and maintain level of service standards for the following public facilities: transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, electrical power and any other public facilities and services required by the city. (b) No site -specific development plan or Building Permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standards for the affected facility. Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 5 from all three buildings to Timberline Road and/or Midpoint Drive. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(D) in that it provides for safe, convenient, and efficient bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular movement to and through the site. Vehicular access will occur via an existing curb cut and one new curb cut from Midpoint Drive to the parking areas. B. Division 3.3, Engineering Standards 1. Section 3.3.1, Plat Standards The proposal complies with the general plat requirements as set forth in this section. 2. Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards The proposal complies with the design standards, requirements, and specifications for the services as set forth in this section. C. Division 3.5, Building Standards 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility The proposal satisfies the architectural, building scale and mass, building materials, and building colors standards as set forth in this section. All three buildings will contain a mix of masonry, stucco, and prefinished metal siding and standing seam metal roofs. All of these materials have been used and are present in the Prospect Park East and Prospect Industrial Park employment / industrial parks. The proposed colors will be consistent with the colors present in the employment / industrial parks. 2. Section 3.5.3, Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings The proposal satisfies the relationship of buildings to streets, walkways and parking standards as set forth in this section. The buildings all have one or more entrances facing and opening onto public sidewalks or connecting walkways without having to cross driveways or drive aisles. The buildings meet the "build -to" line Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 4 3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) in that canopy shade (street) trees are provided at a 40' spacing in the parkway along Timberline Road and at a 35' to 40' spacing in the parkway along Midpoint Drive. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of the proposed 43 new trees on the development plan exceeds 25% of the total trees on -site. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) in that the on - site parking area will be screened from Timberline Road to the west and Midpoint Drive to the north with deciduous and evergreen trees and shrub plantings that will block at least 75% of the vehicle headlights and extend along at least 70% of the street frontage along the parking area. d. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(5) in that it provides at least 10% interior landscaping in the parking areas (containing more than 100 parking spaces), satisfying the minimum requirement. 2. Section 3.2.2, Access,. Circulation and Parking a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) in that it provides secure and conveniently located bicycle parking in the amount of 8.5% of the total number of automobile parking spaces on -site, satisfying the minimum requirement of 5%. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5) in that it provides direct, safe, and continuous walkways and bicycle connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations in the surrounding area. There will be direct sidewalk connections Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 3 Lot 1 of the Centerpoint Plaza Subdivision has not previously been platted. Lot 2 of the Centerpoint Plaza Subdivision (Building C) was platted as the north 1/2 of the Nor -Colo Subdivision in September, 1978. It is being replatted as part of this current development request. 2. Division 4.22 of the Land Use Code, Employment Zone District General office, medical office, warehouse, print shop, bars and taverns, and workshops and custom small industry uses are permitted in the E — Employment Zoning District, subject to administrative review. However, print shops, bars and taverns, and custom small industry uses are Secondary Uses in the E District and together shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan (or in this case, the total gross leasable floor area of the proposed buildings). The purpose of the E District is: Intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of.planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of:workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it is a primary workplace that includes office, warehouse, commercial, and light industrial uses in a planned business park. The Secondary Uses (print shop, bars and taverns, and custom small industry uses) may occur in all 3 buildings (A, B, and C) and will comprise only 16% of the total gross floor area of the buildings. Centerpoint Plaza - Project Development Plan, #35-01 September 12, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 2 the requirements located in Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities of the LUC, with the following stipulation: due to the need for improvements to the Timberline Road - Midpoint Drive intersection and the Timberline Road - East Prospect Road intersection to ensure that adequate public street facilities are in place and operational, the applicants/developers may submit a Final Compliance Plan and, if approved, construct only one building at this time. Either Building A or Building B on Lot 1 may be constructed. General office, medical office, warehouse, print shop, bars and taverns, and workshops and custom small industry uses are permitted in the E — Employment Zoning District, subject to administrative review. However, print shops, bars and taverns, and custom small industry uses are Secondary Uses in the E District and together shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it is a primary workplace that includes office, warehouse, commercial, and light industrial uses in a planned business park. The Secondary Uses (print shop, bars and taverns, and custom small industry uses) may occur in all 3 buildings (A, B, and C) and will comprise only 16% of.the total gross floor area of the buildings. COMMENTS: Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E; approved planned commercial center (Spring Creek Center PUD) S: I, T; existing single family residential property and planned mixed -use (Johnson Property CDP) E: E; existing employment / industrial park (Prospect Park East, Prospect Industrial Park) W: E, I; existing undefined storage and City facility (large storage tanks, Light & Power station) The property was annexed in September, 1973 as part of the East Prospect Street First Annexation. ITEM NO. MEETING DATE °( (2 Z STAFF City of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Centerpoint Plaza, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #35-01 APPLICANT: VF Ripley Associates, Inc. c/o Louise Herbert 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO. 80521 OWNER: Co -Flex Investments, LLC 1708 East Lincoln Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 55,747 square feet of leasable floor area for non-residential land uses in 3 separate buildings on a 5.1 acre site. The property is located at the southeast comer of Timberline Road and Midpoint Drive. The proposed land uses include general office, medical office, warehouse, print shop, bars and taverns, and workshops and custom small industry uses. The property is in the E — Employment Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This PDP complies with the following applicable requirements of the Land Use Code L( UC), more specifically: the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, and Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT