The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07.0 Supplemental Information 11.06.2007SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.U.D. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 6, 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AMENDED P.U.D. & PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION November 6, 2007 Fred Jarman, AICP Director, Planning and Building Department Garfield County 108 8=°' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Brownsteln Hyatt Farber Schreck, P.C. PA_ Box 357 818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 306 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0357 T 970.945.5302 F 970.384.2360 James S. Lochhead Attorney at Law C 970.618.3810 jhochhead@bhfs.eom Dear Fred: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 2007, asking for additional in ormat Ranchoniw thrre providing the ourr preliminary plan and amendment to PUD application for Spring Y responses below. In addition to the conditions mentioned in your letter, the P i Z imposed conditions 30.01 and 30.02, which we think also call for responses from us. For your convenience, we have listed the applicable condition, together with our response. 17.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 community housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. See letter from Tom Gray enclosed as Exhibit A. 18.0 The phasing of improvements to the intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 114 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall be incorporated into the phasing plan for the project. Condition 3.0 of the P & Z proposed conditions for Preliminary Plan provides: The applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 2.3(12)(b) of the State Highway Access Code, for a permit for the reconstruction of an existing access at the intersection of County Road 114 and State High 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered as a part of the approved g plan and shall be included with the applicable final plat documents, specifically the subdivision improvements agreement that includes security for the intersection improvements. bhfs.com Fred Jarman, AlCP November 6, 2007 Page 2 In accordance with this condition, Spring Valley Holdings will submit a highway access permit application to CDOT prior to the first final plat. We anticipate that additional permit applications will need to be submitted to CDOT as subsequent phases are platted. improvements to the CR 114/SH 82 intersection shall be made in accordance with the timing and requirements of the permit(s) issued in response to such applications. Security for such improvements will be included in the SIAs for the first and subsequent phases, as applicable to meet the timing of improvements required by CDOT in such permits. 19.0 The Applicant shall construct interim improvements to CR114 to mitigate construction traffic impacts as part of Phase 2 in accordance with a plan approved by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Spring Valley Holdings has developed a construction impact mitigation plan, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit B. 20.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide a schedule showing the ownership and timing of conveyance of open space, trails, and 24 employee rental units. Spring Valley Holdings LLC ("SVR') has held productive discussions regarding the protection of the Spring Valley Ranch open space parcels with Martha Cochran, the Executive Director of the Aspen Valley Land Trust. SVR and the Land Trust intend to partner in the conservation of Spring Valley Ranch's open space with the exception of the "Meadow"parcels. The active recreational, equestrian and neighborhood uses planned for the Meadow are inconsistent with the mission of the Land Trust, which prefers to be involved in large open space parcels designated for wildlife habitat or agriculture. This area will be owned by the foundation described below and be subject to appropriate conservation deed restrictions which assure that the Meadow will remain open space in perpetuity. SVR will incorporate an independent foundation for the sole purpose of conserving and protecting the open spaces and trail systems of Spring Valley Ranch. The board of the foundation will be appointed by the Spring Valley Homeowners Association. SVR will convey conservation deeds for each open space parcel and the trails thereon in fee to the foundation in accordance with the Spring Valley Ranch phasing plan. Concurrently, SVR will impose conservation easements in favor of the Aspen Valley Land Trust on each open space parcel, except for the Meadow. The foundation will be a Supporting Organization to the Land Trust in accordance with federal law. Lastly, the Spring Valley Club will own the 24 employee housing units to ensure the ongoing hiring and retention of seasonal and key Club personnel. 21.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a public access plan for the golf course, trails and convenience shopping. Public access participants must be registered voters over the age of 25 who live in the adjoining Spring Valley neighborhood, as defined by Exhibit C, ("Neighbors'), in the Cities of Carbondale or Glenwood Springs (together "Local Residents) or in Garfield County ("Public) Fred Jarman, AICP November 6, 2007 Page 3 Golf Course • Local Resident may play up to 5 rounds per year. • Local Resident may play on Monday -Thursday after 1 9a.m., excluding holidays. • Local Residents must arrange tee times through the Club. • Local Residents may reserve tee times up to 7 days in advance. • The Local Resident will pay the same fees as guest of Club Members, as determined from time to time by the Club. • Local Residents who are not accompanied by a Club Member will take a forecaddie. • Local Residents may play a total of 100 rounds per month in season. Each day during the appointed days and hours of Local Resident play, the Club will make available at least 8 rounds (2 foursomes) for Local Residents. Unused rounds will not carry forward month to month. Convenience Shopping • Upon the completion of the General Store in the Village, Neighbors will be provided access to Spring Valley Ranch for convenience shopping. • Neighbors who would like to utilize the General Store will be provided gate access to the Village during the Store's regular business hours. Other community facilities, such as recreational, dining or other amenities, are not applicable to this access, Trails • The applicant will construct and maintain trails for hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and cross-country skiing in the "Meadow" open space parcel located to the southwest of CR 115 (OS/P Parcel A). • These trails will be open daily to the Public from sunrise to sunset.. Equestrian Center • if the applicant builds the Spring Valley Equestrian Center the meadow near the intersect of CF? 114 and CR 115, the Center will be a semi -private facility that will provide boarding and other services to the general public as well as to members. 30.01 Mountain Cross Engineering (MCF") comments 1 to 13 and 15, except for 3 and 7, pertain to final plat conditions that will be fulfilled at the filing of each phase. With regard to comment 3, the community water system will be approved, permitted and operated pursuant to CDPHE regulations that will assure adequate water quality. With regard to comment 7, Applicant will prepare a traffic analysis on the identified intersections for submission to the BOCC prior to hearing. In response to comment 7, a traffic analysis on identified intersections is enclosed as Exhibit 0. 30.02 Comments 14, 16 and 17 concern road engineering in the Mountain District, except for Sweetwater Draw. The Applicant will prepare design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks, and standards related to the location of guard rails for review and approval of MCE prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on the preliminary plan. Fred Jarman, AICP November 6, 2007 Page 4 In response to Comments 14-17, enclosed as Exhibit E is an Amended Road Design Report prepared by Gamba and Associates, that provides design standards for road grades at intersections and switchbacks and standards related to the location of guard rails. We hope this is responsive to your request. If you have additional information you require, or would like to discuss the application, please do not hesitate to contact Tom Gray, Mike Gamba or me. We appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, 441 Lochhead EXHIBIT A LETTER FROM TOM GRAY REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SPRING VALLEY RANCH November 6, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Re: Garfield Housing Authority — Planning Commission Condition 17.0 Dear Fred, Attached are letters and e-mails that document the good faith efforts by Spring Valley Holdings LLC ("Applicant") to negotiate with the Garfield Housing Authority ("Authority") regarding an alternative offsite affordable housing program in -lieu of the 75 Community Housing Units ("CHU"). The chronology of the Applicant's efforts is as follows: • August 10, 2006 — Applicant's representative Tom Gray ("Gray") meets with Geneva Powell, Executive Director of the Authority, ("Powell") and Susan Shirley of the Mountain Regional Housing Corp. to discuss Kator Grove and other alternatives to the CHU. • August 2006 -- Powell provides Gray with proposal for Housing Fund Investor (Attachment 1). • February 13, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Powell regarding funding of affordable housing (Attachment 2). • May 24, 2007 — Mary Jane Hangs, Chair of the Garfield Housing Authority, ("Hangs") sends Gray a revised Proposal for Housing Fund Investors based upon discussions between Powell and Gray (Attachment 3). • June 13, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Hangs a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") accepting the terms of Hangs' Proposal subject to certain terms and conditions (Attachment 4). • July 6, 2007 — Powell sends letter to Gray rejecting Applicant's MOU and referring the matter to the Board of County Commissions (Attachment 5). • July 30, 2007 — Gray sends letter to Powell requesting a meeting with the Authority's Board to discuss Applicant's affordable housing proposals (Attachment 6). • September 12, 2007 — Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Applicant's proposed amendments to the PUD and Preliminary Plan for Spring Valley Ranch, subject to certain conditions, including Condition 17.0. • October, 2007 — Gray places several calls to Powell to schedule a meeting with the Authority's Board without success. • November 5, 2007 — Gray send notice to Powell reiterating Applicant's willingness to fund affordable housing in accordance with MOU (Attachment 7). Thank you very much for your attention to the above. Should you have any questions, please call me. Best regards Tom Gray 4000 County Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Proposal for Housing Fund Investor August 2006 This proposal is between the Garfield County Housing Authority (including agreements with Mt. Regional Housing Corp and the Housing Fund) and the Developers of Spring Valley Ranch The developers of Spring Valley Ranch have proposed to invest in the Housing Fund through the Housing Authority a sum of $2,000,000. This sum is equivalent to the fee- in -lieu formula that was established for the County's consideration in the February 2006 Housing Assessment. The methodology is explained below: • Taking an average size home of 1200 to 1300 sq f} in the Carbondale/Glenwood Springs area and applying the figures on the chart on page ES -4 of the Garfield County Housing Assessment • Averaging the amounts of fee -in -lieu for 80-100% AMI ($53,907) and 100- 120% AMI ($34,719) • Equals $44,313 then multiplied by 10% of the estimated 450 units to be built(45) • Equals $2,000,000 total fee -in -lieu The development is not under the Garfield County Inclusionary Zoning guidelines and this proposal is being made as a separate negotiation. The investment will be used to support the Keator Grove development and used as allowed by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in the valley. The purpose and function of the Housing Fund as stated in the IGA is "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." (IGA page 1) The Housing Fund will be managed by the Funding Partners organization and is under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. This proposed investment will comply with an Equity Equivalent Investment Agreement between the Spring Valley Ranch developers and the Housing Fund (yet to be agreed on). However, this is a non-recourse and 0% interest investment for 10 years. Because this is an equity equivalent, no repayment of principal shall be required until maturity of the agreement. This agreement is being negotiated and will not be executed until the Spring Valley Developers, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing Fund and the legal council for each above mentioned entity has agreed on the conditions. SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC, February 13, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Dear Geneva: We have finished the replanning of the Spring Valley Ranch Project and are once again prepared to submit our application to amend the existing Preliminary Plan and PUD. We continue to advocate that any affordable housing provided by the Project would best be located near jobs, schools and services, rather than in a remote location some 8 miles up CR 114. As you and I have discussed, Spring Valley Holdings' preference is to assist the Housing Authority in fulfilling its mission to provide affordable housing in Garfield County. We believe that the Authority knows much better than we the location and type of housing that is needed. Even though the Project does not fall under the County Inclusionary Zoning guidelines, Spring Valley values the role that work -force must play in the future of Garfield County and the communities of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. We want to honor the intent of the commitment for affordable units included by the prior owners in the existing Preliminary Plan. The currently approved "Chenoa" plan sited 72 affordable units at the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115. Our proposal is to provide funding to the Housing Authority to construct a comparable number of units over time in more appropriate locations. You and I discussed the possibility of Spring Valley providing interest-free, non-recourse equity to a Housing Fund. As contemplated by the IGA, the Fund would "plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." The Housing Fund would be independent of Spring Valley and managed under the oversight and guidance of a Housing Fund Board of Directors, in which Spring Valley need not participate. The Board would direct the investment of the Fund on a revolving basis in joint ventures that develop affordable housing projects in the Roaring Fork Valley. Spring Valley would be due no interest on its investment and would not participate in the profits from any of the joint ventures. At the end of ten years Spring Valley's contribution to the fund would be repaid. The Housing Fund would retain all joint venture profits, and thereby establish a permanent internal source for future investment. 600 Mont*gat ety Strut _ , (1h Floor = San FrAlliejSCO,, CA 94111 Spring Valley Holdings, LLC — Affordable Housing Page 2 In concept Spring Valley offers to contribute $250,000 into the fund upon the approval of the amendments to the Project's current entitlements. Thereafter, Spring Valley would add to the fund at the rate of $25,000 for each market -rate residential lot upon the recordation of the final plat in which that lot is included. These contributions would continue until Spring Valley's investment in the Fund equals $2 million. While this proposal is the barest of outlines, we hope that you will be interest in pursuing an Equity Equivalent Investment Agreement between the Housing Authority and Spring Valley Holdings. Of course our discussions and correspondence are not binding on either of us until an formal Agreement has been approved and executed by all parties. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with you to provide affordable housing in the County. If you were able to provide us with your reaction to our suggestions by the end of the month, we would be very grateful. We are anxious to move an Agreement forward if you are interested. I am planning to be in the Valley in early March. Please call or email me with any comments or questions (831- 620-6708 or tomgray(,,santaluciapreserve.com). Very truly yours, Tom Gray Cc: Mr. Danny Goldberg Mr. Charlie Humber 11/6:2007 4:300}7 AM SVR HousingProposa1070213 Proposal for Housing Fund Investor May 24, 2007 The Garfield County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners have reviewed and discussed both the original proposal dated August 2006 and the response dated February 20, 2007 between the Housing Authority and the developers of Spring Valley Ranch. We respectfully submit the following: The developers of Spring Valley Ranch have proposed to invest in the Housing Fund through the Housing Authority a sum of $2,000,000. This sum is equivalent to the fee- in -lieu formula that was established for the County's consideration in the February 2006 Housing Assessment. The methodology is explained below: Taking an average size home of 1200 to 1300 sq ft in the Carbondale/Glenwood Springs area and applying the figures on the chart on page ES -4 of the Garfield County Housing Assessment Averaging the amounts of fee -in -lieu for 80-100% AMI ($53,907) and 100-120% AMI ($34,719) Equals $44,313 then multiplied by 10% of the estimated 450 units to be built (45) (or up to 72units) Equals $2,000,000 total fee -in -lieu The Garfield County Housing Authority appreciates your commitment to honor the affordable housing component that is included in the existing Spring Valley PUD. We believe that a 10 year loan would not be of optimum benefit for the development of affordable housing. We are requesting that you consider the proposed investment be given as a grant to the Housing Fund instead of a 10 year loan that was previously discussed. We believe that we can reach an agreement with your concept that `Spring Valley contribute $250,000 into the fund upon the approval of the amendments to the Project's current entitlements. Thereafter, Spring Valley would add to the fund at the rate of $25,000 for each market -rate residential lot upon recordation of the final plat in which that lot is included.' We request a proposed good faith estimated time line to show payment schedule and date of last payment. The investment will be used as allowed by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in the valley. The purpose and function of the Housing Fund as stated in the IGA is "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund." (IGA page 1) The Housing Fund will be managed by Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, a Colorado non- profit organization and certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) and is under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. This proposal is between the Garfield County Housing Authority (including agreements with Mt. Regional Housing Corp and the Housing Fund) and the Developers of Spring Valley Ranch and will not be executed until the Spring Valley Developers, the Garfield County Housing Authority, the Housing Fund and the legal council for each above mentioned entity has agreed on the conditions The proposal is being negotiated separate from any commitment or requirement placed on the developer by County guidelines and regulations. Again, we are most thankful for your focus on affordable housing and your generous offer. We are anxious to work out these details and assist you in moving forward with your proposal as soon as possible. We will wait to hear from you. Sincerely, Mary Jane Hangs, Chair Garfield County Housing Authority SFR 1 -TTG- 7.-/A .I✓ T T rLDTI?r':; T.T�C June 13, 2007 Mary Jane Hangs Chair Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Subject: Spring Valley Ranch; Memorandum of Understanding for Funding Grant Dear Ms. Hangs: Thank you very much for sending to us the Proposal for Housing Fund Investor dated May 24, 2007 ("Proposal"). The Proposal outlines the primary terms of a potential grant from Spring Valley Holdings, LLC ("SVH") to invest in the Housing Fund through the Garfield County Housing Authority ("Authority"). Please accept this letter, when acknowledged below by both parties, as a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Authority and SVH concerning such terms as restated below. SVH is the owner of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, an approximately 6,000 acre property located in the Spring Valley/Missouri Heights area of Garfield County, Colorado (the "PUD"). SVH has filed applications with Garfield County for a Preliminary Plan approval and a PUD amendment (the "Applications") to develop 577 market -rate residential lots and appurtenant facilities and structures (the "Project"). The Project is not subject to Garfield County affordable housing regulations, and in particular is not subject to Section 4.07.15.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. Nonetheless, SVH wishes to support the efforts of the Authority to provide affordable and workforce housing in Garfield County by making a voluntary contribution to the Housing Fund. Therefore, the Authority and SVH wish to enter into an agreement under which SVH would provide a grant of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the Authority to be used by the Housing Fund to promote affordable housing in Garfield County. Upon your acceptance of this MOU, SVH and the Authority will negotiate in good faith to enter into a grant agreement containing the following essential terms (the "Grant Agreement"). The Grant Agreement shall be effective upon the final approval of the Applications by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County upon terms and conditions acceptable in the sole discretion of SVH as evidenced by a resolution executed by the Board, and the expiration of any period of appeal thereof (the "Effective Date"). 4000 County Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Spring Valley Holdings a. The Grant Agreement shall represent the binding commitment of SVH to fund a grant of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the Housing Fund through the Authority in furtherance of its mission "to plan, finance, and cooperate with Members in the planning and financing of, the acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management, and operation by one or more Members of (i) housing projects and programs within the means of families of low or moderate income and (ii) affordable housing projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the Housing Fund," located in Garfield County (the "Commitment"). b. The Housing Fund shall be managed by Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, a Colorado non-profit organization and certified Community Development Financial Institution that operates under the oversight and guidance of the Housing Fund Board of Directors. c. Within sixty days after the Effective Date, SVH shall contribute Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) of the Commitment. d. The Grant Agreement will provide that SVH shall continue to fund the Commitment at the rate of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each market -rate residential lot platted within the PUD, upon recordation of the final plat in which such lot is included, until the Commitment has been funded in full, without interest. e. The Commitment shall be inclusive of any condition the Board of County Commissioners might place on the Project with respect to inclusionary housing. If the Board imposes any condition(s) on its approval of the Application which directly or indirectly requires a financial commitment from SVH regarding inclusionary, affordable or workforce housing, the Commitment shall be reduced dollar for dollar by the cost to fulfill such condition(s). f. The Grant Agreement shall terminate and cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Housing Fund or the Authority, upon the termination of affordable housing programs in Garfield County, upon a finding by an appropriate authority that funds provided by SVH under the Grant Agreement are not or have not been used for their intended purposes, or upon a breach of the Grant Agreement by the Authority or the Housing Fund. Upon such event, all payments previously made by SVH to the Authority under the Grant Agreement shall be deemed to be non-refundable, and all parties to the Grant Agreement shall be relieved from any further liability thereunder, including without limitation any liability for damages, reliance or any other cause. This non-binding MOU covers the primary terms for a grant agreement between the Authority and SVH. It is not binding on either party unless and until a Grant Agreement that contains these terms and other appropriate provisions is executed by both parties. This MOU shall have no binding effect on the parties, except to cooperate in good faith to reach agreement on a Grant Agreement. Spring Valley Holdings As time is of the essence, this proposal shall be automatically withdrawn if not accepted by the Authority and returned to the undersigned by 5:00 pm PDT on Friday, June 22, 2007. We look forward to working with you to assist in addressing the critical need for affordable housing in Garfield County. Sincerely, Spring Valley Holdings, LLC Tom Gray Acknowledged and accepted this day of June, 2007 The Garfield County Housing Authority By Authorized Signature July 6, 2007 Tom Gray Spring Valley Holdings, LLC 600 Montgomery Street 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Tom: The Garfield County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners have reviewed and discussed the proposals dated August 2006, February 2007 and June 2007 from Spring Valley Holdings, LLC. Additionally we have Looked at the Preliminary Plan Application submitted for our review July 2001 and the Amended PUD and Preliminary Plan Application dated March 2007, received for review in June 2007. We have some concerns that we would like to address. All of our negotiating has been based on your representation that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC was under no legal obligation to build the 75 affordable housing units. However, after careful review and consideration of all documents it is the understanding of the Garfield County Housing Authority that you do have a legal obligation under the existing approvals to build these units. Therefore, the Garfield County Housing Authority has no right of negotiation. We believe that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC needs to address this legal obligation with both the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. Only they can approve or deny your request for amendments to the original PUD and/or allow alternative negotiations. As a third party referral agency representing the interests of affordable housing, we have received your Application from the Garfield County Planning Department and will be submitting our comments for inclusion in the Garfield County's formal planning review. As previously stated by the Garfield County Housing Authority we always support the building of units instead of the donation of money and we have no fee in lieu regulations. We hope that you understand our position as you proceed with this process. Sincerely, Geneva Powell Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority SPRING VALLEY RANCH Transmitted by e-mail -- original will not follow by mall. July 30, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Proposal to fund affordable housing in Garfield County Dear Geneva: Thank you for the letter of July 6, 2007 regarding our proposal to fund affordable housing in Garfield County. I appreciate your bringing our offer before your board. Your response makes three points. First, you state that Spring Valley Ranch has a "legal obligation" to construct "75 affordable housing units." Your statement would seem to imply that the obligation is to construct 75 units that meet the County's affordable housing guidelines. While our predecessor's proposal would create affordable housing, its terms do not comply with the County's regulations. Second, you state that the Authority supports the building of units as opposed to the contribution of funds. We continue to believe that contributing funds is the most effective way for Spring Valley to help increase the County's affordable housing. Third, you note that only the Garfield County Commissioners can amend their previous approval for the project and that the Authority will comment to the County on the current application. It is precisely because of your commenting role that we initiated discussions with you on the best way for us to help provide affordable housing in Garfield County. We appreciate and understand your Board's position on each of these points. In the interest of continuing our dialogue, please allow me to respond to each in turn. I would also very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with you or your Board as to discuss these points further. As we have discussed, Spring Valley Holdings has a genuine desire to assist in meeting the County's affordable housing needs. We are anxious to reach agreement with the Authority on the best way of doing so. As to the first point in your letter, I think it is important for us to first agree on the nature of the obligation in the current County approvals to construct "75 affordable housing units." The most recent approval for the project was granted by the Board of County Commissioners in resolutions 2005-83 and 84 on October 3, 2005. The original PUD at Spring Valley was for some 2700 dwelling units. Our predecessors obtained approval to amend the PUD to reduce this density to 577 dwelling units. In 2005, they received approval in Resolutions 2005-83 and 84 for amendments to the PUD and Preliminary Plan which consolidated and restated the conditions of approval contained in the prior approvals of the project. The two Resolutions, which are attached, do not specifically contain conditions regarding affordable housing. Only the omnibus clause contained in paragraphs 2.0 of both resolutions, which incorporates the commitments made by our predecessors, would seem to apply. I am enclosing a copy of the Community Housing Proposal made by our predecessors in their 2005 application. This Proposal was made voluntarily since the proposed 2005 amendments were not subject to the County's affordable housing regulations.' ' Neither the prior applications nor our application to amend the existing Spring Valley Ranch PUD are subject to the County's regulations regarding affordable housing. County regulations provide the following: • Section 4.07.15.02 For Lands With Anv Land Use Designation Other Than High Density Residential: (1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals, and 4000 County Road 115, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Spring Valley Ranch - continued You will note that the Proposal does not conform to the County's affordable housing regulations. Fifty (not seventy-five) of the units are income restricted. The remaining twenty-five units are net - worth restricted, but not limited as to income. No affordable housing is provided for residents with income from 60% to 80% of AMI. Additionally, the income restricted units are not required to meet an overall income limitation of 80% of AMI. The Proposal allows our predecessor to adjust the mix of units to meet market conditions. Thus, the obligation is not a firm commitment to provide even fifty affordable units as defined by the County's affordable housing regulations. The only quantified representation is that the pricing structure of the attainable units will result in an effective subsidy of $1.875 million by the applicant. We have made a good faith effort to provide the same affordable housing subsidy as quantified in our predecessors' commitment. Our offer of S2 million is roughly equivalent in current dollars to our predecessors' $1.875 million subsidy. Regarding the second point, our application to amend the Spring Valley Ranch PUD does not reaffirm the terms of our predecessors' Proposal. In place, we committed to work with the Authority to fund affordable housing in the County in an amount comparable to the previously approved subsidy. We do not feel that the previously proposed Village is an appropriate location for affordable housing. We believe our position is supported by very sound reasons. At our current project, the Santa Lucia Preserve in Monterey County, CA, we built on -location inclusionary units for our employees, which are similarly income and net -worth restricted. Rather than creating one isolated community of inclusionary housing, we interspersed the units within the broader Preserve community. We believed that we were doing the right thing. However, our housing, like our predecessor's proposal, is at least 10 miles from schools, churches, public transportation, services and activities. We have learned that our employees prefer to live in communities with their extended families and friends. There, family members can watch the children, and the services and facilities meet their needs. For these reasons we have a very difficult time filling the housing that we have built. Consequently, we believe that our predecessor's "Village" plan is seriously flawed by the same problems. Workforce families need housing in their communities, not isolated 8 miles up County Road 114. Moreover, the local Spring Valley community does not want the impacts that a dense development at the intersection of County Roads 114 and 115 would engender. We have held at least six neighborhood open houses, which have been attended each time by 20 to 30 people. Our neighbors do not want their rural lifestyle adversely impacted by a very dense Village of 75. The proposed Village is way out of context in the surrounding rural landscape. Locating the Village at the intersection of County Roads 114 and 115 would also harm the beautiful existing viewshed. We heard our neighbors. Based on that input, we have moved the community services, corporation yard and fire station for Spring Valley Ranch up to the center of the property where they belong. We have also eliminated the 75 units of high-density housing and commercial uses at the County Road 114-115 intersection. Concerning your third point, most certainly the Board of County Commissioners has the latitude to impose any condition on the approval of an application that they deem appropriate. Our Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mLt are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a mix of housing. • 4.07.15.04 Any Planned Unit Development Amendment request, which results in an increase in density, shall be subject to these regulations. Neither application requested an increase in density. Our predecessor's community housing commitment was strictly voluntary, as are our offers to contribute to the housing fund. Page 2 Spring Valley Ranch - continued understanding, though, is that they are required by law to establish a nexus between the condition and the impact of the project. If Spring Valley Ranch is in fact not subject to the County's affordable housing regulations, it would seem reasonable to conclude that no nexus exists between our project and affordable housing. However, we committed to meeting the spirit, if not the specifics, of our predecessors' Community Housing Proposal. As a result, we have offered to fund a grant of $2 million to the Authority for the construction of affordable housing in Garfield County. Were the Authority to accept our offer, we would be bound at a minimum by the terms of our agreement as set forth in my letter of June 131x', regardless of any action taken by the Board. Would not this position be a win-win for the Authority? In short, we are not attempting to shirk our community responsibility. We want to participate in solving the County's affordable housing dilemma. However, we strongly believe that we are more capable of helping by providing funding, rather than building affordable units in the wrong location. There are organizations that are experienced in building and managing affordable housing. We are not, and our experience at the Preserve has proven our lack of ability. We hope that after you review this letter with your Board, they will reconsider our proposal to contribute $2 million into the Housing Fund. I would like to meet with your Board or any representatives to further our discussion, and solidify our commitment to participate in a positive solution to the County's housing needs. If a meeting or telephone conversation would be of assistance in clarifying our intentions or proposal, please let me know, and I will make myself available. Thank you for all of your time and effort to structure a beneficial relationship between the Housing Authority and Spring Valley Ranch. 1 hope that persistence will pay off. Best regards Tom Gray CC: Fred Jarman Page 3 SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC, November 5, 2007 Ms. Geneva Powell Garfield County Housing Authority 2121 Railroad Avenue, Suite 102 Rifle, CO 81645-3257 Dear Geneva: As you are aware, on September 12, 2007, the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimous recommended for the approval of the amendments to the Spring Valley PUD and Preliminary Plan proposed by Spring Valley Holding, LLC. The Commission included Condition 17.0 to its recommendations: 17.0 Prior to the preliminary plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, Applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the Garfield County Housing Authority regarding the location of the 75 Community Housing units or an offsite alternative affordable housing project. In the event no agreement is reached, the 75 Community Housing units shall be located as depicted on the supplemental plan. 1 have called you a number of times to reinitiate our conversations regarding affordable housing. Since 1 have not heard from you, 1 assume that the Housing Authority is not interested in pursuing an alternative to the Community Housing Plan. None -the -less, this letter is to confirm that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC stands ready to honor its Memorandum of Understanding dated June 13, 2007. 1f the Housing Authority is interested in further discussion regarding an alternative affordable housing program, notwithstanding your letter of July 6, 2007, please contact me immediately. Our hearing before the Board of County Commissions is scheduled for November 13, 2007. Thank you very much for the attending above. Best regards, Tom Gray 600 Montgomery Street = 40"1 Floor = San Franc i s, CA 94111 EXHIBIT B CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN MI M MI MI S r — — — — Il>>>>lj — KM ' IM 8 47 A 01 S 4 RM9 6010.7 607744 60804 6060:37 084.92 077 r 6066 79 6098.0 6101.00 8 114 61 r65 6118.46 8 61 fi7.)636. 0 .2@ 6143 1 5,40.4 614.82 6,500 6160460 165.4 1st 94 86.94 19 6177.9 6149.4; 6 s s MINIM Niti7N1M CHK0 2 Br BY s pi 04� RU,�rt�pN County Road 114 0+00 to 61+00 SCAMF: I026O.Y:S8j I MEC Monk 1,9117 1 LAIAWN07 TAI J SHE[a. rad 1I RDJE..T 1176646 11(-,11411111 AUG 1.0A661NG: 64.047.4 - [DIRECTORY 16Ilndrar 4 ..I SITING VALLEY RANG, -I P.Ull. GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 LAND SURVEYORS 9701945-2550 WWW.GAMSAENGINEERING.COM 1 9 SII,. r... R39 1 6366.4 4!,.'415 - q�y1 s $� y v b ci S P g Y S y� 5 p 7� a b i i Q y� $ S E '$ 4 ei `� S $ @ 24 8 8 3739 ._.... __.. _ __ ..-_. �_ J Isl. _--_ m. 63 .4938 636.4 .... c 1S'1 jt 7i � -- -mss. `_ t1 GO te _ i" i b' 56309.7 6595.,. r JJ/ _ ` l yy { // 4094.!_ 00 51 - - `�: $ 6464, 6 as la _. .. 641+: �. ..... .. _. •"-•-• �`� & 642 ?.1v8B �•a J, ,�+ / s64s S 6444 JT 4495 - - tt � .. . 1 l f f/ I I y d y 1 I �'ti♦ �'• E 6117.61 ... i S ref 9.955 � �J_ _- 54557 . _.._.. _.. S f / .. , 1� � / j`\ 8 6{46 J' 3 6}53.1_- 13 5°1 �' - -' ! __----1..- 646411 -_.. _._ 11I -ti �'/�'_`3 t ++V r g s6]44 9465.3 _ _ '!B - / �` _ ~ JJ i. , pl4i -.. 6-.61 29 6434.9 __ _._.- �. _ 64U6Ar _.-.---�._. ... ,-..__-_._.. __ _.--�.... ....,'I �1, qt /�_ 64 09. x•�3 F,\ r"•'t�" ,r `" (I . .-61rc 5491.113 6a T9 71 �. t .,,. i 1 r 6179 e§' 6 4&2.1 � .. _.... '. ... _ 4' .. - i 64,65 14 �_ -- _ _�.. ..+ 1 -_.� 1 8L6y17pg'7 x 4494.88 6196.@ T ...: �.� A . - _ .._.._-•-._ -__,-. - I -` d F/ r _ -..t � iC•'1 _ 3. -C _�_ r-'-_` .Y_'�ti�'_ Fd97.Bfi 61197.056 6501! •. _.....___.-- ..... .... ...-_. ....... _�--.-�._� .-T -.._.... .__.�_..._...1.. _. ...�..--.-'--- - •- )) f ._ /fir J_,.. --'-'.._._.,-.---_-'3,,,,,,,:.„...N__.- 1403.0.2 t 4 & 6556 CFr 1.7 -I --- . li ��; , _ ' _1._.....<::-.-.-..."--.1-2: 517.41 sau 4p_. 5a5655sgags51yy}-,.91. ._. _ ._-�Bi-, 91 u4... Oary• t_-'a`C_.k.. 5m''^1' - -_ •,.._.•,- _ _ 1�" - .� ��_yr y iI �41 �• i\�- irf/f/f/ ,/-- 1471 6Y9 � � f -�_ k r_/ - � \!,J ,� 111Y1'3/ 55]1111- 4. J._. ^ I762 /�__ /4 y Ir.-4::"?...-'-' '///f 6535 DO 6535 - _ I / .O �JI%/(r\ /. 6539 60 557&5 'WI ,'YCX s / /•/./te�� 4 ~/ - / fJ/f -� / /f /_/ /�//. 6317-.0 _ ..._....,_e .... - _ .".., - - ._-..- ._. /j! • IlJ� I 857 5495.8 c.91 ..... . .. �/ ./.s: �5 �/f/�-• lfJ ,,/ /T/%am/ f/ \ i�'-f ---�_ /!I��/'/r 13 85395 r.' f �_ 4 61N.74 45718865709 .- -- -. �'�...,_ I. -__�_ --"-,r _ a! lf 6.m.........„...„.„.._ ` ,'v �%J [ifYy 0. 5579'.! -fes, . .. ..1 ... _ . .,:. a .' `,._ - 8655pp$$y� •' 645'777. 8391.6ti 10th0 K., 6S4{., _..._- - -_.. ---- __ __ ---- - `-`- - -_ -. _ . _ :_ '•, _ . }�� ` 65.3.La 6509.6 ,: te,:. .. . .- �j 9 00 BSE tt 4611# , . "-O' Y� !i F J x64+` 57 �---.. `s / ' • _.� h� � 1 \ `" '` -Y S GO 6611144 wv4.uu 6619 0 1 1�. _,_.. /// 6619 09 667 ! -_.. _ -__ _ __ _ _ _ �-, ,. .. ._ .�_.�._ _. �- y ( /I �' 66108 26.3 6630.4 661r 99 6639.,. 11 II f .. L ._ .... - 4- 6631.03 6635 5 1111.11.11 `� .-^ � fi43a oa 86509 fi6YJ0�-... 6664 7 1 664366 8 6M76 111 44 6647 6669 ¢�- ... ... ..._.... ._... ._...- -_- ^ .�- �:�! 8665 6 .....; -.�. .� + BES9.C7 5666.1 6,86.5 00 -. ry�� n u._ E 7998- 60211 66,.6.1. 61.Y4. 77 _ .' 14 V46791V4 _.. .._..._. ._ _.; _.. _ __.- ....._.._ _ _.T._. 666125 Fi 8889.1 6687.9 -1-'_ - _...._._ �. 6565.53 ,gHE` _ fi66@y 4669G9T 604y02-54 . f 0?78. . 9-• 6693 F Emz F9 n f 4 669341 3' Qi 64..7 2946.1/75 41.�a.U�ggl! R � I, v': n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 8 8. 8 V1" ilii 3737 IIi■ �� 1 4 Ems■.■■■i , '' •1 X9:6 111111111 _ say .id wviwimm ■i ■■ ■ i _ tom. lal.//ii■ II �,.� 4 Inln 1111 I I•!1.■ ■■■ i:h5l.ga�' I .ii■n■T�� 7111■■ 111111 ■M ■i■il■1.■ ■1 1111"1.11 1111 dry. Ill 131.II�nIUUI I`II.■■..iiu■■..Inln 111piu1i n�i�d ■■ i 1 iiiIIIIi1IIi i lilt ass? r Kelm 6950 ■■111'1'111 nfl�n .nn� ■■ R t.fir �6 as,iu 1111dill1 • i ■■■■i , , �: 69'J7.9 _ F_ i �asb dim Ib.iii� ■ ■i■ ■.■I■■■Iu11 ■ .■ j I ■ i1i111I ni111 UII1III ■1■■iii■i■■1 !■■ ii 1111 1111Ii1 'nh1 i .i■i11 i■■i■i■■ ..■. i ■ }lra I1II11 111111 I nm1 691 t 79 `� 1111iiIi1'Ill , . . - ; � �. ;, i I i 11. 1 11_ ■i■■.i■i ■i■ `a _ ;_■ ■ I11II1n111;ii iP ■ ■ 1 1 Ilnllliil - - , i 11111111 11111111111 ' 111110110 I aP9 ■i■■ ■ ■11 ■ ■■■■ ■1 ■■ n w 11 i !illi 111111 1111 int lI I �i 1 499 ti■11■■i■■■■■■■■ ■■ n ■ n 1 11111"1 iiiiiini iii' ini i ]05G.F1 "i'i i 333'11'33 ii i � iiiii inini ■ /11 1 1 iilIIiil1IiiiHI HldBi■■i■1.■i.in ■■■ ■ ■M■ 1iiliiniiii i iiiiii 13311► ii 111"1111111111111111111iiiilliiiiiiiiii ii"111'nii iii__1111 1111 11 1 1 IIIIII "ii' i'ilili'illiliii Ramo, 1113 i ■ ■■ i■ ■ ■■ i ■ ■■L1 } .6 I 7!50.1 L ]15 .60 1 1 1 1 1 g S 1 i l l yy 6 1 yy� �! g 4 S g a 1 li ggsggg County Road 114 180+00 to 230+00 SGLE K alr.1WSI1 I t . Aa,d e. ]001 t4x+0wn BY- 7/1 SHEEI Nod ER 1 1420 Ct. 0JI61•l41 DR4WWG IIP -HJ OrEC 1.024 63606016•4064...6604; IJRJ9J Bv Ibli 8 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.LI.D. GAMBA & ASSOCIATES INCI CO NSV LTING £N GINFERS & LAND SURVEYORS W 9707945.2550 WW.GAMHAENGINEERING.CON 112 NINTH NT.. arc 4 P.O. BOXaFa cit nwaac 21,1f1.024 CO OM= 42 EXHIBIT C PROPERTY OWNERS ELIGIBLE FOR ACCESS TO GOLF COURSE, TRAILS AND CONVENIENCE SHOPPING EXHIBIT C PROPERTY OWNERS ELIGIBLE FOR ACCESS TO GOLF COURSE, TRAILS AND CONVENIENCE SHOPPING John, Debra & Maryann Keller 5000 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9024 Jennifer Weis, Beverly & Martin Locascio 5050 CR115 GWS, CO 81601 John & Jan Owen (Need mailing address) Lange, Rebecca L. & Troy A. (JT) 4348 CR 115 GWS, Co 81601-9020 Claridge, Marvin L. & Ester 4354 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 LaGiglia, Louis M. & Donnalynne 4002 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Don & Linda Helmich 4006 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Arrington, Robert L. & Ann E, 3724 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601-9018 Patty Frederick 3720 County Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601 J&S Nieslanik LLLP Jim & Sharon Neislanik Thad & Tonya Neislanik Jeff & Britton Neislanik 3118 S. Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Raun E. & Gayle L. Samuelson PO Box 297 GWS, Co 81602-0297 Betsy, Brose & Gregory Brownell (Business address) PO Box 3944 Basalt, CO 81621 Joel Gdowski 1125 Palmer Ave GWS, CO 81601 Priscilla & Scott Cooper 4350 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9020 Wroblewski, Stanislaw & Gretchen 4351 County Road 115 GWS, CO 81601 Carol Rothrock & Gary PO Box 1583 Carbondale, CO 81623-1583 Sullivan, Michael & Christiane 3780 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601-9018 Austin, James H. 3726 Cty Rd 115 GWS, CO 81601-9018 Julian & Debra Hardaker 3722 CR 115 GWS, CO 81602-1194 Neth, Samuel L & Koris, Linda C (J/T) 3215 Hager Lane No 1 GWS, CO 81601 Lois Veltus 6651 County Road 115 GWS, Co 81601 970-945-1440 Berkeley, Mariam M. 3961 CR 114 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601-9396 Mike & Maci Berkley 3961 CR 114 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601-9396 Cox, Calvin H. & Marilyn 3154 CR 115 GWS, CO 81601 Kor, Joy & Meyers Paul 3537 Red Canyon Rd. GWS, Co 81601-9076 Peckham, Robert & Teresa 3001 Sopris Ave GWS, Co 81601-4438 Condon, James P.O. Box 208 Carbondale, CO 81623 Anderson, John & Sandi 1332 CR 119 GWS, Co 81601-9313 Wing, John B., Holdings, Inc 1001 General Thomas Blvd Conroe, TX 77303-4454 Glenn, Daniel & Karen 3150 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Joel & Kathleen Trueblood 4577 CR137 GWS, CO 81601 EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFIED INTERSECTIONS FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG .mgineering paths to transportation soh itions October 26, 2007 Mr. Tom Gray Santa Lucia Preserve One Rancho San Carlos Road Carmel, CA 93923 RE: Spring Valley Ranch, Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Report — CR 114 Intersection Analysis FHU Reference No. 06-072 Dear Mr. Gray: This supplemental report provides additional analyses related to the Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig in March 2007. Spring Valley Ranch is a proposed development located in Garfield County, Colorado approximately 5 miles east of SH 82 near the intersection of County Road (CR) 114 and CR 115. At buildout the development will include 577 residential dwellings, one 18 -hole golf course, a clubhouse, equestrian center, trailhead recreation center, and a village center that will contain commercial land uses. The Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis from March 2007 analyzed the background and total traffic conditions for short-term and long-term scenarios as well as the existing traffic conditions at the intersections of SH 82/CR 114 and CR 114/Frontage Road. As requested by Garfield County, this supplemental report includes analysis of traffic conditions for all scenarios for the intersections along CR 114 between the SH 82 Frontage Road and the proposed development. This analysis includes five intersections as shown in Figure 1. All the intersections are stop - controlled with no auxiliary lanes. EXISTING CONDITIONS Peak hour counts were completed in September 2007 at the study intersections. Figure 1 provides the peak hour traffic volumes and the resulting levels of service (LOS) at each intersection. As shown, the turning movements at all the intersections currently operate at LOS A during both peak hours. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix A for existing conditions. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Background traffic is the component of traffic volumes on the roadway network which are unrelated to the proposed development. Background traffic on SH 82 is expected to grow at a rate of approximately 2% per year based on the 20 year growth factor forecasted by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Background traffic was estimated on CR 114 based on this growth rate for the short range future (2008) and the long range future (2027). Figures 2 and 4 provide the short range and long range future background traffic volumes, respectively. 102_ S urlh Tejon Street, Suite 10--30 C4dt,r:«lu Springs, l:0 81,71903 tel 719.314.1S00 fax 719.314.1tiC14 www.tliuetw.zcsii inloPtliucng.ccim October 26, 2007 Mr. Tom Gray Page 2 As shown in Figures 2 and 4, the turning movements at all the intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS A during both peak hours in the short range future and LOS B or better during both peak hours in the long range future. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendices B and D for short term and long term background conditions, respectively. SHORT RANGE FUTURE The short range future background traffic was combined with the site generated traffic to represent the short range future total traffic volumes as shown in Figure 3. As shown, turning movements at all the study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours in the short range future. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix C for short range total traffic conditions. LONG RANGE FUTURE The icing range future background traffic shown in Figure 4 was combined with the site generated traffic to represent the long range future total traffic volumes as shown in Figure 5. The turning movements at all the study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours in the long range future. The LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix E for long range total traffic conditions. Please call if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG David E. Hattan, PE, PTOE Associate AA ao-itte Colleen Guillotte, El Transportation Engineer t * i� d_ 1� f/a, e e 10 4; Coo.77 �1 rD 114/41 it E I 11161° 101; 0 •FELSBURG (d HOLT & ULLEVIG CO 1CV g2cle03 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xfx = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service \10 SH 82 North = Stop Sign To Spring Valley Ranch Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch Pinon Pines Apartments 0 Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain College Condos Figure Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions Spring Valley Ranch, 00.072, 10/24/07 pi FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVICi LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign `.yea 74M{i i To Srin e p 9 Valley Ranch Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch Pinon Pines Apartments North Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain College Condos Figure 2 Short Range Future (2008) Background Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valioy Ranch, 05-072, 10;24;07 FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xlx = AMIPM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service _a_ = Stop Sign �4 7s(a) r 77---4°41)-kli izi n, co v) �a v. \To SH 82 AL North Elk Springs Ranch r v Vet Clinic To Spring Valley Ranch Pinon Pines Apartments Colorado Mountain College I ON Colorado Mountain College Condos Figure 3 Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch, 66-072, 16/25107 FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xlx = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Leaei of Service Stop Sign 11.--, , �� Mehr h a moo ,.:L ," ._4o a c-, Elk Elk Springs `ti'ryo` ��' ''� Ranch l�To SH 82 North To Spring Valley Ranch Vet Clinic Pinon Pines Apartments G Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain College Condos 1a Figure 4 Long Range Future (2027) Background Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Walley Ranch, 06-072, 10123107 1 1 1 1 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x}x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service _a_ = Stop Sign 0 vii r� r To Spring // Valley Ranch Vet Clinic Elk Springs Ranch ni Pinon Pines Apartments Colorado Mountain College Colorado Mountain. College Condos Cs North o Figure 5 Long Range Future (2027) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch, 05.672, 10f25/07 APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS FELSBURG (III HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix A HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: CR 114 & CR 10 1 \ �. Existing AM Peak Hour I Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 V Volume (vehlh) 92 5 13 105 2 3 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 100 5 14 114 2 3 I Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) I Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) IUpstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 105 245 103 I vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 105 245 103 I tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °I° 99 100 100 1 cM capacity (veh/h) 1486 736 952 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 I Volume Total 105 128 5 Volume Left 0 14 2 Volume Right 5 0 3 cSH 1700 1486 852 I Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3 I Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary's Average Delay 0.7 intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 1 Baseline 1 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection CapacityAnalysis Existing Y 4: CR 114 & CR 10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER ' Lane Configurations 'F, 4 Volume (vehlh) 107 4 7 123 1 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 116 4 8 134 1 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 121 267 118 vC1, stage 1 conf vol I vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 121 267 118 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1467 718 933 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 121 141 14 Volume Left 0 8 1 Volume Right 4 0 13 eSH 1700 1467 912 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch I Movement NEL NST SBT SBR _ SEL SER Existing AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 4 T ¥ Volume (veh/h) 13 82 68 0 1 31 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 89 74 0 1 34 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medan type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 74 191 74 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 74 191 74 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1526 790 988 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 103 74 35 Volume Left 14 0 1 Volume Right 0 0 34 cSH 1526 1700 980 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0,0 8.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary 1111111110111111111111111=10=111111111W111111111 Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synch ro7- Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch Existing PM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations t "Ya' Votume (vehfh) 25 149 99 2 4 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 162 108 2 4 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fits) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 110 325 109 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 110 325 109 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (vehfh) 1480 657 945 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 189 110 14 Volume Left 27 0 4 Volume Right 0 2 10 cSH 1480 1700 833 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Existing AM Peak Hour 4 l d Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 T Volume (vehlh) 1 14 7 78 47 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 15 8 85 51 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fkls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Medan storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 151 51 51 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 151 51 51 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 837 1017 1555 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 92 51 Volume Left 1 8 0 Volume Right 15 0 0 cSH 1002 1555 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Existing PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ¥ 4 1, Volume (vehlh) 3 8 17 84 70 2 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 9 18 91 76 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 205 77 78 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 205 77 78 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 773 984 1520 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 110 78 Volume Left 3 18 0 Volume Right 9 0 2 cSH 916 1520 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.0 1.3 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.0 1.3 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: CR 114 &Vet Clinic Existing AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4' 4+ 4 Volume (vehfh) 15 22 65 5 32 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 24 71 5 35 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 35 95 139 138 59 138 173 35 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 35 95 139 138 59 138 173 35 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1577 1499 822 743 1006 824 710 1038 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 111 40 5 3 Volume Left 16 5 5 2 Volume Right 71 0 0 1 cSH 1577 1499 822 885 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 1.1 1.0 9.4 9.1 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 1.0 9.4 9.1 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.2% ICU Levet of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsi naiized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour �► 4, 4/ 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4, 4, 4, Volume (vehlh) 3 33 57 4 25 0 55 0 5 1 0 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% I Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 36 62 4 27 0 60 0 5 1 0 13 Pedestrians I Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) I pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 27 98 122 109 67 115 140 27 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol I vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 98 122 109 67 115 140 27 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3,5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 93 100 99 100 100 99 cM capacity (vehih) 1587 1495 839 777 997 854 747 1048 1 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 101 32 65 14 Volume Left 3 4 60 1 Volume Right 62 0 5 13 cSH 1587 1495 850 1030 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 I Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 1 Control Delay (s) 0.2 1.0 9.6 8.5 Lane LOS A A A A I Approach Delay (s) 0.2 1.0 9.6 8.5 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary ., Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Existing AM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 ¥e Volume (vehlh) 14 7 0 31 25 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 8 0 34 27 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 23 53 19 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 23 53 19 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1592 956 1059 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 23 34 27 Volume Left 0 0 27 Volume Right 8 0 0 cSH 1700 1592 956 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6:CR114&CMC Condos -* Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Existing PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I+ 4 NI Volume (vehlh) 33 21 0 23 15 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 23 0 25 16 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 59 72 47 vC1, stage 1 conf voi vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 59 72 47 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1545 932 1022 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 59 25 17 Volume Left 0 0 16 Volume Right 23 0 1 cSH 1700 1545 937 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 1 1 APPENDIX B SHORT RANGE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (4FEHLSB�JOLT &RG ULLEVIG Appendix 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: CR114&CR1O Short Term Background AM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 'Yr Volume (vehlh) 95 5 15 105 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 103 5 16 114 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 109 253 106 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 109 253 106 tC, single (s) 4.1 6,4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 po queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1482 728 948 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 109 130 11 Volume Left 0 16 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1482 824 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23,0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 4: CR114&CR10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations To. 4 Volume (vehfh) 110 5 10 125 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 120 5 11 136 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 125 280 122 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 280 122 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1462 705 929 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 125 147 22 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 16 cSH 1700 1462 860 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 'f, *71 Volume (vehlh) 15 85 70 5 5 35 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 92 76 5 5 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 82 204 79 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 82 204 79 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 1516 776 982 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 109 82 43 Volume Left 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 38 cSH 1516 1700 950 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.05 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 4 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch PM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 ToYr Volume (vehlh) 25 150 100 5 5 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 163 109 5 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 329 111 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 329 111 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1475 653 942 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 190 114 16 Volume Left 27 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 11 cSH 1475 1700 821 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.5 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.5 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour t 1I, 4, Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' 4 1 Volume (vehfh) 5 15 10 80 50 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 16 11 87 54 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 166 57 60 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 166 57 60 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 po queue free % 99 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 819 1009 1544 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 98 60 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 16 0 5 cSH 954 1544 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0 Lane LDS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SST SBR Lane Configurations 'tf 4 t, Volume (vehlh) 5 10 20 85 70 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 22 92 76 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 215 79 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 215 79 82 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 762 982 1516 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 114 82 Volume Left 5 22 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 896 1516 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.1 1.5 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.1 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Y Background Analysis Short Term Back round 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour '`t4, II d 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 4 4, Volume (vehlhh) 15 25 65 5 35 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 27 71 5 38 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 43 98 152 149 62 152 182 41 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 98 152 149 62 152 182 41 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1565 1495 802 732 1002 802 702 1030 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 114 49 11 11 Volume Left 16 5 5 5 Volume Right 71 5 5 5 cSH 1565 1495 891 902 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.8 9.1 9.0 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.8 9.1 9.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary _ Average Delay 2,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4+ 4 4 Volume (vehlh) 5 35 60 5 25 5 55 0 5 5 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 38 65 5 27 5 60 0 5 5 0 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 33 103 139 125 71 128 155 30 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 33 103 139 125 71 128 155 30 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7,1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 93 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1579 1489 814 760 992 836 732 1045 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 . Volume Total 109 38 65 22 Volume Left 5 5 60 5 Volume Right 65 5 5 16 cSH 1579 1489 827 983 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.4 1.1 9.7 8.7 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 1.1 9.7 8.7 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos AM Peak Hour —b. C ~ 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 ¥ Volume (vehlh) 15 10 5 35 25 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 11 5 38 27 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 27 71 22 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 71 22 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1587 930 1055 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 27 43 33 Volume Left 0 5 27 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1587 949 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 8.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.1°A Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos PM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 ¥ Volume (vehlh) 35 25 0 25 15 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 27 0 27 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 65 79 52 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 65 79 52 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 99 cM capacity (vehm) 1537 924 1016 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 65 27 22 Volume Left 0 0 16 Volume Right 27 0 5 cSH 1700 1537 945 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Lane LOS A Approach delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 APPENDIX C SHORT RANGE TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS FELSBURG HOLT & U LL E V 1 G Appendix C NCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 4: CR 114&CR 10 AM Peak Hour I Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 'te Volume (veh) 180 5 15 400 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 196 5 16 435 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 666 198 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 201 666 198 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1371 420 843 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 201 451 11 Volume Left 0 16 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1371 560 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos AM Peak Hour Movement -OP -"AIL r -- EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 Volume (veh/h) 100 10 5 330 25 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 109 11 5 359 27 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 120 484 114 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 120 484 114 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 95 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1468 540 938 Direction,, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 120 364 33 Volume Left 0 5 27 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1468 581 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 11.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 11.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour 1 t Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (vehlh) 15 170 365 5 5 35 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 185 397 5 5 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 402 617 399 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 402 617 399 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1156 447 650 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 201 402 43 Volume Left 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 38 cSH 1156 1700 615 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.24 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 w Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch Movement t NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (vehth) 25 410 255 5 5 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 446 277 5 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ns) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 283 780 280 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 283 780 280 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1280 356 759 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Short Term Total PM Peak Hour 1 Volume Total 473 283 16 Volume Left 27 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 11 cSH 1280 1700 551 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.17 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 11.7 Lane LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 11.7 Approach LOS 8 Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour 4\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (veh/h) 5 15 10 165 345 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 16 11 179 375 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 579 378 380 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 579 378 380 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free %® 99 98 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 473 669 1178 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 22 190 380 5 11 0 16 0 5 606 1178 1700 0.04 0.01 0.22 3 1 0 11.2 0.5 0.0 B A 11.2 0.5 0.0 B Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Movement 4\ t d EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 t+ Volume (vehfh) 5 10 20 345 225 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 22 375 245 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 666 247 250 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 666 247 250 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 418 791 1316 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Short Term Total 1 PM Peak Hour 1 Volume Total 16 397 250 Volume Left 5 22 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 610 1316 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.1 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 4 4 Volume (vehlh) 15 110 65 5 330 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 120 71 5 359 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 364 190 565 562 155 565 595 361 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 364 190 565 562 155 565 595 361 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1194 1384 426 428 891 427 410 683 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB i SB 1 Volume Total 207 370 11 11 Volume Left 16 5 5 5 Volume Right 71 5 5 5 cSH 1194 1384 577 526 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.4 12.0 Lane LOS A A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.4 12,0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4. 4. 4+ 4 Volume (vehlh) 5 295 60 5 160 5 55 0 5 5 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 321 65 5 196 5 60 0 5 5 0 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn ftare (veh) MedNone None Medianan storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 386 590 576 353 579 606 198 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 201 386 590 576 353 579 606 198 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free °/0 100 100 85 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1371 1173 409 424 690 420 408 843 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 391 207 65 22 Volume Left 5 5 60 5 Volume Right 65 5 5 16 cSH 1371 1173 423 674 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 14 2 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.3 15.1 10.5 Lane LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.3 15.1 10.5 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Term Total 4: CR 114 & CR 10 PM Peak Hour N Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 Icrl Volume (vehlh) 370 5 10 280 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 402 5 11 304 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pk, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 408 731 405 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 408 731 405 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1151 385 646 Direction, Lane ## SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 408 315 22 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 16 cSH 1700 1151 552 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.01 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 11.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32,8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Movement -46 4 EST EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Short Term Total PM Peak Hour i Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehlh) 295 25 5 180 15 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 321 27 5 196 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 348 541 334 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 348 541 334 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 po queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1211 500 708 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 348 201 22 Volume Leff 0 5 16 Volume Right 27 0 5 cSH 1700 1211 540 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.00 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D LONG RANGE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' FELSBURG C� HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix D HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 4:CR114&CR10 AM Peak Hour 0-4 Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 Y. Volume (vehlh) 135 5 20 155 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 5 22 168 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 152 361 149 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 152 361 149 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3,3 p0 queue free °Ai 98 99 99 cM capacity (vehfh) 1429 628 897 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 152 190 11 Volume Left 0 22 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1429 739 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 4: CR 114& CR 10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations '+ 4 '►f Volume (vehlh) 160 5 10 185 5 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 174 5 11 201 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 179 399 177 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 179 399 177 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1396 602 866 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 179 212 27 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 22 cSH 1700 1396 796 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 9.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 Volume (vehlh) 20 120 100 5 5 45 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 130 109 5 5 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 285 111 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 285 111 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stale {s} tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °Jo 99 99 95 cM capacity (vehlh) 1475 695 942 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 152 114 54 Volume Left 22 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 49 cSH 1475 1700 909 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.07 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 5 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.2 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.2 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch PM Peak Hour Movement T NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 I+ ► Volume (vehlh) 35 220 145 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 239 158 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 163 476 160 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 163 476 160 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pOqueue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1416 533 885 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 277 163 22 Volume Left 38 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 16 cSH 1416 1700 760 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.10 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 9.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 9.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 Long Term Background AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 + Volume (veh/h) 5 20 10 115 70 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Bow rate (vph) 5 22 11 125 76 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 226 79 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 226 79 82 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free %m 99 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 757 982 1516 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 136 82 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 22 0 5 cSH 927 1516 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.0 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 t+ Volume (vehlh) 5 10 25 125 105 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 27 136 114 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 307 117 120 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 307 117 120 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 cM capacity (vehTh) 672 935 1468 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 163 120 Volume Left 5 27 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 827 1468 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 1.4 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 4:CR114&CR10 AM Peak Hour Movement 1�ink SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 f Volume (vehfh) 220 5 20 450 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow rate (vph) 239 5 22 489 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 245 774 242 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 245 774 242 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 98 99 cM capac`sty (veh/h) 1322 361 797 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 245 511 11 Volume Left 0 22 5 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 1700 1322 497 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 12.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 12.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour � c 4 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4 4 4+ Volume (veh/h) 20 35 95 5 50 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 38 103 5 54 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 60 141 207 204 90 207 253 57 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 60 141 207 204 90 207 253 57 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1544 1442 737 680 968 737 639 1009 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 163 65 11 11 Volume Left 22 5 5 5 Volume Right 103 5 5 5 cSH 1544 1442 837 852 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.7 9.4 9.3 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.7 9.4 9.3 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 4 4+ Volume (vehlh) 5 50 85 5 35 5 80 0 5 5 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 54 92 5 38 5 87 0 5 5 0 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) MNone None Medianedian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 43 147 185 166 101 168 209 41 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 147 185 166 101 168 209 41 tC, single (s) 4,1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free °/0 100 100 88 100 99 99 100 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1565 1435 756 722 955 786 683 1030 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 152 49 92 27 Volume Left 5 5 87 5 Volume Right 92 5 5 22 cSH 1565 1435 765 970 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 10 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.9 10.4 8.8 Lane LOS A A B A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.9 10.4 8.8 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos AM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations I 4 f Volume (vehlh) 20 10 5 45 35 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 11 5 49 38 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ffls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 33 87 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 33 87 27 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 96 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1579 911 1048 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total 33 54 43 Volume Left 0 5 38 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 1700 1579 926 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 9.1 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 9.1 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Background 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos PM Peak Hour —0. -1 C 41- 4\ Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations To. 4 Volume (vehlh) 50 30 5 35 20 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 33 5 38 22 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 87 120 71 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 87 120 71 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1509 873 992 Direction, Lane # EB1 WB1 NW1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 87 43 27 0 5 22 33 0 5 1700 1509 894 0.05 0.00 0.03 0 0 2 0.0 0.9 9.2 A A 0.0 0.9 9.2 A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 APPENDIX E LONG RANGE TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS • FELS BURG (4 HOLT & l ULLEVIG Appendix E HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 4: CR 114 & CR 10 PM Peak Hour Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations I) 4 V Volume (veh/h) 420 5 10 330 5 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 457 5 11 359 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 462 840 459 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 462 840 459 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 96 cM capacity (vehTh) 1099 332 602 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 Volume Total 462 370 27 Volume Left 0 11 5 Volume Right 5 0 22 cSH 1700 1099 518 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch AM Peak Hour t Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 T+ Ire Volume (veh/h) 20 205 395 5 5 45 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 223 429 5 5 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 435 698 432 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 435 698 432 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 10, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 1125 399 623 Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 245 435 54 Volume Left 22 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 49 cSH 1125 1700 590 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.26 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 8 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 11.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 11.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 7: CR 114 & Elk Springs Ranch PM Peak Hour Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations 4 I ¥ Volume (vehfh) 35 480 300 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 522 326 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 332 927 329 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 332 927 329 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 98 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 1228 289 713 Direction, Lame # NB 1 SB 1 SE 1 Volume Total 560 332 22 Volume Left 38 0 5 Volume Right 0 5 16 cSH 1228 1700 521 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.20 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 12.2 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 12.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56,6% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service B Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 're 4 I Volume (vehlh) 5 20 10 200 365 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 22 11 217 397 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 639 399 402 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 639 399 402 tC, singe (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 436 650 1156 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 228 402 Volume Left 5 11 0 Volume Right 22 0 5 cSH 592 1156 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.01 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 1 0 Control Delay (s) 11.4 0.5 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 9: Pinon Pines & CR 114 PM Peak Hour Nt 4\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 I Volume (veh/h) 5 10 25 385 365 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 27 418 397 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 872 399 402 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 872 399 402 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 313 650 1156 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 446 402 Volume Left 5 27 0 Volume Right 11 0 5 cSH 479 1156 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0 Control Delay (s) 12.8 0.7 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.8 0.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic AM Peak Hour 4- k- t , '. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4. 4 4+ Volume (vehlh) 20 120 95 5 345 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 130 103 5 375 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 380 234 620 617 182 620 666 378 vC 1, stage 1 cant vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 380 234 620 617 182 620 666 378 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1178 1334 391 396 860 391 372 669 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 255 386 11 11 Volume Left 22 5 5 5 Volume Right 103 5 5 5 cSH 1178 1334 537 494 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0,02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.8 12.5 Lane LOS A A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 11.8 12.5 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 11: CR 114 & Vet Clinic PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4 4 4 Volume (vehlh) 5 310 85 5 190 5 80 0 5 5 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 337 92 5 207 5 87 0 5 5 0 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 212 429 636 617 383 620 660 209 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 212 429 636 617 383 620 660 209 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 77 100 99 99 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1358 1130 378 402 664 395 380 831 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 435 217 92 27 Volume Left 5 5 87 5 Volume Right 92 5 5 22 cSH 1358 1130 388 681 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 23 3 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.2 17.2 10.5 Lane LOS A A C 6 Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.2 17.2 10.5 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos Long Term Total AM Peak Hour Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) Direction, Lane # 105 Free 0.92 114 4 10 5 340 Free 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 11 5 370 None None 125 125 4.1 2.2 100 1462 v 35 5 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 38 5 500 120 500 120 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 93 99 528 932 EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 125 375 43 0 5 38 11 0 5 1700 1462 559 0.07 0.00 0,08 0 0 6 0.0 0.1 12,0 A B 0.0 0.1 12.0 B Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Term Total 6: CR 114 & CMC Condos PM Peak Hour Movement — ,� .,� C• EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations 4 '''11 Volume (veh/h) 310 30 5 190 20 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 337 33 5 207 22 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 370 571 353 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 370 571 353 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 cM capacity (vehfh) 1189 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NW 1 95 99 480 690 Volume Total 370 212 27 Volume Left 0 5 22 Volume Right 33 0 5 cSH 1700 1189 511 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 12.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 12.4 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.1 % Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 7 o Report Page 2 EXHIBIT E AMENDED ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.U.D. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO AMENDED ROAD DESIGN REPORT November 6, 2007 PREPARED FOR: Tom Gray c/o Spring Valley Holding LLC One California — Twenty Second Floor San Francisco, California 94111 PREPARED BY: Gamba & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 113 Ninth Street Suite 214 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: (970) 945-2550 Fax: (970) 945-1410 Michael Gamba P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 Spring Valley Ranch - Amended Road Design Report November 6, 2007 Page 1 of 8 1 1 IGAMBA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS I E. LAND SURVEYORS PHONE: 970/945-2550 FAX: 970/945-1410 1 13 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.O. BOX 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, I COLORADO 81602-1458 November 6, 2007 Tom Gray c/o Spring Valley Holding LLC One California — Twenty Second Floor San Francisco, California 84111 RE: Spring Valley Ranch - Road Design Report Dear Mr. Gray: The road network for the SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD project has been designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic and provide safe and convenient access to all segments of the development. A primary design parameter has been to minimize the amount of earthwork and the clearing of vegetation. While these roads have been designed to meet AASHTO (American Associates of State Highway Transportation Officials) Standards, the alignments have been designed to conform to existing topography as closely as possible with the goal of earthwork balance on centerline. This design philosophy has caused the roads to be designed with shorter curve radii and for slower speeds than are commonly seen in less challenging topography. The slower speeds resulting from this design are considered an asset relative to the atmosphere of the project and the protection of wildlife. Where the roads cross slopes in excess of30%, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls and/or soil nail retaining walls will be used instead of long cut -fill slopes. Where cut and fill slopes are necessary, they will be constructed at a maximum slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical to better insure success in revegetation. The design of the horizontal and vertical alignments for all proposed roads within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD are depicted on Exhibit 3 and the Road Portion (R Sheets) of Exhibit 26 of the PRELIMINARY PLAN submittal. These sheets also contain typical cross sections of the various classifications of roads. Road design information relative to Emergency Service issues are depicted on the FIRE AND EMS MAPS included in Appendix G of the Preliminary Plan submittal. The final design of all roads, which shall be submitted with the final plat for each phase of the development, shall be designed in accordance with the following SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS. These roadway design standards shall apply to all roadways within the Spring Valley Ranch PUD unless otherwise approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 2 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Road Classification Collector Road 1 Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Road Capacity and Geometry Maximum Number of Residences to be Served 577 140 40 Maximum Average Daily Traffic Volume [vehicles per day] 8000 1400 400 Minimum Right -of -Way Width [feet] 60 50 50 Minimum Travel Lane Width [feet] 12 11 11 Minimum Shoulder Width [feet] 4 2 2 Road Structural Section Type of Road Surface (including travel lanes and shoulders) Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete Asphalt or Concrete Pavement Section (depth of asphalt) and Specification of Asphalt To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Aggregate Section (depth and specification of aggregate) To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Subgrade Stabilization To be determined by Registered Geotechnical Engineer based on an HS -20 loading and the maximum average daily traffic volumes Road Cross -Slope and Super -Elevation Typical Cross Slope (Crown) 2% 2% 2%, Maximum Rate of Super - Elevation (Super - elevation design to be performed by Professional Engineer in accordance with 2001 AASHTO Standards) 4% _ 4% 4% Shoulder Cross Slope Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Matches Adjacent Travel Lane Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 3 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Road Vertical Alignment Maximum Centerline Grade 10% 10% 10% K -Value of Vertical Curves To be designed in accordance with AASHTO minimum K -values based on actual design speed of roadway Road Design Speed Design. Speed 25 MPI 20 MPH 20 MPH. 6itical Minimum Design Speed 10 MPH 10 MPH I 10 MPH Road Horizontal Alignment Minimum Centerline Radius at Typical Design Speed without Superelevation [feet] 298.3 190.9 190.9 Minimum Centerline Radius at Typical Design Speed with maximum Superelevation [feet] 20$.3 133.3 133.3 Minimum Centerline Radius [feet] 50.0 50.0 t 50.0 Switchbacks Definition A switchback is defined as any curve with a centerline radius greater than or equal to 150 -feet AND a central angle (Delta) greater than 140 degrees on a roadway having a peak hour volume (10% of the Average Daily Traffic Volume) greater than 5 vehicles per hour. Maximum Centerline Grade between PC and PT of Switchback 6% 6% 6% Maximum Rate of Super- elevation 4% 4% 4% Minimum Design Speed through Switchback 10 MPH 10 MPH 10 MPH Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 4 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Roadway Intersections The following intersection design standards shall apply to all intersection where the peak hour volume (10% of the ADT) for the intersecting road is greater than 5 vehicles per hour. 1 Intersecting Angle of Centerlines Within 7 -degrees of perpendicular (83 degrees to 97 degrees) Minimum Length of Centerline Tangent for Intersecting Roadway outside the Edge of Pavement of the Through Roadway 20 -feet 20 -feet 20 -feet Centerline Grade and Minimum Length for Landing on Intersecting Road measured from the edge -of -pavement on the Through Road based on Peak Hour Traffic Volume (10% of ADT) Peak Hour Volume: <40VPH 6% for 20 -feet 6% for 20 -feet 6% for 20 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 40 VPH to 80 VPH 6% for 40 -feet 6% for 40 -feet 6% for 40 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 80 VPH to 120 VPH 6% for 60 -feet 6% for 60 -feet 6% for 60 -feet Peak Hour Volume: 120 VPH to 160 VPH 6% for 80 -feet 6% for 80 -feet 6% for 80 -feet Peak Hour Volume: >160VPH 6% for 100 -feet 6% for 100 -feet 6% for 100 -feet Grade and Minimum Length for Centerline of Through Road on each side of Intersecting Centerline based on the Design Speed of the Through Road Design Speed of Through Road: 15 MPH Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Preferred: 3% for 80 -feet Maximum: 6% for 82 -feet Design Speed of Through Road: 20 MPH Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Preferred: 3% for 116 -feet Maximum: 6% for 120 -feet Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 5 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Road Classification Collector Road Minor Road Cul -De -Sac Design Speed of Through Road: 25 MPH Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Preferred: 3% for 158 -feet Maximum: 6% for 165 -feet Minimum Radius at Edge of Pavement for Intersection Returns 25 -feet 25 -feet 25 -feet Roadside Elements Minimum Clearance from Travel Lane to Roadside Barrier (guard rail/retaining wall/jersey barrier) 4 -feet 4 -feet 4 -feet Maximum Slope of Unretained Cut/Fill Slope [vertical feet:horizontal feet] 2:1 2:1 2:1 Guardrail Required on portions of road adjacent to any fill slope with the following criteria: • Fill slope steeper than 1:1 regardless of fill slope height • Fill slope steeper than 2:1 and fill slope height greater than 10 -ft. Stormwater Drainage Elements Roadside Drainage Conveyance Structures Designed by Registered Engineer to Provide Minimum. Capacity to Convey Peak Flow from 100 -year Storm Event Roadway standards shall apply for all roads serving more than 3 residences. 2. Road widths will increase at reduced radius curves and intersections in order to accommodate the traveled path of the fire apparatus as specified by the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District within a single lane of the roadway. 3. Roadways shall be provided with no less than 15 feet of vertical clearance. 4. All dead-end (cul-de-sac) roadways shall be equipped with a turn -around at the end in accordance with the design standards for a turn -around as approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 5. On cul-de-sac roadways longer than 600 -feet, in locations to be determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but at intervals of approximately 600 feet, driveway Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 6 of 8 intersections with roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the minimum dimensions for the tum -around of emergency vehicles, to meet the standards of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Note: These Road Design Standards also assume the following conditions: 6. All Structures in excess of 500 square feet are sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D or as otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). 7. No on -street parking is allowed on any roadway. 8. Fire Hydrants are provided in accordance with. Appendix C of the International Fire Code (IFC) adopted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction at the time of construction. 9. Fire Hydrants will meet the fire -flow requirements of Appendix B of the IFC adopted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction at the time of construction, with the 50% reduction as allowed in Section B105.2 for sprinklered structures. 10. Vegetation management and manipulation is performed on the site in accordance with the standards imposed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 11. In order to accommodate the longer cul-de-sac roadways, the water distribution system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Water Distribution System and Fire Protection Design Standards provided below. CUL-DE-SAC STANDARDS (Mountain Lot District Only) The following cul-de-sac design standards shalt apply to all cul-de-sac (dead-end) roadways within the Mountain Lot District of Spring Valley Ranch PUD unless otherwise approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 1. All dead-end roads shall conform to cul-de-sac standards and requirements. 2. The end of all cul-de-sac roadways shall be provided with a turn -around having a minimum radius to the outside edge of the driving surface of 45 feet. 3. On cul-de-sac roadways longer than 600 -feet, in locations to be determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but at intervals of approximately 600 feet, driveway intersections with roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the minimum dimensions for the turn -around of emergency vehicles, to meet the standards of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 4. In order to accommodate the longer cul-de-sac roadways, the water distribution system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Water Distribution System and Fire Protection Design Standards provided below. Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9, 2007 Page 7 of 8 The road design standards provided above will allow the construction of roads on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD in a manner responsive to the existing topography and which will result in minimum environmental disturbance. These design standards will dictate slow to moderate posted speeds throughout the development. As is noted in the FIRE AND EMS MITIGATION REPORT, provided in Appendix G, additional design standards related to fire protection and emergency services have been provided order to accommodate emergency services such as police, fire and medical service. These proposed design standards have been reviewed by Mike Piper, the fire chief of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, and the Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. Attached is a letter from Mike Piper indicating his approval of the proposed design standards. These proposed design standards have also been reviewed by Lou Vallario, the Garfield County Sheriff, who is responsible for law enforcement in unincorporated Garfield County and who is also statutorily responsible for wildfire management in Garfield County. Attached is a letter from Lou Vallario indicating his approval of the proposed design standards. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gamba & ichael Gamba, P.E.& P.L.S. 28036 H:1012691181Roads\Revised Preliminary Pian Road Design Report 20071106.doc Spring Valley Ranch Road Design Report March 9. 2007 Page8of8