Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.1 Supplemental Info11 • • Preliminary Plan / PUD Supplemental Submittal April 2009 NOBLE DESIGN STUDIO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS April 30, 2009 • Mr. Fred Jarman, AICP Planning Director Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: TO Lane Ranch Preliminary Plan/ PUD —April 2009, Supplemental Information Dear Mr. Jarman: In response to County Staff concerns as outlined in the Proiect Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09, we have prepared the following submittal package which addresses each concern. The information contained herein is intended to supplement the original application package dated December 2008. From the Proiect Information and Staff Comments, our understanding is that items of Staff concern are as follows: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concerns 1. Comprehensive Plan Section 2.0 -Affordable Housing . 2. Comprehensive Plan Section 7.0 - Water & Sewer Services 3. Comprehensive Plan Section 3.0 - Transportation 4. Comprehensive Plan. Section 8.0 - Natural Environment Preliminary Plan Concerns 5. Subdivision Regulations, Section 9:33 —Streets and Roadways We have addressed each of these items either through revisions to the application, or by the provision of supplemental information relevant to pertinent topics. The following section and exhibits collectively describe our proposal for each of the items in question. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding the information contained within this submittal. We look forward to continuing our collaborative work with the County in the effort to establish TO Lane Ranch as a successful project for Garfield County. Sincerely, TO Lane Ranch, LLC. Jon Fredericks, ASLA • Director of Land Planning / Project Manager TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD 3 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 • LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Example Affordable Housing Deed Restriction B. Referral letter from Craig M. Lis, P.E. (Division of Water Resources) to Scott Hall (Garfield County) dated February 3, 2009 C. Letter from Tom Zancanella (Zancanella & Assoc.) to Scott Hall (Garfield County) dated February 13, 2009 regarding project's water supply, wetlands mitigation, and historic and proposed irrigation D. Letter from Cynthia Love, P.E. (Colorado Division of Water Resources) to Scott Hall (Garfield County) dated March 23, 2009 regarding "no injury to existing water rights" E. Letter from Chris Lehrman, P.E. (Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.) to Lee Leavenworth (Leavenworth and Karp, P.C.) dated April 16, 2009 responding to Cynthia Love's (DOWR) letter (dated March 23, 2009) regarding Mid Valley Metropolitan District's source of water supply F. Letter from Cynthia Love, P.E. (Colorado Division of Water Resources) to Fred Jarman (Garfield County) dated April 29, 2009 determining adequate legal and physical water supply • G. Memo from Ann Bowers, P.E., PTOE (Drexel, Barrell & Co.) to Dan Roussin (CDOT Region 3 Access Manager) regarding State Highway 82 / County Road 100 Intersection Capacity Improvement \� H. State Highway 82 and County Road 100 Conceptual Turn Lane Modifications Exhibit; Drexel, Barrell & Co., April 3, 2009 I. Letter from Ken Jacobson (Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch, Army Corp of Engineers) to Jon Fredericks (Noble Design Studio) dated April 20, 2009 regarding verification of wetland delineation J. Letter from Eric Petterson (Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.) to Steve Anthony (Garfield County Vegetation Manager) dated February 11, 2009 responding to environmental concerns brought forth by Steve Anthony K. Revised Site Plan & Open Space Plan -April 2009 L. Vehicular Access Exhibit M. Revised PUD Guide N. Revised Preliminary Plat; Sheets 1 & 2 TC/ Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan /PUD 5 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 46. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS • 47. BOX CULVERT DETAILS 48. WATER FEATURE DETAILS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLAN - SHEET 1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLAN —SHEET 2 L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 REVEGETATION PLAN L-3 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN 8713563 LIFT STATION DRAWING — SHEET 1 8713565 LIFT STATION DRAWING — SHEET 2 • • TCl Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD Supplemental, Submittal, April 2009 • 1. Affordable Housing (revised from Section 2.6 of the December 2008 Application) The Proiect Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09 identifies concerns associated with the original affordable housing proposal, in which three (3) of the nine (9) required affordable housing units were to be managed by local quasi -public & non-profit employers. The following revised proposal demonstrates that all nine (9) required affordable housing units are to be managed by Garfield County Housing Authority. Affordable Housing within TO Lane Ranch will be provided per section 4.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The affordable housing units within the PUD will be dispersed and incorporated throughout the individual neighborhoods, encouraging a mix of housing types and socio-economic intermingling. Calculation of Affordable Housing Requirement: 89 total units x 10% = 8.9 (rounded = 9 units required) These nine (9) units are to be resident occupied and deed restricted per the Definitions set forth in the Zoning Resolution. The proposed Deed Restriction is included as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Zoning Resolution, the nine (9) required designated affordable housing lots are as follows: • • Units to be conveyed to and administered by Garfield County Housing Authority: Lots 1, 11, 12, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 39 o Please note overall project Lot #'s have changed since December 2008 submittal, Please refer to revised Site Plan, Exhibit K Each of the above listed units shall be deed restricted in accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The proposed Deed Restriction is included as Exhibit A. Based on the required computation of affordable housing units (Section 4.07.15.03 of Zoning Resolution), at least sixteen (16) bedrooms will be provided in these nine (9) units, with a minimum of one (1) bedroom per unit. These nine (9) units will be constructed at a rate that is proportional to the construction of market rate units within the community, which will be a minimum of 10% affordable to 90% market rate at any given time. In addition to the nine (9) required affordable housing units, TO Lane Ranch intends to provide five (5) additional affordable housing units that will be perpetually deed restricted and managed by the applicant for employees. These lots are as follows: • To be administered by applicant, or conveyed to and administered by other applicant -owned entity: Lots 37, 38, 67, 82 and 89 o Please note overall project Lot #'s have changed since December 2008 • submittal, Please refer to revised Site Plan, Exhibit K TO Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD 9 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 • 2. Water & Sewer Services The Project Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09 identifies concerns associated with the adequacy of physical and legal water supply for TO Lane Ranch. The following is a chronological summary of information and correspondence related to this topic since the submittal of the original application in December 2008: • A. The State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources (DOWR) provided written comments on the December 2008 application for TO Lane Ranch in a letter dated February 3, 2009 from Craig M. Lis, P.E., Water Resources Engineer (included as Exhibit B). This letter identified the following items that would be required for an adequate review by the State: Report from Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD) documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights Wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one-to-one ratio (if greater than this, a court -approved augmentation plan would be necessary) Since insufficient information was provided in the application, the State could not comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights B. The applicant responded to the requests of the DOWR with a letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc., dated February 13, 2009 (included as Exhibit C). This letter provided the following information relative to the DOWR's requests: • Wetlands will be relocated at a one-to-one ratio (0.268 acres to be relocated on- site through a Nationwide Army Corp of Engineers 404 Permit) • Future (raw water) irrigation will not exceed, and may be substantially less than, the historically irrigated area of 62.3 acres (as exhibited by map analysis) C. Additionally, the Mid Valley Metropolitan District provided water supply documentation to Garfield County and the DOWR for review. These documents were included in the original application as: • Appendix P — Water Supply Documentation, December 2008 and • Appendix Q— Water System Master Plan, August 2008 D. Upon review of the above -referenced items, the DOWR again responded to Garfield County with a letter dated March 23, 2009 from Cynthia J. Love, P.E., Water Resources Engineer (included as Exhibit D). This letter concludes: • That MVMD has an adequate legal water supply to serve TO Lane Ranch • The DOWR was unable to verify that MVMD's water supply is physically adequate, and further "The District should demonstrate that it has sufficient water resources to meet its commitments in terms of an overall annual water supply and daily availability." • It is the opinion of the DOWR "that the proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation." TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD 11 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 • 3. Transportation The Project Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09 states concerns associated with traffic impacts from TO Lane Ranch. The Traffic Impact Study for TO Lane Ranch identifies the existing need for improvement on the northbound leg of the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82, with or without the projected traffic from TO Lane Ranch. The Traffic Impact Study also determines that traffic volume at this intersection will increase by 6% at full buildout of TO Lane Ranch. • While the project's overall traffic impact to this intersection is minimal, the applicant understands that TCI Lane Ranch could potentially exacerbate a neglected existing condition. As such, our team has worked collaboratively with Garfield County Planning, Engineering, and CDOT to collectively identify a suitable solution for public improvements to this intersection. A Technical Memo and Exhibit, prepared by Drexel, Barrell & Co. has been submitted to CDOT for review (included as Exhibits G & H). These documents provide a conceptual layout and performance evaluation of proposed intersection improvements. CDOT has performed a review of these documents, and provided the following email response dated April 21, 2009: "We have reviewed traffic memo and have the following comments: 1. The memo needs to be signed and sealed by a professional engineer. 2. The median shall be a raised median rather than a painted median. 3. The radii and median shall be designed to accommodate truck turning movements. Other than these comments, CDOT is ready to issue the permit. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Traffic" Our team is currently working to specifically address CDOT's comments with a revised conceptual plan and permit application. The current scope of improvements to the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82 are defined by the Drexel, Barrell & Co. Conceptual Exhibit (Exhibit H), and will be modified to reflect CDOT's comments as noted. Our intention is to complete the defined intersection improvements at our initial cost at the time infrastructure construction is carried out within the PUD. We plan to seek reimbursement from future developers of real property whose projects will use the County Road 100/Highway 82 intersection as allowed by Colorado law (C.R.S. § 30- 28-133(12)). None of the County's 1978 Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations of 1984 or the 2009 Unified Land Use Resolution includes language which implements this section of the Colorado subdivision statutes. For that reason we are working with staff (including both the Planning Department and the office of the County Attorney) to process a text amendment which will implement the "fair share" reimbursement program allowed by Colorado law. TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan /POD 13 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 • 4. Natural Environment The Project Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09 identifies concerns associated with potential impacts to the natural environment. These concerns include building envelopes, wetland delineation, and flood fringe areas. Regarding building envelopes, in working with Garfield County prior to site design of this project, we collectively determined that a 20' buffer from wetlands to building envelopes would enable the protection of hydrology and avoid potential impacts to wetlands through home construction. Through the layout of the neighborhoods and lots, the design has adhered to this standard. Some wetlands may be encountered within a small number of individual lots (but not within building envelopes); however these areas are specifically regulated from disturbance activities in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Appendix Z of the original application) on page 15 which states: 3.20 Wetlands and Floodplain Areas The disturbance of any Designated Wetland is strictly prohibited without first receiving the prior written approval of (a) all governmental entities having jurisdiction, and (b) the Design Review Committee. Prior to application for Final Plat, the applicant will perform a final review of all Building Envelope locations to be sure that adequate buffer from delineated wetlands is provided. There are nine (9) building envelopes located partially within the existing flood fringe. These lots are proposed to be slightly raised with subsequent base elevations being a minimum of 12" • above the 100 -year floodplain. Each building envelope within this area then has an assigned minimum finish floor elevation (FFE) that is 18" higher than the 100 -year elevation. Slopes will be gently graded and naturally contoured to match existing topographical characteristics. The applicant will be submitting a Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) to FEMA, to ultimately remove this small area from the 100 -year floodplain. It should be noted that the area in question is not within the Floodway. A Garfield County Floodplain Development Permit application will be submitted upon Preliminary Plan/PUD approval, and minimum FFE's will be recorded with the Final Plat. • The wetland delineation for TCI Lane Ranch was performed during the summer of 2007 and again in 2008 with Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) attendance. The Wetland Determination Report was included in the December 2008 application, and identified 9.44 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. This determination has been verified by the ACOE in a letter dated April 20, 2009 and included as Exhibit I. TCI Lane Ranch will relocate 0.268 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at a one-to-one ratio (as shown on separately -bound drawing sheet L-3 Wetland Mitigation Plan). A nationwide 404 permit application is currently being prepared and submitted to the ACOE for review. This Federal action will also include concurrent Federal regulatory review by both the US Fish & Wildlife Service (for Ute Ladies' Tresses orchid), and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act through the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office. The 404 permit application must pass review by all three agencies before a permit may be issued. TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD 15 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 5. Street Layout • The Project Information and Staff Comments dated 2/25/09 identifies issues associated with the proposed street layout within TO Lane Ranch. That document specifically states: "There are two dead-end cul-de-sacs within the PUD that are longer than the permitted length of 600 feet along Mayfly Bend to Stonefly Loop. This area of the site does not contain steep enough topography that would restrict the proposed layout of a "loop"design. A better design loops Stonefly Loop to Early Rose Court. Staff does not believe the PUD meets these objectives and that Stonefly Loop to Early Rose Court should be connected. Staff recommends the applicant redesign a connection of Mayfly Bend/Stonefly Loop and Early Rose Court to eliminate the 600' cul-de-sac limit. Additionally, Riverstone Drive to Firefly Loop also exceeds this 600' limit and there has been no demonstration that has an alternate egress." It is important to note that the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District determined that the originally submitted street layout was acceptable. A referral letter from Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, dated January 30, 2009 states: "The proposed access throughout the subdivision generally appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus." The applicant has chosen to implement the suggestion of County Staff, and create a connection between Early Rose Way and Stonefly Loop. This is evidenced on the revised Site Plan (Exhibit K) and the Vehicular Access Exhibit (Exhibit Q. With the revised street layout within the PUD, • emergency access is improved upon the originally submitted plan. 9 Since alternative routes are now possible from the intersection of Riverstone Drive and Mayfly Bend, the additional Staff concern of "alternate egress" from Firefly Loop is also mitigated. This is also evidenced by the Vehicular Access Exhibit (Exhibit L), which shows the maximum length of dead-end road at 235'; far below the 600' limit as prescribed by the Subdivision Regulations. Conclusion: It is our opinion that through the above referenced information and associated Exhibits, this Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates full compliance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations (1984), Section 9:33. TO Lane Rancid — Preliminary Plan / PUD 17 Supplemental Submittal, April 2009 • NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES RIGHTS OF THE BENEFICIARIES IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR FORECLOSURE, INCLUDING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AND THE BENEFICIARIES ARE CONSIDERED PERSONS WITH AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND CONTRACT VENDEES WITH RIGHTS TO NOTICE AND RIGHTS TO CURE. DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE SALE, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, TCI LANE RANCH, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE SALE, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE OF PROPERTY described as AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, TCI LANE RANCH, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 200_, by TCI Lane Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Declarant"), for the benefit of the parties and enforceable by the Garfield County Housing Authority ("GCHA"), a duly constituted housing authority established pursuant to Colorado law, its successor or agent, and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado (the "Governmental Entity"). RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS A. Declarant is the owner of and is in the process of developing and platting a residential community known as TCI Lane Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado; and B. Declarant desires to set aside nine (9) lots within TCI Lane Ranch, for the purpose of providing affordable housing for persons employed or residing full time in Garfield County, Colorado (the "County"), which Units are legally described on Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference. For purposes of this Declaration and Agreement, such real property and all dwellings, appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall be referred to herein individually as a Unit or collectively as Units or Property; and C. After completion of construction, each Unit, together with fixtures, equipment and appurtenances thereto, shall be conveyed to "Qualified Buyers" as defined below; and D. The Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted and amended from time to time by the Governmental Entity as part of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution shall constitute the Affordable Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines") referred to throughout this document; and E. GCHA is a duly constituted Housing Authority established pursuant to Colorado law, and the Governmental Entity is a statutory county established pursuant to Colorado law, both of which have rights to enforce this Agreement as set forth herein; and • F. The term "Qualified Buyers," as used herein, are natural persons meeting the income, residency and all other qualifications contained in the Governmental Entity's Guidelines, as AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 1 • 1.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, it is expressly agreed and acknowledged that the terms, conditions, and restrictions of the Agreement with respect to the use and occupancy of any Unit thereof shall not apply to Declarant during its ownership thereof following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Unit, provided, however, that the Declarant shall make no transfer of any Unit except to a Qualified Buyer as defined in this Agreement. SECTION 2 USE AND OCCUPANCY OF PROPERTY, OWNER RESIDENCY REQUIRED 2.1 Except as otherwise provided herein, the use and occupancy of any Unit shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for natural persons who meet the definition of Qualified Buyer(s), and their families. 2.2 An Owner, in connection with the purchase and ownership of a Unit, must: (a) occupy the Unit within this Property as his, her or their sole and exclusive place of residence during the time that such Unit is owned; (b) not engage in any business activity on or in such Unit, other than as permitted in that zone district and any Declaration of Protective Covenants affecting the Unit or Units; and (c) satisfy the residency and employment requirements of the Guidelines; and (d) sell, convey, or otherwise transfer such Unit only in accordance with this Agreement and the Guidelines. 2.3 In the event an Owner ceases to utilize a Unit as his sole and exclusive place of residence, the Unit shall be offered for sale pursuant to the provisions of subsection 3.1 of this Agreement. The Owner shall be deemed to have ceased utilizing the Unit as his sole and exclusive place of residence by becoming a resident elsewhere or by residing in the Unit for fewer than nine (9) months per calendar year without the express written approval of the Governmental Entity or the GCHA. Where the provisions of this subsection 2.3 apply, the Governmental Entity or GCHA may require the Owner to rent the Unit in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. 2.4 If an Owner of a Unit must leave the area as defined in the Guidelines for a limited period of time, and desires to rent the Unit during such absence, a leave of absence may be granted by the Governmental Entity or GCHA in accordance with the Guidelines. SECTION 3 SALE OF UNIT; MAXIMUM RESALE PRICE 3.1 In the event that an Owner desires to sell his Unit, the Owner shall consult with the Governmental Entity or the GCHA to review the requirements of this Agreement, including the method for determining the Maximum Resale Price. Following approval of the Maximum Resale Price by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA, the Owner shall list such unit for sale with the Garfield County Housing Authority, or as otherwise provided in Guidelines or Guidelines then in effect, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Guidelines for a sales price not exceeding the Maximum Resale Price. The Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall charge a fee • for its services in connection with resale in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in the Guidelines then in effect. In order to be able to offer the Unit for sale at the Maximum Resale AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 3 • and expenses shall be eligible for inclusion. Such amount shall not include an amount attributable to Owner's "sweat equity" or to any appreciation in the value of the improvements. 3.6 An Owner shall not permit any prospective buyer to assume any or all of the Owner's customary closing costs nor accept any other consideration which would cause an increase in the purchase price above the bid price so as to induce the Owner to sell to such prospective buyer. 3.7 Prior to Owner entering into a sales contract for the sale of his Unit to a prospective buyer, such potential buyer shall be qualified by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA pursuant to the requirements of the Guidelines then in effect. Documented proof of qualification shall be provided by the potential buyer, as requested by GCHA, prior to purchase. An Owner shall neither enter into a sales contract for the sale of his Unit with any person other than a Qualified Buyer nor any contract which provides for a sales price greater than the Maximum Resale Price established in accordance with this Section. The Owner must accept a Maximum Resale Price offer, and offers in excess of the Maximum Resale Price shall be rejected. Prior to closing, all sales contracts for the sale of a Unit subject to this Agreement shall be submitted to the Governmental Entity or the GCHA for its review and approval of the contract for consistency with this Agreement. SECTION 4 NON-QUALIFIED TRANSFEREE 4.1 In the event that title to a Unit vests in individuals or entities who are not Qualified Buyers as that term is defined herein, (hereinafter referred to as "Non -Qualified Transferee(s)"), and such individuals are not approved as Qualified Buyers within thirty (30) days after obtaining title to the Unit, in the manner described in this Section, the Unit shall immediately be listed for sale or advertised for sale by the Non -Qualified Transferee(s) in the same manner as provided for Owners in subsection 3.1 above; provided such action does not otherwise conflict with applicable law. The highest bid by a Qualified Buyer, for not less than ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Resale Price or the appraised market value, whichever is less, which satisfies all obligations under any existing first lien deed of trust or mortgage, shall be accepted. If all such bids are below the lesser of ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Resale Price or the appraised market value, the Unit shall continue to be listed for sale or advertised for sale by the Non -Qualified Transferee(s) until a bid in accordance with this subsection is made, which bid must be accepted. The cost of any appraisal shall be paid by the Non -Qualified Transferee(s). In the event the Non -Qualified Transferee(s) elect to sell the Unit without the assistance of a real estate broker or agent, such Non -Qualified Transferee(s) shall advertise the subject Unit for sale in a manner approved by Governmental Entity or the GCHA and shall use due diligence and make all reasonable efforts to accomplish the sale of the Unit. In the event the Governmental Entity or the GCHA finds and determines that such Non -Qualified Transferee(s) have failed to exercise such due diligence, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA may require the Non - Qualified Transferee(s) to execute a standard listing contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission, or its successor, with a licensed real estate broker or agent. a. Non -Qualified Transferee(s) shall join in any sale, conveyance or transfer of the Unit to • Qualified Buyer(s) and shall execute any and all documents necessary to effect such AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 5 • Owner is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA, by its authorized representative, may inspect a Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours written notice. 6.2 In the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA may send a notice of violation to the Owner detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner may request a hearing before the GCHA within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the GCHA it shall be conducted in accordance with the hearing procedures set out in Section 7, below, and the decision of the GCHA based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if a violation has occurred. 6.3 The failure of the Governmental Entity or the GCHA to insist upon the strict and prompt performance of any of the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Agreement shall not constitute or be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the Governmental Entity's or the GCHA's right or rights thereafter to enforce any term, condition or restriction and the same shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 7 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 7.1 A grievance is any dispute that a tenant or Owner may have with the Governmental Entity or the GCHA with respect to action or failure to act in accordance with the individual tenant's or Owner's rights, duties, welfare, or status. A grievance may be presented to the GCHA Board of Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as Board) under the procedures set forth in guidelines adopted in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, section 4.14.11, as it may be amended, revised or superseded from time to time. SECTION 8 REMEDIES 8.1 This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property, described in Exhibit A, as a burden thereon, for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by the Owner, Governmental Entity, the GCHA, and their respective successors and assigns, as applicable, by any appropriate legal action against any non -complying Owners and/or occupants. 8.2 In the event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in said litigation shall be entitled to recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 8.3 With the exception of a Public Trustee's or Sheriff's sale in a foreclosure proceeding for the benefit of a first lien mortgage holder; in the event of any sale, transfer or conveyance of the • Property or any Unit thereof, each and every conveyance of the Property or Unit, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference the covenants, conditions, AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 7 • 9.4 Upon notification of a default as provided in subsection 9.3, above, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA may offer loan counseling or distressed loan services to the Owner, if any of these services are available, and the Governmental Entity or the GCHA is entitled to require the Owner to sell the Unit in order to avoid the commencement of foreclosure proceedings. If the Governmental Entity or the GCHA requires sale of the Unit, Owner shall, immediately upon request, execute a standard Listing Contract with GCHA on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission providing for a ninety (90) day listing period. GCHA shall promptly advertise the property for sale by competitive bid to Qualified Buyers. In the event of a listing of the Unit pursuant to this subsection, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA are entitled to require the Owner to accept a qualified bid for the Maximum Resale Price or, if none are received, to accept a qualified bid for an amount less than the Maximum Resale Price which is sufficient to satisfy the Owner's financial obligations pursuant to the promissory note or notes secured by the First Deed of Trust and any junior deeds of trust. The Listing Contract shall obligate the Owner to pay the standard listing fee and normal closing costs and expenses that would be the obligation of the Owner in the event of a sale pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement. 9.5 Upon receipt of notice as provided in subsection 9.3, above, and with the agreement of the Owner, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default or any portion thereof. In such event, the Owner shall be personally liable to the Governmental Entity or the GCHA for any payments made by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA on the Owner's behalf together with interest thereon at the rates specified in the obligation then in default, plus 1%, together with all actual expenses of the Governmental Entity • or the GCHA incurred in curing the default, including reasonable attorney's fees. The Owner shall be required by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA to execute a promissory note to be secured by a junior deed of trust encumbering the Unit in favor of the Governmental Entity or the GCHA for the amounts expended by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA as specified herein, including future advances made for such purposes. The Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall not be limited by the provisions in subsection 9.1. The Owner may pay the promissory note at any time prior to the sale of the Unit. Otherwise, Owner's indebtedness to the Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall be satisfied from the Owner's proceeds at the closing upon sale of the Unit. 9.6 The Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall be a "person who appears to have an interest in the property......" as described in CRS 38-38-103(1)(a)(II)(E) and, thus, shall be entitled to receive the combined notice required by and described in CRS 38-38-103(1)(a). And, as a "contract vendee" pursuant to CRS 38-38-104(1)(d), the Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall be entitled to cure any default which is the basis for a foreclosure action in accordance with CRS 38-38-104 et seq. Upon filing with the Public Trustee of Garfield County of a Notice of Election and Demand for Sale ("NED") pursuant to CRS 38-38-101(4) by the holder of the First Deed of Trust, the Governmental Entity or the GCHA shall have the right and option, but not the obligation, to purchase the Unit from the Owner for 95% of the Maximum Resale Price on the date of the NED, less the amount of any debt secured by the Unit (including interest, late fees, penalties, costs and other fees and reimbursement due to lender) to be assumed by the Governmental Entity or the GCHA. The GCHA may assign the foregoing option to the • Governmental Entity. The party electing to exercise the option shall be referred to herein as the "Purchaser." The Purchaser shall give written notice thereof to the Owner within thirty (30) days AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 9 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 To Owner: [To be set forth in a subsequent recorded Memorandum of Acceptance for each individual Unit] 10.2 Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law, but if any provisions of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or other related document. 10.3 Choice of Law. This Agreement and each and every related document are to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 10.4 Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. 10.5 Section Headings. Paragraph or section headings within this Agreement are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, and shall not govern, limit or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein. • 10.6 Perpetuities Savings Clause. If any of the terms, covenants, conditions, restrictions, uses, limitations, obligations or options set forth in this Agreement shall be unlawful or void for violation of: (a) the rule against perpetuities or some analogous statutory provision, (b) the rule restricting restraints on alienation, or (c) any other statutory or common law rules imposing like or similar time limits, then such provision shall continue only for the period of the lives of the current duly elected and seated governing board of the Governmental Entity, their now living descendants, if any, and the survivor of them, plus twenty-one (2 1) years. 10.7 Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of. this Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this Agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. 10.8 Gender and Number. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall include any or all genders and vice versa and the use of the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 10.9 Personal Liability. Owner agrees that he or she shall be personally liable for any of the transactions contemplated herein. 10.10 Further Action. The parties to this Agreement, including any Owner, agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the • provisions and intent of this Agreement or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 11 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year first above written. DECLARANT: TCI LANE RANCH, LLC By: WILLIAM N. LANE TRUST DATED JULY 30, 1969 FBO ANDREW N. LANE Member By: ATLANTIC TRUST COMPANY N.A., a division of Invesco National Trust Company Co -Trustee Name: Title: By: Andrew N. Lane Co -Trustee By: WILLIAM N. LANE TRUST DATED JULY 30, 1969 FBO NELSON P. LANE MEMBER By: ATLANTIC TRUST COMPANY N.A., a division of Invesco National Trust Company Co -Trustee By: Name: Title: By: Nelson P.. Lane Co -Trustee AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 13 • STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) [-I 0 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009, by Nelson P. Lane, as Co -Trustee for the William N. Lane Trust dated July 30, 1969 FBO Nelson P. Lane, as Member of TCI Lane Ranch, LLC. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 15 • EXHIBIT A Legal description [To be inserted at time of recording] • • AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 17 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Owner(s) has/have executed this Memorandum of Acceptance on the date set forth opposite his/her signature. Owner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) Date Date The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this 200_ by and Witness my hand and official seal. • Notary Public • My commission expires: My address is: AH Deed Restriction for TCI Lane Ranch Page 19 day of • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES February 3, 2009 Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8"' St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hall: Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 & 32, T7S, R87W 6" PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Ritter, Jr. Governer Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 100.52 acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellings. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the District) is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional • letter of commitment dated February 14, 2007. Irrigation water will continue to be supplied by decreed surface water rights. No water use estimates were provided. Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi -municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not provided by the District. See the Updated Memorandum Regarding Subdivisions (online at www.water.state.co.Lls/pubs/policies/memo subdivisions pdf) for the necessary information. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used to on historically irrigated lands, as well as for irrigation of individual lots and for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water rights application may be necessary to allow for irrigation of lands that were not historically irrigated, including wetlands, as well as for use in water features (e.g. the proposed "naturalistic stream course" for the Blue Creek Ditch). The submittal also indicates that up to one acre of wetlands may be created to compensate for disturbances to 0.5 acres of existing wetlands. The creation of the wetlands will cause depletions to the stream system through evaporation from the water surface and the consumptive use of water by plant life. The Roaring Fork River is in an overappropriated stream system, therefore, to prevent injury to vested water rights, wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one-to-one ratio. If the mitigation exceeds this ratio, the stream system must be compensated for these depletions in time, place and amount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved substitute supply plan. The creation of the wetlands may also expose ground water, which by Colorado State Statute is considered a well, and must be permitted by this . office prior to construction. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.watenstate.co.us P.O. Box 1908 •1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 0 is Z41MCAJIMIELL4 4mo 4ssocw -my, INC. EMaIREEPING CONSULUMTS February 13, 2009 Mr. Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Dear Scott: In response to Craig Lis's February 3, PUD/Preliminary Plan, there are proposed acres of irrigation. In addition, 35 acres through a raw water irrigation system. (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax 2009 questions of the TCI Lane Ranch 89 lots with 2500 square feet per lot or 5.1 of open space will continue to be irrigated Historically, the TCI Lane/Cerise Ranch was irrigated by water out of the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek through the Basin, Middle Ditches and Lower Ditch. The attached deeds show that 44.5% of 1/7th of the Basin Ditch and 1/3rd of the Middle Ditch have been deeded to TCI Lane/Cerise Ranch. These water rights are senior rights and have historically irrigated 62.3 acres on the property that is proposed for subdivision, see attached table. The Lower Ditch was historically used on property that is proposed to be placed in a conservation easement and will continue to be used at that location. By virtue of the construction of the 89 homes, sidewalks and driveways, we estimate that 6.3 acres (89 x 3000 square feet/unit) may be dried up. In addition, we estimate 4.65 acres of roads may also be dried up for a total of 10.95 acres. It is unlikely that the entire 62.3 acres will continue to be irrigated. The proposed and future irrigation are close to the same area and in no manner will the historic 62.3 acres be exceeded. A small amount of existing wetlands may be relocated but was less than 0.268 acres and was covered by a nation wide permit. No net gain in wetlands is anticipated. Mid Valley Metro District has a water summary report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer and Leavenworth & Karp. It is expected that the Mid Valley Board will review and approve the report February 18, 2009 and then it will be available for submittal to the State Engineer's Office and Garfield County. 0 \ � � ` \ � \ � \� \\\� \�\ � � \) \\�\ \)\ \\ \\\\ }ƒ\ � S 5 � 45, \ � ----------- 0 0 0 111111111111111111 IN 1r�11111 11111 Ill 1111111111111 A 1=: • 705846 09/01/2006 11:44A B1838 P340 h ALSDORF 4 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT B to QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR WATER RIGHTS All of Grantor's one-half (3/2) interest in 1.5 cubic feet of water per second of time (hereinafter "cfs"), absolute by original construction, decreed for diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Lower Ditch, Priority No. 23, said one-half (%2) interest being 0.75 cfs for irrigation use with an appropriation date of April 15, 1882. 44.5% of Grantor's one-seventh ('/7) interest in the 5.0 cfs, absolute by original construction, decreed for the diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Basin Ditch, Priority No. 49, said 44.5% of a one-seventh ('/7) interest being 0.318 cfs, for irrigation use with. an appropriation date of Goober 20, 1882. All of Grantor's one-third ('/3) interest in the 5.0 cfs, absolute by original construction, decreed for the diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Middle Ditch, Priority No. 83, said one-third (1/3) interest being 1.67cfs, for irrigation use with an appropriation date of April 17, 1884. 44.5% of Grantor's on"eventh (1/7) interest in the 5.0 cfs, absolute by enlargement, decreed for the diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Basin Ditch, First Enlargement, Priority No. 108, • said 44.596 of a one-seventh ('/7) interest being 0.318 cfs, for irrigation use with an appropriation date of March 27, 1885. 44.5% of Grantors one-seventh 0/7) interest in the 1.8 cfs, absolute by second enlargement, decreed for the diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Basin Ditch, Ryan Enlargement, Priority No. 137, said 44.5% of a one-seventh ('/7) interest being 0.114 cfs, for irrigation use with an appropriation date of March 25, 1886. 44.5% of Grantor's one-seventh ('/7) interest in the 33.2 cfs, absolute, decreed for the diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River in the Basin Ditch, Third Enlargement, Priority No. 294, said 44.5% of a one- seventh ('/7) interest being 2.11 cfs, for irrigation use with an appropriation date of March 1, 1890. All of Grantor's one-half (1/2) interest in 3.0 cfs, absolute, decreed for the diversion of water from Blue Crcek in the C. C. Cerise - Gilligan Ditch, with an associated consumptive use of 0.033 cfs pursuant to the final decree entered by the District Court, Water Division No, 5, State of Colorado on August 31, 1992 in Case No. 90CW196, said one-half ('V2) interest being 1.5 cfs, for livestock watering use with an appropriation date of February 20, 1988. EXHIBIT B • Page 1 of 2 State of Colorado Structure Summary Report Structure Name: BASIN DITCH Sone: ROARING FORK RIVER Location 010 Q40 Q160 Section Tvmshp Range PM NW SW SW 33 7S 87W S Distance From Seddon From NIS Line From FJW Line UTM Coodriates (NAD 83): Northing (UTM 4363135 Easling (Uf M x) 317198.5 Latitude/Longitude (decimal degrees): 39.398365 -107.122933 HydroBase Water District: 38 Structure ID Number: 528 Spoiled from PLSS distances from section lines Water (this Summary Total Decreed Rate(s) (CFS) Absolute: 45.0000 Conditional: 0.0000 APEX: 0.0000 Volume (Acre -Feet) Total Decreed Volume(s) (AF): Data Date Number Absolute; 0.0000 Conditional: 00000 APEX: 00000 Absolute Condltional AP/EX Water Rights -- Transactions 49 50000 0 Case Adjudication Appropriation Administration Order Priority Decreed Adjudication 0 Number Date Date Number Number Number Amount Type Uses Action Comment CA0132 1889.05-11 1882-10-20 11981.00000 0 49 5.0000 C 0 1 10 6495 AP FOR 0.0208 CFS CA0132 1889.05-11 1885-03-27 12870.00000 0 108 5.0000 C 0 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0.0208 C 87CW0364 1889-05.11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 131 0.1900 C OTT 4A LIM 5.75AFCU BYPASS AT HDGT CANNOT BE USED 87CW0364 1889.05-11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 0.1900 C OJF 1 DRYUP 21ACRES FOR 5.75AFCU CA0132 1889.06.11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 18000 C 0 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0084 CFS CA3082 1938.0825 1890-03-01 30941.14670 0 294 33.2000 C S 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0.138 CFS Water Rights - Net Amounts Adjudication Appropriation Administration Priority/Cosa - Rate (CFS) Volume (Acre -Feet) Data Date Number Order Number Number Absolute Conditional APEX Absolute Condltional AP/EX 1889-05.11 1882-10.20 11981.00000 0 49 50000 0 0 0 0 D 1885-03-2712870.00000 0 106 5.0000 0 0 0 0 0 •1889-05.11 1889-05.11 1888-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 1,8000 0 0 0 0 0 1936-08.25 1890.03.01 30941.14670 0 294 332000 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated Acres Summary » Totals From Various Sources GIS Total (Acres): 273.248 Reported: 2000 Diversion Comments Total (Acres) 373 Reported. 2000 Structure Total (Acres): Reported: Irrigated Acres From GIS Data Year Land Use Acres Flood Acres Furrow Acres Sprinkler Acres Drip Acres Groundwater Acres Total 1993 ...Year TowP"' 372.79 0 0 0 0 372.79 1993 ALFALFA 199.71 0 0 0 0 199.71 1993 GRASS_PASTURE 149.59 0 0 0 0 14959 1993 SMALL GRAINS 23.49 0 0 0 0 23.49 2D00 -Year Total"' 273.25 0 0 0 0 273.25 2000 GRASS -PASTURE 273.25 0 0 0 0 273.25 • Report Date: 2009-02-10 Page 1 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2009-01-05 Diversion Comments IYR NUC Code Acres Irrigated Comment Nole. Diversion comments and reservoir comments may be drown for a structure, it both are available. • Report Date: 2009-02-10 Page 3 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2009-01-05 b34 _ •1950 1953 59D 1954 590 1962 2000 1969 850 1915 t300 1976 1300 1977 1300 1978 1300 1979 1300 1980 1300 1981 1300 1982 1300 1983 1300 1984 1300 1985 1300 1986 1 1987 1300 1988 1300 1989 1300 1990 1300 1991 1300 1892 1300 1993 1300 1300 •1994 1995 1300 MAY AND JUNE READINGS ARE ESTIMATES DUE TO FLOODING 1996 1300 1997 373 FILLS ID 4110 1998 373 FILLS ID 4110 1999 373 FILLS ID 4110 2D00 373 FILLS 10 4110 2002 Water taken but no data available 2004 NO BYPASSES FOR ID (7185) NO AP DIVERSIONS MADE FOR ID 6495, 2000 ESTIMATED SHUT OFF DATE Nole. Diversion comments and reservoir comments may be drown for a structure, it both are available. • Report Date: 2009-02-10 Page 3 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2009-01-05 Diversion Summary in Acre -Feet - Tota! Water through Structure Year FOU LOU OWC Maxq & Day Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total 1975-05-20 1975.10.14 148 5 05-20 0 0 0 01975 976 1976-05-10 1976.10.30 174 5 05.10 0 0 0 0 0 119 298 307 307 298 139 1468 1977 1977.05.10 1977-10-31 175 5 05.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 298 307 307 298 298 1726 1978 1978.05-20 1978-10.31 165 5 05-20 0 0 0 0 0 218 298 307 307 298 307 1736 1979 1979-05.20 1979-10-31 165 5 05-20 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 119 298 307 307 298 307 1636 1980 1980-05.15 1980-10-31 170 5 05.15 0 0 0 a 0 0 119 298 307 307 298 307 1636 1981 1981.05-16 1981-09-29 137 5 05.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 298 307 307 298 307 1606 1982 1982.05.16 1982-09.28 136 5 05.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 298 307 307 288 0 1359 1983 1983-00-01 1983-10.31 153 5 06-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 298 307 307 278 0 1349 1984 1084-05.10 1984-1031 175 5 05-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 307 307 298 307 1517 1985 1985.05.01 1985.0930 153 5 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 298 307 307 298 307 1736 1986 1988-05.15 1986-09-29 138 2 05-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 298 307 122 112 0 1147 1987 19870.01 1987-10.31 184 3 D5 -0f 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 131 135 135 127 0 602 1988 1986-08-15 1908.09.27 105 2 06-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 155 ISO 61 44 31 612 1989 1989-07-06 1989-10.02 89 1 07-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 71 73 92 0 301 1990 1990-05-01 1990-10.02 154 5 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 65 80 4 170 1991 1991-05-28 1991-10-30 134 505-28 0 0 0 D 0 0 307 296 81 65 60 4 814 1992 1992-04-05 1992-10.17 161 4 04-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 268 253 36 9 119 722 1993 1993.04-14 1993-10.20 190 4 06-05 0 0 0 0 160 215 134 89 114 149 84 966 1994 1994-04.15 1994-08.31 139 5 04-15 0 0 0 0 0 64 154 200 200 158 149 99 1044 1995 1995.05-20 1995-10.30 104 5 05.20 0 0 0 0 0 159 307 298 307 307 0 0 1379 1996 1996.04-29 19WIO.29 184 4 04-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 298 307 266 42 35 1067 1997 1997-08-22 1997.10.30 70 1 08-22 0 0 D 0 0 16 246 238 183 111 58 33 864 1998 1998.06-01 1998-10-30 152 3 07-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 20 60 60 139 1999 1999.06-10 1999.08.09 61 3 08.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 68 168 149 149 604 4 2004-08.03 2004-10.28 87 3 08-03 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 51 61 30 0 0 142 5 � 2005-04-22 2005-0930 162 5 0&31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 179 167 518 2006 20W06.08 2006-10-08 123 5 M08 0 0 0 0 0 11 120 298 307 307 298 0 1340 0 a 0 0 0 218 246 206 119 32 821 Mprimum 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 139 0 0 Maximum: 5 0 0 0 0 0 180 307 298 307 307 298 307 1736 Average 28,00 years with diversion records 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 127 214 211 196 166 Ill 1040 Notes: The average considers all years with diversion records, even if The above summary lists total monthly diversions. no water is diverted. '= Infrequent Diversion Record. All other values are derived from daily records Average values include infrequent data if infrequent data are the only data for the year Report Date: 2009-02-10 Page 2 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2009.01-05 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Bill Ritter, Jr. Govemo, Harris D.shertnan Executive Director Dick Wolfe, KE. March 23, 2009 Director Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8t�'St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CCJ816O1 Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 8^ 32, T7S, R87\A/6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Hall: Wehave reviewed the proposal hosubdivide a parcel uf10J.52acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellingsThe Mid \/a|kav Metropolitan District (the is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional letter pfcommitment dated February 14.20U7. Irrigation water will continue tobesupplied by decreed surface water rights. Nowater use estimates were provided. The District currently uses five existing permitted, decreed wells, inconjunction with a decreed plan for augmentation and acontract for 3OOacre-feet ofRUediReservoir water, tn supply developments within its boundaries, Existing annual diversions bvthe District of773.3 acre-feet provide potable water for 1578.2 EQRs. The total production capacity of the wells is 1345 gallons per minute during the irrigation season (May through September), and 975 gallons per minute during October through April due to the fact that Well Nos. 3 and 4 appear to be hydraulically connected to the Robinson Ditch. Note that there are plans to line the Robinson Ditch in the near future and this may negatively affect production from those wells. The District anticipates that when build -out within its boundaries is reached, a total of 2760 EQRs will be served, and additional future development in areas currently outside District boundaries will increase the demand to 4267 EQRs, which is equivalent to 1673 acre-feet per year. Since the well permits allow the withdrawal ofupto2294acre-feet per year, and the District has additional decreed sources of supply available, it appears the District has an adequate legal water supply. While the MVMDWater Rights Analysis by8chnnueoerGordon Meyer (dated February 13. 2009) concludes that the District has an ample supply based on annual and monthly demand estimates, the K8VK8DWater System Master Plan by Schmnueoer Gordon Meyer states that the firm capacity of the wells is not adequate to meet the maximum daily demand of 2330 gallons per minute. Additionally, the reports provided do not include any information on the anticipated yield oJany ofthe wells. As a result, we are unable to verify the District's water supply is physically adequate. The District should demonstrate that ithas sufficient water resources tomeet its commitments in terms of an overall annual water supply and daily availability. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rightswiUbeusedonhistorically irrigated lands, as well as for ii oUnnofindivkjua!kotmandfPrvvaterfeetu,esmndmxadande creation. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a Office ofthe State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite D18°Denver, CO802O3*Phone: 3V3-866-358l°Fax: 303-866-3589 • Via E-mail: lel(cDlklawfirm.com Mr. Lee Leavenworth Leavenworth and Karp, P.C. RE: MVMD — 2008 Water System Master Plan — Source of Supply Dear Lee: ASPEN P.O. Box 21 55 ASPEN, CO 81612 970-925-6727 Ex. 970-925-4 1 57 CRESTED BUTTE P.O. Box 3088 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 8 1 224 970-349-5355 Ex: 970-349-5358 The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification for the future sources of supply for the MVMD water system master plan. The Colorado division of water resources indicated in a letter, dated March 23, 2009 from Cynthia J. Love, that the District's water system master plan did not show that the firm capacity of the wells is adequate to meet the maximum daily demand of 2,330 gallons per minute (GPM). The MVMD 2008 Water System Master Plan prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. indicates that the maximum daily demand at buildout of the District will be 2,330 GPM as shown on table 5 page 9. The existing firm production which is the production of all the wells with the largest producer offline for redundancy is 845 GPM which leaves a deficit of 1,485 GPM at buildout. It should be understood that the buildout that is referenced in this report contemplates all potential development that could be physically served by the District some day and it is unknown how long it may take if ever to reach this buildout. The report further indicates that in order to serve to buildout of the District, new wells would need to be installed using the existing water rights. The District owns 12 decreed wells of which 5 have been constructed. The yield from the wells ranges from 75 to 500 GPM for a total of 1,345 GPM. The alluvial aquifer in the Mid Valley area has proven to be very successful in producing municipal quality wells for public drinking water systems. The District has the right and plans to drill up to an additional 7 wells that are decreed for 500 GPM each in order to meet the maximum daily demand of 2,330 GPM at buildout. • 1:\1981\01501\C\173- Water System Study\UPDATES\Correspondance\L 20090416 Lee Leavenwo h. rt doc DEPARTMENT OF NATURAh RESOURCES *,l DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES April 29. 2009 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 81' St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 & 32, T7S, R87W 61h PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Fred: Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director We have reviewed additional information regarding the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 100.52 acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellings. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the District) is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional letter of commitment dated February 14, 2007. Irrigation water • will continue to be supplied by decreed surface water rights. No water use estimates were provided. The District currently uses five existing permitted, decreed wells, in conjunction with a decreed plan for augmentation and a contract for 300 acre-feet of Ruedi Reservoir water, to supply developments within its boundaries. Existing annual diversions by the District of 773.3 acre-feet provide potable water for 1578.2 EQRs. The total production capacity of the wells is 1345 gallons per minute during the irrigation season (May through September). and 975 gallons per minute during October through April. The District anticipates that when build -out within its boundaries is reached, a total of 2760 EQRs will be served, and additional future development in areas currently outside District boundaries will increase the demand to 4267 EQRs, which is equivalent to 1673 acre-feet per year. Since the well permits allow the withdrawal of up to 2294 acre-feet per year, and the District has additional decreed sources of supply available, it appears the District has an adequate legal water supply. While the MVMD Water Rights Analysis by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (dated February 13, 2009) concludes that the District has an ample supply based on annual and monthly demand estimates, the MVMD Water System Master Plan by Schmueser Gordon Meyer states that the firm capacity of the wells is not adequate to meet the maximum daily demand of 2330 gallons per minute. The District also holds conditional underground water rights for seven additional wells, each decreed for 500 gallons per minute. The decreed locations appear to be located in or near the alluvium of the Roaring Fork River. If the proposed wells produce at rates similar to the wells that are currently in use by the District, and with sufficient storage capacity, the water supply should be physically adequate. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used on historically irrigated lands, as well as for irrigation of individual lots and for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 8'18 + Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Pax: 303-866-3589 titi�1•�v.tiva tt:r.st�lt�.Cc).us PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 6:30 p.m. PLACE: GARFIELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 108 8`h STREET, IN THE BOCC MEETING ROOM DATE: MAY 27, 2009 1) Call Meeting to Order & Roll Call 2) Public Hearing: Request is to review a Text Amendment to the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 to include an Inclement Weather Vehicle Safety Area within the Resource Land Zone District's Plateau and Lower Valley Floor subzones. Applicant: Chevron USA, Inc. 3) Public Meeting: Request is to review an application to consider rezoning a parcel from A/R/RD to PUD. Also under review is a Public Hearing request to review a Preliminary Plan Application for this same property known as TCI Lane Ranch. The property under review is 100.52 acres and is located off of Highway 82 approximately 3 miles east of Carbondale. Applicant: TCI Lane Ranch, LLC (Please bring TCI Lane Ranch Information that was sent to you previously.) 4) Other business 5) Adjournment Deborah Quinn From: Deborah Quinn Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:44 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: TCI lane Some comments: I. In going through the open space requirements, you included the .98 acres in the utility zones. This is contrary to the express language of 4.07.03(8). See pgs 32-33. 2. On 4.07.03(10), page 33-34, what entity will own the lift station parcels? 3. On the AH requirements, I don't like having the ratio be for building permits. First, the permit may issue for an AH unit and it still might not be built. Second, in the Ironbridge case, bankruptcy has prevented the sale of the completed AH units, thus defeating the intent of the ratio requirement. In Ironbridge we also had an escrow, and a deed of trust initially. Since the developer is selling lots, not built homes, I assume, the trigger ought to be 10 sales of free market lots, which would generate the cash necessary to build the AH unit. We could use the building permit process as a monitor, not issue further permits if there isn't a CO for a deed restricted unit in the 10-1 ratio. I'd like to reserve the ability to work with the developer to address adequate security for the construction and sale of these units. The applicant anticipates actual construction of houses to begin in 2010, with 15-25 per year to be constructed. We should tailor the security for the AH to coincide with this schedule, assuring that in 2010, 2-3 units are actually built and made available for sale, etc. This is your condition 3b. 4. We need to look at CCR's to see if the AH units are assessed the same way as free market. The HOA assessment could create an issue on affordability and we should assure that there won't be issues with that, perhaps require developer, county and Gacro Housing to work together to assure there won't be problems with that, prior to final plat. This is your condition3a, I know the BOCC needs to sign off on the deed restriction also, so you probably need to include the County in that meeting requirement. 5. On page 38, while we can process the PUD and PP together, 4.08.01 requires the PUD decision to be made first. Jock might need a reminder. 6. 4.08.05 on page 39- is only for PUD's that do not include a PP application, the subdivision regs supercede when PP is requested at the same time. No big deal, since you analyzed the PP requirements as well. 7. On 50-51, while Midvalley will be providing the potable water supply, the letter from DWR dated April 29, 2009, included as Exh F in the supplemental application, your exh JJ, still suggests that a well permit may be required for the wetlands and that a change of water rights application may be necessary in connection with the use of irrigation water . We should ask the applicant to explain any changes in the place and type of use and whether there is an opinion from their professional addressing the issue of whether such changes require an application with the courts and whether they agree that a well permit is necessary. Deborah Quinn Assistant Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 Fax (970) 384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. 1 NWA WWWMMWWW'�- Drexel, Barrell & Co. Engineers 0 Surveyors TO: COLORADO DOT REGION 3 ACCESS MANAGER 222 South Sixth Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 • Introduction: This memorandum outlines the proposed effect of anticipated improvements to the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 within Garfield County. The primary improvement anticipated at this time is the construction of a right turn lane from northbound County Road 100 to the up valley direction of State Highway 82. Project Background: A traffic study was submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Garfield County by Drexel, Barrell & Co. - June 27, 2008 - regarding the projected impacts of the TCI Lane Ranch residential development to be located along the SH 82 Frontage Road. This development is approximately one quarter mile to the east of the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82. CDOT granted two access permits for this development to the SH 82 Frontage Road (No. 308134 and 308135) on August 26, 2008. As part of the study, the northbound approach of the County Road 100 / SH 82 was identified as operating unacceptably under existing conditions. There is a strong imbalance in traffic flow at the approach during the AM peak hour, with 74% of total approach traffic turning right onto SH 82. As this approach is single lane, the right turning vehicles are forced to queue with the through and left turning vehicles. This also results in the unpaved shoulder of County Road 100 being used as a right turn lane. A right turn acceleration lane on SH 82 is already in existence at this location. The existing conditions at this location can also been in Figure 1: 123 N 7"' Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1 350 Fax 970 257 1066 ATTN. DAN ROUSSIN CC: Scott Hall, Garfield County FROM: Ann Bowers, P.E., PTOE DATE: April 6, 2009 RE: State Highway 82 / County Road 100 Intersection Capacity Improvement Memorandum Garfield County, Colorado • Introduction: This memorandum outlines the proposed effect of anticipated improvements to the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 within Garfield County. The primary improvement anticipated at this time is the construction of a right turn lane from northbound County Road 100 to the up valley direction of State Highway 82. Project Background: A traffic study was submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Garfield County by Drexel, Barrell & Co. - June 27, 2008 - regarding the projected impacts of the TCI Lane Ranch residential development to be located along the SH 82 Frontage Road. This development is approximately one quarter mile to the east of the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82. CDOT granted two access permits for this development to the SH 82 Frontage Road (No. 308134 and 308135) on August 26, 2008. As part of the study, the northbound approach of the County Road 100 / SH 82 was identified as operating unacceptably under existing conditions. There is a strong imbalance in traffic flow at the approach during the AM peak hour, with 74% of total approach traffic turning right onto SH 82. As this approach is single lane, the right turning vehicles are forced to queue with the through and left turning vehicles. This also results in the unpaved shoulder of County Road 100 being used as a right turn lane. A right turn acceleration lane on SH 82 is already in existence at this location. The existing conditions at this location can also been in Figure 1: 123 N 7"' Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1 350 Fax 970 257 1066 0 Table 1: Queueinq Analvsis -Hs the potential northbound right turn lane would be considered a free movement, no substantial queueing would be e)petted. Two variables are illustrated in Table 1; the 50th percentile queue and the 95th percentile queue. The 501h percentile queue is the projected average queue expected during the peak fifteen minutes of the respective peak hour. The 95th percentile queue is typically taken as the longest peak hour queue to be anticipated under normal operating conditions. As can be seen in Table 1, the construction of a dedicated right turn lane is expected to have a substantial positive effect on the length of the queue experienced for northbound left and through vehicles, especially during the AM peak hour. With the turn lane, the projected Year 2030 queues, including TCI Lane Ranch traffic, would be expected to be substantially lower than those experienced under existing conditions. The PM peak hour, while also improved by the addition of a right turn lane, would not be expected to experience as dramatic of an improvement. This is likely due to the somewhat more balanced turning movement distribution experienced during the PM peak hour. The unusual geometry of adjacent roadways may have an effect on the actual queues experienced at this location. The north flowline of the intersection of County Road 100 and the SH 82 Frontage Road is approximately 130 feet south of the SH 82 traffic signal. It is unlikely that the right turn lane would be extended past this point unless the entire section of roadway is reconstructed. When through -left queues exceed this distance, right turning vehicles are likely to be forced to remain with the through traffic, further contributing to the queue at this location. 123 N 7`1' Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado SI 501 Tel 970 357 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 NBA roach* Year Traffic Condition50th Percentile 95th Percentile 2008 Existing AM 305 724 2009 Background AM 348 757 2009 Total AM 403 825 2030 Background AM 761 1001 2030 Total AM 819 1061 2009 Background AM (w NBR) 75 184 2009 Total AM (w NBR) 84 198 2030 Background AM (w NBR) 179 289 2030 Total AM w NBR 191 316 2008 Existing PM 182 461 2009 Background PM 190 485 2009 Total PM 202 516 2030 Background PM 889 1139 2030 Total PM 932 1184 2009 Background PM (w NBR) 77 195 2009 Total PM (w NBR) 105 247 2030 Background PM (w NBR) 272 458 2030 Total PM (w NBR) 283 478 -Hs the potential northbound right turn lane would be considered a free movement, no substantial queueing would be e)petted. Two variables are illustrated in Table 1; the 50th percentile queue and the 95th percentile queue. The 501h percentile queue is the projected average queue expected during the peak fifteen minutes of the respective peak hour. The 95th percentile queue is typically taken as the longest peak hour queue to be anticipated under normal operating conditions. As can be seen in Table 1, the construction of a dedicated right turn lane is expected to have a substantial positive effect on the length of the queue experienced for northbound left and through vehicles, especially during the AM peak hour. With the turn lane, the projected Year 2030 queues, including TCI Lane Ranch traffic, would be expected to be substantially lower than those experienced under existing conditions. The PM peak hour, while also improved by the addition of a right turn lane, would not be expected to experience as dramatic of an improvement. This is likely due to the somewhat more balanced turning movement distribution experienced during the PM peak hour. The unusual geometry of adjacent roadways may have an effect on the actual queues experienced at this location. The north flowline of the intersection of County Road 100 and the SH 82 Frontage Road is approximately 130 feet south of the SH 82 traffic signal. It is unlikely that the right turn lane would be extended past this point unless the entire section of roadway is reconstructed. When through -left queues exceed this distance, right turning vehicles are likely to be forced to remain with the through traffic, further contributing to the queue at this location. 123 N 7`1' Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado SI 501 Tel 970 357 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 c Critical Lane Group • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 K\E5875113eportsMaffi6Signal for memo12008 Exist AM syn • ---* -0. f- *-- 4.- 4\ t /0' �, 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r *T+ 4# Volume (vph) 37 1570 90 104 397 4 61 33 266 23 23 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1663 1764 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.61 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1564 1089 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 40 1707 98 113 432 4 66 36 289 25 25 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 0 1 0 53 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 1707 67 113 432 3 0 338 0 0 7 61 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 81.5 81.5 15.0 89.2 89.2 29.7 6 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 83.5 83.5 16.0 91.2 91.2 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 •Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 2064 923 198 2254 1008 335 233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.48 c0.06 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 c0.22 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.83 0.07 0.57 0.19 0.00 1.01 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 24.0 13.0 60.3 10.8 9.5 56.2 46.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.7 0.1 4.7 0.2 0.0 51.1 0.8 Delay (s) 68.3 27.7 13.1 65.0 10.9 9.5 107.4 47.6 Level of Service E C B E B A F Approach Delay (s) 27.8 22.1 107.4 D 47.6 Approach LOS C C F D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 143.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 HAE58751ReportsJraffic\Signal for memo12008 Exist AM syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 1707 98 113 432 4 391 68 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.83 0.10 0.57 0.19 0.00 1.00 0.28 Control Delay 77.6 28.3 4.3 75.5 10.7 5.0 91.4 51.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.6 28.3 4.3 75.5 10.7 5.0 91.4 51.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 641 9 98 85 0 -305 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 785 34 203 108 4 #724 119 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity(vph) 140 2937 1326 268 3129 1400 391 243 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.58 0.07 0.42 0.14 0.00 1.00 0.28 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 0 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & (niinty Rnari inn o2 Timings P. o4 35 s 25s 120s 06 o7 08 35s 15s 140s 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:1E58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12008 Exist PM syn ! ---* -. f- �- 4-- .4\ T \0. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt ?I ►� tt r 4T* 4 Volume (vph) 17 565 44 380 1477 8 111 34 3 7 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 8.8 39.2 39.2 21.5 60.1 60.1 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.21 0.57 0.57 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.08 1.14 0.79 0.01 0.76 0.05 Control Delay 52.6 24.7 5.0 129.8 21.4 5.9 45.7 22.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.6 24.7 5.0 129.8 21.4 5.9 45.7 22.3 LOS D C A F C A D C Approach Delay 24.0 43.4 45.7 22.3 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length. 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 104.7 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.14 Intersection Signal Delay: 39.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 0 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & (niinty Rnari inn o2 ©3 P. o4 35 s 25s 120s 06 o7 08 35s 15s 140s Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffi6Signal for memo12009 Background AM syn Movement > EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL -- SBT SBR Lane Configurations I tt r t+ r 4* Volume (vph) 38 1603 88 102 405 4 63 34 273 23 44� 22 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1663 1762 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.59 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1562 1051 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 1742 96 111 440 4 68 37 297 25 24 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 54 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1742 67 111 440 3 0 348 0 0 7 60 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 83.7 83.7 15.0 91.4 91.4 29.7 6 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 85.7 85.7 16.0 93.4 93.4 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.59 0.59 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 101 2086 933 195 2273 1017 330 222 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.49 c0.06 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 c0.22 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.84 0.07 0.57 0.19 0.00 1.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 24.1 12.8 61.4 10.6 9.3 57.4 48.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 3.9 0.1 4.6 0.2 0.0 64.9 0.9 Delay (s) 69.8 28.0 12.9 66.0 10.8 9.3 122.3 48.9 Level of Service E C B E B A F Approach Delay (s) 28.2 21.8 122.3 D 48.9 Approach LOS C r I _ Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 40.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 HAE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Background AM.syn 0 --, -0. --v 'k- t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1742 96 111 440 4 402 67 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.84 0.10 0.57 0.19 0.00 1.04 0.29 Control Delay 79.1 28.6 4.4 76.5 10.6 5.0 102.7 52.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.1 28.6 4.4 76.5 10.6 5.0 102.7 52.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 666 9 98 87 0 -348 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 817 34 200 110 4 #757 117 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 138 2899 1310 264 3088 1382 386 230 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.60 0.07 0.42 0.14 0.00 1.04 0.29 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 0 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 o2 f o3 -► e4 35s I I 25s 120s 7 06 o7 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Timings 2: State Highway 82-& County Road 100 H:IE58751ReportsJraffi6Signal for memo12009 Background AM fix syn --* 'e- *-- 4-- 4\ t \. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ft I tt r *T if Volume (vph) 38 1603 88 102 405 4 63 34 273 23 41� 22 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 10.3 76.4 76.4 15.8 85.5 85.5 18.0 124.2 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.62 0.62 0.13 0.69 0.69 0.14 1.00 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.80 0.10 0.49 0.18 0.00 0.50 0.19 0.29 Control Delay 70.1 21.6 3.9 65.6 7.8 4.5 64.0 0.3 52.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.1 21.6 3.9 65.6 7.8 4.5 64.0 0.3 52.0 LOS E C A E A A E A D Approach Delay 21.7 19.3 16.9 52.0 Approach LOS C B B D Intersection Summary Cycle Length. 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 124.2 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 o2 f o3 -► e4 35s I I 25s 120s 7 06 o7 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 • c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Total AM syn • -.4 --. -';lv #,- '- 4-- 4\ T 1* \0� 1 ./ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft I* I t+ I *11 Volume (vph) 38 1603 90 106 405 4 69 36 286 23 23 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1664 1764 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.57 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1552 1028 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 1742 98 115 440 4 75 39 311 25 25 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 51 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1742 68 115 440 3 0 374 0 0 61 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 83.9 83.9 15.3 91.9 91.9 29.7 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 85.9 85.9 16.3 93.9 93.9 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.59 0.59 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 101 2084 932 198 2278 1019 327 216 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.49 c0.06 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 c0.24 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.84 0.07 0.58 0.19 0.00 1.14 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 66.4 24.3 12.9 61.6 10.6 9.3 57.6 48.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 3.9 0.1 5.1 0.2 0.0 94.3 1.0 Delay (s) 70.0 28.2 13.0 66.6 10.8 9.3 151.9 49.3 Level of Service E C B E B A F D Approach Delay (s) 28.3 22.2 151.9 49.3 Approach LOS C C F D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 • c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Total AM syn 0 -A --I,. --* -jr- 4- 4�' 0 • Lane Group - EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1742 98 115 440 4 425 68 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.84 0.10 0.58 0.19 0.00 1.12 0.30 Control Delay 79.3 28.8 4.4 76.9 10.5 4.8 125.5 52.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.3 28.8 4.4 76.9 10.5 4.8 125.5 52.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 672 10 102 87 0 -403 46 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 817 35 206 110 4 #825 120 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity(vph) 138 2891 1307 262 3080 1378 380 225 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.60 0.07 0.44 0.14 0.00 1.12 0.30 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Timings 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 K\E58751Reports\Traffi6Signal for memo12009 Total AM fix syn ---* --► --i 'r r-- 4\ I /,W \► i Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBI. SBT Lane Configurations tt if I t+ if *T if Volume (vph) 38 1603 90 106 405 4 69 36 286 23 41, 23 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 Free 6 Switch Phase 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 10.2 77.6 77.6 16.1 87.0 87.0 19.1 126.7 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.13 0.69 0.69 0.15 1.00 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.80 0.10 0.51 0.18 0.00 0.53 0.20 0.28 Control Delay 71.6 22.4 4.1 67.1 8.0 4.5 65.1 0.3 52.1 Queue Delay Total Delay 0.0 71.6 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 67.1 8.0 4.5 65.1 0.3 52.1 LOS E C A E A A E A D Approach Delay 22.5 20.2 17.7 52.1 Approach LOS C C B D Intersection Summary Cycle Length. 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 126.7 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:08751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Background PM.syn 0 -,* -0. 4,- 4-- 4\ t /'N. 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations v/s Ratio Perm tt ? 0.01 tt rr 0.01 14+ 0.28 0.44 0.03 1.18 0.82 0.01 Volume (vph) 17 577 44 377 1508 8 113 34 181 3 7 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 B 5.0 D C 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 C 1.00 D D 1.00 Intersection Summary Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 42.8 HCM Level of Service 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0.98 109.2 0.99 9.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1695 1716 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1510 1657 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 627 48 410 1639 9 123 37 197 3 8 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 29 0 0 4 0 22 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 627 19 410 1639 5 0 335 0 0 15 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 42.0 42.0 20.5 59.5 59.5 29.7 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 44.0 44.0 21.5 61.5 61.5 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 65 1426 638 348 1993 892 425 466 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 c0.23 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.22 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.44 0.03 1.18 0.82 0.01 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 23.7 19.7 43.9 19.4 10.5 36.3 28.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.9 0.1 106.0 3.7 0.0 9.9 0.0 Delay (s) 54.3 24.6 19.8 149.9 23.1 10.5 46.2 28.5 Level of Service D C B F C B D C Approach Delay (s) 25.0 48.3 46.2 28.5 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.2 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 • c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 • Queues 2: State Highway 82-& County Road 100 HAE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo0009 Background PM syn --* --* -V f- t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 627 48 410 1639 9 357 24 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.08 1.14 0.80 0.01 0.78 0.05 Control Delay 53.8 24.5 4.8 132.4 21.6 5.8 47.7 23.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.8 24.5 4.8 132.4 21.6 5.8 47.7 23.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 161 0 --301 368 0 190 5 Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 204 20 #682 628 8 #485 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 188 3430 1536 359 3509 1570 459 489 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.18 0.03 1.14 0.47 0.01 0.78 0.05 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Timings 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Background PM-fix.syn M.* -•-,* Ir4- 4--4\ t /a. 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Tt if Vi t+ 7r +T r 4� Volume (vph) 17 577 44 377 1508 8 113 34 181 3 7 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 39.2 39.2 22.3 61.4 61.4 18.8 94.1 18.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.24 0.65 0.65 0.20 1.00 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.43 0.07 0.98 0.71 0.01 0.57 0.12 0.07 Control Delay 50.6 19.4 4.5 78.8 14.6 5.1 46.0 0.2 24.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.6 19.4 4.5 78.8 14.6 5.1 46.0 0.2 24.6 LOS D B A E B A D A C Approach Delay 19.2 27.4 20.7 24.6 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 94.1 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.98 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 • S lits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 to2 o3 -'► o4 35s H 25s 120 s 06 o7 08 35s 15s 130s Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 65 1426 638 348 1993 892 425 469 v/s Ratio Prot 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751ReportsMaffic\Signal for mem62009 Total PM syn v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.23 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.44 0.03 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR S8L SBT SBR Lane Configurations I ft I Incremental Delay, d2 tt 14 0.1 4 13.0 0.0 *T+ 54.3 Volume (vph) 17 577 51 392 1508 8 117 36 190 3 9 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 HCM Average Control Delay 5.0 46.1 5.0 D Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sum of lost time (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 E 0.93 Analysis Period (min) 0.93 15 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1694 1727 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1510 1670 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 627 55 426 1639 9 127 39 207 3 10 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 4 0 22 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 627 22 426 1639 5 0 351 0 0 17 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 42.0 42.0 20.5 59.5 59.5 29.7 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 44.0 44.0 21.5 61.5 61.5 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 65 1426 638 348 1993 892 425 469 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 c0.24 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.23 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.44 0.03 1.22 0.82 0.01 0.83 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 23.7 19.7 43.9 19.4 10.5 36.8 28.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.9 0.1 123.9 3.7 0.0 13.0 0.0 Delay (s) 54.3 24.6 19.8 167.7 23.1 10.5 49.7 28.5 Level of Service D C B F C B D C Approach Delay (s) 25.0 52.7 49.7 28.5 Approach LOS C D D C intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.2 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 • • Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:1E58751ReportslTrafficlSignal for memo12009 Total PM syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 627 55 426 1639 9 373 26 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.09 1.19 0.80 0.01 0.81 0.05 Control Delay 53.8 24.5 4.6 147.9 21.6 5.8 50.6 23.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.8 24.5 4.6 147.9 21.6 5.8 50.6 23.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 161 0 -323 368 0 202 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 204 22 #714 628 8 #516 34 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity(vph) 188 3430 1536 359 3509 1570 458 493 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.18 0.04 1.19 0.47 0.01 0.81 0.05 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 to2 Timings o4 35s 25s 120s 1 06 .1*" '+_ 00 35s 1 5 s 130s 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12009 Total PM-fix.syn -,* --P� 4 4-- 41 t /W \► i Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ft I t* r 4 r 4 Volume (vph) 17 577 51 392 1508 8 117 36 190 3 9 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 40.2 40.2 22.1 62.1 62.1 23.1 99.1 23.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.22 0.63 0.63 0.23 1.00 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.44 0.08 1.08 0.74 0.01 0.61 0.12 0.06 Control Delay 52.6 21.3 4.6 108.1 17.2 5.6 45.5 0.2 24.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.6 21.3 4.6 108.1 17.2 5.6 45.5 0.2 24.2 LOS D C A F B A D A C Approach Delay 20.8 35.8 23.9 24.2 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 99.1 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 to2 T o3 o4 35s 25s 120s 1 06 .1*" '+_ 00 35s 1 5 s 130s Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 105 2296 1027 196 2478 1108 246 142 v/s Ratio Prot 2 State Highway 82 & County Road 100H:1E58751ReportsJraffic\Signal for memo12030 Background AM -exist Gond syn c0.09 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00 c0.29 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.61 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1.00 tt ? 1.00 tt r 11.1 *T+ 0.2 19.4 0.3 0.0 41� 11.6 Volume (vph) 59 2491 122 142 630 6 89 55 290 36 31 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 HCM Average Control Delay 5.0 129.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 116.0% 0.91 H 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1678 1758 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.47 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1469 848 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 2708 133 154 685 7 97 60 315 39 34 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 0 2 0 40 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 2708 111 154 685 5 0 432 0 0 94 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 114.0 114.0 18.8 123.2 123.2 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 116.0 116.0 19.8 125.2 125.2 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.65 0.11 0.70 0.70 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 2296 1027 196 2478 1108 246 142 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.77 c0.09 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00 c0.29 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.18 0.11 0.79 0.28 0.00 1.76 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 82.1 31.4 11.9 77.4 10.0 8.1 74.4 69.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 85.6 0.2 19.4 0.3 0.0 356.6 11.6 Delay (s) 93.2 117.0 12.1 96.8 10.2 8.1 431.0 81.3 Level of Service F F B F B A F F Approach Delay (s) 111.7 26.0 431.0 81.3 Approach LOS F C F F Intersection Summary. HCM Average Control Delay 129.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 178.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 1 OOWE58751ReportslTrafficlSignal for memo12030 Background AM -exist cond.syn 0 --* --v Ir *-- 4-- t 40 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 2708 133 154 685 7 472 102 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.18 0.13 0.79 0.28 0.01 1.64 0.68 Control Delay 106.2 115.9 6.6 103.5 10.3 4.0 343.4 85.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 106.2 115.9 6.6 103.5 10.3 4.0 343.4 85.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 -2017 30 179 148 0 -761 104 Queue Length 95th (ft) #139 #2112 59 #288 178 5 #1001 #193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 109 2296 1049 208 2494 1117 287 151 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 1.18 0.13 0.74 0.27 0.01 1.64 0.68 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 n Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 175.2 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.15 Intersection Signal Delay: 77.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiohwav 82 & County Rnarl inn 1 02 Timings m4 35s 25s 120s 06 ..4 -' 7 0"3,130s 35s 15s 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:1E58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12030 Background AM.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r *T r *T+ Volume (vph) 59 2491 122 142 630 6 89 55 290 36 31 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 10.6 116.2 116.2 19.6 125.2 125.2 26.4 175.2 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.66 0.66 0.11 0.71 0.71 0.15 1.00 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.15 0.12 0.78 0.27 0.01 0.82 0.20 0.60 Control Delay 104.2 103.5 6.5 101.4 9.5 4.0 103.1 0.3 77.6 Queue Delay Total Delay 0.0 104.2 0.0 103.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 101.4 0.0 9.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.1 0.3 77.6 LOS F F A F A A F A E Approach Delay 99.1 26.2 34.5 77.6 Approach LOS F C C E n Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 175.2 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.15 Intersection Signal Delay: 77.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiohwav 82 & County Rnarl inn 1 02 ■ m3'0 m4 35s 25s 120s 06 ..4 -' 7 0"3,130s 35s 15s Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12030 Total AM -exist cond.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0.19 tt r I tf r + 4 c0.31 Volume (vph) 59 2491 124 145 630 6 96 57 303 36 32 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.3 5.0 401.1 12.0 5.0 93.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Level of Service 1.00 F B 1.00 B Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 475.6 0.96 Approach LOS Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 F 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1678 1759 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.48 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1463 861 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 2708 135 158 685 7 104 62 329 39 35 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 40 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 2708 112 158 685 5 0 455 0 0 96 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 114.0 114.0 19.0 123.4 123.4 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 116.0 116.0 20.0 125.4 125.4 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.65 0.11 0.70 0.70 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 2293 1026 198 2479 1109 245 144 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.77 c0.09 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00 c0.31 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.18 0.11 0.80 0.28 0.00 1.86 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 82.2 31.5 11.9 77.5 10.0 8.0 74.5 69.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 86.3 0.2 20.7 0.3 0.0 401.1 12.0 Delay (s) 93.3 117.8 12.1 98.2 10.2 8.1 475.6 81.7 Level of Service F F B F B A F F Approach Delay (s) 112.3 26.5 475.6 81.7 Approach LOS F C F F • IntersectionSumma HCM Average Control Delay 136.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 179.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12030 Total AM -exist cond.syn is ---* -► `v f- * �- t • • Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 2708 135 158 685 7 495 103 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.18 0.13 0.80 0.28 0.01 1.74 0.68 Control Delay 106.4 116.5 6.6 104.8 10.3 4.0 380.5 86.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 106.4 116.5 6.6 104.8 10.3 4.0 380.5 86.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 -2017 30 184 148 0 -819 106 Queue Length 95th (ft) #139 #2112 59 #298 178 5 #1061 #198 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 109 2294 1049 208 2491 1116 285 152 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 1.18 0.13 0.76 0.27 0.01 1.74 0.68 Intersection Summary -- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 • Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Rnarl Inn tm2 Timings -� ,4 - -- 35 "> 25 s 120s OG or oS 35s 15s 130s 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:IE58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12030 Total AM syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I tt r fid` r *T r 41� Volume (vph) 59 2491 124 145 630 6 96 57 303 36 32 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 10.6 116.1 116.1 19.8 125.3 125.3 27.3 176.2 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.66 0.66 0.11 0.71 0.71 0.15 1.00 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.16 0.13 0.79 0.27 0.01 0.85 0.21 0.60 Control Delay 105.0 107.0 6.5 103.1 9.7 4.0 106.2 0.3 78.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 105.0 107.0 6.5 103.1 9.7 4.0 106.2 0.3 78.9 LOS F F A F A A F A E Approach Delay 102.3 27.0 35.8 78.9 Approach LOS F C D E Intersection Summary Cycle Length. 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 176.2 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.16 Intersection Signal Delay: 79.5 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G • Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Highway 82 & County Rnarl Inn tm2 o3 -� ,4 - -- 35 "> 25 s 120s OG or oS 35s 15s 130s Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Hiahwav 82 & County Road 100H:1E58751ReportslTrafficlSignal for memo12030 Background PM -exist cond.syn Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 203.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 177.4 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Movement EBL- EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r +T# +11� Volume (vph) 27 896 65 561 2343 13 162 50 262 5 10 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1695 1708 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1521 1556 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 974 71 610 2547 14 176 54 285 5 11 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 3 0 25 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 974 45 610 2547 11 0 490 0 0 20 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 111.4 111.4 20.0 124.1 124.1 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 113.4 113.4 21.0 126.1 126.1 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.12 0.71 0.71 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 2262 1012 210 2516 1125 257 263 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.28 c0.34 c0.72 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.32 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.04 2.90 1.01 0.01 1.91 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 81.9 15.9 11.9 78.2 25.7 7.5 73.7 62.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.6 0.1 870.0 21.0 0.0 422.3 0.2 Delay (s) 85.4 16.5 12.0 948.2 46.7 7.5 496.0 62.2 Level of Service F B B F D A F E Approach Delay (s) 18.1 219.9 496.0 62.2 Approach LOS B F F E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 203.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 177.4 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100H:1E58751ReportslTrafficlSignal for memo12030 Background PM -exist cond.syn Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. r� L • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 -'0 -• --v *-- 4,- T l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 974 71 610 2547 14 515 37 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.43 0.07 2.89 1.01 0.01 1.81 0.13 Control Delay 89.1 16.7 2.4 886.7 44.8 4.5 414.9 35.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.1 16.7 2.4 886.7 44.8 4.5 414.9 35.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 284 0 1233 -1671 1 -889 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 331 20 #1491 #1785 10 #1139 55 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 110 2329 1066 211 2530 1134 284 282 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.42 0.07 2.89 1.01 0.01 1.81 0.13 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. r� L • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Intersection Summar Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 176.2 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 2.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 145.8 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiahwav 82 & County Road 100 to2 Timings --* o4 35 s H 25s I 11120s 06 0 OH 35s FT 15s I 11130s 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:\E5875\Reports\Traffic\Signnal for memo\2030 Background PM.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r* tt r *T r *11 Volume (vph) 27 896 65 561 2343 13 162 50 262 5 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0- 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.7 112.4 112.4 21.0 126.1 126.1 29.8 176.2 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.64 0.64 0.12 0.72 0.72 0.17 1.00 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.43 0.07 2.89 1.01 0.01 0.94 0.18 0.13 Control Delay 89.1 16.6 2.4 884.2 44.4 4.5 115.1 0.2 35.6 Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •Queue Total Delay 89.1 16.6 2.4 884.2 44.4 4.5 115.1 0.2 35.6 LOS F B A F D A F A D Approach Delay 17.6 205.7 51.5 35.6 Approach LOS B F D D Intersection Summar Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 176.2 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 2.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 145.8 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiahwav 82 & County Road 100 to2 7 a3 --* o4 35 s H 25s I 11120s 06 0 OH 35s FT 15s I 11130s • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:\E5875\Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo\2030 Total PM -exist cond.syn Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 213.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 177.4 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t* r 4 *11� Volume (vph) 27 896 72 575 2343 13 167 51 271 5 13 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1694 1720 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1517 1576 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 974 78 625 2547 14 182 55 295 5 14 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 28 0 0 3 0 25 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 974 50 625 2547 11 0 507 0 0 23 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 111.4 111.4 20.0 124.1 124.1 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 113.4 113.4 21.0 126.1 126.1 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.12 0.71 0.71 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 Grp Cap (vph) 83 2262 1012 210 2516 1125 257 267 •Lane v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.28 c0.35 c0.72 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.33 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.05 2.98 1.01 0.01 1.97 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 81.9 15.9 11.9 78.2 25.7 7.5 73.7 62.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.6 0.1 902.0 21.0 0.0 451.6 0.2 Delay (s) 85.4 16.5 12.0 980.2 46.7 7.5 525.3 62.3 Level of Service F B B F D A F E Approach Delay (s) 18.0 229.6 525.3 62.3 Approach LOS B F F E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 213.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 177.4 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Queues 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:\E5875\Reports\Traffic\SignallIfor memo\2030 Total PM -exist cond.syn • --► --v 1f - 4--- *-- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 974 78 625 2547 14 532 40 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.43 0.08 2.96 1.01 0.01 1.88 0.14 Control Delay 89.1 16.7 2.3 917.9 44.8 4.5 442.5 37.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.1 16.7 2.3 917.9 44.8 4.5 442.5 37.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 284 0 -1270 --1671 1 -932 19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 331 21 #1528 #1785 10 #1184 59 Internal Link Dist (ft) 638 10127 117 768 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 275 350 350 Base Capacity (vph) 110 2329 1069 211 2530 1134 283 286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.42 0.07 2.96 1.01 0.01 1.88 0.14 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 0 Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 176.5 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 2.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 152.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiahwav 82 & County Road 100 I o2 Timings --► o4 35s I I 25 s120 s OG I 1. -- 08 35s 15s 1130 2: State Highway 82 & County Road 100 H:1E58751Reports\Traffic\Signal for memo12030 Total PM.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt if Vi t* if 4 if 4 Volume (vph) 27 896 72 575 2343 13 167 51 271 5 13 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Free 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 26.0 26.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 120.0 120.0 25.0 130.0 130.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 66.7% 66.7% 13.9% 72.2% 72.2% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 19.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.7 112.4 112.4 21.0 126.2 126.2 30.0 176.5 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.12 0.72 0.72 0.17 1.00 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.43 0.08 2.96 1.01 0.01 0.97 0.19 0.14 Control Delay 89.1 16.7 2.3 917.9 44.8 4.5 122.0 0.3 37.3 Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •Queue Total Delay 89.1 16.7 2.3 917.9 44.8 4.5 122.0 0.3 37.3 LOS F B A F D A F A D Approach Delay 17.6 215.9 54.5 37.3 Approach LOS B F D D 0 Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 176.5 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 2.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 152.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: State Hiahwav 82 & County Road 100 I o2 f o3 --► o4 35s I I 25 s120 s OG I 1. -- 08 35s 15s 1130 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 • • • PREPARED BY: D r e 3q el, Barrell & Engineers • Surveyors 1800 38TH STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 (303) 442-4338 DATE: JOB NO: SHEET 3 APR 2009 E5875 1 T SCALE:ii H: 1 4o i DRAWING NO.: SHEETS DO — FILE 1 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 April 20, 2009 Regulatory Division (SPK -2008 -00253 -CW) Jon Fredericks Noble Design Studio 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Dear Mr. Fredericks: We are responding to your consultant's request for an approved jurisdictional determination for the TCI Lane Project. This approximately 100 -acre site is located within Sections 31 and 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, near the Catherine Store, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on available information, we concur with the estimate of waters of the United States, as depicted in the November 2008, Wetlands SE, Central and West drawings prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services and Nobel Design Studios. Approximately 9.4 acres of waters of the United States, including Blue Creek and the Roaring Fork River and wetlands adjacent or abutting to both, are present within the survey area. These waters are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, since they are tributary to the Colorado River, a traditional navigable water. This verification is valid for five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. This letter contains an approved jurisdictional determination for your subject site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form is enclosed. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Pacific Division Office at the following address: Administrative Appeal Review Officer, Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, CESPD-PDS-O, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1399, Telephone: 415-503-6574, FAX: 415-503-6646. In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 60 days from the date of this letter. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the idetermination in this letter. Alicant: Jon Fredericks File Number: SPK-2008 -25 3 Date: 4/20/2009 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) B PERMIT DENIAL C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps egarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. • KY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 'ILDLIFE••VEGETATION••WILDFIRE MITIGATION••WETLANDS••PLANNING February 11, 2009 Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager P.O. Box 426 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: TCI Lane Ranch PUD Application Dear Mr. Anthony; Mr. Jon Fredericks, with Noble Design Studios requested that I prepare a response letter for your review regarding the TCI Lane Ranch project, in regards to your February 5, 2009 letter to Scott Hall, Garfield County Planning staff. I hope this helps clarify the status of the project, and is helpful in your review. • Wetlands & Ute Ladies Tresses Orchid A wetland delineation was completed in 2007, using the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 manual. During this time, we discovered the Ute ladies' tresses orchid, and we also documented the possible delineation inaccuracies given the widespread flood irrigation activities, which complicate accurate delineations. We submitted a draft Jurisdictional Determination report to Mr. Mark Gilfillan in the winter of 2007, and given the issues regarding the Ute ladies' tresses orchid and irrigation, he requested that the site be re -delineated in 2008, after irrigation ditches being shut-off over the course of the winter of 2007-2008. He also provided guidance that the new Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region be used. On June 19, 2008, Mr. Gilfillan also conducted an on-site review of the TCI Lane Ranch, and concurred with the new wetland boundaries (which had changed after the irrigation ditches were closed that spring). Mr. Gilfillan indicated that upon TCI Lane finalizing their plan, we would submit a section 404 permit application along with the latest wetland delineation report. At this time we are finalizing the 404 application, and incorporating recent changes to the TCI Lane Ranch plan, based on Garfield County staff comments. Upon the ACOEs receipt of the permit application, they would initiate section 7 consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service over the potential impacts to Ute ladies' tresses orchid and its habitat. A complete application is necessary for the ACOE to initiate consultation with USFWS, and the State Historic Preservation Office (section 6consultation). Prior to any activities occurring within wetlands, a 404 permit must be issued to TCI Lane Ranch. The 404 permit should also contain proposed mitigations for any potential impacts to 0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE • COLORADO • 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 • CELL: (970) 309-4454 EMAIL: EPETTERSON@a RMES-INC.COM • WWW.RMES-INC.COM BMP- Coober° Hawk Nest Variance Request Febnaa 11 2009 a wetland mitigation pond. A culvert is planned to be installed to P prevent waters from pooling on the east side of the road. o The one northeastern lot off of Dragonfly Spur are separated from potential Spiranthes habitat by approximately 20'. Use of the backyards by homeowners may impact Spriranthes plants. No fill of wetlands is allowed, per ACOE guidance. The indirect impacts to Spiranthes from incidental trampling must be disclosed in the section 7 consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS may impose Terms and Conditions with their Biological Opinion if they feel that the population at TCI is threatened by the development. The lot to the northwest of Dragonfly Spur does not abut Spiranthes habitat. o Blue Creek will not be channelized. On the contrary, approximately 620 feet of the creek will be widened, and will have the existing steeply sloped banks laid-back to widen the riparian corridor (the section north of Mayfly Bend). This activity is part of the Mitigation Plan being presented to the ALOE. The wetland areas created along Blue Creek are being designed in an attempt to mimic the higher quality wetlands to the west where Spiranthes is common. • Fencing of BLM Properties The Ute ladies' tresses orchids on BLM lands occur in an old cutoff oxbow, (now a shallow depression). This depression collects precipitation, and is also likely supplemented by a shallow water table, and is approximately 0.03 acres in size. Due to the widespread wildlife use in the area, my recommendation is to only fence the orchid area, rather than the whole BLM boundary. A two or three strand smooth wire fence, or split -rail fence would likely be adequate and would follow CDOW's fencing standards. • Trails Any trails crossing wetland areas will have to be elevated boardwalks, in order to comply with ACOE guidance. • Noxious Weeds TCI Lane Ranch has contracted EcoRx, Inc. to begin cutting and treating Russian olive this winter, with a scheduled spring treatment for most weeds, and a fall treatment for Canada thistle, and a retreatment of Russian olive. TCI Lane Ranch has agreed to control noxious weeds following the RMES plan, and has agreed to notify landowners buying into the subdivision that there is an aggressive noxious • weed control program, and that various control methods will be applied as needed ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 91,Nn Ir 1 Jll ZI SII `rt , d — m „ w , 11 x v - y b +r ,•, � I' +1 Ir ' % I � � k- • I r i, ♦:''.. � � � !�'� rte. I %t J / 9 A2: t tz / R - z • u illy �tr �� ♦�.,`,, 1`'' Yr.' - "�-. I , ; •-•'mss f --__ _ _ lr . — i 1.. •r. � - J l 1 w \ lr_: ,n / r m ! 4 AL" , 1 - r�l `1 I I a � ej 1 :�, � ,+ C ,jam"/�\\ � \•`r. � '%-r� !/ �`"^�- •, .."I yy 4ti I µ :b , } .t 4 TCI Lane Ranch PUD Guide (Revised April 2009; all revisions are noted by red font) TCI Lane Ranch Planned Unit Development Proposed Zone District Designations PURPOSE The purpose of this Development Guide is to define the zone districts within the TO Lane Ranch PUD. The zone districts contained herein shall serve as the governing land use regulations within the PUD. The Guide replaces the current applicable zoning provisions of Garfield County with project specific regulations that are more appropriate to the goals and objectives of the TCI Lane Ranch PUD. The zone districts contained in this PUD Guide establish a comprehensive framework for the development of TO Lane Ranch, including residential, open space, trails and access, and special utility uses. ENFORCEMENT The provisions of this Guide are enforceable by the authority and powers of Garfield County as defined by law. EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD -- AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DENSITY: A. Uses by Right: Agricultural including farms, garden, greenhouse, nursery, orchard, ranch, small animal farm for production of poultry, fish, fur -bearing or other small animals and customary accessory uses including buildings for shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property employed in any of the above uses, retail establishment for sale of goods Guiding and outfitting, and park; Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses. (A. 86-09) Accessory dwelling unit approved as a part of a public hearing or meeting on a subdivision or subdivision exemption or guesthouse special use approved after 7/95 and meeting the standards in Section 5.03.02. B. Uses, conditional: Aircraft landing strip, church, community buildings, day nursery and school; group home for the elderly. (A. 97-60) Pipeline (Subject to review and approval per procedure and requirements of Section (Added 2005-53) 0 TCI Lane Ranch PUD LAND USE 0 OVERALL LAND USE BREAKDOWN TotalLand Area........................................................................................................... 100.45 acres +/- Total Developed Area (Zones) Single Family Residential; Duplex Residential; Community Utility ........................... 31.55 acres +/- Total Open Space Area (Zones) Community Center; Common Open Space; Conservation Easement ....................... 68.90 acres +/- Total Number of Residential Lots..................................................................................................... 89 Total Number of Dwelling Units........................................................................................................ 89 Total Area of Proposed Non -Residential Floor Space (existing buildings) Community Center (1,450 sf); Ranch Cabin (650 sf); Log Shed (250 sf)................................2,350 sf Total Number of Proposed Off -Street Parking Spaces (1 space per BR, min.) ...................... 200-506 Total Proposed Density................................................................................. 1.13 acres/dwelling unit RESIDENTIAL LOT BREAKDOWN Unit Type / Max. Sq. Ft. Max. Sq. Ft. Quantity Half -Duplex 1900 sf 10 Half -Duplex Affordable 1900 sf 8 Single Family 2600 sf 10 Single Family Affordable 2600 sf 6 Single Family 3800 sf 38 Single Family 5500 sf 17 TOTAL UNITS 89 PUD ZONE DISTRICTS Zone District Gross Acres +/- Single Family Residential 26.456 Duplex Residential 4.113 Community Utility 0.978 Community Center 3.092 Private Common Open Space 33.419 Conservation Easement 32.391 TOTAL ACRES 100.45+/- TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan /PUD April 2009 3 iB. Duplex Residential Zone District (Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 83, 84, 86, 87) 1. Uses by Right: Attached, single family dwelling and customary accessory uses 2. Development Standards a. Setbacks: All structures shall be located within building envelopes as identified on the Final Plat. 1) Building foundations shall be fully contained with the platted building envelope. 2) Roof overhangs shall be permitted to extend a maximum of three (3) feet beyond the platted building envelope. 3) Up to 350 square feet of covered porch may extend ten (10') beyond the platted building envelope when said porch fronts the street from which the lot is accessed. b. Maximum Height of Structures: Twenty-five (25) feet c. Minimum Lot Area: As defined on Final Plat. d. Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 1900 square feet e. Off -Street Parking: One (1) space per bedroom, minimum two (2) spaces required per lot. Garage, carport and driveway parking shall count toward off-street parking requirement. C. Community Utility Zone (Tract A — 0.938 Acres +/-, Tract G — 0.021 Acres +/-, Tract H — 0.019 Acres +/-) 1. Uses by Right a. The construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of community utilities and related facilities and structures. b. To provide centralized utility facilities to benefit members of the TCI Lane Ranch Homeowners Association and other parties to whom the Association may decide to provide such service or conduct business with. c. Installation and maintenance of photovoltaic panels, arrays, or other solar power generating systems or equipment. d. Wastewater lift station(s). e. Landscaping and irrigation. f. Vegetation management necessary to facilitate construction and maintenance of community utilities. g. Fencing. 2. Development Standards a. Minimum Lot Area: 0.15 Acres +/- b. Minimum Setbacks: 1) From Easements: Five (5) feet 2) From Lot Lines: Five (5) feet, except as noted below 3) From Residential Lots: Fifteen (15) feet c. Maximum Height of Structures: Twenty-five (25) feet. d. Per Garfield County Supplementary Regulations 5.03, Conditional and Special Uses, 5.03.17 Solar Power Generating Systems, all proposed solar structures shall demonstrate the following TCl Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan / PUD 5 April 2009 E. Private Common Open Space (Tract C — 31.869 Acres +/-, Tract D — 0.493 Acres +/-, Tract E —1.057 Acres +/-) 1. Uses by Right a. Agriculture, the keeping of livestock and accessory uses and structures related to said uses. b. Non -organized recreation c. Pedestrian and bicycle trails d. Public parking for the purposes of access to public fishing trails e. Bridges crossing ditches and drainage improvements f. Limited public access (restricted to designated trails/routes only) g. Community entry features/monumentation/ signage h. Preservation/restoration/maintenance of existing log shed structure and ranch cabin i. Ponds and irrigation ditches j. Wetlands; maintenance and enhancements to existing wetlands and creation of new wetlands k. Landscaping and irrigation I. Mail box facilities for the purposes of centralized mail drop-off and collection m. Picnic shelter or gazebo n. Barbecue o. Drainage improvements p. Utilities 2. Development Standards a. Minimum Lot Area: as depicted on Final Plat b. Minimum Setbacks: Ten (10) feet from adjoining tracts, lots, and easements c. Maximum Height of Structures: Eighteen (18) feet F. Community Center Zone (Tract F — 3.092 Acres +/-) 1. Uses by Right a. Building and/or buildings, including the following uses: 1) Meeting/gathering space 2) Office space for use by the Association 3) Recreational/fitness equipment, workout space and locker rooms 4) Swimming pool (indoor or outdoor) 5) Kitchen facilities 6) Restroom facilities b. Sports fields/open turf areas c. Facilities for other outdoor sports, such as volleyball, par course, running trail, etc. d. Facilities for tennis or other court -based sports e. Community gardens and accessory uses and structures f. Storage and maintenance of equipment and materials used during, or to maintain, recreational and community garden uses; nonresidential structures for persons and equipment engaged in said activities g. Playground/play equipment h. Landscaping and irrigation i. Ponds and irrigation ditches TCI Lane Ranch — Preliminary Plan /PUD 7 April 2009