Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.02 Exhibit 75 - 90Gregory Rosenmerkel 203 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs CO 81601 glrosieAomail.com Mike Samson, County Commissioner 108 8th St., Ste. 101 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 4 b d a 3 EXHIBIT • 11 Mar 19 Dear Mike, After 30 years and 13 moves with the US Air Force, my family and I settled in Glenwood Springs, specifically Westbank Ranch. Among the many reasons we chose this city and neighborhood was the balance between convenience to town and the peaceful setting away from high density and traffic. While not against development, it must be done deliberately and in concert with existing segments of the community and I expect our elected officials and their staffs to ensure that is done properly. My entire Air Force career was in the field of civil engineering including such sub -disciplines as community development and environmental planning, and my current job with the US Forest Service reinforces the need to seek the greatest good for the greatest number while incorporating socio-economic impacts discerned through study and public comments. It is with that experience and my interest as a concerned citizen that I ask for your help and consideration. I have a few significant concerns about the Flying M Ranch development proposal as I understand it. The first concern is that the proposal itself is not very clear. Neither the planning commission nor the board can effectively do their job, nor can the surrounding communities provide ideal input without some more specifics on things like rental percentages, number of units, density calculation, traffic study/planning and environmental impacts which are dependent on the other factors. Second, having experienced the traffic impacts of the new Riverview school with minimal improvements to the infrastructure, I can't envision a safe and successful development in the project area without substantial and multiple improvements to the transportation infrastructure, traffic control, emergency vehicle access and pedestrian/bicyclist routes. Third, the density of residence proposed and associated light, noise and traffic pollution would not only degrade the quality of life of surrounding residents, but also those in the very community proposed. The density I've read about reflects a significant departure from the current standards, and will have long-term negative impacts on this section of Garfield County. I look forward to a revised proposal of lower density which includes a transportation plan for the development as well as Hwys 154 and 82. At that point I also expect to be able to more specifically review the proposal for environmental impact concerns. I appreciate the challenges you face as a commission and a board and I trust you will act with the interests of your supportive current constituents in mind. We can continue to develop Garfield County as the place we've come to love and encourage more to settle here if we make smart long-term decisions at times like this. Thank you, Greg Rosenmerkel 203 Westbank Rd March 14, 2019 Mike Samson County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Ste 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Hello, My name is Melissa Heiser and I am a resident of Westbank Ranch and have lived here for 12 years. We have seen lots of new building and the taking away of open space all around us. I guess in this valley, that is inevitable. The Riverview school is a great example of a project that wasn't well thought out in the design of the safety concerns or traffic issues that come with this type of a project. To point out that these are kids who could walk or bike to this school seems important. However, there are no sidewalks anywhere around the school which means that the parents of the kids attending here, have brought a additional large amount of traffic to the already busy one road which goes to and from the school. There are many near misses everyday when these parents and teachers turn onto Hwy 82 from CR 154 as there is no right turn lane and no signage to point this out either. This example is just one example of how the Flying M Ranch subdivision would further impact an already heavily congested roadway. Everyone coming in or out of the subdivision would also use this one overly busy road. The Flying M Ranch Subdivision is seeking to put an extremely congested 38 acres of urban development in an already congested area which would result in us losing any open space we currently have. We live in this area for the wildlife and beauty all around us. My understanding of this project is that it seeks not only putting many single family and multi family units in this space but businesses, assisted living, hospice, restaurants and more. This directly conflicts with current zoning in the area. This is a rural setting for such urban congestion. The amount of traffic, noise and light pollution would greatly impact all of the surrounding areas. None of which are so tightly congested. There are many flaws in putting so many homes in such a small space. Parking, wildlife space, foot traffic, open space, emergency exits and existing roads are just a few. I hope you will consider all of these concerns and please require the developer to really address all of these concerns before this project goes forward. Thank you for you time and consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Heiser March 14,2019 Mike Samson County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Ste 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Hello, EXHIBIT I am a resident of Westbank Ranch and have been since 2007. There are many concerns that I have with the proposed Flying M Ranch subdivision. I hope that these concerns will be addressed at the upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission on February 13, 2019. Firstly is the problem of so many homes squeezed into such a small area. We moved to this area because the lots were so wonderfully Targe and spaciously sized with lots of room to enjoy the nature and wildlife of this subdivision. Such will not be the case at the Flying M Ranch. These houses will be one on top of another. The wildlife will have lost yet another area to inhabit. Secondly there will be so many cars, trucks and motorcycles all converging on the signal on Highway 82. There are times already that there is a lot of traffic waiting for the signal to change. I can't imagine what it would be like for the added traffic coming from the Flying M Ranch homes. Thank you for letting me address just a few of my many concerns regarding the Flying M Ranch project. Much more time and discussion should be given to the serious problems which this project would cause. Sincerely, Nano, A. Heiser ROARING FORK r CONSE RVANCY March 20, 2019 Garfield County Board of County Commission 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Flying M Ranch proposal Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Flying M Ranch Major Subdivision and Planned Unit Development application. As Garfield County considers this proposal, Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) encourages protection and consideration of valuable river resources, riparian habitat, well-planned river access and Section 7-203 of the Garfield County Code for the Protection of Waterbodies. RFC respectfully requests, should the Commission approve this application, the applicant must adhere to established, applicable best management practices throughout this project such as: maintaining river and riparian buffers, implementing and properly maintaining sediment and erosion control, inclusion of a stormwater and drainage management plan, and conducting ecological review, assessment, and monitoring. Without proper planning for a development of this scope and the potential significant increase in river access from the Flying M subdivision, the river and riparian could be impacted to a significant, irreparable degree. Please continue to prioritize water resources and water quality throughout your consideration of this project. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely Rick Lofaro Executive Director I'.C). v 3349 Basalt, Colorado 81621 9711.927.1290 WWw-.roaringfork.org March 18, 2019 4.1 EXHIBIT Dear Commissioner Samson, I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I attended the public hearing of the Planning Commission to hear the developer's presentation and felt that most questions or issues presented were either not answered/addressed or were not clearly answered/addressed. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the full potential impact of the proposed project. Westbank's attorney presented specific discrepancies at the Planning Commission hearing. A new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a complete analysis of the total proposed development, 228 residential units, Hospice care and the Business Park. Only with a complete analysis of the traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. As proposed, all of the subdivision and business park traffic will access highway 82 via county road 154. This road is already heavily impacted from the building of the Riverview School. If the development is to proceed, the developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure where the Flying M Ranch Road connects with County Road 154 and where County Road 154 meets Highway 82. These upgrades need to be required for the safety of the students who attend the Riverview School and those that live in Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge and Teller Springs who are commuting to school on their bicycles or by foot. I understand there is an independent entity that obtained a grant to provide a connection to the Rio Grande trail. However, I also understand this connection will take the users out and around the back side of the school, adding quite a bit of length and time to the students commute. Hence, the shortest route, directly up County Rd. 154 will remain the route of choice for many students. Appropriate merge and turn lanes along with sidewalks must be required of the developer, safety is a huge issue! The proposal is also not compatible with adjacent land uses. The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The proposed density of the development with 228 units and a business park on 38 acres does not fit within the character of the surrounding land use. At minimum, the proposed density of the development needs to be significantly reduced. Additional areas impacted by high density include the river, water and sewer systems, wildlife habitats and light pollution, to name a few. The proposed high density will negatively impact the mid -valley in many ways forever. The ambiguity of the proposal provides too much freedom to the Developer to build units that may have even greater impact than those that are proposed as possibilities. The only real solid proposals are the tiny eco homes and the Hospice Center. The eco homes are going to be rentals, not for sale units. It is not clear whether the other proposed residential units will be for sale units or rentals. If the entire development ends up as rentals, how does that support the housing needs of the community? Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, im English 409 Westbank Road March 18, 2019 Dear Commissioner Jankovsky, I am a resident of the Westbank Ranch subdivision and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch subdivision as proposed. I attended the public hearing of the Planning Commission to hear the developer's presentation and felt that most questions or issues presented were either not answered/addressed or were not clearly answered/addressed. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the full potential impact of the proposed project. Westbank's attorney presented specific discrepancies at the Planning Commission hearing. A new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a complete analysis of the total proposed development, 228 residential units, Hospice care and the Business Park. Only with a complete analysis of the traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. As proposed, all of the subdivision and business park traffic will access highway 82 via county road 154. This road is already heavily impacted from the building of the Riverview School. If the development is to proceed, the developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure where the Flying M Ranch Road connects with County Road 154 and where County Road 154 meets Highway 82. These upgrades need to be required for the safety of the students who attend the Riverview School and those that live in Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge and Teller Springs who are commuting to school on their bicycles or by foot. I understand there is an independent entity that obtained a grant to provide a connection to the Rio Grande trail. However, I also understand this connection will take the users out and around the back side of the school, adding quite a bit of length and time to the students commute. Hence, the shortest route, directly up County Rd. 154 will remain the route of choice for many students. Appropriate merge and turn lanes along with sidewalks must be required of the developer, safety is a huge issue! The proposal is also not compatible with adjacent land uses. The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The proposed density of the development with 228 units and a business park on 38 acres does not fit within the character of the surrounding land use. At minimum, the proposed density of the development needs to be significantly reduced. Additional areas impacted by high density include the river, water and sewer systems, wildlife habitats and light pollution, to name a few. The proposed high density will negatively impact the mid -valley in many ways forever. The ambiguity of the proposal provides too much freedom to the Developer to build units that may have even greater impact than those that are proposed as possibilities. The only real solid proposals are the tiny eco homes and the Hospice Center. The eco homes are going to be rentals, not for sale units. It is not clear whether the other proposed residential units will be for sale units or rentals. If the entire development ends up as rentals, how does that support the housing needs of the community? Thank you for considering these concerns. Requiring the developer to make adjustments to address these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, im English 409 Westbank Road March 18, 2019 Dear Commissioner Samson, I am a long time resident of Westbank Ranch and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch PUD that I hope you will consider during the review process. l attended the Planning Commission public hearing and the neighborhood tour of the property with the Developer. I have listened to the proposal as presented by the Developer in two different settings and still only have partial clarity on two out of thirteen lots of the development. My number one concern is the density of the development and its many impacts. And, not just high volumes of traffic on the road, but safety concerns particularly for the children attending the Riverview School. There currently is no safe way for children from neighboring subdivisions to access the school on foot or by bicycle. They must walk or ride along County Rd. 154 with no sidewalks. Sidewalks are critical to this development. The traffic study is inadequate and needs to consider the full development proposal at its maximum build out as the intersections of Hwy 82 and County Road 154 and Flying M Ranch Road and County Road 154 are already inadequate. The Riverview School is not yet at full enrollment which will bring additional cars in the future as they reach enrollment capacity. The study that was done does not seem to take this into account nor the full impact of an additional 240+ residences and numerous businesses being added to the mix. The developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure at both intersections — Flying M Ranch Rd. with County Rd. 154 and Highway 82 with County Rd. 154. My other traffic safety concern centers around the one access road that dead ends in the development. I understand there is a gated emergency access road requirement, however with a full build out of 220+ residential units, a Hospice Center, an undefined expanded business park, the Riverview School and future school district expansion, an emergency situation in the center of the development would create a tragic scenario for people trying to evacuate. Another road access is critical to safety in this development. The proposal is not clear as to whether the residential units will be for rent or for sale. The only thing that is clear is that 15% of them will be required to have lease periods of 30 days or more. What about the other 85%? Will they all be short term rentals? And, what about affordability of these units whether for rent or for sale? The developer is approaching this development in a way that allows the avoidance of affordable housing requirements. Before a development of this density is approved there must be clarity about how the housing units will address the current housing needs of the community. A large number of tiny homes or very small units will not address the needs of a young family of four trying to live and work in our community long term. Additionally, the proposal is lacking in clarity in critical areas such as light pollution, river access impacts, availability of adequate water supply when the development is fully built out, parking, true density of the business park parcel and impacts to wildlife habitats. I urge you to require the developer to address the many unclear issues mentioned above prior to considering the PUD for approval. Respectfully, A Li da English ( 409 Westbank Rd. March 18, 2019 Dear Commissioner Jankovsky, I am a long time resident of Westbank Ranch and have concerns with the Flying M Ranch PUD that I hope you will consider during the review process. I attended the Planning Commission public hearing and the neighborhood tour of the property with the Developer. I have listened to the proposal as presented by the Developer in two different settings and still only have partial clarity on two out of thirteen lots of the development. My number one concern is the density of the development and its many impacts. And, not just high volumes of traffic on the road, but safety concerns particularly for the children attending the Riverview School. There currently is no safe way for children from neighboring subdivisions to access the school on foot or by bicycle. They must walk or ride along County Rd. 154 with no sidewalks. Sidewalks are critical to this development. The traffic study is inadequate and needs to consider the full development proposal at its maximum build out as the intersections of Hwy 82 and County Road 154 and Flying M Ranch Road and County Road 154 are already inadequate. The Riverview School is not yet at full enrollment which will bring additional cars in the future as they reach enrollment capacity. The study that was done does not seem to take this into account nor the full impact of an additional 240+ residences and numerous businesses being added to the mix. The developer should be required to upgrade the road infrastructure at both intersections — Flying M Ranch Rd. with County Rd. 154 and Highway 82 with County Rd. 154. My other traffic safety concern centers around the one access road that dead ends in the development. I understand there is a gated emergency access road requirement, however with a full build out of 220+ residential units, a Hospice Center, an undefined expanded business park, the Riverview School and future school district expansion, an emergency situation in the center of the development would create a tragic scenario for people trying to evacuate. Another road access is critical to safety in this development. The proposal is not clear as to whether the residential units will be for rent or for sale. The only thing that is clear is that 15% of them will be required to have lease periods of 30 days or more. What about the other 85%? Will they all be short term rentals? And, what about affordability of these units whether for rent or for sale? The developer is approaching this development in a way that allows the avoidance of affordable housing requirements. Before a development of this density is approved there must be clarity about how the housing units will address the current housing needs of the community. A Targe number of tiny homes or very small units will not address the needs of a young family of four trying to live and work in our community long term. Additionally, the proposal is lacking in clarity in critical areas such as light pollution, river access impacts, availability of adequate water supply when the development is fully built out, parking, true density of the business park parcel and impacts to wildlife habitats. I urge you to require the developer to address the many unclear issues mentioned above prior to considering the PUD for approval. Respectfully, Linda English 409 Westbank Rd. JOHN S. HAINES To wl J A N >.(o v Ski -,i CavNN C� 11M 15S/ONER 1 0 e B/TI. sr, 5u,ro )©I c -L r/J W oo,p3,1t,NCJ, el 601 0 1_ A 1Z Fzw To a a EXHIBIT 28 Fairway Lane Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601 Hm: (970) 945-9392 Cell: (970)-6.H#40201 404—p0'70 w OV L &) L) .w To T,112 A- )'2 o)"9.r rJ1 " o F y o n R r' )‘-1 e i o SOD J4 - T141 .N�s T'/4.4 wf= .et AIOT )"./ fry 1._r rT A ro rJ,tr_ p�-nov�►v; A uo Zor J'' C Co)-1Mr5„o1.r Li'rT. 1‘r TIA4 T`o LA) o.J►_0 )4o1J: ,/o%-/ ,4s /'; co1%.1 ss,an� 4 "i° "13 ,(11\41.3 L 00 -C A r L.J1-J) 4e' T-/JJS 2?.e- veLnpr-JrvT /5 G -.o C.C.! 7- 5 LIPP c'`))71)1")/ . 6-01 A/c. ro so Am) p1�T vA TN`- /%0A'i3}r 3 o 4 -cites w,rH 1 eO— 300 /-10).-0,45 0A I r 1.7 )4_o r 771�r.- 5ulzn o `-) ,Ju 1 iN/ �. Cors r uev, r1 21s l POAi r r •vsr iT v.r1 L t. Fir.A-J- .4 TN E.: 1 0 2,3 Z. itr -AO aoc TAU 1-, .4 z:;c -17 A '1' ,r 'To G -L /CAA op sJ21'vt1 Lv1)-1cH 1 I W 1,0, r /J, "4t t s fr )1' Z.- LA/J4,„/ ? (31?c/)vsr_ C. irrre J.ocXso�s. J�,✓cd1 CO/J51L/L VA•rron/ JEA.3)-1fstir AJ✓U ALC. LTAr,(r.< tfr S -e."4" 7 p FLywc. M 1$ 13z,. c' P1Povrp R(1A¢1+vc fc ew IA/ n r.Eie 0j>3. --41C r: w N 1_ 2 A; /, r;-1 F_ l nr c Tl yr KO)5r'1tr 4L5 c.) 7AL1es f1 1jouT 1-74,s P4RH 4LcNc T.yx kr✓r•2 A.NO ir'S p:J13L./c Ace IHSS FOR TNt }2.1v/=f, 7),1,4 7" .!.5 A7; Bur wureli nate P 4,24( 4L -L- CA Rs T) -)A7 2_1 vr- 7-/4 ry car Now 1• p w C T7 Lot A 13 U vY 7-/4 5 1 i./r1E Q s, crtc. N .4 A/o Now ,-r's Coma LL 7-4,/i szi 4'O p L.A.! G-c/Nc ra wok)/ /;/`49 Gora/At C 14 O 1-7 fE", /,?-r S 1 M 1 4 Al2 r 1 1`1 JIS w14 A-7- rs, ^rn ©F •✓� 3 117141T GoJn T' c4.dit 1 1 ocw,r. T-41 you 1-14vr on1/;` ANA 1 Dori' 7- 7-»i TNS G1ry HVY5 C9N /?/V0 1 9M. NorsvRE_ 1 c.✓AN`' )-o vsf CDOT 's1 13u5--/ TAJ1uY( w1' N)-12:9 ro G!'r A RZ.41. L,V.E 7"'12,0yr-IC r -N 1s✓torks Aa.rc+ NdVE 14I ►ti bo A 1? .O L op rhstg pno,lg w). x LJN$ Lti/413. AJ co 1 N c �-o JOHN S. HAINES 28 Fairway Lane Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601 Hm: (970) 945-9392 Cell: (970) -1,04—o 0 76 { r G- 1'Ts J LL t JtL-r OvT ANo s rZ 17- cpMx.s CLOsZ ro YVA/GPO•mv6 A M 3 cozLy To sby w r 3 z.,GT T)4Z ) PAir ink g-3 Or- /> yz,d2 46.o 1 SJC-J\1)LO Folz A tot) wII BArneF{>=LD roux dr` rir pla)L►ppr've { s C-. 4 NPS Ary ) 1r .jTo T14 E L Asr r )41 Nc 1 )AVE TO .5A' Is A P)e1 t- 3 re,o - / 7TH 1 A s »-. .4 LC. r) -Ir P Et p r. r= ,5.1 T-7-) N s a Eh,/ 1 n."u Tti t Drs,1+cs ) F L✓C 121 ,voT r,4 gig - R RrFR.r=srr..lrar, V1Es ANA r r Vo L/r, .4SX P, r 1 /lr W 1)- i-4 S PLu! LETT-la-4S ),V OppCs,YioN AMD A LL T'r1 n_ p Ro pLis , 1- Th / oeooe-i opp acro 7-o r rl 4,v0 ,vo LIZ)" r,u I N i- A VOR ) Cr, , 4/V y Ain oi\LE 5 p r`A}wd /v6 4 N FOX VO GTCAND y-so.FN NI)D L!Z>= rl4r-,aArrnrav)ry .5)-nov LT A1g1.,.54 E w/13 iN p- vt) oxrr) wow Cc uLD yo LI ccnvc.E1v.48L ' vorz r° ,774OVr 1 RJEcL V -ED 1\i0 AMS w� Aa✓A )✓o opig Loo.w.4. 4) M.F AA/ Tr�r_- yF F_XcxpT G M` F ri E S 4)./ we, A yy.r uts R,L=.0a) LL A 13a %.J J- 1 ,4N1� WELL P1tt� plIAEP A ivi D)1, Nor Yo fir• FOR 1 l -1 -)9N1 -e3 Fan Li .5 FA w) G- To: Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Ste.101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 From: Linda Carlson Shaw, Homeowner, West Bank Ranch 41 Oak Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Date: March 20, 2019 Re: Proposed Development on Flying M Ranch My comments on the Flying M Ranch Development, I have given previously as public testimony, at the Planning Commission meeting February 27th, 2019. Unfortunately, I will be out of State for the next County Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, April 8th at 1:00, where, again, Flying M Ranch proposal for development will next be discussed. It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners have the final decision making authority on the Flying M Ranch development proposal. My work life takes me in the direction of Basalt. After Working home in the morning, I usually leave West Bank Ranch at 11:00 by way of the Hardwick Bridge, turning right, heading South on 154 to the light at 82, and continuing South on 82 to my office in Basalt. However, on the morning of October 8th, 2018, Columbus Day, I had an early morning appointment at Valley View Hospital, and encountered traffic congestion around Flying M Ranch Road intersecting with 154 North. I was shocked because on that day, a National Holiday, with school, banks and many businesses closed, I found traffic very heavy, as I was attempting to leave West Bank Ranch, and make a left hand turn. First of all, there was non-stop traffic coming from the directions of Iron Bridge Development, and from West Bank Mesa. When I was finally able to enter all this traffic and make my way, along with the back to back stream of cars to the Hardwick Bridge, I had to wait my turn to make a LEFT turn onto 154, and again be in line to make my way slowly up to the intersection of Flying M Ranch Rd. and 154. From that vantage point, I again waited, and waited until it was my turn, with a green arrow to enter 82 and head North in the direction of my destination, Valley View Hospital. My thoughts that morning, waiting through that bottle neck of traffic, were: "We are already congested with traffic, even on a National Holiday, with less than normal traffic on the roads West of the Roaring Fork, attempting to cross the Hardwick Bridge to get to Hwy 82." "What will the traffic be like when the proposed Flying M development adds more traffic from Flying M Ranch Rd, trying to get North and South on 154, in an attempt to travel on 82 North and South." "Additionally, parents who do not live in the area, but who drop off their children at Riverview School, and then turn around on Flying M Ranch Road, to leave the area, will add even more traffic to the car traffic" which I have already mentioned. Before County Commission approval be granted for the proposed Flying M Ranch Development, I am requesting an up-to-date traffic assessment be done with solutions proposed for traffic mitigation. -6-44- 0.;-4-3-,-4.--), dotb_ e o>. J.a...,.t.., EXHIBIT Patrick Waller i? From: Roger Neal <rneal@hceng.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:19 AM To: Bunnell - CDOT, Mark (mark.bunnell@state.co.us) Cc: Robert Macgregor; Douglas Pratte (landstudio2@comcast.net); Chad Lee (clee@balcombgreen.com); Roussin - CDOT, Daniel; Patrick Waller; Philip.Dunham <philip.dunham@fhueng.com> (philip.dunham@fhueng.com) Subject: Flying M Ranch Attachments: Flying M Ranch TIA_March 2019.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mark, Thanks for meeting with us today and discussing the intersection at CR 154 and Hwy 82. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss CDOT's concerns and hope that with the proposed reductions we have an acceptable path forward that will work with CDOT, Garfield County and the proposed development. I have attached the pdf copy of the report we gave to you onsite and discussed with you. We have made some significant reductions to the traffic volumes for the development. At the high end of daily trips we have reduced the daily trips from 1967 daily trips to 1657 daily trips. We have also committed to reduce the am and pm peak hour trips to no more than 139. We will be requiring a traffic evaluation at each Final Plat submitted to the County that will verify the traffic stays within these limits. We are locked into the County road impact fees and will be paying those fees as each phase develops. Currently the first phase includes 36 eco -efficiency homes and a Hospice facility. The other phases are currently unknown and will develop as the market dictates within the bounds of the PUD guide. Currently we have committed to the addition of a pedestrian signal located at the Rio Grande trail crossing, and would propose to add appropriate signage for no right turns onto Hwy 82 from CR154. We would also consider re -striping the lanes to maximize the left turn movements. We are currently preparing for the County Commissioners hearing and if possible we would like to have any response comments back to us prior to our April 8th County Commissioner hearing to be able to provide feedback at this hearing. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to give us a call. Roger Neal Roger D. Neal, P.E. Principal High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 Phone: 970-945-8676 Fax: 970-945-2555 From: Bunnell - CDOT, Mark[mailto:mark.bunnell@state.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:10 PM To: Roger Neal Cc: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel Subject: Flying M Ranch Roger, I will be in Glenwood on Monday, and could meet with you sometime around 3 pm. Thanks, Mark Bunnell, PE, PTOE Resident Engineer Region 3 Traffic and Safety P 970.683.6276 1 C 970.640.2677 222 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 mark.bunnell@state.co.us 1 www.codot.gov 1 www.cotrip.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:52 PM Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin(&,,state.co.us> wrote: Mark - Could you meet with Roger on Flying M Ranch development since you will be on Glenwood Springs? thanks Dan Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety P 970.683.6284 I F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniel.roussin@state.co.us 1 www.codot.gov/ l www.cotrip.org 2 FLYING M RANCH Traffic Impact Assessment Prepared for: Dunrene Group 710 East Durant Avenue, Suite W-6 Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 801 1 1 303.721.1440 Principal: Christopher J. Fasching, PE, PTOE Project Engineer: Philip Dunham, PE A FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG connecting & enhancing communities FHU Reference No. 17-349-01 March 2019 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION I1. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 II.A. Land Use 4 II.B. Roadway System 4 II.C. Traffic Volumes and Operations 4 III. FUTURE CONDITIONS 7 III.A. Site Trip Generation 7 III.B. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment 9 111.C. Background Traffic 11 111.D. Total Traffic Conditions 14 IV. QUEUING EVALUATION I7 V. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE CRITERIA I9 V.A. Access Permit 19 V.B. Speed Change Lanes 19 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 Appendices Appendix A. Traffic Counts Appendix B. Existing Conditions LOS Worksheets Appendix C. Background Traffic LOS Worksheets Appendix D. Total Traffic LOS Worksheets Appendix E. Queuing Reports ®FELSBURG CHOLT & ULL EVIG Page i Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment List of Figures Page Figure 1. Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2. Site Plan 3 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Conditions 6 Figure 4. Trip Distribution and Site Generated Traffic Assignment 10 Figure 5. Short Range Future Background Traffic Conditions 12 Figure 6. Long Range Future Background Traffic Conditions 13 Figure 7. Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions 15 Figure 8. Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions 16 List of Tables Page Table I. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario I 7 Table 2. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 2 8 Table 3. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 3 8 Table 4. Long Range (2040) SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue Results — CR 154 NB Approach to SH 82 17 Table 5. Existing and Required SH 82/CR 154 Turn Lane Lengths 20 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page ii Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment I. INTRODUCTION The Dunrene Group is proposing to construct the Flying M Ranch, a new mixed-use site on a partially developed parcel of land in Garfield County. The proposed site is located southeast of the intersection of State Highway (SH) 82 and Garfield County Road (CR) 154. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the site and the adjacent primary roadway network. The proposed development has three potential land use mixes. Zone I currently has 10,000 square feet (10 KSF) of business uses. In all three scenarios zone I would add 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, and 4 dwelling units for business owners. In all three scenarios zone 2 would include 36 single-family homes and 60 townhomes and condos, except for Scenario 2 in which only 32 townhomes and condos will be constructed. In Scenario 1, zone 3 would include a 40 KSF nursing home, a 40 KSF assisted living facility, and 5 additional townhomes and condos. In Scenario 2, zone 3 would include a 40 KSF nursing home and an 80 KSF assisted living facility. In Scenario 3, zone 3 would include an additional 87 townhomes and condos. Figure 2 shows the current site plan concept for the development. Full -movement vehicular access to the site would be provided to CR 154 at the southeast end of the site, sharing existing access with the current Federal Express (FedEx) facility for zone 1 and the existing Riverview School access plus an additional emergency only access further south on CR 154. The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the potential traffic impacts related to the Flying M Ranch development and to identify any roadway or traffic control improvements required as a result. Trip generation for all three land use mixes has been provided and determined that Scenario 3 has the highest trip generation potential and was used for the analysis of the site. The analyses consider two future scenarios: • Short Range Future. This scenario examines the traffic impacts of 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, and 147 townhomes and condos in the short range future (year 2020). • Long Range Future. This scenario examines the traffic impacts of 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, and 147 townhomes and condos within the context of a year 2040 horizon. FELSBURG LIN OLT& ULLEVIG Page 1 To Glenwood Springs , 0 0 -53 0 PROJECT SITE ® FELSBURG 0 HOLT & ULLEVIG odryh Roca 454 w. To Carbondale NORTH FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 Planned Unit Development Summary Tabk O.r32 e,:C .s. ]:n•;+1 le. Ore,et 1 2cn OccI tonO WO a: la. DAMS ttta S:e+we,•' '. 739: t 2/4 11 1& 11365 3 211 IH; 11,51,11 (4,,4,4 t 35E 0 I 3633 , 1244 3211 0,ROWI t„,,,,,km11u44x41arrteeert 1311 0 1312 0 2 0 ;, 334anenA9W64e436 Eavo<m!ace,/ 3957 0 0 I56 0 2197 A4MtoNOGoat .:• ,,.: O.el�luua4v 223 4 96 111 0 1 0 ,m Caem.»ta 54+•rs< ,.e a�4tfosott to _.. u1 JMt Ivrooe 3Mt1 120.102 0 1 0 i • 123X0 0 1 0 •:.i. r.., Be.e 844RV Area aquae ket3 35000 f 3S3700 I 0 0 0 0 Marne Cem.untv Cr.. c• 1980 0 1 1+00 e 0 Zone District 1 Business Park ayeiae�S..o+.-- _. ;.. Zone District Access/UtEhtles!Parking Zone District 3 Community Service Facility or Residential Zone District 2 Residential �UPDer Access B Insley Easement `_ °Pen s, ,.., Zone District 4 Hillside Open Space A Flying M Ranch PUD and Subdivision Planned Unit Development Map Flying he Ranch DRAF 1 u3.n,we w,.o n 20,6 er 4.. t..e st.ao ine pwrij FELSBURG H0LT & ULLEVIG NORTH FIGURE 2 Site Plan Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment II. EXISTING CONDITIONS II.A. Land Use The proposed site is currently undeveloped land. There is a nearby FedEx sorting and distribution facility and Riverview School along CR 154 on parcels of land adjacent to the site. CR 154 also serves other businesses and residential neighborhoods. II.B. Roadway System State Highway 82 (SH 82) SH 82 is a regional highway that connects to Interstate 70 (1-70) to the north and Aspen to the southeast. The speed limit varies along SH 82 between 55 and 65 miles per hour (MPH). The roadway has two lanes in each direction with existing auxiliary left and right turn lanes at the SH 82 / CR 154 signalized intersection. SH 82 has been categorized as an E -X (Expressway, Major Bypass) by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the purposes of evaluating access control. County Road 154 (CR 154) CR 154 is a two-lane roadway that provides access to various businesses and residential neighborhoods off SH 82. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. CR 154 is also crossed by the Rio Grande Trail between the site access points to the south and SH 82 to the north. II.C. Traffic Volumes and Operations AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected in September 2017 at the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection, with count data sheets included in Appendix A. It should be noted that the AM peak is higher than the PM peak due to the proximity to the new Riverview School. The school start coincides with the adjacent roadways AM peak hour, but the school dismissal is earlier than the PM peak hour of adjacent roadways. For purposes of the driveway analyses onto CR 154, the projected PM school volumes are analyzed assuming that they do in fact occur during the adjacent street peak hour as to provide the worst-case scenario for operations. CDOT Region 3 staff provided traffic counts for the intersection of SH 82 and the Orrison Access (west of the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154). The Orrison Access traffic counts were conducted on March 7, 2012. Based on coordination with CDOT, the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection, the SH 82 / Orrison Access, the CR 154 / FedEx access, the proposed shared site access with Riverview School, and the new proposed south site access have been analyzed. Figure 3 illustrates the existing traffic volumes within the study area. Existing traffic volumes at the CR 154 / FedEx access and the proposed shared site access with Riverview School are vehicle -trip estimates associated with the proposed FedEx facility taken from the FedEx Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Rick Engineering Company (March 2015) and the Eastbank Property — New Roaring Fork School Traffic Assessment prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (March 2016). The Riverview School was at approximately 70 percent of capacity when counts were taken but it has been assumed that the remaining capacity would come from households within Flying M Ranch and therefore no additional trips to the external roadway have been included in the analysis. Traffic operations within the study area were evaluated according to techniques documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010) using the existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and traffic control. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operational conditions based on roadway capacity and vehicle delay. LOS is described by a letter designation ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing almost free-flow travel, while LOS F represents congested conditions. For signalized intersections, LOS is reported as an average for the entire intersection. For stop -sign controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each movement that ®FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 4 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment must yield the right-of-way. LOS D is typically considered to be acceptable for peak hour traffic operations. Figure 3 shows the existing traffic control, intersection geometry, and LOS analyses results, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix B. In general, traffic operations within the study area are currently acceptable. The signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 operates at LOS B during the AM and LOS A during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 operates at LOS D during both peak hours. FELSBURG HOLT & ULL EVIG Page 5 '). - �, B/A 79 %� O� p,9 •/ 6 9 1 J' S ;if 1, io cP Sjs j6j 0 °' a 01� ' cb 'No Fedex Access Riverview School , Access oai�og Fe�k River LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal ®FELSBURG iti.HOLT & ULLEVIG ,91 J 0 as / S667 01/ OOJJ NORTH FIGURE 3 Existing Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 10/1/18 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment III. FUTURE CONDITIONS III.A. Site Trip Generation As previously discussed, the proposed Flying M Ranch development has three potential land use mixes. Scenario 1 includes 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, 65 condos or townhomes, a 40 KSF nursing home, and a 40 KSF assisted living facility. Scenario 2 includes 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, 32 condos or townhomes, a 40 KSF nursing home, and an 80 KSF assisted living facility. Scenario 3 includes 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini -warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, and 147 condos or townhomes. The number of vehicle trips generated by Flying M Ranch was estimated based on the information and procedures documented in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tenth Edition, 2017. The trip rates contained in the manual are developed primarily through field observations of similar land uses throughout the nation. Table 1 through Table 3 show the future trip generation estimates for the proposed mixed-use site for each land use scenario. Table I. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario I Land Use ITE Code Quantity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 12.5 KSF 141 33 5 38 3 13 16 Mini -Warehouse 151 12.5 KSF 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise)' 220 4 dwelling units 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Single-family Detached Housing 210 36 dwelling units 406 8 22 30 24 14 38 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise) 220 65 dwelling units 451 7 25 32 25 15 40 Nursing Home 620 40 KSF 263 17 5 22 10 14 24 Assisted Living 254 40 KSF 168 12 4 16 6 13 19 TOTAL 1,469 78 61 139 69 70 139 Note: 1 Dwelling units in zone I were treated as Multi -family Housing and a reduction of 2 daily trips, 1 exiting trip AM, and 1 entering trip PM were taken per unit to account for the live/work nature of the units. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 7 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment Table 2. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 2 Land Use Code Quantity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 12.5 KSF 141 33 5 38 3 13 16 Mini -Warehouse 151 12.5 KSF 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise)' 220 4 dwelling units 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Single-family Detached Housing 210 36 dwelling units 406 8 22 30 24 14 38 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise) 220 32 dwelling units 201 4 12 16 13 8 21 Nursing Home 620 40 KSF 263 17 5 22 10 14 24 Assisted Living 254 80 KSF 335 24 7 31 11 27 38 TOTAL 1,386 87 51 138 62 77 139 Notes: 1 Dwelling units in zone I were treated as Mufti -family Housing and a reduction of 2 daily trips, 1 exiting trip AM, and 1 entering trip PM were taken per unit to account for the live/work nature of the units. Table 3. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 3 Land Use Code Quantity y Drips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 12.5 KSF 141 33 5 38 3 13 16 Mini -Warehouse 151 12.5 KSF 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise)' 220 4 dwelling units 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Single-family Detached Housing 210 36 dwelling units 406 8 22 30 24 14 38 Multi -family Housing (Low -Rise) 220 147 dwelling units 1,070 16 53 87 52 31 104 TOTAL 1,657 58 80 138 80 59 139 Note: 1 Dwelling units in zone I were treated as Multi -family Housing and a reduction of 2 daily trips, 1 exiting trip AM, and 1 entering trip PM were taken per unit to account for the live/work nature of the units. /FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 8 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment As indicated in Table I through Table 3, the proposed Flying M Ranch development is expected to have the highest trip generation rate using Scenario 3. Using Scenario 3, Flying M Ranch is expected to generate approximately 138 new vehicle -trips during the weekday AM peak hour and about 139 new vehicle -trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The estimated weekday new daily trip generation potential would be about 1,650 trips. III.B. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The estimated site trips were distributed to the adjacent roadways based on existing traffic count data and employment in the surrounding communities. Figure 4 illustrates the estimated distribution of site generated vehicle trips, based on the following distribution assumptions: ■ 60 percent to and from the northwest via SH 82 ■ 20 percent to and from the southeast via SH 82 ■ 20 percent to and from the south via CR 154 Figure 4 also illustrates the assignment of net new site generated traffic to the study area intersection. Site traffic is not expected to have significant impacts upon the roadway network and operations at all driveways, and adjacent signals are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS for both Short Range and Long Range Future conditions. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 9 60% Feder Access Riverview School Access Folk River "titoang LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xx% = Site Trip Distribution FELSBURG L HOLT & ULLEVIG Coo G� Emerge��, AG 200 NORTH FIGURE 4 Trip Distribution and Site Generated Traffic Assignment Flying M Ranch • UPDATE 17-349 3/11/19 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment III.C. Background Traffic Short Range Future Background traffic is the component of roadway volumes that would use the adjacent roadway system regardless of site development. Future traffic growth estimates from the CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) indicate an annual growth rate of 1.36 percent to apply to existing traffic volumes along SH 82. Figure 5 shows the forecasted Short Range Future (year 2020) background volumes. The Short Range Future background traffic volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also shown on Figure 5, with LOS worksheets included in Appendix C. The signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 has been analyzed assuming a northbound "no right turn on red" and is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and LOS A during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS D during both peak hours. The "no right turn on red" was assumed based on analysis indicating the need for an acceleration lane that cannot reasonably be provided given geographic limitations presented later in this report. Long Range Future The Long Range Future (year 2040) background traffic volumes, shown on Figure 6, are also based on the annual growth rate estimates from OTIS. In addition to applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes, discussions with CDOT Region 3 staff indicated that the Orrison Access to SH 82 will likely be closed by 2040. When the access is closed, Orrison traffic will be expected to have access to SH 82 via the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 and access to CR 154 via the intersection of CR 154 and the FedEx Access; traffic from the access has been reassigned to both intersections for 2040 Long Range Future conditions. The resulting Long Range Future background traffic volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also shown on Figure 6, with LOS worksheets included in Appendix C. The signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 has been analyzed assuming a northbound "no right turn on red" and is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and LOS A during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The "no right turn on red" was assumed based on analysis indicating the need for an acceleration lane that cannot reasonably be provided given geographic limitations presented later in this report. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page II LEGEND lj w) t?). 2`61) °55 261 >> ‘`)w � J S o 5S SOJ�� \S6:9 &\ —� B/A ,O0 0 w47 '4o 5g ',,, 61' rV ti, Fedex Access Riverview School Access 4oai,11.001,k River XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service m = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG Li HOLT & ULLEVIG a�a 'o .4116. NORTH FIGURE 5 Short Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 NOTE: Intersection to be Closed LEGEND e. Riverview School Access F0sk River oat�og XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Q = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG ig[qHOLT & ULLEVIG - 6 tea/ 663) 0, °tea )."4. NORTH FIGURE 6 Long Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment III.D. Total Traffic Conditions Short Range Future The site generated traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the corresponding background volumes (Figure 5) to produce the Short Range Future total traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. The Short Range Future total peak hour volumes were used as the basis for intersection capacity analyses, the results of which are also summarized on Figure 7, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix D. For the year 2020, the signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 has been analyzed assuming a northbound "no right turn on red" per previous discussion on need for an acceleration lane. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and LOS A during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 operates at LOS D during both peak hours. No operational issues are evident in the analysis with respect to the Short Range Future timeframe. Long Range Future The Long Range Future site generated traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the Long Range Future background traffic volumes (Figure 6) to produce the year 2040 total traffic volumes shown on Figure 8. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted using the Long Range Future total peak hour volumes, as summarized on Figure 8, with analysis worksheets included in Appendix D. For the year 2040, the signalized intersection of SH 82 with CR 154 was again analyzed assuming a northbound "no right turn on red" per previous discussion on need for an acceleration lane. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM and LOS B during the PM peak hours, but it should be noted that the northbound approach of CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The new south site access approach should consist of a single lane with STOP control. The access should be designed to meet all roadway design and sight distance requirements as specified by Garfield County Access and Roadways Standards (2013). FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 14 Feder Acces `\ B/A OO\` \ , 700 /iyO/N,, 669 : r ftl.' \_ rb Riverview School Folk River oat�ng LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG OH 0 LT & ULLEVIG Access v Coe, /1y �� 120 Emerge�� Acce" Ft -1j- 6 J��� �\ j co\ �J J as NORTH FIGURE 7 Short Range FutureTotal Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 3/11/19 1 C/B 70 O ,./ c. o`er ,�1/ S/j6, /OJJ� c? 9 0 0 Fedex Access Riverview School Access v,svoik River LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Civ i>y Emerges:\ 0 Acces as NORTH FIGURE 8 Long Range FutureTotal Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 3/ 1 1 /19 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment IV. QUEUING EVALUATION The Rio Grande Trail crosses CR 154 approximately 550 feet south of its intersection with SH 82. Two potential operational issues may arise related to the trail crossing: (1) queue lengths exceeding the available storage lengths of the left turn bay, and (2) queues blocking the trail crossing. SimTraffic analyses have been conducted to evaluate the potential for queuing along CR 154 to interfere with the trail crossing. For the purposes of calculating a conservative condition, it has been assumed that the peak hour volumes for the various land uses in the area would occur during the same hour. This is unlikely to be the case because the peak hours that correspond with each land use are unlikely to coincide exactly. To take into account the likelihood of the school related traffic to occur in a more concentrated time period within a fraction of a single hour, the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) for the corresponding movements has been adjusted to 0.80. It has also been assumed that the FedEx facility will generate a higher percentage of truck traffic at the intersection of SH 82 with CR 154. As such, a rough conservative estimate for percent heavy vehicles of 8 percent was applied to the Synchro / SimTraffic models. Multiple runs were conducted using SimTraffic to generate a queuing information reports (queuing reports are included in Appendix E). Table 4 summarizes the results. Table 4. Long Range (2040) SimTraffic 95`h Percentile Queue Results — CR 154 NB Approach to SH 82 Analysis Scenario Left -Turn Lane Queue (ft) Thru-Left Turn Lane Queue (ft) Right -Turn Lane Queue (ft) Short Range Total AM 184 226 129 Short Range Total PM 129 157 58 Long Range Total AM 254 307 186 Long Range Total PM 138 170 66 Max Queue 254 307 186 Issue #1 (Queue lengths exceeding the available storage lengths): The existing lane configuration provides approximately 180 feet of dual lane storage for left turns with one lane being a shared thru lane and approximately 50 feet of right turn storage along CR 154. The predicted maximum queue lengths would exceed the currently available lane storage along CR 154 approaching SH 82, creating blockages of the turn lanes. As a result, lane utilization imbalances may occur that could reduce the efficiency of the intersection, but the mild spillover will not be a major issue. It should also be noted that CR 154 is unimproved on the north leg of the intersection and no development is anticipated. As mentioned previously in this study, in the long range total scenario the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM and LOS B during the PM peak hours, but the northbound approach of CR 154 is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM Peak hour. This is a result of not making any adjustments to signal timing at the request of CDOT due to the sensitive nature of traffic along SH 82. While it is possible that timing adjustment will be made at various times over the next 20 years in response to changing traffic demands, possibly allowing less imbalance in FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 17 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment the approach delays and partially mitigating the projected queuing CDOT requested that even long range scenarios use existing timings along SH 82. Issue #2 (Queues blocking the trail crossing): There is approximately 550 feet of available storage length to the trail crossing. Although the results indicate that queues will not block the trail crossing, the trail crossing may be vulnerable to intermittent fluctuations in traffic flows that are not fully reflected in the modeling. It has been identified that CR 154 will likely need to be grade -separated from the Rio Grande Trail in the future; however, traffic volumes associated with the Flying M Ranch do not create conditions in which the improvement is necessary based upon these traffic modeling results. FELSBURG C`�'>HOLT & �ULLEVIG Page 18 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment V. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE CRITERIA V.A. Access Permit The current access permit for SH 82 / CR 154 is Permit No. 316048, which was issued in relation to the Riverview School. The access permit is written for 600 design hour vehicles (DHV), along the CR 154 approach to SH 82. SH 82 is categorized as an E -X (Expressway, Major Bypass) for the purposes of evaluating access control. The SHAC states: Unless there are identified safety problems, existing legal access to the state highway system shall be allowed to remain or be moved or reconstructed under the terms of an access permit...as long as total daily trips to and from the site are Tess than 100, or as long as only minor modifications are made to the property or as long as the access does not violate specific permit terms and conditions. Minor modifications are defined as anything that does not increase the proposed vehicle volume to the site by 20 percent or more. The intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 will see increased traffic with the proposed construction of the Flying M Ranch development. The projected short range site generated traffic volumes are estimated to add an additional 139 vehicles to the roadway network during the design hour, the PM peak in the case of the Flying M Ranch site, of which 1 1 1 vehicles are expected to need access via the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154. This translates to an increase of 18.5 percent over the permitted volume of 600 DHV. Additionally, growth of background traffic at the intersection has been found to be lower than previously expected and access needs for peak hours are projected at 606 DHV, only a 1 percent increase as compared to the existing permit. The increase in projected peak hour traffic falls below the 20 percent threshold outlined in the CDOT State Highway Access Code (SHAC) and a change in access will not be required. V.B. Speed Change Lanes The SHAC outlines criteria for requiring acceleration and deceleration lanes along state highways. The criteria are based on facility access category, posted speed limit, and turning movement volumes. Based on these criteria, it has been determined that each of the three acceleration and deceleration lanes are needed under existing conditions and future conditions both with and without the added traffic from the proposed development. Further description of these lanes is provided as follows. Northbound Right Turn Acceleration Lane One of the required speed change lanes, the northbound to eastbound right turn acceleration lane, does not currently exist although it is warranted. The right turn from the minor approach is currently a permissive movement with a yield condition and no right turn acceleration lane is provided. SHAC criteria indicate that a right turn lane with acceleration and taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turning volume of greater than 10 vehicles per hour. A right turn acceleration lane would be required based on existing traffic volumes. At 65 MPH, a 1,380 -foot acceleration lane would be required including a 25:1 transition taper ratio equating to a 300 -foot taper. While the SHAC requirements indicate the traffic volume criteria for a right turn acceleration lane would be met without development of Flying M Ranch, the unique orientation and location of the intersection present physical challenges to constructing the lane. Providing the lane would require modification to existing roadside grading, it would likely create the need for a new retaining wall system for some length along the southwest edge of SH 82. Given the physical constraints of this location, it is IFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 19 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment recommended that the right turn movement be converted to a protected only movement (no right -turn on red). This condition has been represented in the LOS analyses contained within this report. By converting the right turn movement to a protected only movement, the right turn movement could be completed without conflict from the through movement, thereby avoiding the need for an exclusive acceleration lane. Operational analyses of total year 2040 conditions indicate that acceptable traffic flow can be provided with a protected only movement. Left and Right Turn Deceleration Lanes Two of the needed turn lanes already exist along SH 82 at the intersection. A review was conducted to ensure that the existing lanes are appropriately dimensioned to accommodate background and total future traffic volume forecasts. The measured and SHAC required lane lengths are presented in Table 5, as required by Year 2040 forecast traffic volumes. It should be noted that traffic volumes generated by Flying M Ranch do not change any of the required lane lengths. Right turn deceleration lanes on Expressways are sized based on speed alone, and the moderate increase of volume for the westbound left turn is not significant enough to increase the recommended length of the auxiliary lane based upon SHAC guidance. Table 5. Existing and Required SH 82/CR 154 Turn Lane Lengths Turn Lane Storage Plus Deceleration Length (ft) Taper Length (ft) Measured Required without Site (Shortfall) Required with Site (Shortfall) Measured Required without Site (Shortfall) Required with Site (Shortfall) WBLT Decel Lane 715650(0) 700 (0) 200 225 (25) 225 (25) EBRT Decel Lane 690600 (0) 600 (0) 275 225 (0) 225 (0) FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 20 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Flying M Ranch is a planned mixed-use development on a partially developed parcel in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The proposed site is located southeast of the intersection of SH 82 and Garfield CR 154. The proposed development of the site would consist of three possible land use mixes of which the highest trip generating potential alternative includes 12.5 KSF of office space, 12.5 KSF of mini - warehouse, 4 dwelling units for business owners, 36 single-family homes, and 147 townhomes and condos. Vehicular access to the site has been identified via two existing full movement accesses to CR 154, at the southeast end of the site. The first being shared with the existing access to FedEx sorting and distribution facility and the second being the existing access to Riverview School. There is an additional proposed emergency only access to the south along CR 154. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 138 new vehicle -trips during the weekday AM peak hour and about 139 new vehicle -trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The estimated weekday new daily trip generation potential would be about 1,650 trips. The potential traffic impacts due to this additional traffic have been evaluated under both Short Range Future (year 2020) and Long Range Future (year 2040) scenarios. In general, the adjacent roadway system and intersections would possess capacity to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The Rio Grande Trail crosses CR 154 approximately 550 feet south of the intersection with SH 82. Two potential queuing issues were analyzed related to the trail crossing: (1) queue lengths exceeding the available lane storage lengths, and (2) excessive queues blocking the trail crossing. SimTraffic queuing analyses have been conducted to evaluate the potential for queuing along CR 154 interfering with the trail crossing. The analyses indicate that site generated traffic related to Flying M Ranch is not anticipated to routinely interfere with the Rio Grande Trail crossing. The access permit for SH 82 / CR 154 is Permit No. 316048, which was issued in relation to the Riverview School. The access permit is for 600 DHV along CR 154. The highest peak hour for the development is 139 vehicles of which approximately 80 percent are expected to use the intersection of SH 82 and CR 154 for III DHV needing access during the PM peak hour. This translates to an increase of 18.5 percent of the permitted 600 DHV. A change in access permit will not be required as the increase in projected peak hour traffic falls below the 20 percent threshold outlined in the SHAC. Additionally, growth of background traffic at the intersection has been found to be lower than previously expected and access needs for peak hours are projected at 606 DHV, only a 1 percent increase as compared to the existing permit. Based on the SHAC, speed change lanes are needed at the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection both with and without the proposed development. Two of the lanes are currently provided and no changes are recommended to these lanes. A third lane, a northbound to eastbound right turn acceleration lane, would be ideal. However, due to physical constraints adding complexity and cost to providing this lane, it is recommended that the northbound right turn movement be converted to a protected only movement, thereby avoiding the need for the acceleration lane. The northbound right movement is Tight during peak times and not expected to create significant delays with the suggested restriction. No additional turn lanes or extensions of existing turn lanes are recommended with this development. IFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 21 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC COUNTS FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix A All Traffic Data E 1 MI 11010110 Services Inc. (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (2109) 1,095 0.96 803 (1,413) 1 1 SH82 LAJ CR 154 (OLD SH82) A o 0 (255) 0 .:).1 1 1. ltL 0 168 N 0.72 170 , W 0.91 E a.. 0 191 210 —1,S T 0 (276) C 5482 tr 1 Location: 1 SH82 & CR 154 (OLD SH82) AM Date and Start Time: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM Peak 15 -Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM (1) 0 0.25 Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk h 0 0- 1 �E 1 0 •10 0 — du 1N (1) CR 154 (OLD SH82) (1,930) 986 0.87 672 (1,213) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts CR 154 (OLD SH82) Interval Eastbound Start Time CR 154 (OLD SH82) Westbound SH82 Northbound SH 82 Southbound U -Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 15 0 0 7:15 AM 0 30 0 1 U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Tum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 39 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 59 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 0 0 0 28 23 11 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U -Tum Left Thru 3 85 0 0 0 261 4 120 0 0 0 261 10 158 0 0 0 248 21 17 0 0 0 252 3 141 0 0 0 234 3 162 1 0 0 230 2 148 0 0 0 205 2 177 0 0 0 211 Rolling Pedestrain Crossings Right Total Hour West East South North 17 381 1,844 0 0 0 0 15 431 1,941 0 0 0 0 34 492 1,958 0 0 0 0 43 540 1,869 0 0 0 01 33 478 1755 0 0 0 0 21 448 0 0 0 0 22 403 0 0 0 0 22 426 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 249 0 27 0 0 0 1 1 48 1,163 1 0 0 1,902 207 3,599 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 170 0 21 0 0 0 0 1 37 633 1 0 0 964 131 1,958 0 0 0 0 All Traffic Data Ill= INN /1111 =11010110 Services Inc. (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (1,507) 803 0.94 1,083 (2,155) CR 154 (OLD SH82) 3,182 Location: 1 SH82 & CR 154 (OLD SH82) PM Date and Start Time: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM Peak 15 -Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM (183) 0 � 14VL 0 0 N 0 98 88 W 0.97 E 4— 0 4.=0.00 99 ay 11 ~«� s r 0 0 (172) �' /� 1 1 t r` SH82 o Cr, o CR 154 (OLD SH82) 1 (1,364) 722 0.95 1,001 (2,023) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk 410 0 — 1 N 1 0 0 o WfIE 0 •40 0 — CR 154 (OLD SH82) CR 154 (OLD SH82) SH82 SH 82 Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrain Crossings Start Time U -Tum Left Thru Right U -Tum Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 265 0 0 0 150 15 452 1,872 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 16 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 248 0 0 0 185 22 481 1,895 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 241 0 0 0 174 28 472 1,903 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 171 16 467 1,900 0 0 0 0 5:OOPM 0 31 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 225 0 0 0 194 21 475 1,830 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 174 18 469 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 239 0 0 0 120 20 397 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 148 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 16 2,007 0 0 0 1,340 167 3,702 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 88 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 995 0 0 0 711 92 1,903 0 0 0 0 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX B. EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS WORKSHEETS A FELSBURG itHOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ++ r 1 ++ "j 4 r' 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 964 131 37 633 0 170 0 21 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 964 131 37 633 0 170 0 21 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1048 0 46 688 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2231 57 2647 0 456 0 0 167 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.76 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1048 0 46 688 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.6 0.0 2.5 5.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.6 0.0 2.5 5.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2231 57 2647 0 456 0 0 167 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.47 0.80 0.26 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3618 126 4175 0 801 0 0 377 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.8 0.0 45.2 3.5 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 29.3 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.5 0.0 74.5 3.7 0.0 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A E A A D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1048 A 734 212 A 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 8.1 42.7 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 67.6 15.4 78.8 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 16.6 0.0 7.6 7.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 43.5 0.0 24.6 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 12.5 B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Existing AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 T Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 161 138 30 30 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 161 138 30 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 175 150 38 38 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 188 0 - 0 356 169 Stage 1 - 169 Stage 2 - - - 187 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1351 - - 630 860 Stage 1 - - - 846 Stage 2 - - 831 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1351 - - 627 860 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 627 - Stage 1 - - 842 Stage 2 - - 831 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 652 1351 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Flying M Ranch Existing AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations ' r' 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 54 77 66 66 112 Future Vol, veh/h 54 54 77 66 66 112 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 59 84 72 72 122 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 350 84 0 0 156 0 Stage 1 84 - - Stage 2 266 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 647 975 - - 1424 Stage 1 939 Stage 2 779 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 614 975 - - 1424 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 614 - - Stage 1 891 - Stage 2 779 - - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0 2.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1424 - 614 975 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - 0.096 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.5 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 Flying M Ranch Existing AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r " ft vi 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 711 92 6 995 0 88 0 11 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 711 92 6 995 0 88 0 11 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 773 0 8 1082 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2288 14 2661 0 382 0 0 113 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.76 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 773 0 8 1082 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.4 8.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.4 8.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2288 14 2661 0 382 0 0 113 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.34 0.58 0.41 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 4201 146 4847 0 930 0 0 438 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 6.2 0.0 40.1 3.4 0.0 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 44.8 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 6.6 0.0 84.9 3.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A A D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 773 A 1090 110 A 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 4.4 37.6 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 60.6 11.9 69.3 11.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 10.0 0.0 10.7 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 28.4 0.0 51.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 7.1 A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Existing PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 t+ ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 79 68 30 20 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 79 68 30 20 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 86 74 38 25 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 112 0 - 0 191 93 Stage 1 - - 93 - Stage 2 - - - 98 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1441 - - 784 948 Stage 1 - - - - 916 - Stage 2 - - - 911 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1441 - - 781 948 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 781 Stage 1 - - - 912 Stage 2 - - - 911 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 9.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 810 1441 0.039 0.004 9.6 7.5 0 A A A 0.1 0 Flying M Ranch Existing PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations lir t r i Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 41 32 33 44 Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 41 32 33 44 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 43 45 35 36 48 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 165 45 0 0 80 0 Stage 1 45 - Stage 2 120 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 826 1025 - 1518 Stage 1 977 - - Stage 2 905 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 806 1025 - 1518 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 806 Stage 1 954 Stage 2 905 Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 3.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1518 - 806 1025 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.054 0.042 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.7 8.7 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 Flying M Ranch Existing PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX C. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS -4FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix C HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r ) f4 '1 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1004 136 39 659 0 177 0 22 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1004 136 39 659 0 177 0 22 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1091 0 49 716 0 221 0 28 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2252 62 2662 0 458 0 139 0 172 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.76 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1091 0 49 716 0 221 0 28 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 15.9 0.0 2.8 6.1 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 0.0 15.9 0.0 2.8 6.1 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2252 62 2662 0 458 0 139 0 172 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.48 0.80 0.27 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3454 120 3986 0 765 0 275 0 360 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.1 0.0 47.2 3.5 0.0 43.5 0.0 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 27.1 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.9 0.0 74.3 3.8 0.0 44.7 0.0 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A E A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1091 A 765 249 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.9 8.3 44.4 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 71.1 16.1 82.6 16.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 " 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 17.9 0.0 8.1 8.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 45.6 0.0 26.1 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 13.4 B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Short Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 t+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 169 145 30 30 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 169 145 30 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 184 158 38 38 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 196 0 - 0 373 177 Stage 1 177 - Stage 2 - - - 196 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1342 - 616 851 Stage 1 - - - 839 - Stage 2 - - - 823 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1342 - 613 851 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 613 - Stage 1 - - - 835 - Stage 2 - - 823 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 639 1342 0.068 0.005 11 7.7 0 B A A 0.2 0 Flying M Ranch Short Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations 'j r 4 r '9 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 54 84 66 66 120 Future Vol, veh/h 54 54 84 66 66 120 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 59 91 72 72 130 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 365 91 0 0 163 0 Stage 1 91 - - - Stage 2 274 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 635 967 - 1416 Stage 1 933 - - - Stage 2 772 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 603 967 - 1416 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 603 Stage 1 885 - - - Stage 2 772 - - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 2.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1416 - 603 967 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - 0.097 0.061 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.6 9 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 Flying M Ranch Short Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 &SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations fit r 'I 14 19 4 t 4, Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 740 96 6 1036 0 92 0 11 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 740 96 6 1036 0 92 0 11 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 804 0 8 1126 0 115 0 14 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2332 14 2688 0 377 0 93 0 115 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 804 0 8 1126 0 115 0 14 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.4 9.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.4 9.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2332 14 2688 0 377 0 93 0 115 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.34 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3997 139 4612 0 885 0 319 0 417 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 6.1 0.0 42.2 3.4 0.0 38.9 0.0 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 45.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 6.6 0.0 87.5 3.8 0.0 39.5 0.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 804 A 1134 129 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 4.4 39.5 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 64.4 12.2 73.1 12.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 10.5 0.0 11.4 4.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 30.1 0.0 54.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 7.4 A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Short Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 '+ ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 83 72 30 20 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 83 72 30 20 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 90 78 38 25 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 116 0 - 0 199 97 Stage 1 - - 97 Stage 2 - - 102 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1436 - - 776 943 Stage 1 - - - 912 Stage 2 - 907 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1436 - 773 943 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 773 Stage 1 - - - 908 Stage 2 - - - 907 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 802 1436 - 0.039 0.004 9.7 7.5 0 A A A 0.1 0 Flying M Ranch Short Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations '9 " 4' r 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 45 32 33 48 Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 45 32 33 48 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 43 49 35 36 52 Major/Minor Minors Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 173 49 0 0 84 0 Stage 1 49 - - - Stage 2 124 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 817 1020 - 1513 Stage 1 973 - - - Stage 2 902 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 797 1020 - - 1513 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 797 - - Stage 1 950 Stage 2 902 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0 3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1513 - 797 1020 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.055 0.043 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.8 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 Flying M Ranch Short Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r 1 /T 'I 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 180 50 864 0 234 0 31 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 180 50 864 0 234 0 31 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1429 0 62 939 0 292 0 39 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2344 78 2726 0 474 0 160 0 198 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1429 0 62 939 0 292 0 39 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 28.9 0.0 4.6 10.3 0.0 10.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 28.9 0.0 4.6 10.3 0.0 10.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2344 78 2726 0 474 0 160 0 198 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.61 0.79 0.34 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2689 94 3102 0 595 0 214 0 280 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.7 0.0 59.9 4,2 0.0 55.4 0.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.2 0.0 34.2 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 9.6 0.0 2.6 2.5 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.8 0.0 94.0 4.6 0.0 57.3 0.0 53.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B F A A E A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1429 A 1001 331 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 10.1 56.8 0.0 Approach LOS B B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 92.5 20.5 106.4 20.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 30.9 0.0 12.3 12.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 54.1 0.0 40.3 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 17.1 B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Long Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 t+ ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 231 199 31 34 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 231 199 31 34 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 251 216 39 43 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 255 0 - 0 499 236 Stage 1 - - 236 Stage 2 - - - 263 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1276 - - - 520 788 Stage 1 - - - 789 Stage 2 767 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1276 - - - 517 788 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 517 Stage 1 - 785 Stage 2 - - - 767 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 12.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 541 1276 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 Flying M Ranch Long Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations r 1' r f Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 54 138 66 66 182 Future Vol, veh/h 54 54 138 66 66 182 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 59 150 72 72 198 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 492 150 0 0 222 0 Stage 1 150 Stage 2 342 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 536 896 - - 1347 Stage 1 878 - - Stage 2 719 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 508 896 - - 1347 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 508 - Stage 1 878 - - Stage 2 681 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 2.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1347 - 508 896 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - 0.116 0.066 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - 13 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 0.2 Flying M Ranch Long Term Background AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 f 4\ t r3' \* 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ++ r ++ ' 4 r 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 970 131 13 1357 0 125 0 20 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 970 131 13 1357 0 125 0 20 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1054 0 16 1475 0 156 0 25 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2522 24 2816 0 356 0 102 0 127 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.01 0.81 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1054 0 16 1475 0 156 0 25 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 13.7 0.0 1.1 16.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 13.7 0.0 1.1 16.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2522 24 2816 0 356 0 102 0 127 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.68 0.52 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2992 104 3452 0 662 0 238 0 312 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 6.4 0.0 55.9 3.7 0.0 51.9 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.0 38.6 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.7 3.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 6.9 0.0 94.6 4.4 0.0 53.1 0.0 52.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1054 A 1491 181 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 5.4 53.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 89.7 14.7 99.3 14.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 15.7 0.0 18.2 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 44.1 0.0 73.6 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 9.1 A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Long Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 I ' Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 115 104 40 30 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 115 104 40 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 6 125 113 50 38 6 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 163 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1380 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1380 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Stage 1 Stage 2 0 - 0 275 138 138 137 - - 6.48 6.28 - 5.48 - - - 5.48 - - 3.572 3.372 - 702 895 874 875 - 698 895 - 698 - 870 - 875 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 10.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 721 1380 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 Flying M Ranch Long Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations r 4 r "j 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 77 32 33 80 Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 77 32 33 80 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 43 84 35 36 87 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 243 84 0 0 119 0 Stage 1 84 - - Stage 2 159 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 745 975 - 1469 Stage 1 939 - - - Stage 2 870 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 726 975 - - 1469 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 726 - - - Stage 1 939 - - Stage 2 848 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 2.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1469 - 726 975 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.06 0.045 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 - 10.3 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 Flying M Ranch Long Term Background PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX D. TOTAL TRAFFIC LOS WORKSHEETS FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix D HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 6/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ++ r 'I +I. 'I 4 j" 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1004 171 51 659 0 225 0 38 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1004 171 51 659 0 225 0 38 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1091 0 64 716 0 281 0 48 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2186 81 2624 0 511 0 165 0 205 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1091 0 64 716 0 281 0 48 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 17.6 0.0 3.9 6.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 17.6 0.0 3.9 6.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2186 81 2624 0 511 0 165 0 205 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.50 0.79 0.27 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3297 115 3804 0 730 0 263 0 344 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.6 0.0 48.7 4.1 0.0 44.7 0.0 42.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 25.4 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 5.6 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 11.4 0.0 74.2 4.3 0.0 46.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B E A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1091 A 780 329 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 10.0 45.7 0.0 Approach LOS B B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 72.2 18.3 85.1 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 " 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 19.6 0.0 8.6 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 45.1 0.0 26.1 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS Notes 16.0 B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Short Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 6/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 T ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 229 165 57 34 6 Future Vol, veh/h 12 229 165 57 34 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 15 249 179 71 43 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 250 0 - 0 494 215 Stage 1 - - - 215 - Stage 2 - - 279 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1281 - - 524 810 Stage 1 - - - - 807 - Stage 2 755 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1281 - - 517 810 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 517 Stage 1 - - 796 Stage 2 - - 755 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 547 1281 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 0.012 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 Flying M Ranch Short Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 6/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.8 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations 'j j 4 ' 'Pj 4. Traffic Vol, veh/h 114 69 85 86 70 127 Future Vol, veh/h 114 69 85 86 70 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 75 92 93 76 138 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 382 92 0 0 185 0 Stage 1 92 Stage 2 290 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 620 965 - 1390 Stage 1 932 - - Stage 2 759 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 586 965 - 1390 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 586 - - Stage 1 932 - Stage 2 717 Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 0 2.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1390 - 586 965 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 - 0.211 0.078 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 12.8 9 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.8 0.3 - Flying M Ranch Short Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +44 r to " 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 740 144 22 1036 0 127 0 23 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 740 144 22 1036 0 127 0 23 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 804 0 28 1126 0 159 0 29 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2250 38 2650 0 423 0 115 0 142 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.02 0.76 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 804 0 28 1126 0 159 0 29 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 0 Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.3 0.0 1.4 10.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.3 0.0 1.4 10.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2250 38 2650 0 423 0 115 0 142 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.36 0.73 0.42 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3911 136 4513 0 866 0 312 0 408 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.2 0.0 42.3 3.8 0.0 39.0 0.0 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 31.2 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.6 0.0 73.5 4.3 0.0 39.8 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A E A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 804 A 1154 188 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 6.0 39.8 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 63.6 13.6 73.6 13.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.4 11.3 0.0 12.0 6.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 30.1 0.0 54.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 9.6 A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Short Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 t+ ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 119 133 33 31 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 119 133 33 31 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 8 129 145 41 39 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 186 0 - 0 311 166 Stage 1 - - - 166 - Stage 2 145 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1353 - 669 863 Stage 1 - - - 849 - Stage 2 - - 868 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1353 - - 665 863 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 665 - Stage 1 - - - 844 - Stage 2 - 868 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 698 1353 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 Flying M Ranch Short Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 49 48 93 48 49 Future Vol, veh/h 76 49 48 93 48 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 83 53 52 101 52 53 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 209 52 0 0 153 0 Stage 1 52 - Stage 2 157 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 779 1016 - - 1428 Stage 1 970 - - - Stage 2 871 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 751 1016 - - 1428 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 751 - - Stage 1 970 Stage 2 840 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 3.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1428 - 751 1016 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - 0.11 0.052 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - 10.4 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 0.2 Flying M Ranch Short Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r ) 44 'I 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 215 62 864 0 282 0 47 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 215 62 864 0 282 0 47 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1429 0 78 939 0 352 0 59 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2287 90 2687 0 521 0 183 0 227 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1429 0 78 939 0 352 0 59 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 31.4 0.0 6.0 11.2 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.4 0.0 6.0 11.2 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2287 90 2687 0 521 0 183 0 227 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.62 0.86 0.35 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2598 90 2997 0 575 0 207 0 271 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.3 0.0 61.7 4.8 0.0 56.5 0.0 52.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.3 0.0 53.9 0.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 10.8 0.0 3.8 3.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 14.6 0.0 115.5 5.2 0.0 59.8 0.0 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B F A A E A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1429 A 1017 411 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 13.6 59.0 0.0 Approach LOS B B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 93.3 22.9 108.3 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 33.4 0.0 13.2 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 52.5 0.0 40.2 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Long Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 to Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 291 219 58 38 6 Future Vol, veh/h 12 291 219 58 38 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 15 316 238 73 48 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 311 0 - 0 621 275 Stage 1 - - 275 - Stage 2 - - - 346 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1216 - - 441 750 Stage 1 - - - - 758 - Stage 2 - - 703 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1216 - - 434 750 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 434 - Stage 1 - - 747 Stage 2 - - - 703 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 13.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 460 1216 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.12 0.012 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.9 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - Flying M Ranch Long Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations ' " 4' r ) I' Traffic Vol, veh/h 114 69 139 86 70 189 Future Vol, veh/h 114 69 139 86 70 189 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 75 151 93 76 205 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 508 151 0 0 244 0 Stage 1 151 - - Stage 2 357 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 525 895 - - 1322 Stage 1 877 - - Stage 2 708 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 495 895 - 1322 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 495 - - Stage 1 877 Stage 2 668 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 0 2.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1322 - 495 895 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - 0.25 0.084 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - 14.7 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1 0.3 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r 15 lit 15 4 r 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 970 179 29 1357 0 160 0 32 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 970 179 29 1357 0 160 0 32 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1841 1781 1781 1841 0 1781 1870 1781 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1054 0 36 1475 0 200 0 40 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 8 8 4 0 8 2 8 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 2443 45 2776 0 400 0 123 0 152 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.03 0.79 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3589 1510 1697 3589 0 3393 0 1510 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1054 0 36 1475 0 200 0 40 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1749 1510 1697 1749 0 1697 0 1510 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 15.1 0.0 2.5 17.5 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 15.1 0.0 2.5 17.5 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2443 45 2776 0 400 0 123 0 152 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.43 0.80 0.53 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2934 102 3385 0 649 0 234 0 306 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.6 0.0 56.3 4.3 0.0 52.1 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 36.0 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.5 0.0 1.5 3.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.1 0.0 92.2 5.0 0.0 53.5 0.0 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A A D A D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1054 A 1511 240 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 7.1 53.3 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 88.7 16.5 99.8 16.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.0 7.5 * 7 7.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 97.5 * 19 112.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 17.1 0.0 19.5 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 43.7 0.0 72.8 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 11.4 B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBRJ is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Flying M Ranch Long Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: FedEx Access & CR 154 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.6 NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 + ¥ Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 151 165 43 41 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 151 165 43 41 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 92 92 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 3 3 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 8 164 179 54 51 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 233 0 - 0 386 206 Stage 1 206 Stage 2 - 180 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - 6.48 6.28 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.48 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.48 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 3.572 3.372 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1300 - 606 820 Stage 1 - - - - 814 Stage 2 - - 837 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1300 - - 602 820 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 602 Stage 1 - - 808 Stage 2 - - - 837 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 11.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 629 1300 - 0.097 0.006 11.3 7.8 0 B A A 0.3 0 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 06/26/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations 'j " 4 r ' 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 49 93 80 48 81 Future Vol, veh/h 76 49 93 80 48 81 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 0 - 100 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 83 53 101 87 52 88 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 293 101 0 0 188 0 Stage 1 101 - - Stage 2 192 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 698 954 - - 1386 Stage 1 923 - - - Stage 2 841 - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 671 954 - 1386 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 671 - Stage 1 923 - Stage 2 809 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 2.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1386 - 671 954 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.123 0.056 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.1 9 HCM Lane LOS A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 0.2 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX E. QUEUING REPORTS WIFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix E Queuing and Blocking Report 03/11/2019 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 276 240 26 165 137 116 211 265 150 Average Queue (ft) 159 105 1 62 69 36 111 143 31 95th Queue (ft) 254 202 11 135 129 85 184 226 129 Link Distance (ft) 1073 1073 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 52 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 97 1 Flying M Ranch Short Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 03/11/2019 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 189 162 17 99 186 156 153 175 90 Average Queue (ft) 90 44 1 28 91 60 63 92 7 95th Queue (ft) 167 122 8 67 158 124 129 157 58 Link Distance (ft) 1073 1073 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 30 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 33 0 Flying M Ranch Short Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 06/26/2018 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T TR L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 333 289 50 244 171 148 293 324 150 Average Queue (ft) 213 159 4 125 85 60 159 202 65 95th Queue (ft) 312 272 25 275 149 123 254 307 186 Link Distance (ft) 1084 1084 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 66 Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 156 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 06/26/2018 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T TR L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 244 197 42 114 230 206 160 200 118 Average Queue (ft) 128 77 2 41 127 95 74 103 9 95th Queue (ft) 213 171 20 93 204 177 138 170 66 Link Distance (ft) 1084 1084 1350 1350 647 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 36 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 51 1 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 John Martin, County Commissioner I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. EXHIBIT 1 S3 • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, David Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Mike Samson, County Commissioner I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 —this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, David Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. - Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, David Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 MEMO: Commissioner Tom Jankovsky FROM: Gary D Bryant DATE: March 25, 2019 SUB) : Flying M Ranch Development Over the past year, I have sought to study, ask questions, and listen to proposals and concerns about the Flying M Ranch proposed development. I've even participated in a walk through the property with Mr. Robert McGregor and his team. In the end I remain unconvinced that the Flying M Ranch Development should be approved by the Garfield County Commissioners at this time. Too many concerns and questions remain. While I may be a devoted supporter of affordable housing in Garfield County, the Flying M Ranch Development is not the place and this is not the time to move forward without many concerns being addressed: :• As proposed, this development's current design includes one neighborhood of rather dense development of affordable housing at the eastern end near the Riverview School and a proposed "home" for Home Care & Hospice of the Valley. A number of parcels remain undesignated, which leaves the developer rather free to proceed with whatever configuration of housing, open space, etc. he chooses. This is not an acceptable arrangement, in effect providing a "blank check" to the developer without adequate and appropriate oversight from the approving authority. What are the requirement to keep prices and rents truly affordable? :• I believe the Commissioners need to ensure that prices and rents be affordable in this development. I am not in favor of the Flying M Ranch development being comprised of "rental" units. Renters tend to come and go and the properties are not always cared for very well. "Pride of ownership" needs to be built into the proposed development on the front end. That is the Affordable Housing we need in this valley. I remain concerned about guiding the development with more regulation from the County that is presently lacking in the PUD proposal. I could have put traffic at the top of my list of concerns. As one who is retired I have lots of choice about when I decide to drive down valley, using County Road 109 and County Road 154 to get to Hwy 82. Thank heavens! Traffic comprised of parents taking children to school, along with drivers generally trying to get to work is absolutely insane at certain hours! My oldest daughter who is an architect in Lawrence, KS, and was here with her family to ski 2 weeks ago told me how traffic studies are down there for proposed development. "Basically if you are changing use to a more intense use you are required to do a traffic study. In Lawrence, she said, they have a 7 step study and a full blown one. Either study looks carefully at use generated — number of cars and existing number of cars by times of day." What appears to me to have been done is simply applying certain algorithms to current knowledge of traffic patterns. I don't believe that methodology is going to help us solve traffic issues that will become even more insane and frustrating for drivers as the Flying M Ranch is developed. The traffic issue is very closely related to the safety of our children who attend Riverview School. Right now the issue revolves around getting to and from the school from County Road 154. Once the residents trying to leave the development to get to work further complicate traffic congestion, what then?! :• Whatever is developed at the Flying M Ranch most certainly needs to be compatible with neighboring developments. As a 14 -year resident of Westbank Ranch, I know that no new development in the area can exactly replicate Westbank Ranch. However, Flying M Ranch needs to compatible with our neighborhood. The freedom givers the developer in future years without additional guidance from the County Commission does not ensure this. :• Finally, I am concerned about the environmental impacts to the Roaring Fork River, the wildlife — especially birds — that occupy the surrounding habitat. The developer proposes making river access part of the Flying M Ranch. If so, what about parking, protection of riparian areas and increased traffic? March 22, 2019 John Martin, County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Martin, We understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal will soon be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. As a resident of Westbank Ranch and being impacted by the proposed development, we wish to raise some concerns. • High density housing brings more stresses than low density housing. Adding mixed use on the 38 acres further complicates the need for scrutiny of the approval. If there is a potential to be about 900 more residents we are concerned about future conflicts and quality of life issues that come with the high density. • Number of occupants per living unit. • Traffic, bike and pedestrian congestion at and near intersections on SH 82 and on County Road 154. There are already traffic issues on County Road 154 with multimode uses and inadequate separation. Dense housing adjacent to these access points will only increase the activity, occurrences of congestion and high-risk hazardous situations. • Separating people from traffic and adequate space. Provide sidewalks and bike paths, playgrounds for kids, extra parking for families with more than one vehicle, parking for guests and service and delivery people, areas for snow removal, dog walk areas, walking trails. • Enforceable rules for owners and tenants to keep community clean, well -kept and well maintained. In a higher density population establish appropriate rules for pets, number of pets and boundary limits. • Lighting. Appropriate downward and well positioned lighting for security without upward and over -bright impacts for others in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. • River impacts. People are attracted and will go to the riverbanks and water, negatively impacting vegetation, putting themselves at risk and destroying habitant for other creatures that call this area home. • Wildlife impacts. More people, more noise, more traffic, more dogs will all put stress on wildlife. • Master plan adherence. This type of density and developing area seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch. • Control of pets and pet numbers in dense living situations. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We appreciate having them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make plan changes that will address these concerns. Sincerely, Mary Moscon and Milton Cass 0644 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 March 22, 2019 Mike Samson, County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Samson, We understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal will soon be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. As a resident of Westbank Ranch and being impacted by the proposed development, we wish to raise some concerns. • High density housing brings more stresses than low density housing. Adding mixed use on the 38 acres further complicates the need for scrutiny of the approval. If there is a potential to be about 900 more residents we are concerned about future conflicts and quality of life issues that come with the high density. • Number of occupants per living unit. Traffic, bike and pedestrian congestion at and near intersections on SH 82 and on County Road 154. There are already traffic issues on County Road 154 with multimode uses and inadequate separation. Dense housing adjacent to these access points will only increase the activity, occurrences of congestion and high-risk hazardous situations. • Separating people from traffic and adequate space. Provide sidewalks and bike paths, playgrounds for kids, extra parking for families with more than one vehicle, parking for guests and service and delivery people, areas for snow removal, dog walk areas, walking trails. • Enforceable rules for owners and tenants to keep community clean, well -kept and well maintained. In a higher density population establish appropriate rules for pets, number of pets and boundary limits. • Lighting. Appropriate downward and well positioned lighting for security without upward and over -bright impacts for others in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. • River impacts. People are attracted and will go to the riverbanks and water, negatively impacting vegetation, putting themselves at risk and destroying habitant for other creatures that call this area home. • Wildlife impacts. More people, more noise, more traffic, more dogs will all put stress on wildlife. • Master plan adherence. This type of density and developing area seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch. • Control of pets and pet numbers in dense living situations. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We appreciate having them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make plan changes that will address these concerns. Sincerely, Mary Moscon and Milton Cass 0644 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 March 22, 2019 Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jankovsky, We understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal will soon be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. As a resident of Westbank Ranch and being impacted by the proposed development, we wish to raise some concerns. • High density housing brings more stresses than low density housing. Adding mixed use on the 38 acres further complicates the need for scrutiny of the approval. If there is a potential to be about 900 more residents we are concerned about future conflicts and quality of life issues that come with the high density. • Number of occupants per living unit. • Traffic, bike and pedestrian congestion at and near intersections on SH 82 and on County Road 154. There are already traffic issues on County Road 154 with multimode uses and inadequate separation. Dense housing adjacent to these access points will only increase the activity, occurrences of congestion and high-risk hazardous situations. • Separating people from traffic and adequate space. Provide sidewalks and bike paths, playgrounds for kids, extra parking for families with more than one vehicle, parking for guests and service and delivery people, areas for snow removal, dog walk areas, walking trails. • Enforceable rules for owners and tenants to keep community clean, well -kept and well maintained. In a higher density population establish appropriate rules for pets, number of pets and boundary limits. • Lighting. Appropriate downward and well positioned lighting for security without upward and over -bright impacts for others in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. • River impacts. People are attracted and will go to the riverbanks and water, negatively impacting vegetation, putting themselves at risk and destroying habitant for other creatures that call this area home. • Wildlife impacts. More people, more noise, more traffic, more dogs will all put stress on wildlife. • Master plan adherence. This type of density and developing area seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch. • Control of pets and pet numbers in dense living situations. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We appreciate having them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make plan changes that will address these concerns. Sincerely, Mary Moscon and Milton Cass 0644 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 John Martin, County Commissioner I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. EXHIBIT 1 86 • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. - Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Mike Samson, County Commissioner I understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 —this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner understand that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning in the near future. As a resident of Westbank Ranch being impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some concerns. • lighting, • water issues, • river impact, • wildlife impacts, • potential high density housing and mixed use on 38 acres. Westbank Subdivision has 100 homes on approx. 130 acres, assuming a family of 4 — this is roughly 400 people. Assuming the proposed 224 units x family of 4 = 896 potential new residents, how do we understand the impact of 896 people being able to live on 29% of the space? • This type of density seems to conflict with all of the other neighborhoods including Westbank, Westbank Mesa, Ironbridge, Teller Springs, Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch and is of concern as to what it will do to our property values. Overview of Concerns 1. The proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. LUDC 7-102 requires that, "The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses." The current zoning is Rural, which has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The surrounding uses are largely traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fitting up to 224 dwelling units on the property is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The density is way too high for the character of the surrounding land use. 2. The traffic analysis does not properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project and a new traffic analysis should be conducted that contains a full and complete analysis of the proposed development. Only with a full and complete analysis of traffic impacts can the project be adequately analyzed. 3. Setting aside that the traffic analysis is inadequate and is resulting in low estimated traffic impact, the existing traffic infrastructure is incapable of handling the increased use from the new development. Issues include, a. Excessive queuing at the intersection of CR 154 and SH 82. b. Making an already dangerous intersection between the CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail more dangerous. c. The need for an acceleration lane heading south on SH 82 from CR 154. d. The lack of safe trails for children who walk or ride their bikes on CR 154 and CR 109. The development and the substantial increase in cars on the road will make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. 4. The Flying M Ranch dead end needs to be re -designed. The proposal is for an approximately 3200 -foot dead end road. That does not provide for adequate emergency ingress and egress. If the road is blocked for any reason, people will be stuck. 5. The development proposed to not have sidewalks. While there is a proposed trail, sidewalks are necessary. The development must provide a safe sidewalks on the roads, particularly since children are expected to walk to the Riverview School from these new residences. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered while there is still time to require the developer to make adjustments which address these concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Joyner 0262 Meadow Lane, GWS CO 81601 March 28, 2019 Dear Mr. John "Wyatt" Martin, EXHIBIT It is my understanding that the Flying M Ranch subdivision proposal is currently being reviewed by The Board of Commissioners for approval. As a resident of Westbank Ranch subdivision who will heavily and negatively impacted by the proposed development, I wish to raise some serious concerns. 1) The proposed Flying M Ranch development and in particular the "Eco Homes", multi -story "loft homes", and the proposed "Mega -Hospice Center" are completely fitting for a development center like Willetts but totally out of character and inherently incompatible to the exiting adjacent rural residential developments. The language in our county land use code is very clear on this. I am suggesting that the Planing Commission schedule a field trip to visit the site both once during the day and again at night to fully appreciate the reasons why this is so. 2) Secondly, the Flying M Ranch development proposal submission uses a traffic study paid for by the developer and biased to support his development. Normal expectation! His traffic professional clearly shows within the descriptions therein using just a modicum of common sense that the adjacent county road 154 and the intersection of Hwy 82 /154 as insufficient to reasonably support the traffic generated by the development. The real truth is that any unbiased traffic study performed by his engineers or not, does not account for the actual situation lived by the people of the current neighboring residences. The developer's traffic study and subsequent development traffic trips number manipulation still identifies traffic congestion will exists at any level of completed development potential. The developer proposes that his development effort will pay a level of traffic impact fees and those fees alone should be his contribution to mitigating the inevitable traffic congestion and inconvenience to the surrounding communities. I contest that while it is understood there is clear understanding on all sides of this argument that there will be very substantial traffic impacts, those objectionable circumstances will never be mitigated even in part by simply paying a fee to the county for doing so. I hold this position for two prime reasons. First, because I can find no clear path or direct mechanism within Garfield county government that directly funnels all developer paid traffic impact fees into a focused and acute set of specific resolutions for the traffic problems incurred. Second because the real costs of traffic impact from the ripple effect of this development are not in any fully resolved in any way without a very substantial expenditure of county tax dollars to construct new roadways and an intersection upgrade at Hwy #82. Couple this with the fact that Senate bill 181 passed this morning effectively crippling a very substantial amount of GARCO tax revenue, the county will be in no shape to fund superfluous road improvements that are not absolutely necessary to the maintenance to the current county roadway system. 3) Lastly, the development plan as proposed is lacking proper sidewalks the upper end of Flying M Ranch RD to insure safety for those on foot . Clearly there was little concern placed to the natural path of travel for pedestrians even just traveling from residences nearby to the school(s) within that area. Ultimately those on foot will wind up braving the vehicle traffic on what is obviously a ridiculous roadway system servicing the area as there is no plan to provide sidewalks on even one side of Flying M Road. That understood, it will be just a matter of time at that point before someone walking among the vehicle traffic is seriously injured. When that situation occurs, emergency vehicles servicing the casualty will now be blocking traffic flow in or out of the development and the school(s) operations will be impacted. The congestion within will now spill over onto county road 154 and the result will be grid lock for all. In all, beyond just providing some additional housing units which at this time may be a need already met by the entirety of development currently in process in the Roaring Fork Valley, the impact on all the communities near me by a poorly designed and even worse performing high density Flying M Ranch development will be a big mistake for the county and a lifetime problem for the rest of us. I am counting on you and your office to do what is right for the those already living here and reject the Flying M Ranch Development as currently offered. I thank you for the the opportunity to express my concerns and have them considered seriously for the good of us all. Reg Darrin Smith 1091 Westbank Rd Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 %atliy Whiting 279 Westbank Road 970-948-9783 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 kathylwhiting(a?gmail.com EXHIBIT March 29, 2019 John Martin, County Commissioner 108 8th St., Ste. 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 80601 Dear Commissioner Martin: SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLYING M RANCH PROJECT This is to voice my concern on a few levels to the proposed Flying M Ranch Project. I live in the Westbank neighborhood; which is adjacent to the proposed project. I'm amazed at how large our county has grown and how expensive housing has become. It's been wonderful to see the Ironbridge neighborhood fill with homeowners who take pride in their homes and who have built a `community'. Isn't that what we want in Garfield County? Communities of people. People who live next to each other for a few years, take care of each other when the other is in need. We have lots of rentals...we need homes for our workers to buy. We need affordable housing. A community with the density such as the Flying M proposal suggests many tightly -packed homes, (many of them rentals; which we know turn over quite frequently) even some as small as a 'tiny home' with limited parking, no sidewalks for kids to walk or ride their bikes to school and an overcrowded, unsafe access to Highway 82. I urge the Commissioners to rethink the density of this proposal and to consider the benefits of a neighborhood where people can affordably own their own home and build 'community'. Build access points to the local trails for biking and hiking. Consider the wildlife, riparian impacts as well as river impacts. Make them better! Study the current septic lines and water lines to see if they can handle even an 'Ironbridge' community impact. Do a lighting study and recommendation. Update the Hwy. 82 access. Study neighboring land for complementary usage. Make sure there is a nonpartisan traffic study. I realize we can't stop someone from developing their land. That's downright unAmerican! But with thoughtful planning for 'communities' of homeowners, our beautiful valley, Garfield County, will continue to be a special place to live. Thank you for your consideration, Ka by iting Westbank and Garfield County Homeowner March 22, 2019 Dear Mr. Tom Jankovsky, My name is Becky Gremillion and I am your Westbank neighbor a few doors down the road. I am writing you today as I have some serious concerns with the plans for the new Flying M Ranch subdivision being proposed. It is very clear to me that what they want to build there is in no way even remotely compatible with the adjacent land uses. Changing the zoning from rural for these parcels to allow high density urban development will further destroy the value of my property which sadly will be in direct view of all of this! I have already taken a hit financially with the negative impact of the heinous lighting situation at Fed Ex building over there not to mention the school and all the additional lighting pollution from that building as well. So too have my neighbors who are trying to sell their home with the same view plane as mine. Nancy can concur that traditionally homes in Westbank Ranch sell quickly within a few months or so of listing. Your direct neighbor, who arguably has one the nicest homes and lots here, has had theirs listed for many months now and no takers. Their listing agents we are chatting with say over and over that the impact of the development already there, meaning the FedEX lighting pollution and the same from the new elementary school, is hurting their marketability. Allowing the Flying M Ranch to move forward as it described with further aggravate this problem and add an even greater one TRAFFIC! The traffic study they are using to substantiate their development claims is certainly a joke! The so called expert who fantasized his findings has never actually directly witnessed the exact daily traffic impacts. Currently the new school student drop off and pick up alone has traffic bottling up on county road 154 during the morning and the evening. The parents in our neighborhood complain incessantly about the poor access to the elementary school and rightfully so! Adding all the homes proposed over there will make this already pitiful circumstance even worse. The rest of us fighting to get from our homes to Hwy 82 will now suffer even further. The developer somehow gets a pass cause he pays some fees as a traffic impact, but no one can identify to us homeowners how those fees are directly used to alleviate the problem this proposed development would ultimately creates. Not Good! We all attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding this development and frankly the Planning Commission got this decision wrong! Despite an invite for a site visit to allow Commission staff the opportunity to see the concerns we have first hand, they all declined to do so and then offered their approval based on details they were in direct witness seemingly very conflicted over. The whole hearing granting this approval was well attended by people in opposition who were well behaved and respectful of the commission at all times. The commission members and the way they conducted their business that evening was an absolute circus! Very disappointing to see them flailing around trying to figure what their own protocols and processes were supposed to be. Ultimately this continued until GARCO Planning staff literally took over crafting the motions to be put forth and then conducted the balance of the meeting. Some in attendance with experience in these matters questioned the legality of GARCO Planning staff directly interceding. Hopefully things wont come to that! I invite those in the Commissioner's decision making process to come take an actual look at the development sight both in the daytime and at night to get real look at what they are considering. They should also take some time to interview some residents here to listen to their perspective and gain some real understanding of what we are talking about. I hope that you will consider my points as you review their development proposal and require changes or amendments to have less negative and permanent impact on all the rest of us! Thank you for your time and your due diligence to fully consider the ramifications to all the neighboring citizens before just approving the Flying M Ranch master plan. Your thoughtfulness, expertise and tremendous concern for our way of life here is in this certainly tenuous situation is very much appreciated! Sincer cky Gremilli 1091 Wcstbank d Glenwood Springs 81601 Patrick Waller From: landstudio2@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:51 PM To: Sheryl Bower Cc: Patrick Waller; Robert Macgregor; Roger Neal; Chad J. Lee Subject: Road Impact Fees Estimate Sheryl, EXHIBIT Below is an analysis of potential Road Impact Fees for the Flying M Ranch PUD. There is some variation based on the land use flexibility that we are trying to provide within the PUD. Based on the calculation below for two different scenarios, the Road Impact Fees are upwards of $400K. Hope this helps! Doug Scenario 1 Business Park Industrial (12.5K SF) $7,050 Business Park Office (12.5K SF) $20, 375 Business Park Residential (4 1,000 SF Units) $5,896 Eco Homes (36 800 SF Units) $26,136 Loft Condos (60 1,800 SF Units) $119,280 Community Service Facility (120K SF Institutional) $180,600 Patio Homes (28 1,800 SF units) $55,664 Total $415,001 Scenario 2 Business Park Industrial (12.5K SF) $7,050 Business Park Office (12.5K SF) $20, 375 Business Park Residential (4 1,000 SF Units) $5,896 Eco Homes (36 800 SF Units) $26,136 Loft Condos (60 1,800 SF Units) $119,280 Multi Family Residential (100 1,800 SF Units) $198,800 Patio Homes (28 1,800 SF units) $55,664 Total $433,201 Douglas Pratte, ASLA The Land Studio, Inc. 365 River Bend Way Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 927-3690 Office (970) 948-6033 Mobile (970) 230-9087 Fax landstudio2(a�comcast. net 1 Road Impact fees Development tYPe square feet Fee East benefit area South and North benefit area Residential (Per dwelling by square feet of finished floor areas) 900 or less 901 to 1 400 1.401 to 1.900 1.901 to 2.400 2.401 and greater 5726 S1,474 51.988 52.385 S2.703 54E6 5986 S1,332 51.598 51.811 Non-residential (per 1,000 square feet of floor area) InousT.fiai Commercial Institutional Office & other services per 1,000 sq. t. per 1,000 sq. ft per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. 5564 53,766 S1.505 5:379 52.523 51.008 S1.630 S1.092