Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.04 Exhibit 97 - 108BOCC Hearing — Exhibits Flying M Ranch — PUD & Preliminary Plan Review Applicant is Eastbank LLC and Roaring Fork Re -1 School District April 8, 2019 (File SPPA-08-18-8675, PUD 08-18-8676) Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application 5 Staff Memo — Continuation Request 6 Staff Report 7 Referral Comments — Garfield County Road and Bridge, Received January 10, 2019 8 Referral Comments — Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Received January 4, 2019 9 Referral Comments — Dan Cokley — SGM, Received January 22, 2019 10 Referral Comments — Xcel Energy, Received January 21, 2019 11 Referral Comments — Garfield County Vegetation Management, Received January 21, 2019 12 Referral Comments — Colorado Geological Survey, Received January 23, 2019 13 Referral Comments — City of Glenwood Springs, Received January 25, 2019 14 Referral Comments — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Received January 25, 2019 15 Referral Comments — Chris Hale — Mountain Cross Engineering, Received January 25, 2019 16 Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 17 Additional Referral Comments — Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Received January 28, 2019 18 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, Received January 25, 2019 19 Referral Comments — Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Received January 28, 2019 and February 1, 2019 20 Referral Comments - Garfield County Environmental Health, Received February 1, 2019 21 Referral Comments - Colorado Department of Transportation, Received February 8, 2019 22 Public Comment - Kathy Whiting, Received February 5, 2019 23 Public Comment - Rochelle Smith, Received February 5, 2019 24 Public Comment - Melissa Helser, Received February 5, 2019 25 Public Comment - Sandra Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 26 Public Comment - David Joyner, Received February 5, 2019 27 Public Comment - Nancy Helser, Received February 5, 2019 28 Public Comment - Thomas Strazza, Received February 5, 2019 29 Public Comment - Rosella Leety, Received February 5, 2019 30 Public Comment - Trish and Gerry Hittinger, Received February 5, 2019 31 Public Comment - Felicity Smith, Received February 5, 2019 32 Public Comment - John Swanson, Received February 5, 2019 33 Public Comment - David Leety, Received February 5, 2019 34 Public Comment - Craig Duncan, Received February 5, 2019 35 Public Comment - Robert and Dana Brownlee, Received February 5, 2019 36 Public Comment - Jim English, Received February 5, 2019 37 Public Comment - Jennifer Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 38 Public Comment - Linda English, Received February 5, 2019 39 Public Comment - Douglas Flentge, Received February 5, 2019 40 Public Comment - Becky Gremillion, Received February 5, 2019 41 Public Comment - Darrin Smith, Received February 5, 2019 42 Public Comment - John Haines, Received February 5, 2019 43 Public Comment - Scott VanDeursen, Received February 5, 2019 44 Public Comment - Susan Horning, Received February 5, 2019 45 Public Comment - Steven Close, Received February 5, 2019 46 Public Comment - Peter Tibbetts, Received February 5, 2019 47 Public Comment - Anne Northway, Received February 5, 2019 48 Public Comment - Greg Rosenmerkel, Received February 5, 2019 49 Public Comment - Jeff Wisch, Received February 5, 2019 50 Public Comment - Michael Sos, Received February 5, 2019 51 Public Comment - John Rueter, Received February 5, 2019 52 Public Comment - Roger and Penelop Smith, Received February 5, 2019 53 Public Comment - Mary Moscon and Milton Cass, Received February 5, 2019 54 Public Comment - John Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 55 Public Comment - Jay Jahani, Received February 5, 2019 56 Public Comment - Jackie Woods, Received February 5, 2019 57 Public Comment - Martin Dorit Rowe, Received February 5, 2019 58 Public Comment - Gerard Hitinger, Received February 5, 2019 59 Public Comment - Schuyler Van Gordon, Received February 5, 2019 60 Public Comment - Chandra Allred, Received February 5, 2019 61 Public Comment - Terry Hageland, Received February 5, 2019 62 Public Comment - Jeff Horning, Received February 5, 2019 63 Public Comment - Richard and Nancy Bishop, Received February 5, 2019 64 Public Comment - Brook and Marilyn Robison, Received February 5, 2019 65 Public Comment - Mark and Nancy Becker, Received February 5, 2019 66 Public Comment - Mallory Harling, Received February 5, 2019 67 Public Comment - Karen Owens, Received February 5, 2019 68 Public Comment - Ryan Jarvis, Received February 5, 2019 69 Applicant Response to Referral Comments - Received February 15, 2019 70 Road and Bridge Follow-up Comment - February 12, 2019 71 Geotech Review - Response to Referral Comments, Provided by Applicant - Received February 22, 2019 72 Applicant Response to Conditions of Approval, Received February 27, 2019 73 Applicant Presentation 74 Aspen Times & Post Independent Article, February 11, 2019 75 Public Comment - Gregory Rosenmerkel, Received March 18, 2019 76 Public Comment - Melissa Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 77 Public Comment - Nancy Heiser, Received March 18, 2019 78 Referral Comment - Roaring Fork Conservancy, Received March 20, 2019 79 Public Comments - Jim English, Received March 27, 2019 80 Public Comments - Linda English, Received March 27, 2019 81 Additional Public Comment - John Haines, Received March 27, 2019 82 Public Comment - Linda Carlson Shaw, Received March 27, 2019 83 Updated Traffic Study from Applicant 83 Public Comment - David Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 84 Public Comment - Gary Bryant, Received March 29, 2019 85 Public Comment - Mary Mascon and Milton Cass, Received March 29, 2019 86 Public Comment - Sandra Joyner, Received March 29, 2019 87 Public Comment - Darrin Smith, Received April 1, 2019 88 Updated Public Comment - Kathy Whiting, Received April 1, 2019 89 Public Comment - Becky Gremillion, Received April 1, 2019 90 Public Comment - Peter Guy, Laura Kornasiewicz representing Home Care and Hospice of the Valley, Received April 5, 2019 91 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Mailed Notice provided by the Applicant 92 Public Comment - Travis Stewart, Received April 5, 2019 93 Updated Referral Comment — Colorado Department of Transportation, Received April 5, 2019 94 Public Comment — Markey Butler, Received April 8, 2019 95 Public Comment — Exhibits from Beattie, Houpt, and Jarvis, representing Westbank HOA, Received April 8, 2019 96 Applicant Proposed Revised Conditions at April 8, 2019 Hearing 97 Letter from Applicant Regarding Phased Access Permit 98 Garfield County Designated Engineer Review of Second Traffic Study 99 Summary of Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Provided by Applicant 100 Updated Traffic Impact Analysis — Discussing Phased Access Permit 101 Public Comment — Frances Pearce, Received April 26, 2019 102 Public Comment — John Loomis, Received April 26, 2019 103 Record of BOCC Site Visit 104 Staff Memorandum 105 Applicant Proposed Updated PUD Conditions 106 Applicant Proposed Updated Preliminary Plan Conditions 107 Staff Updated PUD Conditions 108 Staff Updated Preliminary Plan Conditions • BALCOMB:GR WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE 1 LITIGATION I BUSINESS April 24, 2019 Mr. Patrick Waller, Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ESTP. 1953 Chad J. Lee, Esq.* Telephone (970) 945-6546 clee@balcombgreen.com *Licensed in CO, WY, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Re: Application for Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development and Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Applications Dear Pat: Thank you for meeting with our team yesterday to discuss the status of the Flying M PUD Application. After more than a year and a half of planning and process, we are anxious to proceed with the BOCC hearing as soon as possible to preserve this year's building season and preserve currently planned contract uses and opportunities. To this end, our engineers have been working with CDOT for over a year, and until last Fall, CDOT had indicated to our traffic engineers that no offsite improvements would be necessary as a condition of an access permit, to the extent a permit was even required. But just prior to the Planning Commission hearing, CDOT indicated that improvements would be required at CR 154 and Highway 82 to improve the queuing situation. As a result of these referral comments, Applicant then offered to cap its traffic from the development to 18.5% of the currently permitted traffic. Phase I will generate an approximately 12.2% increase from the current permit. Subsequent phases will require a compliance letter from an engineer confirming the actual traffic previously generated from the development, together with an estimate based on ITE standards of new traffic generated by future phases. However, even after this reduction in traffic, CDOT still had questions for our traffic engineer and seemed to imply that improvements would still be required at the intersection due to an alleged "safety issue." Our traffic engineers were able to update the traffic assessment yesterday (attached). This report has been sent to CDOT in the hope that they can provide comments in the next couple days. But, in the mean time we are proposing (to CDOT and the BOCC) that Applicant be permitted to proceed with Phase I of the Flying M Ranch development without obtaining an updated access permit. Rather, prior to Phase 2, Applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from CDOT. Enclosed are Applicant's revised suggested conditions of approval, as well as an updated and revised traffic study which responds to CDOT's questions. Please let us know if you need anything further. ASPEN 1 BASALT 1 GLENW00D SPRINGS 1 LAMAR I BUENA VISTA Post Office Box 790 1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 1 800.836.5928 1 970.945.6546 1 BalcombGreen.com I tic CJL/bc Encls. BALCOMB&GREEN WATEREAW 1 REAL ESTATE 1 11110AIION 1 BUSINESS UTE 1853 Regards, Pat Waller Garfield County April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 2 ASPEN 1 BASALT 1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS 1 LAMAR Post Office Box 790 1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 1 800.836.5928 1 970.945.6546 1 BalcombGreen.com Patrick Waller From: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:06 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Sheryl Bower Subject: RE: Traffic Study - Flying M Ranch Attachments: Sniplmage(2).JPG Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Patrick Thanks for the opportunity to review the revised FHU Traffic Impact Study compiled in response to CDOT comments regarding the need for an access permit at the CR 154 intersection with SH 82. The revised lowered proposed development traffic volumes are calculated and acceptable as revised. It appears the intersections continue to operate at the similar LOS and queuing distances as the previous report. The actual traffic impact has not significantly changed. My original comment response consisted of the report adequately addressing the SH 82 / CR 154 intersection, was based mainly on acceptable LOS, despite potential inefficiencies in queuing. My review of CDOT comments appears to indicate they are asking for improvements regardless of meeting the "20% rule". CDOT should again review and provide comment on the new TIS. I am assuming you were requesting the cost associated with providing the 400 ft two lane queuing approach on CR 154 at the SH 82 intersection.. That is calculated based upon a square foot of asphalt extrapolation and a similar previous intersection improvement project. The attached image shows a yellow centerline and new white "lane edge" line along with an area of new asphalt that would include 4 ft minimum paved shoulders (-2500 sf). The cost is based upon a per ton asphalt cost that includes all the project elements such as traffic control, striping, earthwork, gravel, asphalt. The order of magnitude cost is estimated at $50,000 to $100,0000. I have not calculated costs to construct an alternate access associated with relocating the Orrison access to CR 154, please let me know if you were asking for that also. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like further information. Thank you, Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE Principal 6SGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9009 / 970.379.3378 cell FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG connecting & enhancing communities April 22, 2019 Mr. Robert Macgregor Dunrene Group 710 East Durant Avenue, Suite W-6 Aspen, CO 81611 Reference: Phase 1 Trip Generation Scenario Flying M Ranch Project FHU Reference No. 117349-01 Dear Mr. Macgregor: Per your request, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) has estimated vehicle -trip generation associated with a potential Phase 1 of site development within the Flying M Ranch. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated vehicle -trips associated with development of a portion of the site. Table I. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Potential Phase I Land Use ITE QDrips Daily 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 I 0 1 I I 2 Single-family Detached Housing 210 36 dwelling units 406 8 22 30 24 14 38 Nursing Home 620 40 KSF 263 17 5 22 10 14 24 TOTAL 829 59 32 91 38 42 80 As shown, the potential Phase I would generate an estimated 829 vehicle -trips per day, with up to 91 vehicle -trips occurring during peak hours. Of these vehicle -trips, approximately 80 percent, 73 vehicle -trips, would travel along CR 154 and make use of the CR 1 54/SH 82 intersection. These 73 vehicle -trips per hour (vph) represent 12.2 percent of the permitted traffic volume of 600 vph. Please contact me at (303)721-1440 should any questions arise. Sincerely, FLJ..6BURG HOLT & ULLEVIG L e V e,fts OE Princ pal 6300 SOUTH SYRACUSE WAY, SUITE 600 1 CENTENNIAL, CO 801 I 1 303,721.1440 1 WWW.FHUENG.COM 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 I 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 April 2019 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 11. 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 III.C. Background Traffic I I III.D. Total Traffic Conditions 14 IV. QUEUING EVALUATION 1 7 V. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE CRITERIA 19 V.A. Access Permit 19 V.B. Speed Change Lanes 19 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Traffic Counts Existing Conditions LOS Worksheets Background Traffic LOS Worksheets Total Traffic LOS Worksheets Queuing Reports ®FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 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 1. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 1 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 d[gHOLT & ULLEVIG Page I To Glenwood Springs Roar • 111g oi. - FELSBURG it1H 0 LT & ULLEVIG Cardiff PROJECT SITE 0 ork 'eit7er To Carbondale 4g NORTH FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Flying M Ranch UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 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. Field observations of the SH 82/CR 154 intersection conducted during the Spring of 2019 indicate that approach pavement markings along CR 154 are in poor condition. The center double yellow stripe is worn away, and no pavement markings exist to delineate the northbound left turn lanes approaching SH 82. Vehicles entering CR 154 from SH 82 were routinely observed to cross over the unmarked physical centerline of the roadway surface, and vehicles approaching SH 82 along the northbound CR 154 approach demonstrated inefficient use of the available pavement. A pavement marking refresh project is recommended to improve existing safety and operational levels. 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. Future traffic volume forecasts included in this report have added school traffic to represent a condition with the school operating at full capacity. /FELSBURG eHOLT & ULLEVIG Page 4 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment 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 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. .rFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 5 O\'§ / B/A J6 9 O J O cl, 7,2 �• ti `SS jC>� Q °, d vrt Fedex Access Riverview School Fovk giver oatir� 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 Access 06%/Qj 1 as 60/- /J� J vir 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 I through Table 3 show the future trip generation estimates for the proposed mixed-use site for each land use scenario. Table 1. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 1 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. 4FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 7 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment Table 2. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 2 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 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 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. Table 3. Site Trip Generation Estimates, Scenario 3 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 I I 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 Fedex Access Riverview School Access istsvo,i( giver LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes xx% = Site Trip Distribution ® FELSBURG 'HOLT & ULLEVIG Coe, / Emer9 Acce 200 NORTH FIGURE 4 Trip Distribution and Site Generated Traffic Assignment Flying M Ranch -UPDATE 17-349 3/1 I/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 1 I h B/A >> 82 �, 01 w� '960(V ��/��/OJ /� �`,N 00 yw 6 O66. \4 �J r'w / \ J O / u'O --'r 76, Q 01/' / °D- S\� LEGEND Fedex Access Riverview School Access ,.0.06iNc 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 = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal 4 FELSBURG dt'HOLT & ULLEVIG NORTH FIGURE 5 Short Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch -UPDATE 17-349 6/27/18 NOTE: Intersection to be Closed LEGEND 82 ��g o�/" 6) (L' 41°,) b 9 \ be B/A Riverview School oat�ng Fork 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 = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal FELSBURG 1HOLT -& � ULLEVIG Access NORTH FIGURE 6 Long Range Future Background Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 4/19/19 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 B/A /SJJ\ i\2 3?c ' 10 C7 0 } riP` c:)- ,p\ Fedex Access Riverview School voik giver oai�ng as 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 m = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal ® FELSBURG .HOLT & ULLEVIG Access Emerge Access ss `3j D'4/'4 ��� O* J9J as NORTH FIGURE 7 Short Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch -UPDATE 17-349 3/11/19 Fedex Access C/B 2S S/%S O �1�/'4 j 6) 6:J / (b 0` Nod° jS 9 ieN\ 2°5(11 Co ro Riverview School Access v._05"lgvoYk River LEGEND XXX(X)(X) = 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 WW2 FELSBURG OH 0 LT & ULLEVIG Ccv `cA L� Emerge( Acce NORTH FIGURE 8 Long Range Future Total Traffic Conditions Flying M Ranch - UPDATE 17-349 4/19/19 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. SimTraffic 95`h Percentile Queue Results — Northbound 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) Time Horizon Peak Hour Condition Short Range Future AM Background 159 185 74 Total 184 226 129 PM Background 125 82 I15 Total 129 157 58 Long Range Future AM Background 217 255 156 Total 297 338 190 PM Background 117 148 37 Total 157 185 106 Max Total Queue 297 338 190 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. Short range conditions, both with and without site development, show potential to exceed available storage lengths, and the predicted long range background and total 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 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 17 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment spillover is not anticipated to 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. 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 -both with and without site traffic. 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 adjustments will be made at various times over the next 20 years in response to changing traffic demands, possibly allowing less imbalance in the approach delays and partially mitigating the projected queuing, CDOT has requested that all analysis 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 HOLT & 'ULLEVIG Page I8 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 less 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 /FELSBURG 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 te (Shortfall)S' Required with Site (Shortfall) WELT Decel Lane 715650(0) 700 (0) 200 225 (25) 225 (25) EBRT Decel Lane 690600 (0) 600 (0) 275 225 (0) 225 (0) ®FELSBURG dm 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 these issues. The analyses indicate that while queueing is likely to exceed available lane storage lengths in the short and long range future, site generated traffic related to Flying M Ranch is not anticipated to cause routine interference 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 1 1 I 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. Field observations of the SH 82/CR 154 intersection conducted during the Spring of 2019 indicate that approach pavement markings along CR 154 are in poor condition. The center double yellow stripe is worn away, and no pavement markings exist to delineate the northbound left turn lanes approaching SH 82. Vehicles entering CR 154 from SH 82 were routinely observed to cross over the unmarked physical ®FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 21 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment centerline of the roadway surface, and vehicles approaching SH 82 along the northbound CR 154 approach demonstrated inefficient use of the available pavement. A pavement marking refresh project is recommended to improve existing safety and operational levels. 4FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 22 Flying M Ranch Traffic Impact Assessment APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC COUNTS nFELSBURG .HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix A All Traffic Data I t 1 1 10 101 1 0 Services Inc. (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (2,109) 1,095 0.96 803 (1,413) CR 154 (OLD SH82) (255) 0 168 ~ 170 0.72 0 21 191 �► (276) 2H82 1 m 0 0 . J 1 L. L SH 82 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 W 0.91 E 0.25 1 4-0 Jr 1 i (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 U -Tum Left Thru 7:00 AM 0 15 0 7:15 AM 0 30 0 7:30 AM 0 39 0 7:45 AM 0 44 8:00 AM 0 59 8:15 AM 0 28 8:30 AM 0 23 8:45 AM 0 11 Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk 0 0 — 0 N W f\E s 0 0 0 — 1 1 CR 154 (OLD SH82) SH82 SH 82 Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrain Crossings Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Tum Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 85 0 0 0 261 17 381 1,844 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 120 0 0 0 261 15 431 1,941 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 158 0 0 0 248 34 492 1,958 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 21 172 0 0 0 252 43 540 1 86 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 141 0 0 0 234 33 478 1,755 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 162 1 0 0 230 21 448 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 148 0 0 0 205 22 403 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 177 0 0 0 211 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 1EMI ! . R 1010110 Services Inc. (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (1,507) 803 0.94 1,083 (2,155) 1 f SH 82 I 0 0 0"11 L.tJLo 88 , N 0 W 0.97 E 0 s r' 0 11 � l .1 * rC 0 o rn 1 0 1 1 (1,364) 722 0.95 1,001 (2,023) CR 154 (OLD SH82) (183) 98 0.74 99 ..y (172) 5482 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 0 0.00 0 0 GR 154 (OLD SH82) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts CR 154 (OLD SH82) Interval Eastbound Start Time U -Tum Left Thru Right CR 154 (OLD SH82) Westbound U -Tum Left Thru Right Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk SH82 Northbound 0 — N W%A E s 0 40 0 — SH 82 Southbound Rolling Pedestrain Crossings U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 0 17 0 16 0 21 0 20 0 31 6 0 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 0 1 265 248 241 259 225 0 260 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 185 0 174 0 171 0 194 15 22 28 16 21 452 1,872 481 1,895 472 1,903 467 1,900 475 1,830 0 174 18 469 0 0 0 120 20 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 FELSBURG d4IHOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix B HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 06/26/2018 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r ) 44 'I 4 r 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/In 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 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) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 652 1351 - 0.067 0.005 10.9 7.7 0 B A A 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 " it r' 'i 4' 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 f 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft j" 'I 44 '9 4 I' 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 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 2.0 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 Movement 1.5 NBL NBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow 5 5 0 Free 80 8 6 4 79 79 0 Free None SBT SBR NEL NER 68 30 20 5 68 30 20 5 0 0 0 0 Free Free Stop Stop - None None 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 - 92 92 80 80 80 3 3 8 8 8 86 74 38 25 6 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 112 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 1441 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1441 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Stage 1 Stage 2 0 - 0 191 93 98 6.48 5.48 5.48 - 3.572 - 784 - 916 - 911 93 6.28 3.372 948 - 781 948 - 781 - 912 - 911 Approach NB SB 0 NE 9.6 A HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 HCM LOS 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 t r vit 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 Minor/ Major/ 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 "i ft 'I 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 Q 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 '4 ¥ 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 Major/ 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) 639 1342 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 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 'fir 4 '5 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 l 4 t 4s, t \ 1 4' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r vi 44 ) 4 r 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 Approach 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 I+ 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 - 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 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade, % 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 43 40 40 0 Stop 100 EBR SET SER NWL NWT r i r 40 45 32 33 48 40 45 32 33 48 0 0 0 0 0 Stop Free Free Free Free None - None - None 0 - 100 50 - 0 0 0 - 0 92 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 43 49 35 36 52 Major/Minor Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 173 49 0 49 124 - 6.42 6.22 5.42 - 5.42 - 3.518 3.318 817 1020 973 - 902 797 1020 797 - 950 902 Approach EB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 HCM LOS A SE 0 - 4.12 - 2.218 - 1513 - 1513 NW 3 0 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1513 0.024 7.4 A 0.1 - 797 1020 - 0.055 0.043 - 9.8 8.7 - A A - 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 04/17/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44+ r' "1 44 'j 4 fir 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 195 55 864 0 246 0 35 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 195 55 864 0 246 0 35 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 69 939 0 308 0 44 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 2321 87 2717 0 486 0 166 0 206 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.66 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 69 939 0 308 0 44 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 29.9 0.0 5.2 10.5 0.0 11.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 29.9 0.0 5.2 10.5 0.0 11.4 0.0 3.4 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 2321 87 2717 0 486 0 166 0 206 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.62 0.80 0.35 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2652 92 3060 0 587 0 211 0 276 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 12.3 0.0 60.4 4.4 0.0 56.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.2 0.0 37.6 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 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 10.1 0.0 3.1 2.7 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 13.5 0.0 97.9 4.7 0.0 58.1 0.0 53.6 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 1008 352 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 11.1 57.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary 14.6 8.0 7.0 7.2 0.0 92.8 7.5 97.5 31.9 53.5 21.2 *7 * 19 0.0 0.0 107.4 7.5 112.5 12.5 40.3 21.2 7.0 18.0 13.4 0.8 HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 18.2 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 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 t Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 247 219 31 34 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 247 219 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 6 268 238 39 43 6 Major/Minor Major/ Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 277 0 0 538 258 Stage 1 - - - 258 - Stage 2 - - - 280 - 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 1252 - - - 494 766 Stage 1 - - - 771 - Stage 2 - - 754 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1252 - 491 766 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 491 - Stage 1 - - 766 Stage 2 - - - 754 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 515 1252 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 7.9 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 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations 'j r' 4 r vi t Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 54 158 66 66 198 Future Vol, veh/h 54 54 158 66 66 198 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 59 172 72 72 215 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 531 172 0 0 244 0 Stage 1 172 - Stage 2 359 - 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 509 872 - 1322 Stage 1 858 Stage 2 707 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 482 872 - 1322 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 482 Stage 1 858 Stage 2 669 - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1322 - 482 872 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 0.122 0.067 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - 13.5 9.4 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 04/17/2019 f 4- '\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4w r ) +1 '1 4 r 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 970 138 16 1357 0 134 0 23 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 970 138 16 1357 0 134 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 1054 0 20 1475 0 168 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 2503 28 2805 0 368 0 108 0 134 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.02 0.80 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 20 1475 0 168 0 29 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 14.1 0.0 1.3 16.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.1 0.0 1.3 16.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 2.1 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 2503 28 2805 0 368 0 108 0 134 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.72 0.53 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2976 104 3434 0 659 0 237 0 310 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 6.6 0.0 56.1 3.9 0.0 52.0 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 1.3 0.0 1.9 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 4.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.1 0.0 94.7 4.6 0.0 53.2 0.0 52.2 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 1495 197 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 5.8 53.1 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.9 8.0 7.0 3.3 0.0 89.5 7.5 97.5 16.1 44.0 15.2 *7 * 19 0.0 0.0 99.4 7.5 112.5 18.5 73.4 15.2 7.0 18.0 7.5 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 9.7 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 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 127 114 40 30 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 127 114 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 6 138 124 50 38 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 174 0 - 0 299 149 Stage 1 - - 149 Stage 2 - - - 150 - 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 1367 - - 680 882 Stage 1 - - - 864 - Stage 2 - - 863 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1367 - 677 882 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 677 - Stage 1 - 860 - Stage 2 - - 863 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 700 1367 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 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 Approach HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 154 & School Access 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations j r' 1' r 4, Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 87 32 33 92 Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 87 32 33 92 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 95 35 36 100 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 267 95 0 0 130 0 Stage 1 95 - - Stage 2 172 - 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 722 962 - 1455 Stage 1 929 - - Stage 2 858 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 704 962 - 1455 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 704 - - Stage 1 929 Stage 2 837 EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1455 - 704 962 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.062 0.045 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 - 10.5 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 de HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix D HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: CR 154 & SH 82 6/26/2018 .- ` 4\ t P 1 4' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 ? ) 44 "i 4 ri 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+11), 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 16.0 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 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 Major/ 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 r 4 r' 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 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 382 92 0 0 185 0 Stage 1 92 Stage 2 290 - 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 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 t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 r '1 44 'I 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 Q 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 Q 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+I1), 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 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 Major/ 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) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 698 1353 - 0.07 0.006 10.5 7.7 0 B A A 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 ' r 4' r ' 1' 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 04/17/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r ii ) 4 r 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 230 67 864 0 294 0 51 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1315 230 67 864 0 294 0 51 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 84 939 0 368 0 64 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 2278 90 2676 0 534 0 189 0 234 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 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 84 939 0 368 0 64 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 31.8 0.0 6.5 11.4 0.0 14.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.8 0.0 6.5 11.4 0.0 14.0 0.0 5.1 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 2278 90 2676 0 534 0 189 0 234 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.63 0.93 0.35 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2584 90 2981 0 572 0 206 0 269 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 13.6 0.0 62.3 5.0 0.0 56.7 0.0 52.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.3 0.0 73.7 0.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.5 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 11.0 0.0 4.6 3.1 0.0 6.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 14.9 0.0 135.9 5.3 0.0 60.4 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 1023 432 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.9 16.1 59.4 0.0 Approach LOS B 8 E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 93.5 23.5 108.5 23.5 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 8.5 33.8 0.0 13.4 16.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 52.2 0.0 40.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 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 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.2 NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 I Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 307 239 58 38 6 Future Vol, veh/h 12 307 239 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 15 334 260 73 48 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 333 0 - 0 661 297 Stage 1 - - 297 Stage 2 - 364 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 1193 - 418 728 Stage 1 - - 740 Stage 2 - - 690 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1193 - - 412 728 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 412 Stage 1 - - 729 Stage 2 - - 690 Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NELn1 NBL NBT SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 438 1193 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.126 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 8.1 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 04/17/2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations ' r' 1' r ' 1' Traffic Vol, veh/h 114 69 159 86 70 205 Future Vol, veh/h 114 69 159 86 70 205 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 75 173 93 76 223 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 548 173 0 0 266 0 Stage 1 173 - Stage 2 375 - - - - 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 497 871 - - 1298 Stage 1 857 - - Stage 2 695 - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 468 871 - 1298 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 468 - Stage 1 857 Stage 2 654 - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1298 - 468 871 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - 0.265 0.086 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - 15.4 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A - C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.1 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 ) +1 ) 4 ? 4+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 970 186 32 1357 0 169 0 35 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 970 186 32 1357 0 169 0 35 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 40 1475 0 211 0 44 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 2424 50 2767 0 411 0 128 0 159 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.69 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 40 1475 0 211 0 44 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 15.5 0.0 2.7 17.8 0.0 7.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 15.5 0.0 2.7 17.8 0.0 7.1 0.0 3.2 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 2424 50 2767 0 411 0 128 0 159 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.43 0.80 0.53 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2920 102 3369 0 646 0 233 0 304 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 Fiiter(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 7.9 0.0 56.3 4.4 0.0 52.2 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 32.2 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.3 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 4.7 0.0 1.6 3.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.4 0.0 88.5 5.1 0.0 53.6 0.0 52.6 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 1515 255 0 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 7.3 53.4 0.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 88.4 16.9 99.9 16.9 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 4.7 17.5 0.0 19.8 9.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 43.6 0.0 72.6 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS 11.9 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 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 1.6 Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 4 I Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 163 175 43 41 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 163 175 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 8 177 190 54 51 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 244 0 - 0 410 217 Stage 1 217 Stage 2 - - - 193 - 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 1288 - 586 808 Stage 1 - - - 805 - Stage 2 - - - 826 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1288 - - 582 808 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 582 - Stage 1 - - 799 - Stage 2 - - - 826 - Approach NB SB NE HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 11.6 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) 610 1288 0.1 0.006 11.6 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 3.7 Movement EBL EBR SET SER NWL NWT Lane Configurations 'I �' '� r Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 49 90 93 48 93 Future Vol, veh/h 76 49 90 93 48 93 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 98 101 52 101 Major/Minor Minor/ Major/ Major2 Conflicting Flow All 303 98 0 0 199 0 Stage 1 98 - - Stage 2 205 - - - 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 689 958 - 1373 Stage 1 926 - - Stage 2 829 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 663 958 - 1373 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 663 - - - Stage 1 926 - Stage 2 797 - - Approach EB SE NW HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 2.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWL NWT EBLn1 EBLn2 SET SER Capacity (veh/h) 1373 - 663 958 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.125 0.056 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.2 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 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix E Queuing and Blocking Report Short Term Background AM 04/19/2019 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) 240 218 13 130 159 130 177 216 150 Average Queue (ft) 147 99 1 50 72 43 86 117 11 95th Queue (ft) 230 195 6 105 133 97 159 185 74 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 41 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 56 Flying M Ranch Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Short Term Background PM 04/19/2019 Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT Maximum Queue (ft) 173 151 6 46 181 152 112 140 Average Queue (ft) 63 26 0 7 94 58 32 65 95th Queue (ft) 128 86 5 30 159 125 82 115 Link Distance (ft) 1073 1073 1350 1350 647 Upstream Bik Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 700 700 175 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11 Flying M Ranch 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) 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 Long Term Background AM 04/17/2019 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) 339 296 41 159 166 140 254 279 150 Average Queue (ft) 210 161 3 68 90 58 136 173 45 95th Queue (ft) 313 274 20 131 149 121 217 255 156 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 (%) 2 61 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 120 0 Flying M Ranch Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Long Term Background PM Intersection: 1: CR 154 & SH 82 04/17/2019 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 216 204 9 66 222 194 137 171 60 Average Queue (ft) 110 62 0 13 119 90 58 92 3 95th Queue (ft) 196 156 5 44 201 178 117 148 37 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 (%) 31 Queuing Penalty (veh) 32 Flying M Ranch Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 04/19/2019 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) 336 306 53 287 170 153 325 346 150 Average Queue (ft) 220 161 7 145 88 59 181 226 69 95th Queue (ft) 316 280 30 281 155 121 297 338 190 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 (%) 12 73 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 181 2 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 04/19/2019 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) 248 217 29 107 247 226 215 242 148 Average Queue (ft) 134 80 1 37 129 96 82 113 22 95th Queue (ft) 218 178 11 86 204 179 157 185 106 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 41 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 61 1 Flying M Ranch Long Term Total PM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SimTraffic Report Page 1 Patrick Waller From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:56 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Fwd: [External] Garfield County website inquiry Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: <noreply@formstack.com> Date: April 25, 2019 at 8:27:45 PM MDT To: <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com> Subject: [External] Garfield County website inquiry Reply -To: <jerryfranzp a gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Eastbank development Name: Frances Pearce Email: jerryfranzp(c(�gmail.com Phone Number: (970) 825-3899 EXHIBIT Message: We support the recommendation by the Garfield County Senior Planner Waller in his Staff Reports and CDOT, the Developer should pay for enlarging this intersection as a condition of approval. Further that CDOT Access Permit be required as a condition of approval. We believe these conditions are necessary for this "development to pay its own way" without imposing future costs on Garfield County Highway Department (i.e., residents of Garfield County) and CDOT. i To: Garfield County Commissioner Mike Samson, John Martin and Tom Jankovsky From: John Loomis and Sandra Gudmundsen, residents of Ironbridge (10 Wild Rose Drive, Glenwood Springs) Subject: Need for Developer of Proposed Eastbank PUD to Improve Interchange of CR154 & Hwy 82 as recommended by CDOT & Garfield Senior Planner as a Condition for Approval Date: April 25, 2019 My wife and I are writing to relay our, and our neighbors here in Ironbridge major concerns about the proposed (228 housing units and 155,000 square feet of commercial development) on Eastbank area along the Roaring Fork River at Highway 82 and County road 154. The primary concern being the inadequate capacity of the of the CR 154 and Hwy 82 interchange to handle the proposed 228 housing units, proposed commercial and business park. As recommended by the Garfield County Senior Planner and CDOT, the Developer should pay for enlarging this intersection as a condition of approval. The remainder of this letter, provides the details to support our request. Neither my wife nor I are able to attend the meeting tonight as we only first read about this development in the Post Independent on April 9th. One reason we are both out of town during this and prior hearings due, in part to the fact, that there was no advanced notice provided by the County to homeowners in Ironbridge of this development or the hearings (at least as far as anyone I have talked to on our Board or individuals present at the Ironbridge HOA meeting). Since all Ironbridge residents access Glenwood Springs using the CR154 and Hwy 82 interchange, we are directly affected, one or more times a day, by the Eastbank development. 1. We have read through both Staff Reports by Patrick Waller, Senior Planner with Garfield County. Overall, we want to support several of his and CDOT's recommendations (Page 21 of Waller Staff Report on PUD Review) that: 2. CDOT Access Permit be required as a condition of approval. 3. CDOT's recommendation that CR154 should be widened for the three northbound approach lanes for at least 400 feet as a condition of approval. We believe these conditions are necessary for this "development to pay its own way" without imposing future costs on Garfield County Highway Department (i.e., residents of Garfield County) and CDOT. We also believe that the right turn lane from southbound Hwy 82 onto CR154 needs to be widened, possibly to two lanes. Currently the tight curvature of that right turn results in the cars turning right having difficulty avoiding the cars waiting to turn left. As currently configured the CR154 & Hwy 82 intersection cannot handle any additional traffic. Given the additional traffic generated by this proposed Eastbank development, the improvements recommended by Waller and CDOT needs to be paid for, up front prior to 1 construction beginning by the developer. The developer's project itself will generate hundreds of construction vehicles a day for earth moving, utility work, construction of homes and commercial buildings. The developer has attempted to downplay their traffic impact so as to avoid having to install improvements at CR 154 and Hwy 82. This is done into artificial ways. The first way is evident Senior Planner Waller's staff report on the Preliminary Plan (Page 29). As Waller writes in his report: "The applicant has submitted an additional Traffic Study as part of the application. This Traffic Study caps the overall traffic at a lower number, both for total trips and for peak hour trips, with the intent being that the overall traffic numbers generated are kept below the CDOT threshold and thus, not requiring the applicant to install improvements at the CR 154, Highway 82 intersection." Thus it is clear the developer is purposely understating their traffic estimates to avoid paying for the necessary improvements to the intersection. The second of the developer's attempt to avoid paying for the necessary improvements in the intersection is also evident in Senior Planner Waller's staff report on the PUD (page 23). As noted in Waller's staff report, the applicant's initial traffic study did not account for full buildout of the Land Use mix proposed by the developer. To justify this, the developer proposed a farfetched idea that they would "cap" their development once the traffic reached the estimated level with partial build out. The deverloper's full response was officially transmitted by the applicant, in the applicant's response (in Exhibit 69 of the April 81h 2019 BOCC Hearing Exhibits). The full quote is: "Trip generation numbers are based upon the development plan provided to FHU. It is correct that certain land uses allowed by the PUD have higher trip generating potential. It is our understanding that the developer intends to use a mix of the allowable uses and has agreed to cap total development such that total trip generation would not exceed 1,967 daily trips, consistent with the traffic study." This idea of a developer "capping the development so as not to exceed 1,967 daily trips" does not pass a laugh test in my 10 years of professional and 30 years personal experience: 1. First, it is not clear how this "capping ofdevelopment" provision could be enforced by the County. Who would monitor the traffic? If the developer monitors, then the developer has an incentive to underestimate the traffic to allow for continued development. 2. What about traffic at peak rush hours? Usually the bulk of these nearly 2,000 daily trips are compressed into two time periods: (a) morning rush hour (730-9am) and (b) evening rush hours (school gets out until 6pm). Thus a daily trip figure does not accurately measure the congestion and waiting time that occurs at this peak time at the CRI 54 & Hwy 82 intersection. 2 During the time I was working with people at University of California -Davis involved in the field of land use planning and transportation modeling, and I was reading trade journals on land use planning I have never seen any developer propose this idea of a developer voluntarily "capping" the amount of their development when traffic reached a certain level of automobile trips generated by their development. The idea has no track record and is designed to by developer to avoid paying for the interchange improvements needed and thus to avoid the development having to "pay its own way" During my nearly 30 years living in Fort Collins, and attending several Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings over those 30 years, I never heard a developer, Planning and Zoning stag or City Council suggest that a developer monitor traffic and limit future development if traffic was greater than forecast. It doesn't pass the laugh test. Having known professional planners that worked for Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins and discussed land use planning with them on numerous occasions, I never once heard them propose or discuss this idea that a developer would be asked to voluntarily limit their development if traffic reached X. Rather, the developer was told that they must build the roads, widen the intersections, add turn lanes, etc. to accommodate full build out of their development. We wholeheartedly support Senior Planner Waller recommendation that interchange improvements be made a condition for approval of this development. It is only fair that this development pay its own way. Further, we also agree with Waller's recommendations regarding sidewalks along CR 154 to allow safe passage of children from the proposed development of 228 houses to the Riverview school. I would greatly appreciate you voting to oppose the development unless the condition recommended by Garfield Planning Staff that: Improvements to the intersection of CR 154 and Hwy 82 are completed upfront by the developer as a condition for issuance of a permit for the PUD. Thank you John Loomis Sandra Gudmundsen 10 Wild Rose Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 on behalf of ourselves and neighbors in Phase I, Ironbridge. 3 Patrick Waller From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:57 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Fwd: [External] Garfield County website inquiry Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: <noreply(a(formstack.com> Date: April 25, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM MDT To:<tjankovsky@garfield-county.corn> Subject: [External] Garfield County website inquiry Reply -To: <JOhn.LOOmis@colOstate.edu> Subject: Need for Developer of Proposed Eastbank PUD to Improve Interchange of CR154 & Hwy 82 as a Condition for Approval Name: John Loomis Email: John.Loomis(c�colostate.edu Phone Number: (970) 226-4052 Message: My wife and I are writing to relay our, and our neighbors here in Ironbridge major concerns about the proposed (228 housing units and 155,000 square feet of commercial development) on Eastbank area. We support the recommendation by the Garfield County Senior Planner Waller in his Staff Reports and CDOT, that the Developer should pay for enlarging this intersection as a condition of approval. Further that CDOT Access Permit be required as a condition of approval. We believe these conditions are necessary for this "development to pay its own way" without imposing future costs on Garfield County Highway Department (i.e., residents of Garfield County) and CDOT. (We would attend the hearing, but we were not, nor others in Ironbridge, ever notified about this development or BOCC hearing. We only first learned about it mid April. Unfortunately we will be out of town at the time of the hearing, so are sending this email). As detailed in Garfield's Senior Planner's staff reports, the Developer has purposely understated the traffic impacts of their Fly M/Eastbank development. They have done this is two artificial ways. The first is summarized by Waller in his Staff Report on the Preliminary Plan, Page 29: "The applicant has submitted an additional Traffic Study as part of the application. This Traffic study caps the overall traffic at a lower number, both for total trips and for peak hour trips, with the intent being that the overall traffic numbers 1 generated are kept below the CDOT threshold and thus, not requiring the applicant to install improvements at the CR 154, Highway 82 intersection." The second of the developer's attempt to avoid paying for the necessary improvements in the intersection is also evident in Senior Planner Waller's staff report on the PUD (page 23). As noted in Waller's staff report, the applicant's initial traffic study did not account for full buildout of the Land Use mix proposed by the developer. To justify this, the developer proposed a farfetched idea that they would "cap" their development once the traffic reached the estimated level. In my 40 years of adult life I have never heard or read about a developer actually capping their development once a certain level of traffic is reached. This is an unenforceable provision that requires frequent monitoring and verification. Therefore my wife and I wholeheartedly support Senior Planner Waller recommendation and that of CDOT that interchange improvements CDOT have stipulated be made a condition for approval of this development. It is only fair that this development pay its own way. Further, we also agree with Waller's recommendations regarding sidewalks along CR 154 to allow safe passage of children from the proposed development of 228 houses to the Riverview school. We would greatly appreciate you voting to oppose the development unless the condition recommended by Garfield Planning Staff that: Improvements to the intersection of CR 154 and Hwy 82 are completed upfront by the developer as a condition for issuance of a permit for the PUD. Thank you. John Loomis and Sandra Gudmundsen, 10 Wild Rose Drive, Ironbridge 2 EXHIBIT OLf- Garfield County MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Patrick Waller, Senior Planner DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: Application Updates and Staff Analysis BACKGROUND Eastbank LLC has applied for both a Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan approval on a property located at 3927 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. The application was originally heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners on April 8th and subsequently continued until May 6th. Since that time the applicant has submitted additional information, including an updated Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibits 99 and 100) and a document requesting the BOCC to amend the Planning Commissions Suggested Conditions of Approval (Exhibits 105 and 106). This Memorandum includes Staff Analysis of the new information and requested amendments. As discussed in the following section, Staff is requesting a continuance as the applicant's updated Traffic Study was not received in time to receive updated Referral Comments and allow the County Designated Traffic Engineer to review. STAFF ANALYSIS Change to Condition 5 Preliminary Plan — CDOT Access Permit Since the initial public hearing, the applicant has proposed a phased approach to the improvements required by CDOT at the Highway 82, CR 154 intersection. The proposed change to the Condition would allow the first phase to be completed, but would not permit the applicant to obtain a Final Plat for the second phase, until a CDOT access permit is obtained and improvements installed. Staff received the applicant's updated Traffic Study and recommended Conditions of Approval addressing the phased approach on April 24. Because of the short turn -around, the County Designated Traffic Engineer has not been able to review the new update. Additionally, at the writing of this memo, Staff has not received an updated referral comment from the Colorado Department of Transportation as they have not had adequate time to review the applicant's new proposal. Staff is requesting that the application be continued, to be able to adequately review the revised Traffic Study and to obtain updated referral comments from CDOT. Applicant's Request to Amend and Add Conditions to the PUD Approval The applicant has requested that the Board amend the PUD and Preliminary Plan approvals by limiting the building height on Parcels D, E, and F, requiring low berms for the screening of car headlights, amending the Traffic related conditions to use Peak Hour Vehicles, prohibiting excavation below current existing grade, and requiring the traffic reports at time of Building Permit. Staff has no issues with any of these alterations as they work to lessen impacts on neighboring property owners. After consulting with the Garfield County designated traffic engineer, the change from Average Daily Trips to Peak Hour Vehicles will have minimal effect on the required Traffic Studies. Change from a Concrete to a Soft Trail The applicant has proposed changing the trail that rings the outer edge of the development from a concrete trail to soft trail. This suggestion was included in Staff's original analysis of the application provided the applicant committed to providing sidewalks in the development. Since the initial review, the applicant has committed to providing internal sidewalks within the development. As such, Staff does not have an issue with the change to a soft trail. BOARD OPTIONS Changes have been proposed to the conditions of the PUD and Preliminary Plan since the Planning Commission hearing both by Staff and the applicant. If the Board decides to approve both applications, Staff has provided updated recommended conditions of approval for each application. The conditions for the PUD in Exhibit 107 include all of the applicant's requested changes to the PUD as well as Staff's suggested changes. The conditions for the Preliminary Plan in Exhibit 108, include all of Staff's suggested minor changes and all of the Applicant's suggested changes, except for the Condition regarding CDOT and the access permit. This item was not included because the updated Traffic Study and phasing plan has not been reviewed by the County Traffic Engineer or the Colorado Department of Transportation. The revised conditions for the Preliminary Plan provided as Exhibit 108 do not include Staff's suggested change to the Planning Commissions Condition 7 which requires sidewalks along the PUD side of the County Road, along Flying M Ranch Road and on the upper access road. If the Board wishes to include that condition the text is below: Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show a sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width, on Flying M Ranch Road, the Upper Access Road, the Lower Access Road, and the PUD side of County Road 154. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roads when there is development potential on both sides. Sidewalks shall be built at the time of Final Plat for each parcel and may be secured by an Improvements Agreement. The sidewalks shall not be maintained by the County. A brief summary has been included below outlining the proposed changes to conditions. Staff Suggested Changes to PUD - Condition 4: Amendment to align PUD with requirements in the Preliminary Plan as suggested by the Planning Commission. This requires the applicant to complete an Amended Final Plat to locate the river easement entirely on the Eastbank LLC parcel. - Condition 5(j): Requires Traffic Study at Building Permit rather than Final Plat for administrative flexibility purposes. - Condition 5(n): Memorializes applicant's request to change minimum lot size of eco -efficiency homes. Condition 5(o): Clarifies the allowance of more than one residential unit on a parcel. Applicant's Requested Changes to PUD - Add condition 5(d) reducing Building Height in the Community Service Facility Zone District to 30 feet. Note this also requires removing the Condition that limits Building Height in the zone district to 35 feet. - Add condition 5(e) requiring berms or walls in the Design Guidelines to mitigate car headlights. - Change to Condition 5(h) to switch the requirement of Average Daily Trips to Peak Hour Vehicles. - Change Condition 5(j) Change Traffic Study requirement to Building Permit and use Peak Hour Vehicles instead of Average Daily Trips. Staff's Suggested Changes to Preliminary Plan - Condition 4(a): Include clarification of when the connection to the RFTA trail is required. Condition 5: Change the Access Permit Condition for ease of administration. This change would still require the applicant to install improvements at time of the First Final Plat. - Condition 6(a): Provides clarity regarding the requested easement. - Condition 7: Suggested Condition that would require sidewalks on Flying M Ranch Road, the PUD side of County Road 154, and the Upper Access Road, in addition to internal sidewalks. Applicant's Requested Change to Preliminary Plan Conditions Condition 5: Change the condition to allow a phased approach to the CDOT access permit and if required, road improvements. - Addition of a condition (Condition 8) allowing a soft trail in place of a concrete path. - Condition 11: Change tracking in Traffic Report requirement to Peak Hour Vehicles from Average Daily Trips. - Addition of a condition (Condition 13) restricting excavation below existing grade in the River Trail easement. Board of County Commissioners EXHIBIT Flying FLYING M RANCH PUD SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Text in Red indicates an applicant proposed change. Text color was added by Staff. 1. All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 05 2. The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 3. No development specifically related to the PUD shall be permitted unless the subject parcel has received Final Plat approval. Conditions Prior to BOCC Signature of the PUD 4. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the Roaring Fork School District property to reflect the boundaries of the property as submitted for this application. An Amended Final Plat shall also be completed to locate the easement for the river access trail entirely on the Applicant's property as referenced in the Preliminary Plan approvals. 5. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the PUD Guide to reflect the following comments: a. Parking Standards for Eco Efficiency Home Units, Multi -Unit Dwelling Units, and Attached Dwelling Units shall include, in addition to two spaces per unit, one guest space for every three units at a minimum. When any calculation of the number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fractional space being required, such fraction shall be rounded up to the next higher number of spaces. b. The Building Height of Single -Family Dwelling Units shall be decreased to 25 feet. c. Definitions shall be included for service business, retail/wholesale business, veterinary clinic, and community gardens. The new definitions shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development. d. The Building Height shall be reduces to 30' for Parcels D, E, and F. The PUD Guide shall also reflect that this 30' building height limit must consist of no more than 2 stories of floor area above existing grade. Additional floor area beyond the 2 stories above existing grade will be allowed below the elevation of existing grade. e. The Flying M Ranch Design Guidelines shall be updated to require low berms or walls with vegetation to be used for the screening of car headlights from parking areas on Parcels D, E, and F that may be visible from neighboring properties. f. The Eco Efficiency Home definition shall be updated to reflect that it is considered a dwelling unit. g. The Kennel use shall be required to comply with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Standards specifically related to kennels. h. The maximum Peak Hour Vehicles allowed from the site (139 AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips and 139 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips) shall be included in the PUD guide. i. Minimum Traffic generation numbers shall be assigned to each parcel in the PUD guide. j. Traffic reports shall be provided prior to each Building Permit indicating the total Peak Hour Vehicles generated by that phase, the total Peak Hour Vehicles actually generated from the development to that date, and the remaining non -allocated 1 Board of County Commissioners — May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch- PUD trips. No development shall be authorized that exceeds the maximum Peak Hour Vehicles or leaves a parcel with less than the allocated traffic minimum. k. Bike parking acceptable to the Community Development Department shall be required for uses in the Business Park Zone District. I. Units shall be located to anticipate future Subdivision with regards to dimensional requirements for that particular unit type. m. Building height in the Community Service Facility Zone District shall be limited to 35 feet. n. The minimum lot size shall be 700 square feet for the Eco -Efficiency Homes. o. More than one residential unit may be permitted on a parcel, provided that all dimensional requirements allowing for future subdivision are adhered to. 6. The PUD Map shall be updated to change the parcel designated as Open Space to Zone District 4, Hillside Open Space. 7. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the covenants to provide an internal enforcement and complaint handling process exclusive of Garfield County for the Residential Rental Unit use. The updated language will be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department. 8. The applicant shall supply a PUD Map acceptable to the Community Development Department prior to the BOCC signature on the Map. The PUD Map shall be evaluated by the Community Development Department for conformance with Land Use and Development Code requirements. 9. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, a Development Agreement shall be signed by the BOCC and the Applicant that memorializes the phasing of the project. a. The applicant shall update the development agreement to reflect the 10 -year build out that was identified in the phasing letter. 2 Board of County Commissioners - Flying M Ranch — Preli EXHIBIT FLYING M RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPRO Text in Red indicates an applicant proposed change. Text color was added by Staff. 1) All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or through submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2) The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. Conditions Prior to Final Plat Approval: Transportation: 3) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property for the emergency access loop. 4) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property to connect the Rio Grande trail to the proposed river trail. a) Applicant's proposed river trail improvements for Phase I, including the path along the Roaring Fork River from Parcel B to halfway across Parcel D, shall be installed as part of the first Final Plat and may be secured by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Future trail extensions, including through Parcels E and F shall occur as such parcels are final platted. The connection to the RFTA trail shall be completed as part of the Final Plat of Parcel F. 5) Prior to approval of the Second Phase, the applicant shall apply for and receive a CDOT access permit, if necessary, be granted a Notice to Proceed for any improvements that are required, if necessary, and provide a demonstration that the improvements have been accepted by CDOT. 6) Applicant, Eastbank, LLC shall work in good faith with the Roaring Fork RE -1 School District to attempt to obtain an easement through the Roaring Fork School District property along the emergency access road in anticipation of the development of an access road from the properties to the north, but securing such easement shall not be necessary for approval. a) If the easement is obtained, the applicant shall also be required to provide an access easement from the boundary of Parcel F to the northern parcel access easement referenced in Condition 6. This easement shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development, the County Attorney's Office and the Garfield County designated engineer. 7) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update preliminary PUD documents to commit and show a sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width for Parcels/Lots B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roads for Parcels/Lots B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F when there is PUD development on both sides. Sidewalks shall be built at the time of Final Plat for each parcel. The sidewalks shall not be maintained by the County. No sidewalks are required along Flying M Ranch Road from the School entrance 1 Board of County Commissioners - May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan drive to CR154, the Upper Access Road from the Lower Access intersection up to CR 154, or on the PUD side of County Road 154. a) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a sidewalk maintenance agreement and a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 8) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show a soft trail a minimum of four feet in width where the River Trail is proposed for Parcels B, 01, C2, C3, D, E, and F, and provide a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 9) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat or as secured by the initial Subdivision Improvements Agreement, the applicant shall install additional signage and push-button flashing pedestrian signs for trail users on either side of the Rio Grande trail crossing of County Road 154. This work shall be completed in conjunction with RFTA and Garfield County Road and Bridge. A demonstration of conformance with this condition shall be provided by RFTA and the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 10) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, for the roadways identified by the Garfield County designated engineer, the applicant shall either submit a Waiver Request for article 7-107 Roadway Standards, or update the engineering documents to demonstrate that the roadway meets those standards. This condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County designated engineer. 11) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall assign traffic generation minimums to all parcels in the proposed development in the form of Peak Hour Vehicles. The traffic generation minimums shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the County Referral Engineer. Documentation of the traffic generation minimums shall be included in the PUD guide.. Utilities and Engineering: 12) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the notes on engineering documents to reflect the most up-to-date studies. 13) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show that there will be no excavation below current existing grade in the River Trail easement on Parcels D, E, and F. 14) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the engineering documents as required by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. a) All Final Plats will be referred to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and the applicant shall be required to comply with the District's regulations. The applicant shall supply all easements required by the RFWSD on all Final Plats. 15) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents and/or provide other evidence to address the Garfield County designated engineer's 2 Board of County Commissioners - May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan comments, dated January 25, 2019 as provided in Exhibit 15 of this Staff Report. Demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Community Development. 16) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show an additional fire hydrant as requested by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. 17) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a statement from a professional engineer, indicating whether or not drainage easements are needed on the subject properties. If needed, the easements shall be included on any Final Plat. 18) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the Improvements Agreement shall be updated to include the requirement that the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer shall review and approve the following: a) Security amounts b) Partial releases of security c) Final releases of security 19) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that the existing structure on proposed Lot A4 meets setback requirements, relocate the structure, or alter the lot lines to show the structure is compliant. Amended Final Plat and PUD Guide Requirements: 20) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the Roaring Fork School District property to reflect the boundaries of the property as submitted for this application. 21) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the PUD Guide and Map shall be approved and recorded. 22) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat with the property to the southwest to ensure the easement access to the river is located entirely on the Preliminary Plan property. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that the proposed easement extends to the Typical and Ordinary High Water Mark of the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands and Waterbodies: 23) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete wetlands analysis if required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. If wetlands are found, the applicant shall supply a plan to be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with required regulations. 24) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a public river access easement for the portion of the property that borders the Roaring Fork River. 25) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall address potential floodplain issues on the property through a Letter of Map Revision, a Letter of Map Amendment, and/or a County Floodplain Permit. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the 3 Board of County Commissioners - May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan Garfield County floodplain manager. A floodplain development permit may be required for the river trail pending further information submitted to the Floodplain Manager. 26) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide additional information acceptable to the Community Development Department indicating mitigation measures for the sections of the river trail located within the required 35' waterbody setback. The applicant should avoid development of the trail in the waterbody setback to the maximum extent practicable, shall work with CPW on the trail design, and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. Possible mitigation options could include, but are not limited to decreased width of sidewalk, lack of disturbance of riparian vegetation, addition of appropriate riparian vegetation, and/or use of a permeable material for the trail. Vegetation Management: 27) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply a management plan for Russian Olives on the site that is acceptable to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. 28) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Vegetation Management with a calculation of the surface area of disturbance that will need to be reseeded on the property. Vegetation Management will then determine if a revegetation security is necessary. If determined necessary the security will be required prior to the Final Plat. 29) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Community Development with a completed Development Agreement for the project as a whole and an Improvements Agreement for the particular proposed phase. These items shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. School Land Dedication 30) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall either execute an agreement acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney's Office, with support from the RE -1 School District, that outlines the proposed School Impact Fee plan, or the applicant shall pay school impact fees as required in the Land Use and Development Code. Covenants 31) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the Covenants for the property to demonstrate compliance with Article 7-401 of the Land Use and Development Code regarding Domestic Animal Control. 32) Final Plat Requirements: a) A plat note shall be included on all final plats that indicates: "A site specific geotechnical study shall be required prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. Development shall follow the recommendations in that report." b) Plat Notes A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and L as described in the County Resource Guide shall be included on Final Plats c) All final plats shall include required drainage easements. d) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse 4 Board of County Commissioners - May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporate bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored." e) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, the applicant shall supply an engineered fire truck turn -around for that parcel acceptable to the Fire Department. f) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: At the time of Development of Parcel F, the emergency access loop shall be completed. g) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Traffic generation requirements are outlined in the PUD Guide" h) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: An engineered, site specific, grading and drainage plan shall be required for each parcel, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. i) The River trail easement shall be clearly dedicated to the public on any Final Plat. j) The applicant shall include a plat note indicating that the project is located near the Glenwood Springs Airport. Other Conditions: 33) The applicant shall comply with Colorado Parks and Wildlife Referral Comments as indicated below: a) Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. b) Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is required that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. 34) Development of the site shall be consistent with the requirements detailed in the H -P Kumar Preliminary Geotechnical Study, or as that study is updated. 35) Existing development on lots A2 and A4 shall be connected to Central Services as part of the Final Plat process for those lots. 36) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, compliance with requirements of the Land Use and Development Code, including but not limited to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and snow storage requirements shall be verified. 37) Roof Materials shall be made of noncombustible materials or other materials as recommended by the local fire agency. 38) Any fire truck turn around shall be kept clear as required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, including but not limited to clear from parking and snow storage. Additional signage may be required by the Fire Department to meet this condition. 5 Board of County Commissioners - May 6, 2019 Flying M Ranch — Preliminary Plan 39) If the access from the northern parcels is built, the applicant shall be required to connect to that access road by upgrading the emergency access to meet Garfield County Roadway Standards. Once developed the road shall be available for use by the public. 40) The upper access shall be required to be gated for emergency access to the satisfaction of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department and County Road and Bridge. The road shall be constructed to the standards and in the location as indicated in the initial application. A driveway permit shall be required. Once Parcels B, C1, C2, C3, D, and E, are built -out, and/or at the discretion of the Community Development Director, the traffic impact of the development shall be re-evaluated by Garfield County and the access may be opened to use by the public. 41) As part of the Final Plat process for parcels C1, C2, and/or C3, (whichever is platted first) the applicant shall install a flashing pedestrian beacon on either side of the cross walk at Flying M Ranch Road and the school access road as indicated in the provided engineering documents. 42) The applicant shall be required to meet the requirements of all utility providers for the project. All easements as required shall be included on all Final Plats. 43) The applicant shall supply records to the Community Development Department indicating that weed management work has been completed as required by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 44) Development of the parcel shall comply with Colorado Geological Survey referral comments including requirements for uncontrolled fill and subsidence hazards. 6 Board of County Commissioners Updated Recommended Conditions of Approval for PUD This includes Staff's recommended changes to certain conditions, as well as Applicant proposed changes that are not an issue for Staff. 1. All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 3. No development specifically related to the PUD shall be permitted unless the subject parcel has received Final Plat approval. Conditions Prior to BOCC Signature of the PUD 4. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the Roaring Fork School District property to reflect the boundaries of the property as submitted for this application. An Amended Final Plat shall also be completed to locate the easement for the river access trail entirely on the Applicant's property as referenced in the Preliminary Plan approvals. 5. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the PUD Guide to reflect the following comments: a. Parking Standards for Eco Efficiency Home Units, Multi -Unit Dwelling Units, and Attached Dwelling Units shall include, in addition to two spaces per unit, one guest space for every three units at a minimum. When any calculation of the number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fractional space being required, such fraction shall be rounded up to the next higher number of spaces. b. The Building Height of Single -Family Dwelling Units shall be decreased to 25 feet. c. Definitions shall be included for service business, retail/wholesale business, veterinary clinic, and community gardens. The new definitions shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development. d. The Building Height shall be reduced to 30' for Parcels D, E, and F. The PUD Guide shall also reflect that this 30' building height limit must consist of no more than 2 stories of floor area above existing grade. Additional floor area beyond the 2 stories above existing grade will be allowed below the elevation of existing grade. e. The Flying M Ranch Design Guidelines shall be updated to require low berms or walls with vegetation to be used for the screening of car headlights from parking areas on Parcels D, E, and F that may be visible from neighboring properties. f. The Eco Efficiency Home definition shall be updated to reflect that it is considered a dwelling unit. g. The Kennel use shall be required to comply with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Standards specifically related to kennels. h. The maximum Peak Hour Vehicles allowed from the site (139 AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips and 139 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips) shall be included in the PUD guide. i. Minimum Traffic generation numbers shall be assigned to each parcel in the PUD guide. Board of County Commissioners — April 8, 2019 Flying M - PUD j. Traffic reports shall be provided prior to each Building Permit indicating the total Peak Hour Vehicles generated by that phase, the total Peak Hour Vehicles actually generated from the development to that date, and the remaining non -allocated trips. No development shall be authorized that exceeds the maximum Peak Hour Vehicles or leaves a parcel with less than the allocated traffic minimum. k. Bike parking acceptable to the Community Development Department shall be required for uses in the Business Park Zone District. I. Units shall be located to anticipate future Subdivision with regards to dimensional requirements for that particular unit type. 35 feet. n. The minimum lot size shall be 700 square feet for the Eco -Efficiency Homes. o. More than one residential unit may be permitted on a parcel, provided that all dimensional requirements allowing for future subdivision are adhered to. 6. The PUD Map shall be updated to change the parcel designated as Open Space to Zone District 4, Hillside Open Space. 7. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, the applicant shall update the covenants to provide an internal enforcement and complaint handling process exclusive of Garfield County for the Residential Rental Unit use. The updated language will be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department. 8. The applicant shall supply a PUD Map acceptable to the Community Development Department prior to the BOCC signature on the Map. The PUD Map shall be evaluated by the Community Development Department for conformance with Land Use and Development Code requirements. 9. Prior to the BOCC signature on the PUD Map, a Development Agreement shall be signed by the BOCC and the Applicant that memorializes the phasing of the project. a. The applicant shall update the development agreement to reflect the 10 -year build out that was identified in the phasing letter. Board of County Commissioners - Flying M — Preli Updated Recommended Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Pla This includes Staff's recommended tweaks to certain conditions, as well as Applicant proposed changes that are not an issue for Staff. EXHIBIT s ` v 1) All representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or through submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2) The development of subject parcels shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. Conditions Prior to Final Plat Approval: Transportation: 3) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property for the emergency access loop. 4) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that an easement has been granted through the Roaring Fork School District property to connect the Rio Grande trail to the proposed river trail. a) Applicant's proposed river trail improvements for Phase I, including the path along the Roaring Fork River from Parcel B to halfway across Parcel D, shall be installed as part of the first Final Plat and may be secured by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Future trail extensions, including through Parcels E and F shall occur as such parcels are final platted. The connection to the RFTA trail shall be completed as part of the Final Plat of Parcel F. 5) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall apply for and receive a CDOT access permit, if necessary, and be granted a Notice to Proceed for any improvements that are required, if necessary. The construction of any required improvements and a demonstration that the improvements have been accepted by CDOT and Road and Bridge may be completed after the first Final Plat provided they are secured by an Improvements Agreement. Any improvements required to the County Road shall be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Road and Bridge. Any required improvements may be secured in the Improvements Agreement with the requirement that they are in place prior to the issuance of a building permit associated with the PUD. 6) Applicant, Eastbank, LLC shall work in good faith with the Roaring Fork RE -1 School District to attempt to obtain an easement through the Roaring Fork School District property along the emergency access road in anticipation of the development of an access road from the properties to the north, but securing such easement shall not be necessary for approval. a) If the easement is obtained, the applicant shall also be required to provide an access easement from the boundary of Parcel F to the northern parcel access easement referenced in Condition 6. This easement shall be acceptable to Garfield County Community Development, the County Attorney's Office and the Garfield County designated engineer. 1 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M — Preliminary Plan 7) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update preliminary PUD documents to commit and show a sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width for Parcels/Lots B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roads for Parcels/Lots B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F when there is PUD development on both sides. Sidewalks shall be built at the time of Final Plat for each parcel. The sidewalks shall not be maintained by the County. No sidewalks are required along Flying M Ranch Road from the School entrance drive to CR154, the Upper Access Road from the Lower Access intersection up to CR 154, or on the PUD side of County Road 154. a) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a sidewalk maintenance agreement and a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 8) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show a soft trail a minimum of four feet in width where the River Trail is proposed for Parcels B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, and F, and provide a trail maintenance agreement acceptable to Community Development and the County Attorney's Office. 9) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat or as secured by the initial Subdivision Improvements Agreement, the applicant shall install additional signage and push-button flashing pedestrian signs for trail users on either side of the Rio Grande trail crossing of County Road 154. This work shall be completed in conjunction with RFTA and Garfield County Road and Bridge. A demonstration of conformance with this condition shall be provided by RFTA and the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 10) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, for the roadways identified by the Garfield County designated engineer, the applicant shall either submit a Waiver Request for article 7-107 Roadway Standards, or update the engineering documents to demonstrate that the roadway meets those standards. This condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County designated engineer. 11) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall assign traffic generation minimums to all parcels in the proposed development in the form of Peak Hour Vehicles. The traffic generation minimums shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the County Referral Engineer. Documentation of the traffic generation minimums shall be included in the PUD guide. Utilities and Engineering: 12) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the notes on engineering documents to reflect the most up-to-date studies. 13) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show that there will be no excavation below current existing grade in the River Trail easement on Parcels D, E, and F. 14) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the engineering documents as required by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. 2 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M — Preliminary Plan a) All Final Plats will be referred to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) and the applicant shall be required to comply with the District's regulations. The applicant shall supply all easements required by the RFWSD on all Final Plats. 15) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents and/or provide other evidence to address the Garfield County designated engineer's comments, dated January 25, 2019 as provided in Exhibit 15 of this Staff Report. Demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Community Development. 16) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update engineering documents to show an additional fire hydrant as requested by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be provided by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. 17) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a statement from a professional engineer, indicating whether or not drainage easements are needed on the subject properties. If needed, the easements shall be included on any Final Plat. 18) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the Improvements Agreement shall be updated to include the requirement that the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Engineer shall review and approve the following: a) Security amounts b) Partial releases of security c) Final releases of security 19) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that the existing structure on proposed Lot A4 meets setback requirements, relocate the structure, or alter the lot lines to show the structure is compliant. Amended Final Plat and PUD Guide Requirements: 20) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the Roaring Fork School District property to reflect the boundaries of the property as submitted for this application. 21) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the PUD Guide and Map shall be approved and recorded. 22) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete an Amended Final Plat with the property to the southwest to ensure the easement access to the river is located entirely on the Preliminary Plan property. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a demonstration that the proposed easement extends to the Typical and Ordinary High Water Mark of the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands and Waterbodies: 23) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall complete wetlands analysis if required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. If wetlands are found, the applicant shall supply a plan to be reviewed and accepted by Garfield County and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with required regulations. 3 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M — Preliminary Plan 24) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a public river access easement for the portion of the property that borders the Roaring Fork River. 25) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall address potential floodplain issues on the property through a Letter of Map Revision, a Letter of Map Amendment, and/or a County Floodplain Permit. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County floodplain manager. A floodplain development permit may be required for the river trail pending further information submitted to the Floodplain Manager. 26) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall provide additional information acceptable to the Community Development Department indicating mitigation measures for the sections of the river trail located within the required 35' waterbody setback. The applicant should avoid development of the trail in the waterbody setback to the maximum extent practicable, shall work with CPW on the trail design, and work to actively enhance riparian vegetation. Possible mitigation options could include, but are not limited to decreased width of sidewalk, lack of disturbance of riparian vegetation, addition of appropriate riparian vegetation, and/or use of a permeable material for the trail. Vegetation Management: 27) Prior to the approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply a management plan for Russian Olives on the site that is acceptable to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. 28) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Vegetation Management with a calculation of the surface area of disturbance that will need to be reseeded on the property. Vegetation Management will then determine if a revegetation security is necessary. If determined necessary the security will be required prior to the Final Plat. 29) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall supply Garfield County Community Development with a completed Development Agreement for the project as a whole and an Improvements Agreement for the particular proposed phase. These items shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. School Land Dedication 30) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall either execute an agreement acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney's Office, with support from the RE -1 School District, that outlines the proposed School Impact Fee plan, or the applicant shall pay school impact fees as required in the Land Use and Development Code. Covenants 31) Prior to approval of the first Final Plat, the applicant shall update the Covenants for the property to demonstrate compliance with Article 7-401 of the Land Use and Development Code regarding Domestic Animal Control. 32) Final Plat Requirements: 4 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M — Preliminary Plan a) A plat note shall be included on all final plats that indicates: "A site specific geotechnical study shall be required prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. Development shall follow the recommendations in that report." b) Plat Notes A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and L as described in the County Resource Guide shall be included on Final Plats c) All final plats shall include required drainage easements. d) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporate bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored." e) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, the applicant shall supply an engineered fire truck turn -around for that parcel acceptable to the Fire Department. t) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: At the time of Development of Parcel F, the emergency access loop shall be completed. g) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: "Traffic generation requirements are outlined in the PUD Guide" h) The applicant shall include the following plat note on any Final Plat: An engineered, site specific, grading and drainage plan shall be required for each parcel, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. i) The River trail easement shall be clearly dedicated to the public on any Final Plat. j) The applicant shall include a plat note indicating that the project is located near the Glenwood Springs Airport. Other Conditions: 33) The applicant shall comply with Colorado Parks and Wildlife Referral Comments as indicated below: a) Fencing on the property should be limited to only what is necessary, while leaving movement corridors between building clusters. Any perimeter fencing should follow CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing standards. b) Bear conflicts have occurred in the Westbank neighborhood across the river. It is required that facilities use locking bear -proof garbage containers or use a centralized trash collection area that is secured. 34) Development of the site shall be consistent with the requirements detailed in the H -P Kumar Preliminary Geotechnical Study, or as that study is updated. 35) Existing development on lots A2 and A4 shall be connected to Central Services as part of the Final Plat process for those lots. 36) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, compliance with requirements of the Land Use and Development Code, including but not limited to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and snow storage requirements shall be verified. 5 Board of County Commissioners - April 8, 2019 Flying M — Preliminary Plan 37) Roof Materials shall be made of noncombustible materials or other materials as recommended by the local fire agency. 38) Any fire truck turn around shall be kept clear as required by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, including but not limited to clear from parking and snow storage. Additional signage may be required by the Fire Department to meet this condition. 39) If the access from the northern parcels is built, the applicant shall be required to connect to that access road by upgrading the emergency access to meet Garfield County Roadway Standards. Once developed the road shall be available for use by the public. 40) The upper access shall be required to be gated for emergency access to the satisfaction of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department and County Road and Bridge. The road shall be constructed to the standards and in the location as indicated in the initial application. A driveway permit shall be required. Once Parcels B, C1, C2, C3, D, and E, are built -out, and/or at the discretion of the Community Development Director, the traffic impact of the development shall be re-evaluated by Garfield County and the access may be opened to use by the public. 41) As part of the Final Plat process for parcels C1, C2, and/or C3, (whichever is platted first) the applicant shall install a flashing pedestrian beacon on either side of the cross walk at Flying M Ranch Road and the school access road as indicated in the provided engineering documents. 42) The applicant shall be required to meet the requirements of all utility providers for the project. All easements as required shall be included on all Final Plats. 43) The applicant shall supply records to the Community Development Department indicating that weed management work has been completed as required by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 44) Development of the parcel shall comply with Colorado Geological Survey referral comments including requirements for uncontrolled fill and subsidence hazards. 6